Answer

Hello.
Unfortunately I only just got to the email and saw the questions. I’ll try to address them briefly.
The treatment of the revelation event as a proof is indeed exaggerated in my opinion, and that is why I wrote that it joins the rest of the arguments as a whole (the unique history, the philosophical conclusion that there is a God even before I speak about revelation, and so on as I detailed), and only by their force can it receive meaning and validity.
The starting point for the discussion is David Hume’s argument about miracles, according to which there are two interpretations of a tradition that tells about a miracle: 1. It is a myth that became embedded in the national consciousness, which definitely happens and involves no deviation from the laws of nature. 2. There really was a miracle there, which by definition is a deviation from the laws of nature. Hume argues that interpretation 1 is preferable, and therefore rejects traditions with extraordinary content.

If I remember correctly, I address this in the booklet, but if you want there is a more detailed and systematic discussion in my book True and Unstable. My discussion there and there explains why 1 is not necessarily the preferable interpretation, and I show that in other fields too we choose 2 (the story of my friend Amnon that is brought there).

But now you are raising the claim that there are other parallel traditions as well, and with regard to them too I have to reject Hume’s argument in the same way.

But if you follow the course of my argument, you will see that Hume’s argument is in principle correct (and therefore the revelation event is not all that strong). I reject it only in situations where I have trust in the tradition that reached me. My claim is that this trust is worth a lot and can stand against Hume’s argument (see the example I brought there regarding my friend Amnon and his story about the dynamics workshop he led in the American Midwest). As I keep writing, this argument (like its companions) cannot stand on its own. One has to see all the arguments as one overall package and not examine each one separately.

How do I decide whether to trust a tradition? I see that it is critical and willing to reconsider principles. I see that it passes “on a broad front” and not only within an elitist group as with the Druze, for example. This also joins the consideration from our unique history: our survival despite dispersion and persecutions, our influence and dominance—and that of our values and the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)—in world culture. The antisemitism that is hard to understand. The special talent of Jews relative to other peoples. The revolutionary character and involvement in every global change, and so on and so forth. Add to that the fact that Christianity and Islam also agree with our revelation myth, meaning there is a very broad front that adopts it.
None of this exists in the parallel traditions. There the feeling is that these are inventions and myths, and there is no independent outside support for them (such as a unique history and the like), and of course no broad worldwide agreement either, so Hume’s argument remains in force.
For example, I would not pay much attention to a story about a miracle that happened to so-and-so if I know him as a primitive person who believes every bit of nonsense. But if a scientist, someone used to critical thinking, told it to me—and certainly if his story had support from an independent source (historical or otherwise)—I would believe it more. That is the difference between alternative medicine and conventional medicine. Therefore we accept quantum theory despite its absurdity, and we do not accept miracle stories of this tribe or that one.

Admittedly, from what I’m saying it follows that a lot of this stands or falls on trust in the tradition and in those who transmit it.

What the Torah says—“Has a nation ever seen God…” —in my opinion does not necessarily come to prove that there is a God. That is the perspective of a modern person searching for arguments to prove belief. Rather, it comes to show believing people God’s closeness to us. He reveals Himself to us and guides us in the world (and we still remain alive), because we matter to Him.

That is regarding the Torah. As for what is written in various works of Jewish thought (such as the Maimonides you cited) that build on revelation and its uniqueness—that indeed does not convince me, and I do not feel obligated to explain them or agree with them. By the way, the same Amnon I mentioned, who backpacked in Bolivia, told me about additional mass revelations in Indian villages there. I think I also mentioned Our Lady of Fatima (which you mentioned from Portugal) and others.

As for revelations and miracles among Christians and others, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook already addresses this question in his book To the Perplexed of the Generation, and writes (surprisingly) that it is possible they were true. He suggests seeing them as revelations of the Holy One, blessed be He, to Christians and Muslims as spreaders of belief in divine unity (as Maimonides wrote about them). As I said, I do not think there is any necessity for that, because there the traditions are not reliable and there is no supporting testimony, and so on.

Therefore, in my opinion the argument from revelation is indeed reasonable, and I do not find myself compelled to accept reports of other peoples (as you claim at the end of your words that you do believe them, and so too Rabbi Kook), because there I have not been convinced of the reliability of their tradition.

