Oral Torah

I don't understand where the rabbi is getting into trouble.
Ethiopian Jews did not return to the Second Temple.
That is, their Judaism is the one that existed during the Babylonian exile.
Ethiopian Jews did not know about the Tosh”a, do not know the concept, admits the claim somewhat, or the 13 Virtues.
Which proves unequivocally that during the Babylonian exile there was no Tosh”a, does it not?

Either you're confused, or you're just right. [That's also a possibility, isn't it? :)]
1. Your assumption that their Judaism is the one that was hidden in its essence and form in the Babylonian exile. After all, if you don't accept the reliability of the tradition - then why do you accept theirs? There are no disruptions in the tradition with them, only with us? If thousands of laws and midrashim were forgotten during the days of Moses' mourning, then with them they couldn't have been forgotten over thousands of years? On the contrary, their tradition was passed down in a very small group, only a few of whom were even interested in studying it. In contrast, our tradition was passed down on a very broad front and many were interested in it and studied it, and therefore in my opinion it is more reliable (at the time in question, not the question of authenticity in relation to Mount Sinai. See section 2). By the way, do you observe their tradition? Another question: Do you think the Sigid holiday they celebrate was given from Sinai?
2. There are of course many details of the Tosheva halakhic law that have been renewed throughout history. And is evidence required for this? Zil Keri is a rabbi. But you assume for some reason that authenticity (i.e. the fact that something was given to Moses at Sinai) is a condition for commitment (to him). And where does this come from? I, like the entire halakhic tradition, disagree with you on this. At Sinai, we were given some fundamentals, and they developed over the years. Does the fact that they are later mean that they are not binding? And that regulations or interpretations or midrashim created in periods after Sinai are not binding?
Specifically regarding the 13 Midots, I showed this in great detail in the second book of the Talmudic Logic series (on general and specific Midots). Note that even the Midots that all opinions consider to be the LBM were not given at Sinai in their current form. There is a dynamic LBM (or dynamic tradition).
See an example on Shabbat 6d A.B.:
The ancients said that she should not dye her hair, nor should she dye her hair, nor should she adorn herself with colorful clothes until Rabbi Akiva came and taught that if she did, she would defend her husband and her husband would divorce her. What else would you learn to say? And she should dye her hair, and her hair would be dyed until she comes into the water.
So you have a law from the Torah that was customary in tradition and was abrogated in the days of Rebbe, according to the explanation. Is there a halachic obligation to follow Rebbe's sermon? Or should we go back and forbid women to dye their hair and dye their hair during their period of circumcision?

Which proves unequivocally that there is no unequivocal proof for your words. 🙂

A. It is clear that the Sigid holiday was not given at Mount Sinai because Ethiopian Jews themselves do not claim that it is from the Torah.
B. Who said that what has been added over the years is binding? Who said that the sages have the authority to amend regulations and issue decrees? All these questions have no answers.

Who said the Torah was given? Who said there was a God? Who said there was a Julius Caesar, or a Nero Caesar? Who said you exist? Who said we are talking? No one said any of this.
If we disagree, then no. If you have decided in advance that there are no answers, then I promise you faithfully that you will not find any, even though there are certainly good answers (which explains the adamancy). I just don't understand why you are starting a discussion in which you have no intention of participating and listening. Isn't it a waste of both of our time?!

Sorry for the bluntness.
I would love to hear what the rabbi has to say.

About what?

Regarding the source of the sages' authority to amend regulations and the people's obligation to follow their interpretations.

The source is threefold: from the Torah, from tradition, and from the interpretation.
1. From the Torah there is a commandment not to deviate that speaks of a situation in which something will be surprising to us and we should listen to the sages about it.
2. Tradition says that the sages have authority and that the Torah is accompanied by an oath.
3. And from the interpretation it is clear that there should be a central authority, as in any legal system. It is unreasonable to leave a book of laws without an authorized interpreter. Beyond that, just as we accepted the Torah given at Sinai, we accepted the authority of the sages even if it has no source.
Incidentally, in every legal system there is the same phenomenon that the highest institution defines its own authority. Thus the Supreme Court of Israel defines its own authority in what it will and will not intervene in. This is always the case, and the interpretation states that this is how it should be (although of course there can be a debate about the scope of the authority).

