The Forfeiture of Receiving the Torah

Retroactive rape is not useful, but maybe if there are no followers anyway, the acceptance is nullified?
And then you will say why they did not claim that they will not actually observe, since once everyone accepts, it is impossible to stop, all that is being discussed is when it was stopped anyway.
An example of the obligation to observe a custom that cannot be claimed to be canceled (see Pesachim 5:2), but if you go from place to place, the custom is automatically nullified.
If there were room for words, it would be possible to explain the concept of abrogated commandments for the future, meaning that they will be nullified by the fact that there will be no one to observe the Torah anyway.
And perhaps this is also what they said that there will be no one after David except in a generation that is entirely obligated, etc. And all who add add to it.

I don't see any reason for this: Will someone who has eaten garlic go back and eat it?

Regarding the future nullification of mitzvot, it seems to me that a simple explanation has now emerged. Technology will nullify almost all mitzvot. They will produce artificial meat and artificial milk and artificial pork, they will teach Torah by injecting it into the brain, honoring parents by pressing a button, and so on.

Say from now on, void realities for the future (the two Jews connect to the one and the other; this is not considered a secret with a kollel).

And דפחה. I think it connects to your question about Hasidic thinking. 🙂
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%A8%D7%92%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%91%D7%A8-%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%90%D7%A8-%D7%97%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9D/#answer-62580

If so, the element of place is a factor, and so it is possible to say that in a previous incarnation I was in Galicia, or that I drank more than a pint in one of the well-known shtibbals, and I drank.

Regarding the claim that the obligation is based on public acceptance. Was there no obligation to keep the commandments before the days of Ahasuerus? If so, why did God bring charges and punish the Israelites for their sins before the days of Ahasuerus.

Rashi interpreted there: “Muda'a Rabbah – if they are summoned to court, why did you not fulfill what you accepted upon yourself – they have an answer, that they received it by force”.

This means that Rashi says that this is not a definitive answer, but even though they received it by force, there is still an obligation, only perhaps in terms of punishment there is a lenient side here. Also regarding taliva and zabin, whoever sold zabiniya zabiniya – that is, even under conditions of force, there is a basic understanding that is sufficient to conclude a covenant or a sales agreement.

They are punished because they did not fulfill the contract. The Gemara indicates that if they claimed to be reneging on their promise, they would indeed be exempt from punishment. This means that even the criminals at that time did not renege on the contract itself, but rather gave in to their instincts.

Even if the first acceptance was in rape, doesn't that have some minimal binding force? Like in the issue of Tliuhu and Zevin?

First, it is not reasonable in my opinion. Some proportionality must exist. If a person forces me and all my descendants to be enslaved to him until the end of all generations, it is unlikely that the contract will be valid. Second, giving notice means that I say in advance that what I agreed to was because of rape. If the Israelites could withdraw, this means that they gave notice. If so, the contract is invalid. They will sell it and it is valid only if, at the time of purchase, the seller did not give notice that it was done through rape or that he did not know about it.

Regarding the issue of proportionality, this may be true for a mere human being, but when it comes to God, it does not sound disproportionate, after all, He created us and the world.

Regarding the transmission of the message, to whom did the people of Israel transmit the message? The Gemara implies that there may be a possibility of transmitting the message, but not that there was an actual transmission. Furthermore, the very fact that the people of Israel first became obedient shows that they were actually completely willing to receive the Torah, and certainly did not transmit any message.

In the Shul, there is a long note on the laws of Mudea. Mudea cannot be given after the fact, otherwise it is not required. Just repeat it and that is enough.
If you include that He created us, it is no longer a mere prophecy but perhaps an integrated model.