So as a religious person, what are you basing yourself on?
As for your answer, it strengthens the idea that the Torah is not from Heaven.

Hello Israel.
If you’re looking for reinforcement, I’m not the address. There are people greater and wiser than me who said it is from Heaven, and people greater and wiser than me who said it isn’t. Personally, I don’t look for reinforcement from people, but rather try to clarify my own view on the matter. Why should I care what so-and-so thinks?
From my impression, the Torah (or at least its core) is from Heaven, and I explained this in detail in the fifth notebook here on the site; take it from there. There I also explained why I am committed to the Torah system. On the other hand, you asked here for proofs, and proofs in the strict logical sense, in my opinion, are impossible. I explained that there too.

If in your opinion logical proofs are impossible, then how, in your opinion and in the Torah’s view, do you explain that all the rabbis and all kinds of seminars present all sorts of different proofs? And the Rabbi is saying that basically this can’t be?

And what would you answer the heretic? I personally am in a neutral position, examining things in order to reach an informed decision.

It seems to me that you don’t understand what the Rabbi means when he says there are no proofs (maybe you’re new to the site). In the Rabbi’s view, there are no proofs for anything in the world, but one can still speak in terms of probability.
In his opinion, there is a reasonable chance that the Torah is from Heaven. He detailed the reasons for this in the notebook mentioned above that you were referred to.

Yes, completely new. Could I please get a link to that notebook? I couldn’t find it. Also, an explanation of what it means that there are no proofs for anything in the world—and how do you prove that?

https://mikyab.net/Writings/Notebooks on Matters of Faith/

– Notebooks 2-3 discuss philosophical arguments for the existence of a Creator.
– Notebook 5 deals with arguments in favor of revelation and the Torah.

Another question: did calculation of the moon precede the Sages?

It seems to me they copied the calculation from the Greeks or the Babylonians, so the argument about the amazing divine knowledge that came from God is mistaken.
Agree?

I don’t know about this specific issue, but already Rabbi Abraham son of Maimonides wrote that the Sages wrote according to the scientific knowledge of their time. So that is possible. For the same reason, even incorrect scientific information that appears in the Sages has no significance (in addition, there were cases where the Sages wrote according to what appears to the eye and not according to scientific reality, because Jewish law is determined by what appears to the eye and not by scientific facts, and this is not the place to elaborate). Therefore, this proof is indeed problematic (though perhaps there are places where scientific information was passed down by tradition from Sinai. But there’s no way to know).
In any case, I’m not sure this proof is needed at all (see the notebook, and there are other good sources on this).

Hello Rabbi (I still haven’t finished reading the 5 booklets.)
But one question that I really need an answer to, with sources: is there any extra-biblical document, from any of the neighboring peoples, that tells the story of the Exodus?

I don’t know. That should be clarified with historians or archaeologists.

Because this is mainly a question about factual claims and not philosophy, I’ll answer briefly, since I have quite a bit of knowledge (independent of faith) in Egyptian history.

I’ve gathered here a significant portion of the evidence I know for the story of the Exodus from Egypt (that I’m willing to defend, and that isn’t hand-waving / demagoguery / taking facts out of context).
I tried to note sources here and there. If you want more, feel free to ask.

Of course, if you’re interested only in the extra-biblical documents part, go straight to part three.

(Introduction—I assume the Exodus from Egypt on the basis of Professor Yoel Elitzur’s theory, namely in the time of Pharaoh Amenhotep III during the 18th dynasty.)