I hope I helped, because I don’t have much time to elaborate right now.
————————————-
Questioner:

Thank you very much for the quick answer!! You’ve already helped me a lot.

A few comments following what you wrote:

“Ask now of the earlier days…”
Although I agree that it is reasonable to say that the Torah’s main purpose in the verses “Ask now…” etc. is not to prove the existence of God, still it is embedded in its words that there cannot be another story of mass revelation in addition to that of the people of Israel.
More than that—it is precise from the wording of the verse that not only will there not be an actual historical story of mass revelation = “has anything as great as this ever happened?” but there cannot even be a fabricated story of mass revelation = “or has anything like it ever been heard?” This puts us in a certain problem even if the story of the Indian tribes is not historically true, for the reasons you wrote.

Were the recipients of the Torah really critical?
One of the reasons you wrote for trusting our tradition is that the group transmitting it is “critical and willing to reconsider principles.” And on both these points one may ask:
Really critical? Who says that even at the time of the events this group was critical and not primitive? (After all, we cannot use the Torah’s own stories that they did not believe Moses and the like as proof of that, because the Torah itself is part of what needs proof.) It is more reasonable to assume that a people in the ancient period would not be critical in our modern rational terms, but would be very influenced by a developed primitive imagination… and as you wrote: “For example, I would not pay attention to a story about a miracle that happened to so-and-so if I know him as a primitive person who believes every bit of nonsense.”
Likewise, from where do we know that the transmitters of the tradition were willing to reconsider principles in the very early periods of Israel, close to the time of receiving the Torah? For if we bring proof from later periods (such as the Talmudic period and so on) for critical thinking, etc., apparently that is no proof, because even a modern Christian believer (and even in earlier periods once the influence of philosophy had penetrated) can be critical and thoughtful, and still that does not mean that at the time the principle of the “holy” Trinity was accepted—despite its many difficulties—those people were critical.
So it seems more reasonable that a myth became entrenched and turned, as it were, into a historical story because of primitive approaches, and afterward rational people had no choice but to justify the story and its implications.
(By the way, do we even see in the Talmudic period and the like a mode of thought that is willing to cast doubt on the faith itself?? Apparently all the critical abilities begin and end only after the point of departure of faith).

Visions from a recent time
Even in the above cases—in Portugal less than a hundred years ago (the miracle with Mary and the sun), and in Zeitoun about 40 years ago (a vision of Mary bowing to the cross),
is this, in your view, still an unreliable tradition despite the recent time and the great number of people? (And in the case of Zeitoun it even continued over several years!).

Thank you very much!!

———————————-
Rabbi:

Hello.
I suggested a different interpretation of the Torah. After all, the verse ends with “and lived,” meaning that what was unheard of was not the encounter with God, but that we survived it. No one met Him directly and survived. Our Lady of Fatima was not an encounter with God but with “the holy virgin,” and the like. My claim is that reading these verses as a proof of God’s existence is an anachronism. The Torah does not mean that, but rather to show our belovedness before Him. And again, at Fatima they did not meet God, and that does not indicate that they are beloved by Him (only by His emissary). And even if that was an encounter with their god, that is not the correct God. No one met the Holy One, blessed be He, and survived.

I don’t know who they were back then, but later on there was critical thinking. Therefore a reasonable assumption is to go backward and say that a reasonable generation would not begin such a tradition without critical thinking, and without examining whether the previous generation was reliable. And so on. And again, these are not arguments that stand alone (since they are far from decisive). But together with everything else, this certainly has reasonable weight. Of course there is no certainty about anything.
The Christian believer cannot and need not critically examine his tradition, because from the outset it did not claim public historical events but revelations to individuals. But the first critical generation to whom someone explained that there had been a mass revelation before all Israel had to ask itself all these questions and decide whether to accept it or not.
By the way, I do not see the Trinity as something so problematic. It is entirely parallel to “the Holy One, Israel, and the Torah are one,” and therefore I am far from mocking those who accept it. If it were a foundational principle among us, they would accept it among us too. We have things that are much more logically problematic that almost everyone accepts (such as “everything is in the hands of Heaven,” individual providence, the obligation of personal effort, and many other absurdities we were educated on, but this is not the place).

