Seeking guidance regarding basic questions of faith

Good evening Rabbi,
First of all, I want to thank you for your consideration, care, and great and not-so-obvious investment in general. Many thanks!

I am recreating the course that Rabbi Peres presented at the meeting and trying to process it and delve into its depth.

First of all, I will say something else first:
There are 2 possibilities regarding the existence of truth in the world - that there is truth, or that there is no certain truth. The thought that there is no truth is uncomfortable for a person and makes life fundamentally difficult, since there is no reason for life and no answer to the most basic question - “why”.
Therefore, in our clarification, we may be biased and biased in favor of the conclusion that there is God and truth.

I will move on to the Rabbi's course, and I would be happy to clarify the initial point in it:

The Rabbi relies on the fact that everything that is created has a cause that preceded it, thus proving that someone also created the world. And that is God.
Of course, one is asked - and who created God? Here a fallacy is created, because an infinite regression is created.
In order to get out of the impasse, the Rabbi assumed that he did not need to be created, but rather that he was the initial cause that created the chain of other causes.
And here I would like to dwell on a point that we also talked about on Thursday - it seems not very rational to make assumptions with the help of a certain law, and the moment it does not work out - to decide that it is “nullified” and irrelevant from now on. If there is a flaw in it, then we should not assume it in advance but look for another way.
From here, 2 options are open to us:
1. Understand that it is beyond our ability. Here, reason proves to us that we have no way to understand and reach what created (or did not) the world.
2. Try to offer another explanation, even if it is less logical, in order to reach some intellectual conclusion.
If we choose 2, it will not be faithful to the truth, but an attempt to adapt it to what is convenient for us - it is difficult for us to deal with the fact that there is no way to a clear solution in our minds. If we admit this, we will be in trouble (because that way we have no way to reach anything in reality) then we force the desire to reach an intellectual answer on the truth and change things in its place.
It seems that from the beginning we wanted to receive a certain answer, to the point that we give up consistent rational thinking for it.

The entire process is built on logical assumptions. Isn't it more logical to come to the understanding that intellectual clarification clearly leads to the conclusion that it cannot help us with the big question, than to zigzag between ways of thinking and choose each time the one that suits us and will ultimately lead us to the particular theory we wanted?

Thank you very much, Rabbi, I really appreciate it. Good evening!

Regarding your introduction. The very assertion that we are biased means that there is truth. If there is no truth, there is no bribery, because bribery is a bias from the truth. Therefore, saying that I am biased in favor of the claim that there is truth is an oxymoron.
Incidentally, I am also not sure that all people have a bias in favor of the position that there is truth. I know many who are biased to the other side (it is very convenient that there is no truth and you can do whatever you want). Therefore, discussing biases will not help us here. What is needed is to try and formulate a position in the most honest way we can. The constant suspicions that we are biased will not lead us anywhere, neither here nor anywhere else. Constructively verifying that we are not biased is a positive and desirable thing. But rejecting conclusions by raising a vague concern that we are biased is just baseless skepticism. Incidentally, even in this itself (that we are always biased) we can be biased. In fact, not only can, but it is a necessary conclusion. If we are always biased, then the conclusion is that we are biased in this claim itself (why would it be exceptional?!).

You describe God's exception to the assumption that everything should have a cause as a way out of a dead end. This is a description with a problematic connotation. But in fact, this is what is called in logic a “proof by negation”. In mathematics, philosophy, and in every other context, we use proofs by negation. A proof by negation is built on the fact that I assume thesis X, show that it leads me to a contradiction, and conclude that X is probably not true.
And in our case, my claim is that infinite regression is a fallacy, and therefore regression is necessarily finite. This means that at the beginning of the finite chain there is an object that does not have a cause. This is a simple and logical proof, and not a “way out” of anything. You can of course say that any proof by negation is a hidden escape or a dead end. That's how this logic is built. But what's wrong with it? Is it better or more logical to remain in contradiction? Do theorems in mathematics or science that are proven by negation not seem true to you?
I'll put it another way: Your description of it as if it were a "relief from a dead end" smells like you're claiming that there is an action here out of self-interest. But as I explained, this is a pure logical move and has nothing to do with interests. My "interest" here is not to be in contradiction. It should be the "interest" of every intelligent person.