Peace to the Rabbi.
Let us put aside for a moment the issue of the authority to amend regulations.
We will deal only with the authority to interpret interpretations that are binding on the people of Israel.
Does the Rabbi agree that strong evidence is needed to reach the conclusion that one should follow the authority of the Sages in interpreting the Torah? Especially in light of the many times in which the reader of the Sages is embarrassed when he sees that they have seemingly taken the verse out of its simple form (Pigol is a good example).
(By the way, I recommend that the rabbi devote part of his trilogy to establishing our obligation to accept the Toshab (the regulations and interpretations). Some think that the controversy over the Toshab is over, but in fact it is only intensifying from various directions. Finding a reasonable basis for accepting the Toshab is difficult to the point of non-existent in literature and on the Internet. The evidence ranges from Torah (hence there are two Torahs) to what we would write on tefillin without the Toshab (although tefillin in Pesht seems like a metaphorical outline. This is also what our Peshtan commentators write). If the rabbi is writing a book on the subject, I recommend that he not neglect the matter and clarify this issue thoroughly. I always thought that the Karaite claims were completely stupid, but when I argued with them I saw that a strong basis was needed for having such a strong authority to interpret the Torah, sometimes not literally, and to amend regulations. It would be a good idea for the rabbi to argue a little with the Karaites in order to hear their claims from them).
I will move on to the three points:
1) Regarding why it would be surprising. In simple terms, the verse speaks of a doubt arising in the law, it is clear that they are going to ask the Sanhedrin. Whence does it come that if on a clear day the Sanhedrin decided to correct the לטעלה מלאכט, should they be followed even though in the time of Moses they had not heard of these restrictions?
2) If the intention is that we have been told in tradition that the sages have authority, this certainly sounds like a good explanation. But what do we do with history, which shows that throughout the generations there have always been appeals to this tradition?
Who guarantees us that the Pharisees were not the ones who invented this, and the Sadducees are the sect that was once the main one, and the original one. (Some attribute them to Sadducee the priest).
In other words, during the Second Temple period there were several sects. The Pharisees claimed tradition, the Sadducees disagreed. Where does the rabbi have the confidence to follow one sect even to the letter?
3) Regarding the explanation, indeed in the laws between a man and his fellow man it turns out that there is a uniform law, since it is not a religious matter.
But why does the explanation give that if the sages decided that meat with milk is forbidden even for pleasure, then it is forbidden for all the people of Israel. After all, the purpose of the commandments is to do the will of God and not to arrange a social system. So apparently the explanation is less relevant here.
Many thanks for the rabbi's enormous contribution.

Hello. I thought we were done.

I disagree. There is a simple explanation that when there is a normative system, there should be an authority that interprets it. This is the case in the courts of every civilized country. And if the court issues a law that is not simple, that is still the binding interpretation. Very simple and really not problematic in my opinion.

I will consider your suggestion.

1) I had a doubt about what kind of work the Torah forbade to do on Shabbat. And when this doubt arose in our ancestors, they went to the place chosen by God and asked the elders, and they told them that it was a lat' Avot Melach and their history. And it really doesn't matter to me whether they heard about it in the time of Moses (I personally assume not).
2) Appeals to this tradition don't really make a difference. There are also appeals to the very observance of the commandments. This is what was accepted, and there must be an authorized institution (as above). I don't see an alternative institution that is a candidate for the throne. If there is one, I will consider it. If you want to follow the tzaddik or pharisaic law for health. I don't see such an option today. And inventing something new is not an option in my opinion either.
3) Explanation belongs in any normative system regardless of whether it is about laws or other things. A society cannot be run according to a normative system in which everyone does what they want without any rules and a framework for discussion. After a week, there will be no trace of it. Therefore, it is clear that the will of God is also like that.