In the Talmud you find: “Rabbi Hillel said: Israel has no Messiah, for they already consumed him in the days of Hezekiah.” And you also find disputes over whether the Torah was given at Sinai or from the Tent of Meeting, against principles of faith. You certainly do see critical thinking there. True, there is an agreed framework (and I’m not sure I accept all of it), but all critical thought is within a framework. Does science accept criticism of its own fundamental assumptions?

I can bring you stories from recent times about Oren Zarif and other “kabbalists” or mystics, in whom I don’t have an ounce of trust. Or stories of alternative medicine (a field that in my judgment is entirely nonsense based on old wives’ tales from beginning to end). The question is not the timing of the story but the reliability of those transmitting it and those who witnessed it.

——————————-
Questioner:

Again, thank you for the answers! I really appreciate it!
A. Apparently the Indians too survived the encounter with God and remained alive?
And as I noted, from the plain sense of the Torah it follows that you won’t find even a rumor of a story of mass revelation whose participants survived it (and not only a historically verified story = “has anything happened”).
What is your response to that?
B. Apparently it is actually more plausible that the early generation was primitive and full of myths and imaginings—in line with what was accepted at that time. The claim that presumably they would not have accepted the tradition without criticism seems, apparently, somewhat anachronistic according to concepts of criticism that only began much later, especially since myths and the like were accepted among all ancient peoples (for example, the stories of Greek mythology).
All the more so, as you yourself say, even today many people (even those considered educated) accept bizarre and unfounded things as true—so what are we to say about antiquity??
Why should we distinguish the people of Israel from the whole cultural environment in which they lived, and claim that only they were critical toward mythic stories that also include various revelations?

—————————————–
Rabbi:

Hello.
A. With all due respect, this is simply a misunderstanding. I’ll repeat what I wrote. There are two answers here:
1. They did not meet God but “the holy virgin.” Meeting an angel and the like is not the same as meeting God. The Torah says that no one meets God and survives.
2. They did not meet God but their imaginations. The Torah says there is no encounter with God from which one survives, and the Indians are no refutation of that since they did not meet Him but only their imaginations. Of course you can say that they would say the same about us, that our God is imagination, and that is why I said the Torah does not mean to provide proof that we are right. It assumes that we are right—that our God is the correct God. And under that assumption it says that there was no direct encounter with Him in revelation (not in a dream) from which anyone survived. You keep returning to the logic of proofs, and claiming that there is no proof against the Indians. The Torah is not trying to bring proof against them.
B. Again, I think I answered. My impression is that our tradition points to significant critical thinking (the Talmud and the Mishnah), to a willingness to contain several opinions and also transmit them onward (“Why were the words of the one who permits taught alongside the words of the one who forbids?” in tractate Eduyot). Even if the critical spirit appeared only in a relatively late generation (I don’t know, but one could perhaps argue that), my claim was that the generation in which it appeared had to criticize the tradition that reached it from previous generations. After all, the Talmud is constantly occupied with the question of the source of every matter, and certainly shows impressive critical thinking. From the critical generation (say, the Talmud), we go back to the generation that transmitted to it, and the very fact that it received from them is a sign that it was convinced. And so on back to the generation of the giving of the Torah. I also wrote that critical thinking by itself is not decisive, but it joins the rest of the evidence, and only the total picture has significant weight. Critical thinking by itself is not enough.
Even today, when people accept strange things, it is almost always accompanied by criticism, and not everyone accepts them. Quite a few Haredim engage in criticism of Haredi myths.

The revelations in ancient myths can certainly be copies of “myths” about genuine revelations (the Holy One, blessed be He, to Noah and Shem and Eber, and to Abraham and Israel at Sinai).

You cannot find certainty, but in my opinion the overall picture (not one argument or another) does point to plausibility.
———————————
Questioner:
Hello Rabbi!

To continue the clarification: first of all, sorry if I didn’t understand your words correctly. I hope you won’t feel that my continuing questions are just repeating things already said.

A. According to what you say—that the Torah’s verses, even incidentally (and not as their main goal!), prove nothing about Israel’s mass revelation in relation to other peoples, but only assume that we are right—what then is the meaning of the command “Ask now,” etc.? After all, it sounds like if we ask and investigate, then from the answers of the other cultures (even according to their own view) we will see that there was no event like Mount Sinai.

B. What does it mean that the Indian tribes met their imaginations? Did they collectively dream the same dream? How can one argue and explain such a thing?
[And within that, how can one answer the claim that the people of Israel also imagined or underwent an intense mystical experience (which perhaps Moses even caused), but there was no encounter with God there?]

