Why am I obligated to the covenant my ancestors made at Sinai?

In the same matter - in your opinion, is it also obligatory for someone born into an Arab nation to be a Muslim? Is this also a covenant like the Sinai covenant? After all, the nation accepted Islam. Or at least as a "national vow"? The confirmation of the "God" is less relevant in my opinion, since there is no change in it, not even in the status of Mount Sinai. "God descended on Mount Sinai" is, in the eyes of the observer, a gradual change, and not that God forbid there is a change in it.

No one is obligated to keep an imaginary covenant that never happened. If one bright morning the people of Israel decide that there is a law that everyone must stand on one foot every morning for three minutes, there is no reason for me to keep it (and even if the Knesset legislates it, I suppose I will not).
If you think that God revealed himself to Muhammad and commanded him Islam, and you also think that there was a binding covenant here, then indeed you must keep his commandments.

Why is this similar to state laws? Every citizen is obligated to maintain the political order. But how is it possible that a contract that my grandfather signed thousands of years ago is binding on me today? What does it mean that “the contract was between us and God”? I did not sign.

You did not sign. The public of which you are a part signed.
The laws of the state are not binding because I owe something to their content, but because I am part of the public that legislated them. And this is even if I was not among the voters (for example, the law was enacted a hundred years ago and has not been changed).

By the way, in my youth when I studied in Gush I asked Rabbi Midan this question. I told him that I think it makes sense that a person can withdraw. I thought that maybe this is a recognition. A person can indeed withdraw from the community and not keep the commandments and then he is cut off and that's it (becoming a historical anecdote). The community does not die but individuals do.
He then told me that every beginning philosopher knows that it is better to be in a bad situation than not to be at all. Well, now that I am a little less of a beginner I am not sure about that…

Every autonomy is entitled to enact laws for the public good. An individual citizen cannot take the law into his own hands and is obligated to what everyone else is obligated to. But by his right of personal choice he is entitled to simply get up and leave, to go to a place where there are laws that he likes, without paying a price of ‘rent’ and the like, which is not as nice as you presented it. We are obligated and we have no option to leave. Why not?
I too would rather not be than be in a bad situation. God of course connected me to the infusion of life, family and environment, but I did not invite it in the first place. Why am I obligated to Him now?

I didn't understand two things - A. What is the difference between the Sinai Covenant and the Muhammad Covenant? In both, the one who signed was the people and God did nothing. God did not change at Mount Sinai, nor was a will added to Him that did not exist with Him. This is a change in the eternal that is impossible. It was all a matter of accepting the nation, and so it is with the Muslims. Do you think God changed at Mount Sinai by making a covenant? B. If you are committed to the collective, why don't you accept a law to stand on one foot, and if you do, you will be swayed by the lulav?

Moshe, why can't he? He can. But he shouldn't, because he signed a contract. With us, the contract is for life. You can't leave because that's how we signed it. But if you prefer to be cut off - I assume that's what will happen if you leave. What do you care if you are defined as a sinner? Do you want divine recognition of your right to sin? I am not authorized to give it to you.

Ofir, I have already explained and I will repeat it again. If there was indeed a covenant between God and Muhammad and his people - then it is really the same thing. The question is whether there was or not? We are not obligated to fictions. I am obligated to accept the nation when it is done within the framework of a covenant with a second party. Or a covenant between ourselves. But I am not obligated to the caprices of the nation.

What did “can” mean? And what does “not worthy” mean? I believe that there is a God and that He pays reward and punishment. If I “leave”, I will pay dearly for it, and not just “let go and that's it“. You are not qualified to give me divine recognition of sin, but you can kindly help me understand in a convincing and non-burdensome way why I must keep the commandments, and if possible, that I will be able to do so with joy. I am only asking, of course. Thank you!

Why fiction? My whole family promised to sacrifice to the Lord ’ – This is fiction? I don't even understand how the rabbi could think otherwise about Islam. What is the point of this fiction? And that Muhammad didn't exist? And that they didn't accept his words? What could be fictitious here? And I repeat the question – What does it mean to need a second party? What does it mean that God “agrees” to this? It is very important for me to understand in what sense God did not want the covenant and then did. It is very critical for me to understand if this is not the fulfillment of the Creator.