_______

First,
There is various circumstantial evidence for the story of the Exodus:
– The existence of a pro-Semitic Egyptian dynasty 200 years before the year of the Exodus (roughly) — see the Wikipedia entry on the Hyksos.
– The overthrow of that pro-Semitic dynasty and the establishment of a dynasty that tried to erase its memory — see the Wikipedia entry on Ahmose.
– Employment of Semitic slaves in Egypt in that same dynasty (Habiru/Apiru) — see the Wikipedia entry under those names.
– A sudden decline in Egypt’s power after that period, after the days of Amenhotep III (many of Egypt’s allies collapse).
– The succession of that king by a son who was not the firstborn (who died prematurely) — see the Wikipedia entry on Amenhotep III.
– A religious break in Egypt after that period — see the Wikipedia entry on Akhenaten.
– Testimony of the worship in Midian of a god with a name similar to the God of Israel (and one forbidden to represent with a statue) a bit after this period — this is brought by Professor Knohl and others.
– Complaints by the kings of Canaan about infiltration by various peoples conquering the land (the Apiru are also mentioned); Egypt does not send military backup to defend the kings of Canaan — see the Amarna letters on Wikipedia.
– The infiltration of many Egyptian words into Hebrew — much more could be said about this. See the book by the scholar Abraham Shalom Yehuda, which gathers dozens of examples (available online in English).
– Mutual influence of customs between the two peoples (circumcision, the form of the Tabernacle, the Song at the Sea, a kind of monotheism in Egypt, and more) — Joshua Berman wrote a lot about this in various articles.
– The fit of the story with the period’s realia — see a long list of examples in the book “The Exodus from Egypt: Reality or Imagination.”
– An explicit mention of the people of Israel as a people in conflict with Egypt 100 years after the Exodus, supposedly — see the Wikipedia entry on the Merneptah Stele.
– There is also a mention of Semitic slaves building the “Temple of Ramesses,” but the dating of this testimony does not fit the dating that I assume for the time when the Israelites left Egypt.

All of these fit the Torah’s story very well circumstantially. Some dispute this evidence (and its connection to the event), but from my familiarity with the material, although they are not unequivocal testimonies and they do have difficulties, they are certainly plausible.

_______

Second,
– The famous (philosophical) claim is well known that the Egyptians had no interest in documenting the event (and indeed there is quite a lot of evidence that there were events the Egyptians simply “hid,” and we know them by chance from the historian Manetho).
– Another claim in the same general area: a nation has no interest in inventing a myth about having been slaves (usually a myth glorifies the nation). In addition, the Hebrew Bible presents the people as childish (“Let us return to Egypt,” the Golden Calf, etc.) and even criticizes the leadership. That lowers the probability that this is a book meant to invent a myth. (In my opinion this point wasn’t mentioned in the notebook, and maybe it would be worth adding….)
– The dominant tradition of this story among the people strengthens its probability (and this is also a point that comes up in the fifth notebook). It’s important to understand: the Exodus from Egypt is not just some Jewish myth. It is the only foundational historical event that the entire people agrees on (Samaritans, Jews, and others), and therefore there is a fair probability that it constitutes historical testimony (like most foundational historical myths of other peoples). In addition, that event itself is the reason for a large portion of the commandments the people kept, and more than that, if you pay attention, in the Hebrew Bible there is no effort to convince the people that the event happened. If you read between the lines, you will see from the wording that it is simply obvious to everyone that it happened. It always says things in the style of: “The Lord helped us in Egypt! Why are you worshipping idols?” as if there is an implicit assumption that this is a historical event (and that’s simply how it is throughout the books of the Hebrew Bible, even in those that undoubtedly present precise historical events). It seems that in every rebuke scene or public gathering it is clear to the entire people that this event happened; there is no discussion about it at all. No need to persuade them of it. This is a point people don’t notice, and it greatly strengthens the credibility of the event. (Likewise, maybe worth adding as a point in the notebook.)

(For an expansion of this whole line of argument, see Notebook 5 in the book “A Skeptic in His Faith,” Unit 1.)