C. What should we do with those individual revelation stories in which the Indians claim that the Creator of the world revealed Himself to them? (In most of the stories they really admit that only one of the lesser gods revealed himself to them.)

D. I fully accept the essential distinction between an encounter with God and an encounter with an angel, and certainly with Mary and the like. My main question in the cases of these miracles and visions was not about the Torah’s words in the verses, but about a basic understanding of the reliability of historical stories:
What is our attitude toward close testimony by very many people about bizarre things that every educated person naturally rejects? (There is no reason to say that so large a number of people includes only unreliable people; a large public also includes educated people, and apparently such testimony too should be reliable.)
Let me explain more: there is a claim that a formative historical event that occurs after the nation already exists in practice (excluding myths about ancient times) cannot be forged historically! (This claim is basically meant to strengthen the historical reliability of the revelation at Mount Sinai.)
Do you accept this claim? As I understand it, if one accepts this claim then one is seemingly forced to say that the revelation stories of the Indians actually occurred (at least those attributed to a few hundred years ago and not to the beginning of creation), and similarly regarding the miracle and vision stories told in other religions that occurred before crowds, all the more so when it is about in things said to have happened in the last hundred years before large multitudes.
In almost all cases I do not see any contradiction to Judaism even if these stories actually happened; my main difficulty is that this puts the story of the revelation at Mount Sinai in the same “basket” as stories that are perceived as historically unreliable and imaginary.
Did I understand correctly from your words that you do not accept this rule at all, and in your view mass stories can be forged? And then for you there is no advantage at all to the story of the revelation at Mount Sinai in itself over the stories of other cultures, and its only advantage is thanks to the external factors that support it (special history, critical transmitters, etc.).

Thank you very much!
—————————–
Rabbi:

Again and again we are mixing up the first argument—that is, the Torah’s argument (which according to my suggestion comes only to show the Holy One’s concern for us)—with the second argument (that of the Kuzari), which proves His existence from revelation. Each time you need to examine and define carefully which of the two is under discussion. In section D you distinguish them explicitly, but in the others I think there is a mix-up.

A. Here we are talking about the first. “Ask now” and see how much God loves you, that you met Him Himself directly and remained alive (survived). The purpose is to strengthen the bond with the Holy One and love of Him, not to prove His existence. At most, assuming He exists, there is here an argument in favor of the giving of the Torah by Him.
B. It is unclear whether you are talking about the first or the second. It is only a manner of speaking. The intention is that the god they met does not exist. It is an imaginary god. How did the story come about? The implantation of myths. Regarding Israel, I explained that the Torah did not intend to prove God’s existence. That is a conclusion arising from elsewhere. The Torah assumes His existence. Therefore there is no comparison to other revelations. Is it so surprising that the Indians met a figure that is not God and nevertheless survived? (As stated, the proof is of His good relation and concern for us, not of His very existence.)

As for my trust in our tradition (I understand that here we are speaking about the second), as distinct from the Indian one, I already explained. I don’t understand what is added by this question.
C. Nothing. These are imaginations, and in any case this is at most an encounter with a god one can survive meeting.

D. My trust in such traditions is a weighted combination of the reliability of the story, the reliability of the storytellers, a priori indications (there are philosophical proofs that there is a God), and a posteriori ones (the survival and dominance of the people of Israel, and their reliability, the broad-front transmission of the tradition, etc.). Such traditions are definitely forgeable, and therefore I keep repeating that this receives significance only in combination with the other arguments. It has nonzero weight but is not decisive. Therefore there is no point in returning again and again to comparisons with the Indians. I answered that. Maybe you disagree, but to me it seems entirely reasonable, and I have nothing to add.

I’ll only say that my lack of trust in these stories has nothing to do with the fact that they contradict Judaism (as you implicitly assumed in your words). I simply don’t believe them because they are not credible in my eyes. Just as if someone came today and told me wondrous miracles. Usually I wouldn’t believe him. Even if a public told me, I would be doubtful and would need additional indications in order to accept it.