As for the second part of your statement.
1. If I have a simple way out, why assume that there is something here that is beyond my ability? According to this, any discussion of a scientific theory should not lead me to new conclusions but to the claim that there is something here that is beyond my ability. You are right that when I am at a dead end with no way out, I will conclude that there is probably something here that is beyond my ability. But when there is a logical way out (or a logical conclusion), then rejecting it on the grounds that it is something beyond my ability is absurd. On the contrary, I showed you with a logical argument that it is within my ability. I reached a conclusion on the issue with my own ability.
2. I do not know what a “less logical explanation” is, as you put it. If it is a contradictory explanation, it is not an explanation. If it is a less good explanation than my explanation – then why adopt it? Excuse me, I allow myself to say that it seems a bit like you insist on looking for problems where the conclusion is simple and obvious. I do not see any problem with my conclusion. It is incredibly logical, the opposite leads to a contradiction, and there is no trace of contradiction in it. Absolutely perfect. So why raise skeptical questions about it without any basis? After all, any claim by anyone in any field can be rejected with a skeptical claim that maybe it's not true, or maybe it's beyond reason, or maybe a lot of other things. I don't see what the difference is between my conclusion here and any other conclusion I draw in any other field.

You are welcome to continue writing or meeting if you find it necessary. Don't hesitate.

See you later,

Hello Rabbi!
Thank you very much for the response, sorry for not answering. The truth is that I simply did not understand the answer. If the principle of causality does not always hold (because it does not hold for God), perhaps it does not hold for the world itself either?
If we assumed assumption x (everything has a cause) and discovered that it is flawed, it seems more logical to understand that it is problematic and reject the entire assumption - and not take part of it and when that does not work out, to determine that from a certain point it is not valid.

I guess I am repeating what I said, I simply did not understand the answer. In any case, I started reading the Rabbi's first book.

Thank you very much!!

There is a legal principle called lex specialis (=preference for the specific). Explanation: When there are two conflicting principles, we always prefer the more narrow one. For example, when there is one principle that it is forbidden to murder and a second principle that violating the Sabbath requires death, the second principle, which is more specific, prevails over the first, and therefore Sabbath violators are killed. The logic is very clear: if the broad principle (the prohibition to murder) were to prevail, then the second principle (the obligation to kill Sabbath violators) would be completely emptied of its content. On the other hand, if we prefer the specific, then both principles remain intact, and the broad one is somewhat reduced.
The same is true of the contradiction between two philosophical principles that both seem logical to us. On the one hand, there is the principle of causality, which is a simple and agreed-upon intuition for everything. On the other hand, there is infinite regress, which says that it is impossible for everything to have a cause, because then we get caught up in an infinite regress. That is, there is a general principle that says that everything has a cause and a specific principle that says that there are necessarily things without a cause. The logical solution is to qualify the principle of causality, and exclude from it instances that are not subject to our experience and therefore for which it is not clear that the principle of causality applies (by the way, the less we exclude, the more logical it is. But this is not important to the logic of my explanation). This is the explanation that leaves all our intuitions as they are in the best possible way. The other two alternatives are much less plausible: giving up the principle of causality is giving up all of science, which is implausible. Accepting infinite regression is a logical contradiction or a logical void (as we have discussed). Therefore, this is the logical solution that is obvious and most logical.
Goodbye and greetings to parents,

Hello Rabbi, thank you very much for the answer!
Rabbi, we will explain that when it comes to beings with whom we have no experience and therefore it is not clear that the principle of causality applies to them - we can exclude them from the principle. Of course, we have no experience with God and therefore we can exclude him accordingly. But we can take a step back - what about the world? There is also one with whom we have no experience, and we do not know whether the principle of causality applies to it.
I suppose my statement seems ridiculous - what do you mean that we have no experience with the world, and what does science do?! But all the experience we have with the world is within the world, what happens inside, but we have no experience with the world itself. We can identify a certain systematicity that operates within the things that exist in the world, such as the principle of causality, but this does not necessarily indicate the same principles also in the world itself (what is outside the world, that the world is a part of, and what is not part of and within the world).

The same goes for renouncing the principle of causality - this is not renouncing all of science, if we assume that the principle operates within the world as we recognize it but not necessarily outside of us and about it.