_______

Third, regarding the question itself about ‘extra-biblical’ documents for the story itself.
There are 4 “kinds of documents” that supposedly refer to the event. None of them (to my understanding) is beyond doubt. But the fact that there are several such things (+ what I brought above) may make them stronger:
1. The testimony of Manetho, the father of Egyptian history — Manetho was the historian who documented all of Egyptian history in the 1st century CE. He wrote on the basis of material that was available in his time in the libraries of Alexandria and is now lost to us. (In general, most of what we know today fits with his testimony, and the entire archaeological basis of the ancient Near East relies on his writings. He had some inaccuracies here and there, but he is definitely considered a reliable source.) He brings the story of the Exodus (but in a different and anti-Jewish version from ours): he tells of a foreign people from a slave class that settled in Egypt, later took it over, spread disease there, and was finally expelled through the desert, reached Canaan, and built a kingdom there called Judah. Various historians see this as testimony to a vague Egyptian historical memory of the story in question (mixed together with the Hyksos story). Search “Manetho” on Wikipedia.
2. The testimony of the Byzantine historian Procopius — this 6th-century figure also mentions the Exodus story (again in a different version). He testifies that he saw with his own eyes an inscription in Phoenicia mentioning the flight of a Canaanite tribe from the land because of “Joshua son of Nun the robber bandit.” As best as I remember, we have another historian too who claimed to have seen that inscription. The scholarly assessment is that the inscription is indeed authentic; there is dispute over whether it was really written at the time of the events or written later under their influence. In any case, I think this is an important testimony.
3. The testimony of the Greek historian Hecataeus of Abdera, from the 4th century BCE — he too brings the story in his history book about ancient Egypt, in many details (there are other Greek historians who wrote about it too). Same as point 2. Some say they were influenced by the Jewish myth. On the other hand, their versions contain accusations that the Jews spread disease and use “anti-Semitic” expressions (that’s what this is called in scholarship), so to say that they had an interest in glorifying Israel is far from the truth.
4. The two famous Egyptian papyri, Nefer-Rohu and Ipuwer. Truthfully, their story is a bit complicated. These papyri describe chaos, a slave revolt, and various natural disasters in Egypt (see the light-blue quotations in the first link, after typing the phrase “The Bible and Archaeology – Tradition versus Science” into Google. Ignore the rest of that article for now), and that is seemingly what we were looking for. But the complicated part is the dating. As far as we know, the inscriptions themselves were indeed put into writing in the period relevant to the Exodus from Egypt (+/-). The problem is that most historians date their source to a period 300 years before the biblical dating, mainly for linguistic reasons (and accordingly assume they are copies of earlier writings). On the other hand, there are indeed serious Egyptologists who dispute the dating of these inscriptions for various reasons, and do date them to the period when the Exodus from Egypt supposedly occurred—but these are, as far as I know, fewer scholars. Therefore, the definite attribution of these papyri to the story of the Exodus from Egypt is problematic, but still possible. What is certain is that the fact that there is evidence for a later dating of these papyri makes it harder to claim there are “zero testimonies” in Egypt. There are documents written in that very period, but the dating of their source is disputed (and of course the fact that this is a research element with religious overtones does not help the discussion….).

There are other points that some say strengthen the event archaeologically (Velikovsky, Rotenstreich, Etzion, and others), but they are disputed and that would require a much longer and broader discussion, and this is not the place. (See the article I referred to in point 4.)

_______

To sum up —
There is various evidence for the story (circumstantial, philosophical, and direct). The accumulation of so many indirect and direct testimonies makes the story very plausible, and therefore there are scholars who definitely accept it (even the most extreme opponents accept the fact that it contains a historical core!). But this matter, like everything in this kind of problematic “science,” is not beyond doubt and remains disputed.

I didn’t address the archaeological evidence (very abundant indeed!) for the later infiltration of a foreign people into Canaan. In my opinion, that evidence too greatly strengthens the probability of the Exodus story.

Thank you to the Rabbi, and to M for the responses. I would be glad to receive more sources.

Could you specify what exactly you’re looking for? A source for a specific claim? Books that deal with this? (It also all depends on what level of background you have.)

See a discussion with a few links on these topics here on the site:

https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%d7%99%d7%a6%d7%99%d7%90%d7%aa-%d7%9e%d7%a6%d7%a8%d7%99%d7%9d-%d7%91%d7%90%d7%a8%d7%9b%d7%99%d7%90%d7%95%d7%9c%d7%95%d7%92%d7%99%d7%94-2/

Hello to the Rabbi and to M. I started reading the discussion, and since I’m not sufficiently knowledgeable in the material, I asked people who know more than I do. And here I’m copying answers I started receiving in connection with Joshua Berman and Adam Zertal, and below are responses I received to some of the material in the discussion.