I really don’t understand your last question. This is just pure logic, so how can one argue about it. The advantage of our tradition is certainly not in the story itself, because as you rightly wrote there are other such stories. So by definition there is no advantage of one story over another except by side supports (and you too agree with this, only in your view, because for some reason you don’t take the side supports into account, anyone who believes us should also believe them). By definition, the advantage of our story will always be thanks to the side parameters (the reliability of the transmitters, our history, etc.). One cannot argue about that, because these are facts (that there are other stories; so clearly the advantage is not in the mere fact that there is a story). Therefore I do not understand your question whether our story has no advantage over others without the side supports. Of course it does not.

——————————
Questioner:
Greetings!

I’ll try to clarify my words better regarding the understanding of the verse (without a vow, one last attempt ):
My whole intention in asking about the verse “Ask now…” is this: even after I accept your point that the purpose of the verse is not to prove anything, but only to express love, still included in its words is the uniqueness of the revelation at Sinai, even if we ask and investigate it. (The issue of God’s existence is not the subject for me right now, only the issue of the uniqueness of the revelation at Sinai.)
It is like someone saying to another: I love you so much that if you ask everyone, you’ll see that what I did for you a few days ago, I didn’t do for anyone else!!!
True, I am coming to express love toward him and not to prove anything else, but still included in my words is that if that person really asks and investigates, he will discover that I did for him something unique that I did for no one else. If the investigation yields a different result, then there is a problem.
(And according to your explanation of the verse: if we ask everyone and find among them a people claiming that they met God, Creator of the world, and remained alive, there is a problem).

Regarding the Indians—I’m checking whether I understood your words correctly:
According to you there are two possibilities: 1. The Indians did not experience any revelation at all, but rather this is a myth that was implanted and became a “historical” story (and this is what is meant by saying they met their imaginations—because there was no actual revelation).
2. The Indians really did experience a revelation, but of one of the angels and the like, which one can survive. (In that case this is not mere imagination but a reality; perhaps what they imagined was that this was the Creator of the world, though it was only one of the angels).

[I too think there is no contradiction here with Judaism. I was even told that in the book Sha’arei Orah it is brought that there may be revelations of the “ministering powers” to the nations of the world.]

An explanation of how there can be an advantage in the revelation story itself:
In my humble opinion, aside from the side parameters, there really are advantages in the Sinai revelation story that other cultures do not have (based on conversations I had with someone who studied revelation stories of close to 2,000 cultures):
1. Number of people — millions in Israel, versus thousands at most, even by the highest estimates, among the Indians.
(Even though thousands is also a large number, still the gap is enormous, and one can say that quantity becomes quality in terms of the ability to forge, etc.)
2. Who was revealed — with Israel it is a transcendent, bodiless divinity, while in other cultures it is always some bodily entity that appears. Even the Indians who claim that the Creator of the world revealed Himself to them attribute to Him tangible bodily properties and include Him in life within the world—He has children, lives in a hut, and so on. (A. If it is a bodily entity then perhaps it was only a sorcerer who caused some illusion and performed miracles, and then it has no advantage over Jesus and Muhammad.
B. As you wrote in the fifth booklet—the revelation of a separate spiritual divinity does not fit the character of the period, and this too reduces the likelihood of forgery and implantation. I heard from one of my rabbis that he went so far as to say that in the era of ancient culture, a revelation of the separate transcendent God is the sort of story that cannot be invented, because it simply did not exist in the conceptual world at that time; therefore whoever tells it is certainly speaking truth.)
3. When He was revealed — Israel speaks of a revelation within historical times, as opposed to many revelation stories (though not all) that speak about the time immediately after creation—that is, myths like Greek mythology, which therefore have no real historical basis.

It may be that you do not think these differences constitute an advantage (and I’d also be glad to know why), but in this way I explained why I asked whether you think the advantage of Mount Sinai is only because of the external factors and not because of the content of the story itself.

Thank you very much!
——————————
Rabbi:

I understood your words very well, and I’m unable to understand what is unclear in mine. You are simply mistaken.
I am repeating myself yet again and explaining: the Holy One, blessed be He, reveals Himself to us and says that never has He Himself (!) revealed Himself to another people who then remained alive. This is not an argument meant to prove anything, but a simple factual claim. The fact that others tell old wives’ tales about revelations they had does not contradict this in any way. Think of a situation where I speak to you and say that I have never met anyone else without slapping him. Now another person comes and says that someone else revealed himself to him, or even claims that I revealed myself to him and he did not get slapped. Is there any contradiction here? Not at all. I did not claim that no one else would come and say he experienced a revelation; I claimed that there was no revelation. After all, I told you that I do not reveal myself without a slap, so that person is lying or imagining things.
Note well: the verse is not coming to prove anything. It assumes that the Lord is God and there is none beside Him, and it expresses love toward us. If I had doubt and needed proof, then the other testimonies would indeed carry weight. But the verse does not say that there will not be others who say they experienced revelation; it says there was no revelation.
[As an aside, the verse also does not say there will never be such a revelation, only that there had not been up to that point. So later testimonies do not say much.]