God did not “not want the covenant and then do it” but planned in advance to fulfill the covenant then (this is how it is described in the Torah, as a sequence of events leading to the Exodus from Egypt)

One: God does not “agree” to a covenant but rather offers it. We agreed. If we had decided on our own to keep the commandments, it would not be binding, and that is exactly what happened with Muhammad.

Ofir,
I don't understand the argument. The Torah explicitly states that God desires to be with us in the covenant and the covenant also binds Him. The only difference is that God is still with us and therefore He is not obligated by virtue of being a member of the collective but by virtue of His own commitment, while our ancestors are not with us and therefore our obligation stems from being members of the collective. We can also add that the Torah is our life and the length of our days and just as Rabbi Akiva argued that the fish outside the sea do not live, without the Torah we too have no life. But this is really another level.

Rabbi,
Doesn't the generation that received it in the days of Ahasuerus teach that each generation must receive the covenant anew of its own free will (obviously this is against the coercion of Mount Sinai and still)?

Moshe, I explained as much as I could. There's no point in going back again. You didn't ask me to convince you to be happy with the mitzvot, but why you have an obligation to keep them. These are two completely different questions. I answered the second one, and for the first one, maybe you should go to a psychologist. I don't have any prescriptions for happiness.

Ofir,
My feeling is that I'm writing on the wall. I explained again and again. If your family commits to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it doesn't obligate you. That's all.

And is that how we please the oppressed? I will ask the question again, without the part about joy [although the biblical commandment to rejoice in the commandments can also be understood in the mishnah of Keter, the scholarly one].

What did “can” mean? And what does “not worthy” mean? I believe that there is a God and that He pays reward and punishment. If I “leave,” I will pay dearly for it, and not just “let it go and that’s it.” You are not authorized to give me divine recognition of sin, but you can kindly help me to understand in a convincing way why I must keep the commandments. I am only asking, of course. Thank you!

Moshe, I really don't understand the question.
I explained that we signed a contract. All of us. No one is allowed to leave a contract they signed. A contract with a state is conditional on you being a resident, otherwise you have no obligation to it and it has no obligation to you. But the contract with God exists always and everywhere (because His state is the entire universe). He upholds you and you commit to Him. You cannot leave that. In this sense, this situation is similar to a state.
I wrote to you that, according to your opinion, which sounds reasonable to me, you can declare it null and void and abandon it. To say it neither out of spite nor out of spite. What do you think, if it makes sense to you that you can do this, then God will probably agree too. And if it doesn't make sense, then it will probably become clear to you why not. But let's assume that He does not come with grievances with His creatures, and therefore you will not be punished for an offense you committed by mistake/forcibly.

As for joy, it has nothing to do with my educational theory. If someone doesn't feel joy, I have nothing to say to them except to suggest they go to counseling. I'm just not the right person for that. I didn't say there's no value in joy. That's another discussion.
By the way, I wrote that completely seriously and not cynically. Therefore, definitely: This is how we treat the oppressed.

I understand. I mean like this. There is a kind of global state here that obliges every citizen to honor his signature. Unlike another country, where you can simply emigrate, here there is nowhere to emigrate. The signature of the fathers of the state is the signature of ‘do not return’. Regarding the ’what is your mind’, I know that there is no such possibility, and I partially understand a certain logic in that it is not up to everyone to leave at the moment they want, because God can “close the gap”. This logic is not convincing enough to me inside.
In any case, God will come and come with a complaint in such cases, because this is not about an accident or rape.
I would be happy if further clarification were given to things. This is truly an existential question that has not given me peace for a long time, and on the other hand it is a question that I have not found a classical rabbi to answer for me.

I'll start from the end. It is rape, after all, you did what you thought was right. Rape in opinions is rape like any other rape.
Beyond all of this, keep in mind that God knows better than you what is good for you. You don't have the full picture. Therefore, if you think that His work is not good for you, you are probably wrong. It's like a child who cannot leave his parents' house even though he doesn't like their behavior (and he didn't choose to come into the world, but they brought him). Therefore, there is no need to give you a chance to regret it, because it is a contract that was signed in your favor, and He knows better than you that it is in your favor.