Thank you very much!

Hello.
The world is nothing more than the collection of details contained in it. The world is you and I and the elephant Yankel and the tree so-and-so and the sheep Dolly and the stone is unknown, etc. etc. There is nothing in the ”world” beyond the details that compose it. Therefore, when you deal with the question of who created the world, it is just a shortcut to the question of who created Dolly and me and you and the stone. Now think: What does it mean to say that the world does not need a reason for its existence? What is “the world” here?
But also beyond that. The other side of the same coin: Even if we assume that ”the world” (whatever it may be) does not need a reason for its existence, the question still remains who created me and you and Yankel? Did the ”world” create us? If this world is something else besides all of us, then it is G-d whose existence we have proven (what do I care that it is called a “world”?). And if it is not something else beyond the details, then we are back to the question of who created us, the details within it, and the claim that the world does not need a reason for its existence does not answer that.

Let's look at it from another angle. When we talk about the world as the totality of the details (what is called pantheism) this is empty talk. It does not say anything, for the reasons I described earlier (is the ”world” something else or is there no reason beyond the details. And if it is something else, then it is G-d and not the world). The only meaning such talk has is that G-d is something, something spiritual, inherent in the world, like the soul of the world (the Gemara in Berachot 5:1 compares the relationship between G-d and the world to the relationship of the soul to the body). To understand what this means, think of a soul in our body. The body is seemingly nothing more than the collection of particles that compose it. There is nothing in it beyond this collection. So what makes each of us a single, unified, holistic entity? What defines it as an organism, as opposed to a collection of particles (which also exist in a dead body)? The soul. But here there is an argument that the soul is something else beyond the particles that compose the body. Except that it is rooted in the body in such a way that now the connection “soul + all the particles of the body” create an organism that is a unified, holistic entity. Only in this way can the concept of organism be understood. God can also be perceived in this way (in relation to the world like the soul in relation to the body), but then my entire argument stands. Because in the end, God is something else beyond the world, even if his connection with the world is what is called “the world” (like “man”, is the connection of soul and body).

Hello,

What's the problem with the claim that the world doesn't need a reason for its existence? Why is it more problematic than the claim that God doesn't need a reason for its existence?
So how did I and Ankel come into being? I don't understand much about it, but science is gradually explaining it - the Big Bang, evolution.
I didn't understand the second paragraph. If we define the world as the sum of its parts - what's the problem?

Thank you very much, Rabbi, for your patience and response. Good night!

Hello.

I explained. The world is the collection of details that make it up. There is nothing else in it. So what does it mean that it does not need a reason for its existence? If every detail in it does need a reason, then what exactly does not need a reason?

The argument from evolution is dealt with extensively in my book (and even more extensively in my book God Plays Dice). I show there that it is not an alternative to God. If you want more in short, see the article here: https://mikyab.net/%d7%9b%d7%aa%d7%91%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%9e%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%9d/%d7%9e%d7%91%d7%98-%d7%a9%d7%99%d7%98%d7%aa %d7%99-%d7%a2%d7%9c-%d7%99%d7%97%d7%a1%d7%99-%d7%90%d7%91%d7%95%d 7%9c%d7%95%d7%a6%d7%99%d7%94-%d7%95%d7%90%d7%9e%d7%95%d7%a0%d7%94.

Thank you very much, Rabbi, for your consideration, responsiveness, and patience.
1. Regarding the cosmological view, I would like to wonder about his most initial assertion: How does everything (that we have experience with) have a reason?
True, I know that the downward pull of items has a reason, the existence of the clock has a reason, but how does the universe have a reason? And if we see the universe as the sum of all its parts: How do all the parts in it claim a reason? What is the reason for the existence of the fly? (If the Rabbi answers biologically how the fly was created, the question will come: What is the reason for the first fly? Of the first animals? Who said they had a reason?) What is the reason for their addition? We can say that we do not know the reason for everything, but since there are things that have a reason, we will conclude that the first ones also have a reason and we simply do not know it. But we can also say that not everything has a reason, since there are things that we do not know how to explain their reason. And perhaps the universe (part of the parts of the universe, but it is said that the universe is the sum of all its parts) is also without a cause.