Good week.
I respond when I have time and therefore there is a gap between responses.
Indeed, the heretical reflections of the heresy do not allow me and after wandering around the net here is my last hope of finding a reasonable answer. The purpose of the entire legal system in the world is to regulate social matters, protect society from criminals, and regulate financial matters, it does not really matter if it is English, American or French law. Therefore, we are not alarmed if a judge were to issue a law out of context.
The Torah, on the other hand, was intended to “bring down the divine abundance to the world” as the Rabbis put it, I think, so it is not a simple innovation that the authority is given so strongly to the sages, and we are obligated to their words (which are wrong, for the sake of discussion) for generations (or until a Sanhedrin is established to change it).
The Torah is not the laws of a state in which, in the name of authority, one can renounce the truth to which the Torah was intended.
a) How does this law originate from the Sanhedrin and not a separate invention like part of the Talmud?
b) There is certainly an alternative, to act according to the Torah's plain language in all places where there is no doubt that a verse was taken out of context.
c) As stated, the commandment of tefillin or Shabbat or the laws of treasurability are not like the laws of mammon.

We repeat ourselves. In my opinion, it is the same thing. It is a normative system, although it deals with other areas. From the point of view of halacha, not eating pork is as important as the prohibition of theft. Therefore, the same logic that says that there must be an authority that will determine the binding interpretation also applies here.
A. I did not understand the question.
B. Because of the places provided, we came to the conclusion that there must be an authority that will determine what the binding interpretation is. That is, there is an authorized Sanhedrin that determines what the interpretation is. If so, even when it determines an interpretation against what you think is simple, it is binding. This is the meaning of authority.
C. As stated, they are.

A) If the sages have unlimited authority, why is there a sacrifice for an error ordered by the Sanhedrin? After all, we did not transgress any prohibition if we followed them, since this is the binding law. And in general, why do they need to retract their rulings (in analogy to state laws, in which there is no ideal to retract).
B) The rabbi always mentions the Jerusalemite that ”until they tell you about the right that it is the right”.. If so, what is so surprising about the rabbi that we accept the Sanhedrin in places where we do not know that it was wrong (that it took a verse out of context. Or that it prescribed nine works that G-d did not intend)? Suddenly it is so clear that we walk with them through fire and water?
I am not talking about the halakhic level (where there may be a difference) but about the logical level.
Even if there is a small difference, it seems that the Karaite opinion is much more explanatory. They are only expanding the Jerusalemite's teaching. It seems that the rabbi treats the claims with complete disregard and as stupidity. It is not clear where this stems from.
c) The rabbi mentioned above that in every system, the highest institution defines its own powers. And what about the teaching of all the great men of the generation regarding the severe prohibition of owning an iPhone? Here the rabbi has no problem being a Karaite and saying that they have no authority?
After all, they define their own powers, and if they forbid, then it is forbidden.

The rabbi practices independent thinking in quite a few areas of halakhic law and it is not clear to me where the reference to Karaite as nullification stems from, as if the questioner is stupid for even raising such a question. It is clear that we are 100 percent responsible for any erroneous teaching of the Sanhedrin.

