question

As a regular follower, recently a lot of questions here remind me of this
https://www.kipa.co.il/%D7%99%D7%94%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%91%D7%95%D7%A2/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%AA-%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%9 3%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%9E%D7%A4%D7%99-%D7%96%D7%A7%D7 %9F-%D7%97%D7%93%D7%A9-%D7%9C%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%A9%D7%AA-%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA/

A. Is there an article online or do I need to obtain the books (which I don't have).
B. I relied on your responses to the article about Apikors such as: “Regarding the Torah, I personally tend to think that the Torah was given at Sinai, at least a significant part of it. But it is certainly possible that there are parts that were not, and even more likely that its editing is late” or explicitly about the written Torah “I assume that it is in the hands of God, although there are verses that seem not to be. The default is that it is, unless there is a strong consideration against it. In any case, it is binding even if it was not written by God.”. And after all, the entire Torah is presented as the word of God and it is not clear what He did not write?

A. There are notebooks here on the site. And the books can be purchased.
B. The Torah is not really presented that way. On the contrary, it is quite clear in the Torah that there are later additions. The assertion that it was all given at Sinai is by the sages, and in my opinion it is a normative and not historical assertion. And even if they thought so, then that is what they thought. But how do you know that they are lying?

Sorry if I'm driving you crazy, I'm trying to understand and I'm really getting to know this method for the first time today, and it intrigues me. (I started with an article in the first source, which is very radical in my opinion (maybe allowing homosexuality because maybe what was forbidden is only in the context of Ezra) and I interpret the other blogs in light of it).
As a simple reader, I don't see a division between early and later verses in the Torah. The Sages' statement that the entire Torah was given at Sinai (I don't understand what a normative statement means, I'd be happy for a brief explanation) is quite clear to the simple reader. To think that someone means hidden intentions by this, or that you have to be a smart writer like you to understand what the Sages said, or to see that the Torah, which is one book, is written by God and flesh and blood, doesn't seem logical to me. If someone mixes their own things with the words of the Creator (according to you, this is what the Torah compilers did) in a way that I don't notice, they are trying to deceive me. If the claim is that sages thousands of years ago thought that the entire Torah was given from Sinai, and we today know that it was not (so it turns out that they were wrong and not lying intentionally), then what significance does what they said have? And why would I be obligated to do what they said? I of course don't think that Zehl is lying, but I think that you should accept what they said literally.

1. I did not condone homosexuality.
2. When the verse says “to this very day” this means it was written later.
3. A normative statement means that we should treat it this way even if it is not the factual truth. The Chazon Ish wrote about the Mishnah Berura as if all his words were spoken in the scribe's office. And then of course they disagreed with him (like the Elder of Mesra). You don't need a long day of study to understand this. Certainly no more than to understand what your slanderous Rabbi wants from us.
4. No one mixes his own words with the words of the Creator. If there are later verses (and I am not sure about this), they are simply editing operations of the biblical texts. That is all.
5. In almost every text, anyone who interprets it literally and literally will be mistaken. There are metaphors, there are parables, there are various literary sayings, etc.

I must say that hearing these things from someone who is close to Rebbe Nachman is truly strange. Is his text understandable to everyone? Is everything there literally?

A. Quote from the article “On the other hand, it is also clear that from a moral point of view, demanding that a person not realize his sexual identity, not live a marital and sexual life as his heart is drawn to them, is a very problematic claim. Therefore, I will try to interpret the halakha in a way that is closest to the moral aspect that perhaps the biblical prohibition on male intercourse stems from the fact that in biblical times, male intercourse was an expression and a way of idolatry, but once it is not used for this purpose, perhaps it can be permitted. Or alternatively, we know today that there are people who can be attracted to both sexes and there are those who can only be attracted to members of their own sex. So perhaps the Torah prohibited male intercourse for those who have another option, and did not prohibit it for those whose unequivocal identity is”.
B. “And you shall not eat bread, barley, or Carmel until this very day until you bring…” It is clear that today itself is not the day of writing but the climax of the day of the coming.
C. Why would I have to treat something so fundamental as if it were given from Sinai if it was not given. Who gave the sages the authority to make me do things that were not given from Sinai as if they were given from Sinai?
D. Normal publishers, even when the poet wrote a spelling error, correct it in parentheses and not in the body of the text, not in the words of the living God. But if that is all you meant, I can somehow live with it.
It is that Rabbi Nachman wrote, it is not understood because Rabbi Nachman or Rabbi Nathan wrote it. I have different expectations of the Torah, and I prefer to interpret it according to these expectations. It is difficult to say that I am approaching Rabbi Nachman because I really understand almost nothing of what he says. I just connected to a few of his ideas. Mostly, I think that in the end I may have been able to understand that I do not understand, and it took a long, long time, but it was worth it. In your logical attempt, you make me yearn to try to understand everything to the end, but I am not yet convinced. (Answer to Part A is very important to me in this matter, the conclusion from your words clearly does not seem logical to me, it does not fit with your Talmudic logic at all. Were the things taken out of context in the article? Or where do these divisions come from? Is there a hint for them in the Talmud?)

Regarding the arguments about homosexuality, there is a distortion. See my comments to the article here on the site.
The authority of the sages to interpret is anchored in the Torah: “You shall not deviate”. Throughout history, the sages have interpreted the Torah according to their understanding, and in principle there is no obstacle to doing so today (within the limits of authority detailed in the trilogy).
If you have expectations that are not fulfilled from God, then they are probably incorrect. You expect a text that is a children's book, but the Torah is not like that. Perhaps you should understand that you do not understand, like Bar’ Nachman.
The Torah was given from Sinai, even if there is a verse here or there that was added later. Why does this mean that what is written in the Torah should not be listened to? And is the law given by prophets later authoritative in your opinion?
In my opinion, we have reached our conclusion.

I skimmed the fifth notebook. You also admit that A. These are not absolute logical and mathematical proofs. B. Nothing can be proven with certainty (except for this statement itself, perhaps, and so on).
If I understand the confusion, it is only that you have not yet decided in fact on the interpretation, but only in terms of law, perhaps as an interpretative option. The very option in my opinion shows how elusive logic is, how easy it is for you to interpret the written word as you wish (in terms of proportionality and reasonableness with which the High Court interprets the language of the law).
“You expect a text that is a children's book, but the Torah is not like that” Maybe you expect a text that only worldly geniuses are able to understand and deduce from it– Why think that the Torah is like that? Is it more logical?
Our disagreement, in my opinion, is quite small, it is mainly about dosage, you prefer what you currently understand even if it is squeezed into the tradition that was passed down to you, I prefer to believe what I was told and push aside the rational evidence (for example, evolution in the development of species, in my opinion, is not proven, even though I am a biologist and in my own hands I see a low level of evolution in the laboratory). I prefer to believe what was handed down to me more as a matter of course rather than quibble over the written word. But if your conclusion is that the conservative position is often superior in halakhic rulings or Talmudic interpretation (you did not expand beyond that in the fifth notebook), I again prefer to stick with the accepted halakhic law at least for the last few centuries.