2. I would like to focus more on the issue of the Mount Sinai status, since it seems to me that it is the most significant because to a large extent the entire process is based on it.
I did not find much reference in the book to the possibility that the Mount Sinai status was invented, as we believe in all other religions.
A. Although in our case there is a significant element of the masses, why is it impossible to plant such an invented event some time after it supposedly occurred? It is possible that so and so years after the Mount Sinai status, a person or two supposedly invented the Jewish religion, convinced a few other people that this was the case, and they passed the tradition on until it reached us. It can be argued that they would have researched it in depth and not accepted this information without foundation, but we know that this is what people often do when it comes to religion (according to Judaism, all other religions lack a logical basis, and billions still believe in them, when each religion began with a certain group that accepted it without a basis). This is all the more true when we are not talking about our times, which are full of knowledge, education, and criticism, but about ancient times when education did not foster critical thinking.
A father would not lie to his son? So how did all religions come into being?
The story can also be told in a more gradual way, in the manner of traditions that unfold and change with the generations: for example, there was a temple on Mount Sinai, there were rumors of revelations to people in the temple, as is the way with religions, over time one of the recipients of the revelation was perceived by a certain population as a religious leader of its ancestors, generations later the members of the population could believe that their ancestors were present near the mountain at the time of the revelation, after a few more generations someone could tell them that their ancestors also received the revelation and heard God speak, and this would sound logical and obvious and there would be no reason to doubt it. Even in the Bible, commandments were renewed with the generations, such as Passover and Sukkot.
B. Another thing. It is not necessarily true to say that the entire nation accepted the Mount Sinai tradition. If there are those who did not accept the status and testified that they did not see or hear such a thing, they simply assimilated and their descendants did not remain Jews. This sounds logical. Therefore, the one who transmitted the tradition is the one who believed in it, but it is certainly possible that not everyone accepted it.

3. In the same matter, I would be happy to address in more detail additional mass revelations, since they seriously undermine the occurrence of the Mount Sinai status that we claim is acceptable mainly due to the mass.
For example, the revelation of Constantine and his army - we have a revelation before a crowd, in which the entire army also allegedly testified that it was a witness (due to its failure to rebel against the rumor, as is claimed about the Mount Sinai status that if it were invented, the listeners would say that they were not there or did not accept such a thing in the tradition). I assume the rabbi will answer that it does not meet all the criteria because no binding commands were received there, but I do not understand why this is a criterion. Of course, a system of many commands would be accepted less easily, but still, even if revelation does not require anything - why would an entire army lie without anyone standing up and saying that all this never happened? This does not make sense. (In addition, it is clear that the cross is a symbol related to religion, and its conclusions are supposed to be faith in Jesus.) I am making the arguments heard here about the status of Mount Sinai, of course, so what is the difference?
If we talk about Christianity, Jesus performed many miracles in front of a large crowd. The miracle of the loaves and fishes that occurred in front of thousands - according to the principle of mass revelation, we will also accept that as truth. Jesus walking on water, the wedding in the barrel where he turned water into wine at a wedding with many participants, Jesus' resurrection, and many more. Beyond Christianity - the miracle of Muhammad crossing the moon in front of many. The Sioux tribe testify to a buffalo that became a goddess in front of an entire tribe, taught them religious rituals and the goddesses performed them (and after all, a mass revelation even required a certain system of laws). She even gave them a sacred pipe that they have preserved to this day and passed down from generation to generation. Sounds stronger than our testimony, doesn't it? In addition, their god “Waken Tanka” also appeared to them and gave them commands. The Pomo tribe also claims to have appeared to their people in an impressive miracle of a mountain trembling and rising in flame and a river of fire. The apparition of Our Lady of Fatima to 70,000 people - even more convincing than the Mount Sinai apparition, since there is much evidence of the apparition of Our Lady of Fatima (and not a single testimony of the Torah itself when there is no external source that testifies to the event), and this is also very close to us historically and the witnesses lived until recently. All of these miracles, like the Mount Sinai apparition, occurred before the eyes of many, were passed down from generation to generation, we do not know of any evidence that challenges them, and some have advantages such as many first-hand testimonies or preserved artifacts.
What is the difference?
I did not find a detailed reference to the matter in the book, beyond the generalization that they are local and were held before a small audience (which is not necessarily true as in the examples cited) or that they do not meet criteria that are not clear to me why they are necessary (apart from the fact that they occurred at the Mount Sinai apparition, so it is of course convenient to determine them as mandatory criteria), although there are apparitions that also meet the parameters. (Of course, a revelation that also includes binding, detailed, illogical, and unrelated commands to the reality in which they were given is less easy to convey, but this does not indicate that a revelation that does not include them does not require acceptance as truth, since they claimed that a revelation given to a large people cannot be refuted, because if such a thing were invented, those who were not among them or did not receive a tradition about it from their ancestors would rise up against it. In addition, the courage to make promises that can be empirically refuted does not, in my opinion, indicate truth as the rabbi claimed, especially when they do not hold true.)
If at least one of the stories is not true, then we have a way to invent a mass revelation, and hence it is possible that the Mount Sinai event is also an invention.
If the rabbi claims that some of the stories are some kind of illusion before the large audience, a spell or a hallucination - it seems that it is easy to claim the same about the Mount Sinai event. It is possible that the impressive spectacle and the speaking voice are actually effects or spells made by humans.