Hello. Now we are already in the realm of reading comprehension.

a-b) The sages do not have unlimited authority. Where did I write that they have such authority? The Gemara in the Book of the Elders speaks of someone who erred in the mitzvah to listen to the words of the sages (thought that one should listen to their voice at all costs). What I wrote is that they have the authority to interpret the Torah and also to take it out of the simple. There are situations in which it is possible not to accept their words, but that is for those who have reached the teaching (and there is a debate about this among the poskim). After all, the sages themselves limit their own authority, and therefore when they establish authority for themselves, it is probably the correct interpretation in their opinion (and not a desire for power). “To say about the right that it is the left” is absolutely not the same as ”an interpretation that deviates from the simple”.
When someone acts under the command of a rabbi, it is not clear that he is obligated to make a sacrifice and when (this is the issue of “one who acts under the command of a rabbi”). In such a situation, there is an obligation to make a sacrifice on the rabbi (Per Elem).
I do not regard the Karaite opinion as stupidity. Where did you see this in my words? In my opinion, it is wrong.
c) I have not heard that all the great men of the generation forbid iPhones. And I have not heard that what all the great men of the generation say binds anyone. Only the Sanhedrin has authority.

Indeed, I try to be independent in many areas of halakha and thought, but that does not necessarily mean that everyone who has independent thought is right or not stupid. And in general, I do not understand why the Karaites seem to you to have independent thought and the rabbis do not. In my opinion, rabbinical thought is much more independent and original. But as mentioned, this discussion is not important.

A-B) It doesn't matter if Chazal determined that one should not follow their mistakes. The fact is that the sky does not fall in a reality in which one does not follow the mistakes of the Sanhedrin. (As I believe the author of the Torah Temimah writes, even an individual who has not reached the teaching is forbidden to ignore the mistake of the Sanhedrin. If certainly not).
C) Has the Rabbi not heard of the authority of the Great Men of the Generation? Really surprising. This is a simple explanation for two reasons:
A) It is not possible to have a normative system without the authority of people who we will follow, even if they are wrong (and forbid using the holy iPhone).
There is simply no such reality.
And if you say that it is possible to have such a system in our time, and there is no need for them, then the Rabbi's argument fails and it is proven that even during the time of the Temple there was no need for the Sanhedrin.
There is no reasonable distinction between the periods.
B) The Great Men of the Generation determine their own authority. They interpret the Torah and say that iPhones are forbidden

I'm done.

Just one last clarification, please: Why is it so clear, necessary, and simple that there is a binding institution in court if nowadays there is none and we get by with it?

This is not a serious question (even if it was asked with a bit of cynicism).
After all, the main point of the rabbi's argument is that it is clear that a higher institution is needed. And for two thousand years there has been no such institution. So what is the point?