Regarding the Indians, yes—that is what I wrote.

An explanation of how there can be an advantage in the revelation story itself:
I’m willing to grant some advantage to our story, and still, without the side supports it is far from decisive. None of the three arguments you raised is really very strong.
1. Number of people — I do not see a significant difference between thousands and millions. Beyond that, the story undergoes editing, and it is not certain that what reached us is indeed what happened. Maybe the revelation was small or did not happen, and the story that reached us speaks of millions. There is no difference between creating a lie about thousands and creating a lie about millions. Paper/the mouth can tolerate anything.

2. Who was revealed — A. Why can’t a revelation without a figure be manipulation by a sorcerer? Can’t he hide and make sounds? B. Agreed, but it is really not decisive. “Cannot be invented” is wild exaggeration. People can invent many miracles and wonders, as we see to this day.

3. When He was revealed — there are late revelations, as you yourself mentioned, even in our time.

——————————
Questioner:

A good and blessed week!
I greatly appreciate your quick and detailed answers!! Thank you very much!
* As I wrote in one of the earlier emails—from the verse it seems that no one will even come and falsely claim that he experienced such a revelation (“or has anything like it ever been heard,” which is written in addition to “has anything as great as this ever happened”).
Why don’t you accept this inference from the verse? How do you explain the plain difference between “has anything as great as this ever happened” and “or has anything like it ever been heard”?
(And as I emphasized—not because the purpose of the verse is to prove this, but still, it is included in what it says!).
* And while we’re discussing the explanation of verses, how do you explain God’s words to Moses that by virtue of the revelation at Mount Sinai, “and also in you they will believe forever” — implying that the revelation at Mount Sinai really does constitute an eternal foundation for faith in the Torah even without reinforcement from history.
* It seems to me that the claim of sorcery and the like is stronger when the speaking agent is physical—the voice heard is physical (the sorcerer is the one speaking or producing the sound through the image he created by sorcery), and the various miracles are also by sorcery. That is, since this is apprehended through bodily senses, the possibility of forgery by sorcery is greater.
By contrast, Israel does not claim it heard a physical voice, but that it was prophecy—that is, a certain inner apprehension. From the outset the claim is essentially different.
And within that I really ask: what is your answer to the claim that the event indeed happened, but perhaps Moses was a sorcerer who created that voice / this was a mystical experience but not a divine revelation / these were just imaginations?
Other than the external proofs about the unique history of the people of Israel, etc., do you have any additional answer to claims of this kind?
* According to your view that the credibility of the Sinai revelation is only because of external reinforcements from history, etc., it follows that in the exile it was much harder to believe in Judaism—most prophecies had not yet been fulfilled, perhaps the survival of Israel in terrible degradation was only because it killed the Christian “messiah.”
So many factors were missing compared to today—how were Jews expected to believe, if the revelation at Mount Sinai in itself is not enough?
* What do you think of the following claim that I heard:
Since every natural event recurs in history in similar ways, if the revelation at Mount Sinai is just another myth that was implanted (deliberately or unintentionally), why is there nothing similar to it in the revelation stories? That is, why is there no other revelation story (even a false one!) telling of the separate transcendent divinity speaking before millions of people (or even something close to those numbers). If this is intentional falsehood, then what one would expect is that other religions too would tell that very lie—for it gives their religion far more reliable validity (this is especially conspicuous in Christianity and Islam, which claim to replace Judaism but whose claim is much weaker—a revelation to one person that comes to replace a revelation to millions, which they themselves admit occurred). And if this is a myth that became embedded naturally, why does it have no parallel, like every natural event has similar cases?
Thank you very much!!