4. Regarding the cessation of the transmission of tradition, it seems that this is a very specific interpretation of the rabbi. The things are described in a fairly simple way in the Bible. We can demand anything and take it in the end to the realms that suit us.. The disconnection in the judges does indeed seem like a simple forgetting of the verses, and indeed it is not fair that he is angry with them for this, but in many cases ignorance of the law does not exempt from punishment and this is not unreasonable.
Similarly, regarding the finding of the book in the days of Isaiah. And the interpretation of “they did not know about the book” to the words “they did not hear about the words of the book” is very easy but completely changes the meaning. If we give the verses interpretations that are far from their simple meaning, we can distort the words of the entire Bible.
However, I will say that the description of the house of God in the verses before me is closer to the rabbi's claim.
The reading of the Torah in the days of Ezra - why is it not likely that laws and traditions were forgotten? This seems very likely when we look at religions and traditions, and the reinforcement from the Passover described in the Book of Kings does not reinforce but rather adds to the fact that things are indeed forgotten and changed, unless we distort the simple things that solve every problem as I said.

5. I will add a small and side question:
To the extent that we accept the occurrence of the Mount Sinai ceremony. The only documentation of it is in the Torah, and it is described there that what was received is the Ten Commandments. It is also simple that not all of the Torah could have been given there, since it describes events that occurred after the Mount Sinai ceremony. If so, why is the binding validity of the entire Torah or what we accept is only the occurrence of the Mount Sinai ceremony?

Again, thank you very much Rabbi!

These are difficult and lengthy questions that I have written quite a bit about and it is very difficult to exhaust them here. Therefore, forgive me if I address them relatively briefly, and I will refer you further as much as possible. In general, I will repeat what I told you in our meeting. If you want to find speculative excuses, you can excuse anything. The question is whether what tradition says is the speculative excuse or what its critics say is the speculative excuse. Therefore, these specific discussions do not have much point. The overall picture is stronger than any of its details, which can be argued about forever. Where there is an overall and unified picture, and there is a great debate about each of its details, then the burden of proof is on the challenger. This is the case in all fields of science (when there is a theory that explains everything in a coherent and unified way, whoever raises the possibility that it may not be correct in one or another detail bears the evidence). Take as an example the criticisms based on the practice of magic in a materialistic world (without God), which you mentioned here, it sounds to me like a frivolous attack. Especially when it is raised to reject the possibility of miracles or revelation. So instead there are magic and that is more plausible? Or the argument against the principle of causality. In every other area of life and science it is taken for granted. When there is any exception to it (in quantum theory) the best minds sit down to explain it and clarify why there is really no exception here. And the criticisms here casually raise the claim that perhaps there are no reasons for things. That is not serious. If in order to be an atheist one must give up all the foundations of rational thinking, such as accepting the existence of magic, assuming the existence of multiple and strange worlds that no one has observed, giving up the principle of causality, raising various speculations about historical evidence and interpretations of the Bible, and so on and so forth, then it seems to me that faith has already won the debate. It is difficult to deal with criticisms that undermine rational thinking, because rationality is the tool for conducting this discussion as well. As far as I am concerned, if rational thinking leads to belief, and opposition to it forces the opponent to give up rationality, then that is the end of the discussion.
One more general reference. There is a website called “Knowing to Believe” (which I am one of the initiators of and was a partner in at the beginning, but then we parted ways). There are not bad articles there on many of the topics you raise. Some are less good and some are better, but there is a lot of important and relevant material there. There is also the option to ask and be answered. In the rest of my words, I will refer you there as well. You are of course welcome to continue contacting me. This reference is for you and not to stop your contacts with me, of course.
Now I will address (briefly) according to the sections in your words.