Hello. I don't want to intervene in the discussion, but because, as the rabbi said, the discussion has already exhausted itself, I will do so (regarding the 2 discussions). If I understand correctly, there are 4 questions that need to be answered. 1. Does the Chazal or the Sanhedrin have authority (regulations + interpretations) 2. Is there a need for authority according to the Torah at all and is there evidence in the Torah for the existence of a Toshab? 3. Is the Toshab? in our hands the correct one (i.e. does the Chazal have a tradition at all or one that is preferable to the Karaites). 4. Is the Karaite position more correct than the Pharisee position? In my understanding, it is enough to answer one of the first 3: – If the Sanhedrin has authority – Easy. Let them determine what they want even if the tradition in their hands is distorted, we are obligated. – If there is indeed a need for a Toshab or evidence for the existence of one and there is doubt as to which is correct – It is clear that it is better to take the one that was accepted by the people of Israel and by most of the sages. – If the tradition of Chazal is truly ancient – it is clear that we must adopt it since it is the closest we have had to revelation. Otherwise – Why should we accept the words of the prophets in the Bible? They were not given at Sinai either… the assumption that if the tradition is ancient, it is most correct to trust it. Let us discuss the claims one by one, in my opinion there are good answers to all 3. Is there any logic in the authority: 1. From the Torah the well-known verse of “As long as it lasts”. Even if we say that it is possible to argue about its interpretation (although in my understanding it is just a trivialization), we both have a question “Is Chazal's authority binding? ” We went to the court – he (Chazal) ruled that it was… 2. From logic – you need an authority to interpret. As with any law and as with anyone in the ancient world (there is evidence for this). 3. From tradition – this is the tradition of the majority of the Jewish people. 4. Because this is how it happened throughout history – the Bible is full of documentation of customs additional to the Torah itself – see the entry on the strike from work on Rosh Chodesh, “If you turn back from the Sabbath, your feet”, the prohibition of foreign women, the law on eating food that defiles food in Nehemiah, shaking, and more. The same applies to interpretations that were given to existing verses. Albeck shows many examples of this in his book, for example, he shows that “you shall not go out as the slaves go out”; It speaks of Canaanites as Canaanites and not Israelites already in the Septuagint, 300 years before the Mishnah, and it shows that Nehemiah is angry with the people who are shaking Jerusalem. On the other hand, it says, “No one shall go out of his place on the Sabbath.” From here, beyond the fact that there is a regulation for shaking, “his place” also contains a specific definition. There was no point in ruling on this. 5. The Holy One, blessed be He, knew that Israel would be exiled – it is not logical that He would leave them without leadership that would adapt the Torah to reality. How did the Holy One, blessed be He, expect that in the 21st century anyone would know what the word “leaven” means? 6. Moses trusted Joshua, we are bound by the words of Moses and so on, according to the words of Joshua, Joshua trusted the elders, etc., etc., etc. Is there a need for a Tosh”a: 1. The Torah is a document intended for all of history, rules of interpretation must be given, how will you read the Torah without punctuation, how will you know in 2000 years what the word “tzitzit” means, “milk that covers the womb” means, how do you count the month? You can of course say that this is not a Tosh”a but simply the context or interpretation of the sentence – excellent. I have no problem with this statement, but all of these contexts have passed through the tradition of the majority of the Jewish people and this is the tradition of the Sages. You can argue that there may be a more precise tradition, but that's in question 2. 2. How would you interpret the "girls' law", "book of cuttings", "totpot" (do you have proof that it's just a parable?) The marriage ceremonies that are not detailed in the Torah, tzitzit (there's such a thing for all sects), nikud, zevicha (slaughter), punctuation. Even with every little thing, you can make excuses locally and say that the girls' law is what was customary in ancient times.. Ok... So how would you know what the girls' law is after 200 years without it being passed down in tradition? Obviously, some tradition must be passed down. And beyond that, you will also succeed if you make excuses for one place or another, the Torah is full of such expressions (here I have listed 12 for you) and if you find yourself looking for excuses for everything, it means that perhaps the system is fundamentally flawed and an interpretive tradition is really needed. 3. The Torah contains contradictory laws, see Exodus 22:3-6, “If a man gives his neighbor money or utensils to keep, and he steals from the man’s house, if the thief is found, he shall pay double.” 7 If the thief is not found, and the owner of the house does not bring it to the Lord: if he does not put out his hand, in the kingdom of his neighbor. 8 For every trespass, for an ox, for an ass, for a sheep, for a lamb, for any loss, where it is said, "This is it," the matter of both of them shall come before the Lord: he who is the heir of the Lord shall pay double to his neighbor. {S} 9 If a man deliver unto his neighbor an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep; and it die, or be broken, or be taken away, and there be none to see it. 10 The oath of the LORD shall be between them both, if he put not his hand in his neighbor's kingdom; and he taketh his own, and maketh not restitution. 