——————————
Rabbi:
No one claims that he met our God before a multitude (rather, other gods or angels). And even if he does claim it, he is a liar. And I already added that the verse speaks about the past and not the future.
What is the problem regarding belief in Moses? Indeed, by virtue of the revelation they believe in him, because they believe the revelation. Where does it say that this is without reinforcements?
Prophecies are the easiest thing to fake. I have no answer to the claim that Moses was a faker, just as I have no answer to the claim that maybe you are a demon and not a human being. One cannot answer skeptical claims. Either it seems plausible to you or it doesn’t. And in any event, I personally am not inclined to believe in the existence of sorcerers. And besides, what is wrong with adding external supports?
I do not know the mindset of years gone by, and the fact is that this sufficed for them. For me it does not suffice. But there were reinforcements then too: miracles, prophets, the contribution to humanity, the Hebrew Bible, etc. A substantial part of the external supports already existed then.
* What do you think of the following claim that I heard:
A rather weak claim. You tell me why there isn’t such a claim. After all, there are all sorts of Arabian Nights-type stories. So why doesn’t it recur? At most it only proves that people don’t just repeat myths automatically.
—————————–
Questioner:
Greetings!
There are myths about revelations earlier than Israel’s revelation at Sinai. And in some of them they claim they met the God who created the world.
According to you they are lying—fine, I accept that premise. But I still haven’t understood your response to the specific problem I pointed out:
That from the verse it appears that not even such a lie will be found—“or has anything like it ever been heard.” I would be very glad to know your response to this specific difficulty.
Regarding Moses—from the Torah’s words it appears that what causes “and also in you they will believe forever” is “when the people hear Me speaking with you,” and nothing in addition to that. It is hard to say that this is built also on other reinforcements from factors external to the revelation. Whoever claims so, in my humble opinion, is the one who needs to bring proof.
In general, of course I see no problem at all with adding external supports. It is obvious that when I try to convince someone of the truth of Judaism I will also use these good proofs. But still I am “insisting” in my discussion with you for several reasons:
A. The more stable each part of the proof is, the more it adds to the overall proof—so too in strengthening the uniqueness and credibility of the Sinai revelation story itself as much as possible.
B. As I already wrote, in my humble opinion there is a difficulty from the perspective of the verses if the story of Mount Sinai in itself is on the same level as all the other stories (“or has anything like it ever been heard” + “and also in you they will believe forever” as above).
C. I see importance in explaining the words of Maimonides, who certainly does hold this way regarding the strong force of revelation. (Especially since the lesson I am currently teaching deals with learning Maimonides’ Epistle to Yemen.)
Thank you very much!
————————–
Rabbi:
It seems to me we have pretty much exhausted this. I’ll try to address the points you raised, but I suggest we end here.
There are masses of stories that were written and not written. A tradition is not the same as a myth. A tradition is a myth (in a certain sense) that is passed from generation to generation and reaches us. How many such things do you know that began before Sinai and reached us? Or reached even the tenth century? The fact that there is some story somewhere does not say anything.
I answered “or has anything like it ever been heard.” It has not been heard that a people tell of a meeting with God (= the Holy One, blessed be He) that they survived. I also don’t really understand why this matters so much to you. Do you think the verse does not stand the test of reality? Then one of two things is true: either the author thought so and was mistaken (even the Holy One Himself can be mistaken when He speaks about human choices that depend only on us), or this verse is a later and incorrect addition.
Regarding Moses, we’ve exhausted it.
As for Maimonides, I think I already wrote that I have no interest in showing that he was always right, if only because he wasn’t.
—————————-
Questioner:
Greetings!
I agree that the discussion has run its course. I apologize if in some of the questions you felt it was getting dragged out too much, especially around our different approaches to explaining the verses. (I deliberated a lot how much to come back and ask a question when I felt that from my perspective I hadn’t received an answer to a certain part of it, or whether to let it go. I chose the side of “It is Torah, and I need to learn,” even if I felt a bit uncomfortable doing so. Still, I apologize.)
For my part, it was important to clarify your position as much as possible on all these points, precisely because of my great appreciation for your rational and innovative approach—I knew that your style of answers on this issue I probably wouldn’t get from anyone else.

I am truly, truly grateful to you for devoting the time in your detailed and enlightening answers. You clarified and sharpened many principles for me in this fundamental topic. Thank God, it also helped me greatly in building the lessons on the subject.
Good news,

———————————-

Rabbi:
Quite all right. Much success.