Sorry to get personal. Are you convinced by the argument that God knows better than you what is best for you, and that on this basis a system of commitment can be built?
On the one hand, it's a bit annoying, it reminds me of the supervisor who would reassure young men about their questions about faith, with the ingenious argument that ”surely the Gra”a or Ra”a thought about these questions, and yet they believed”, as if to say, you don't have to understand, but believe that there is something here that is smarter than you. And personally, I feel, as I learned a lot from you [indirectly perhaps], that my mind is stronger than anything and I must understand and be convinced with my mind why I owe Him
commandments, and why sometimes I also suffer for it.
On the other hand, there is logic in the fact that God cannot reveal all the cards, because transparency reduces the value, perhaps reduces the power of choice, perhaps this is the intention “for the glory of God hides a thing”.
Somehow I feel like I'm oscillating between these two sides.
Thank you for your patience.

First of all, it is absolutely clear that he knows better than you. Don't you agree with that? At most, you can claim that you have a desire and perhaps even an obligation to understand why it is better for you. But if you are looking for reassurance, then in my opinion the knowledge that G-d knows better than you calms the nerves.
Beyond that, I think you are wrong here. Rational thinking does not mean that you have to understand everything in order to comply. Absolutely not. You have to be convinced that it is true. And that is absolutely not the same thing. When a doctor prescribes a medicine for me, I take it because I have confidence in his knowledge and I do not have such knowledge. Do you think I am irrational? I definitely do. Since I know that I lack medical knowledge, I trust the one who has the knowledge. An irrational person is a person who receives medicine from someone other than a doctor without being convinced that it is beneficial or that he understands it more than he does.
I do not understand most of the commandments in the Torah (what is the benefit in them). But since I have faith in G-d, I assume that they are beneficial and that is enough to comply with them. Strictly rational.

I don't think the problem with disclosure is necessarily transparency. It is also possible that the problem is that not every Muha is passive here. Maimonides writes in the Book of Mormon that transparency increases his honor and goes against those who think that the decrees of Scripture increase the honor of Heaven. He proves this from the verse that the Gentiles will say of us, "Only with a wise and prudent people, this great Gentile." And if we do things that are not understood, how will they say this?

To the esteemed Rabbi:
What does the Flying Spaghetti Monster have to do with it? I was talking about a commitment to God. Allah is the God of Israel, I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, you also believe in some way in his ”existence”. Why distort my question like that? If you want to exaggerate my words, at least include a variable that I really changed when comparing Judaism and Islam.. It's the same God, and the sages of Israel in the Middle Ages interfered with the opinions of Muslims regarding his definition.
Y.D.:
What do you mean by “God was interested”? Can you explain.. Doesn't your words imply a change in God? If God is eternal, how can he begin to be interested? How can he be moved to his heart? How can he come down to see her cry? It is clear that reality has changed, not God. That is, since humans sinned, so too is the “God descended on Mount Sinai” which is a change that Israel underwent by looking at the fire, hearing the sound of the shofar, the earthquake, the lightning and the thunder.. They felt the presence of something greater than themselves and made a covenant. But there was no change in God. God does not need us and does not want us, philosophically, and therefore ethically. Only figuratively, which is suitable to awaken the ear of the common people, and the heart of every person who reads the verses, because the heart, even of a wise man, is awakened by the images like a simple person.
Incidentally, “to create” in the Bible is also paving a road, as “with the hand of the creator, at the head of the road-a city created.” (Ezekiel 21:24) In general, the Genesis chapter was spoken about the earth and not about the entire world, so there is no obligation here that the Torah speaks of the emergence of something from nothing.

(Regarding the Genesis account - of course also the stars in relation to the Earth)

I didn't distort anything. The difference I was talking about is that the Muslims didn't make a pact and we did. And the fact that they imagine that it does not bind anyone. Just like making a pact with the spaghetti monster. And I told you that if you think that they did make a pact, then it is indeed the same as ours.
I really don't understand what's so complicated here.

He (Ofir Gal Ezer) claims that the covenant of the people of Israel is unilateral, meaning that we decided on our own to keep the commandments and the ’ has nothing to do with it (because otherwise it means that he changed his mind and does not do such things blah blah blah). Therefore, any acceptance that a people accepts in relation to God (for example, praying 5 times a day in the case of Muslims) is equivalent to accepting the people of Israel.

His mistake, of course, is that God did initiate the covenant with Israel and this is not a theological problem.

May the strength of your strength be with you, Rabbi. And I apologize, Ofir, for being a bit “dressed up” on the subject. You simply put on paper things that have been in my heart for a long time, and for that I thank you.