11 And if a thief steal, he shall make restitution to his owners. 12 If a prey is eaten, he shall bring it to the witness: The prey, he shall not pay. ” What does this law even say? How do you rule on something that is not tools or an animal? You are bound by an interpretive tradition. If it were a single case, you would be fine, but the Torah brings similar things in many laws. If you do not have an interpretive tradition as to what is intended (in this case, is it the type of object or a keeper for free/paid) it is impossible to understand the Torah at all. You can of course say that everyone will interpret it as he sees fit, but you do not expect every court to interpret the verse as it sees fit, and you do not expect the Holy One, blessed be He, to want the law to work that way… every court will do whatever it sees fit. 4. Studies show that almost all ancient peoples preserved oral constitutional traditions (see Inbal Matea's book, which provided evidence for this). Did the Sages preserve traditions: 1. This is a historical question. Research is divided on the issue of who preceded whom, the Sadducees or the Pharisees. Some scholars think that the Pharisees preceded the Second Temple. (In the First Temple, scholars do not accept the Torah without reference to it). Read research literature on this. There are Jewish customs such as lighting candles that even reached the First Temple postcards (Ethiopia). 2. There is much evidence that many of the sages' decrees appear in the Bible, external books (such as the prohibition of drinking wine in Hebrew, Philo, Josephus, and other earlier sources. In fact, many of the sages' decrees have evidence in the Second Temple literature before the destruction. Moreover, some of them are also found in literature written in Greek, which the sages were probably not familiar with. In other words, the sages preserved an ancient tradition among the people. 3. Many of the sages' commentaries also have external evidence. The altar on Mount Ebal is built like the altar in Tractate Midot. The Greek historians who narrate the stories of the Jewish people narrate them in their own sage version. Many of the sages' legends have parallels in the books of Josephus. And so on. 4. Even if we say That the Sadducees had a different tradition – this is a tradition that was accepted by the majority of the people, it seems to be ancient. Why not accept it? 5. The interpretations of the sages are not plucked from the finger, they are constructed in a systematic and consistent manner. As mentioned, many of them have evidence in Scripture or other ancient writings. 6. It is not clear why your interpretation is superior to the interpretation of someone who lived very close to the period. Is the Karaites right: 1. There is no dispute in the research that the Karaites began as a method in the 8th century by Anan. There are many studies that show that this was due to ego wars with the Babylonian geniuses. 2. They also have an oral Torah! They have a replacement for the mezuzah and the tzitzit! If a Karaite changes the shape of the tzitzit, they will be rebuked. They have their own slaughter, their own word, their own Sabbath laws. If you think they have no halacha and interpretation, you are wrong. Why is their later tradition superior to the earlier one of 99% of the people of Israel? 3. If the Karaites – why Not Samaritans. Who said that the prophets and the scriptures are holy? Have you ever argued with a Samaritan? Maybe he is right? He is certainly older than the Karaites! If you work like that, you can't get out of it. So why am I not a Samaritan? So here too, there are 2 ancient traditions. The Sage tradition was accepted by most people, it seems well-founded, and there is good evidence that it is ancient. From here, the one who wants to show that it is invalid is the one who has the evidence! (Just to prevent the next theological crisis, there is additional evidence about the Samaritans, such as about the Karaites, whose system is later, such as the changes they made to the Torah scroll, which most scholars attribute to later times, but the Samaritans disagree with the scholars on this). What about the cases in which a Sage's interpretation takes the verses out of their ordinary form? 1. Who told you? For each point, you need to find out whether it is really true (an unlikely interpretation) + whether there is no ancient evidence for this interpretation (Regarding Shabbat, I think I saw that there is another source for this. I do not guarantee that I remember correctly.) The Melvim brings evidence for all the sermons of Chazal that make a lot of sense. 2. Regarding cases where this is truly the case (there is no sense and no external evidence) - this is probably relatively rare. 3. This was done from the authority written in question 1. (Logic, tradition, verse, it seems that others did this in the Bible, Moses trusted Joshua, this was done systematically and not just by chance) 4. This happened in a very systematic way. (See the Melvim commentary and its introduction. The main point of his commentary is focused on showing that the sermons of Chazal are the more logical interpretation). Add to this the fact that Chazal has a tradition that this is a very ancient (basic) method of interpretation that has been passed down through tradition, because there is much evidence that the sermons of Chazal and their traditions are truly ancient in some ways, it is not impossible that this method is also ancient. (And whoever wants to claim The Sages have many ancient things in the tradition as the research shows, but only the interpretive method is a complete invention and not a tradition as they themselves claim, and the evidence to show this is on them. 5. Regarding the misleading places where there is no logic or additional evidence about the tradition of the Sages in interpreting a verse in detail - let's think for a second, the Sages were in a world war against the Sadducees. Why would the Sages take verses out of context if they have no tradition about it. If the Sages are so insistent, it must really be an ancient tradition that they had (like many things as we mentioned above). As for your statement that there are things that are certainly later (tefillin - shenan): First, we need to examine whether a specific statement like this or that is correct (let's say tefillin, it is not clear what it is based on, the fact that they did not find tefillin does not say much). But let's assume it is. So? 1. There is authority as we have seen 2. This is a necessity of reality, and so did the prophets. 