1. The rational assumption in every area of our lives is that everything has a reason. If you were to say that something happened without a reason, you would be hospitalized. When an investigation committee investigates what happened to a plane that crashed, and they find nothing. What will they say? There was a reason but they didn't find it. This is a rational assumption, and if it always works and is assumed in every context, there is no reason not to assume it in the case under discussion. David Hume has already insisted that causality is not the product of observation but an a priori assumption of reason, and as such there is no reason not to apply it here as well.
You answered the question of what the cause of the fly was yourself. You yourself said it had a reason, but you keep going back to the causes that preceded it and asking about them. But this is exactly the cosmological argument: go down the chain until you reach the first fly. The cosmological argument is that G-d must be assumed, otherwise there is a fly without a reason (this is a parable of course, because there is evolution).

2. I explained that it is difficult to discuss the status of Mount Sinai as it is any historical event from ancient times. You can check various evidence about it, texts or traditions, or findings. For any ancient historical claim, one can ask whether it was invented. That is why I wrote there that it fits in with the philosophical framework that there is a God and that it is likely that He will reveal Himself and tell us what He wants from us and with the tradition that has come down to us and said that it did happen. If everything fits together well, there is no reason to say that this is all an invention. After all, it is both a priori probable that it will happen, and there is also a tradition that it happened. So why assume that it is an invention? All the claims you raised fall into this framework. If I were in a balanced position regarding this question and came to it “clean”, I might say that both options are equal (invention or not). But there are good arguments in favor of the matter, and therefore even though it is theoretically possible that everything was invented, I have no reason to assume this. We talked about the fact that I am looking for probability and not certainty. I am not saying that all the details about the event are accurate, but that it was in principle a meeting with God seems quite reasonable to me. I explained the witness's argument and the various refutations of it in the book, and it is worth looking there.

3. Regarding other revelations, there is a discussion on my website about it (search for "other revelations"), and also see the article This one:
https://www.knowingfaith.co.il/%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%95%D7%93%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94/%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%93-%D7%94%D7%A8-%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%A0%D7%99-%D7%9B%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%A2-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99
I have a friend who has looked into the other stories in depth and if If you are bothered by this, you can talk to him. Ask, and I will give you his email.
In short, I say that none of the revelations that are reported are similar to the status of Mount Sinai, sometimes they are outright lies (some of them intentional, on atheist sites) and sometimes they are slight distortions or incorrect comparisons. But even if these revelations are false, one should not necessarily conclude from this about the status of Mount Sinai, since the tradition that transmits it is much more reliable than the non-existent ”traditions” about those revelations. Of course, theoretically, you can claim anything, even about the status of Mount Sinai, see my words in section 2. Science fiction (or magic) speculations can explain anything, including the force of gravity.

4. What I had to explain about the breaks in tradition I explained there, and in my opinion it is completely reasonable. I assume there are more articles on the “Knowing to Believe” website that I referred to above. I'm just saying that this is not really my particular interpretation, but the completely simple simplification of things. We see from the verses that there was an ancient Torah, and certainly when the Bible itself betrays its "fiction" in a straightforward description that refers to the cessation of tradition. Those who want to invent do not do this.

5. I think in our first conversation I insisted that the Mount Sinai situation is the very encounter with God. All the details were there. But this encounter began the process of the Torah and its interpretation, and if God gave us a Torah that can be interpreted, then I have no problem with them doing so. There is no doubt that a significant part of the law is a later creation. So what? The basis was given in that encounter and from here on out it is a human creation. This claim has implications, because if it is a human creation, then you and I can also participate, share, and criticize. I completely accept this (see the third book of the trilogy). But all of this was done within the framework of the giving of the Torah from Sinai and its transmission.