3. The interpretation is structured systematically. 4. According to them, they have a tradition about it. To your question, is the Talmud binding? Indeed, a constitutional institution is always required. After the destruction, the **Sanhedrin** went to Yavneh and put the Mishnah in writing. After that, the Talmud was written by the court accepted by most of Israel (so it also has authority). But, despite the need for authority, it must work according to laws (a court that is great in wisdom and in the ability to annul regulations), if today a court accepted by all of Israel were established and the laws were applied, it would be binding. Such an attempt was made in the 16th century to answer this. It is simply difficult nowadays because the people are divided. But the fact that there is no court today does not contradict the statement that there is a need for authority… regarding the authority of the “greatest of generations” – Why do you assume that they think there is none? There is controversy about this (there is an article about this by the rabbi Dichosbeky in his articles), the majority believe that there is no authority because there is no great court today. If all the sages of Israel establish a ruling body that all of Israel will accept and establish a regulation, it would be within their authority (perhaps Rabbi Michi would disagree, but some believe this is the law). Beyond that, even if according to the law one does not have to listen to them, it makes sense to listen to the leaders of the public (this is the explanation). As for your statement that you only want to do what the Holy One, blessed be He, intended: Up to this point I have answered analytically. But doubt can always remain, so I will tell you how I see it. There can always be doubts, but my feeling is that the people of Israel, under siege and in distress, preserved the Torah in exile, in ghettos, in extermination camps, in hunger and thirst for 2000 years according to the tradition that they had and according to the ruling of their leadership against the entire world. If the Holy One, blessed be He, comes after 120 years (let's leave for a moment whether Rabbi Michi accepts this), they will not bring him with claims that he preserved the tradition of his ancestors, which seems to have foundations (as I have shown) with devotion. But that is just my feeling. Regarding the fact that you cannot find an answer on any website: there is high-level literature on every issue. Tosh”a (see below), archaeology, philosophy, religious-scientific contradictions, questions about faith, etc. You just have to know where to look. In conclusion: I feel that even the answer to all the questions (the first 3) individually is clear. Even more so when you look at the whole. There is evidence that Tosh”a is ancient, there is logic in its existence (from the Torah and interpretation), there are similar things that can be learned from the Tanakh, it provides evidence for all its statements (method, logic or parallel), it is structured systematically and was accepted by the majority of the Jewish people, in addition to its parallels, which are much later, most often also contain Tosh”a, but not systematically. I agree that one can perhaps quibble here and there about a specific point, but in general, the method is based on sources, research, history and logic, and as stated, this is the method accepted by the majority of the faithful and wise men of Israel, and quite the opposite, very strong evidence is needed as to why the minority's opinion prevails over the tradition of the majority of the sages and the people of Israel. To the questioner who gives the impression that he is a serious guy who is bothered by the truth, I would only suggest going through 3 essays written on the subject of the truth of the Oral Torah. The first is by Yehoshua Inbal (The Oral Torah, Its Authority and Its Ways) and the second is the second Kuzari (Mata Dan) by Rabbi David Nito, and the third is an introduction to the commentary on the Mishnah by Professor Albeck. The first were published by the Rabbi Kook Institute and can be purchased on their website, the third is available in university libraries. Each book deals with different things, but they provide an important picture of the discussion. Inbal shows that there is good evidence that the Pharisees' (Chazal) commentaries are early and have evidence in the Scriptures and answers difficulties in their method (for example, he discusses much of the Persian period and the legends of the "Tamuhut" in Chazal). The second shows evidence of the need for a refutation and argues with the Karaites. The third shows, through research, that the Mishnah is ancient, long before the period when it was written down. There are other books on the subject, but these give a good basic picture. The first years are certainly also in the Treasury of Wisdom. If you want evidence on specific points I wrote, ask and I will provide it.

We get along today after there were Sanhedrins for centuries that defined the Toshveh. If we had to get along with the Torah itself, I guess we wouldn't get along.

I understand. I will just clarify regarding the new regulations.
Is the source here also a tradition and a verse? If so, what is the verse and what is the explanation?

M, you wrote that if there is authority, then it leads us to a commitment to the Pharisee religion, because then there was actually a dispute about whether the Sadducees were right or the Pharisees, and it was decided that the Pharisees were, but Rabbi Michai wrote that if the Sadducees are the truth, then the Sanhedrin has no authority (and in any case your argument fails).
Quote from Rabbi Michai from a parallel article:
“If the tradition of Zadok was right, the Sanhedrin would have no authority. This is one of the points of disagreement with them.”

To say that there is a fundamental contradiction here in the Rabbi's words, or if there is one, the argument falls apart is a bit exaggerated:
1. I have presented several arguments for why we should follow our tradition, this is what the Sanhedrin states is just one of them (1. It was accepted by the majority, so it is the best we have. 2. The tzaddikim law, which also has no oral Torah, so it cannot be followed (except for perhaps 70-80 laws that we have). 3. Various scholars see it as the original law and there is quite a bit of evidence for this. 4. Second Temple historians described the dispute between those who sanctify *mainly* the tradition and those who sanctify *mainly* their own understandings, meaning that the understanding among the people was that some are based on tradition and others on reason, it makes sense to follow tradition rather than reason since tradition is ancient by definition).
2. From your words it seems to me that you did not understand the point I was making (apparently due to a lack of historical knowledge). During the Second Temple period, two sects fought among themselves for control of the Sanhedrin. When the Pharisees were in control, the official state behaved like them, and when the Sadducees took over, they behaved like them on the political level (i.e., the Temple). The dispute was which of the schools contained the more correct interpretation, and the state actually followed the path of the stronger one, only these fought with the latter to impose what they considered to be the truth.
3. The authority of the court is not a sagely interpretation at all, but rather is the text of Scripture and the logic of reason. You can of course say, then, that the fact that the court has the authority to interpret does not mean that it is permitted to interpret contrary to the plain text. But this claim is completely refuted by historical research – We know for certain that the two Houses of Justice held oral teachings (although that of the Sadducees was much more limited, they were mainly based on their interpretations) and that they contradicted the plain text (see many examples in Professor Eyal Regev's book ‘The Sadducees and Their Laws’). Also regarding the authority to establish regulations – the Sadducees and the prophets did the same.
4. Indeed, with the Karaites there was indeed a dispute as to whether everyone could interpret for themselves or only the Beit Din was authorized to interpret, but the words of the aforementioned Karaites contradict the written text and, beyond that, contradict their own Torah (because they have written interpretations – the Book of Halacha of Anan).

Regarding the &#8221dispute” With the Rabbi:
It seems to me that you are exaggerating, in my opinion the Rabbi's intention was that the dispute with the Sadducees was not whether the court has the authority to interpret? (Here I think everyone agrees, after all, the Scripture is clear), but rather, whether the court has the authority to uproot the clearness in its interpretations (I think this is the Rabbi's intention). So as I said – Indeed, that is sometimes how it is accepted to describe the Sadducee-Pharisee dispute, but today when some of the laws of the Sadducees have come down to us, we know that is not the case, because they too did similar things.

thanks.