No, Israel. You are not doubting. All you’re doing is looking for material that will reinforce what you already believe.
You are not checking reliability; you’re only looking for confirmation of your belief.
##Take the Poem of Kadesh for example. I don’t know who Dr. Joshua Berman is, but I know he is a liar.
Ramesses II (who ruled 1279-1213 BCE), also known as Ramesses the Great, recorded his greatest achievement at the beginning of his reign: it was his victory over Egypt’s great enemy, the Hittite Empire, in the Battle of Kadesh##—that is what he writes, but the ones who won a strategic victory were the Hittites, and the Egyptians had to retreat and failed to recapture Kadesh, and also had to sign a forced peace treaty with the Hittites.
There are no drawings of Ramesses’ tent in the Poem of Kadesh, and nothing resembling the sketch in the article you brought—The Poem of Kadesh wasn’t distributed anywhere because only the king’s scribes knew how to read and write—the description of the battle is not similar and cannot be similar to the description of the confrontation of the Israelites with the Egyptians, for the simple reason that there was no battle there at all… No, my friend, it doesn’t seem to me that you’re doubting. You’re looking for confirmation of your belief. In psychology this is called confirmation bias.

The Zertal “altar.”
Here is a letter sent to the Haaretz editorial desk after Zertal’s “find” was published there.

Adam Zertal is doing exactly what Yadin did in his time: trying to force the archaeological finding in the field so that it fits [in his opinion] what is written in the Bible. It seems to him that the altar he uncovered is Joshua’s altar on Mount Ebal because it matches in its measurements what is said in the Mishnah, tractate Middot 3:1, and to add to the words of our in-house archaeologist Yoav, it seems that Zertal’s words are refuted by the very text on which he relies for the measurements.
Further on it says there: “And when the exiles returned they added to it [to the altar’s dimensions] four cubits from the south and four cubits from the north.” If so, then the altar in the First Temple was, according to the text, 28 by 28 cubits and not 32 cubits.
And so that the believer, who so badly wants Zertal to be right, does not fall into the same pit Zertal falls into, one must recall what is written in the Bible. In II Chronicles 4:1: “Moreover he made an altar of bronze, twenty cubits its length, and twenty cubits its breadth, and ten cubits its height.” — this no longer matches the dimensions Zertal found.
And the dimensions of the altar Moses was commanded to build are smaller still — Exodus 27:1: “And you shall make the altar of acacia wood, five cubits long and five cubits broad; the altar shall be square; and its height shall be three cubits” …

But there is a catch: it seems Zertal troubled himself for nothing, because according to the Talmud Joshua took the stones of the altar from Mount Ebal and built them at Gilgal. That is what is written in tractate Sotah 36a: “And they folded up the stones and came and lodged in Gilgal,” and on this Rashi writes on page 35b: “After they built from them the altar on Mount Ebal, they folded them up and brought them to Gilgal and set them there.” If so, Zertal should look for the stones of the altar of Mount Ebal in Gilgal, but in order to know what to look for one must tell him that he should be looking for only twelve stones, because that is what is written in Joshua 4:20: “And those twelve stones, which they took out of the Jordan, Joshua set up in Gilgal.”
And most important, if and when he finds the stones at Gilgal, in order to identify them with certainty as the stones of the altar of Mount Ebal, what is written about them in Joshua 8:32 must be fulfilled: “And there he wrote upon the stones a copy of the Torah of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel.”
It is also obvious that for the identification to be complete, Zertal would need to verify that these stones are whole, that no iron had been lifted upon them, as it says in Joshua 8:31: “Then Joshua built an altar to the Lord, God of Israel, on Mount Ebal, as Moses the servant of the Lord commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the Torah of Moses, an altar of whole stones over which no man had lifted up any iron”…
Therefore, when one finds some archaeological object in the field, it is most important not to force it to fit the discoverer’s faith.

Hello Israel,
You really shouldn’t be overly impressed by the confident tone of the person answering you. There are a lot of unfounded assumptions in what he says, and a lot of begging the question going on behind the scenes.

First, Professor Joshua Berman is a Bible scholar by profession, and Professor Zertal too was one of our greatest and most respected archaeologists. True, there were those who disagreed with this research of his (and many argue not dishonestly), but in his book “The Altar on Mount Ebal” he goes through his critics’ objections one by one and gives replies that I see as good ones (for the most part).

As for Berman, the works you saw are part of a book he is going to publish soon. True, one may dispute his conclusions, and the fact that he is a professor should not be exciting in itself. But using phrases like “he is a liar” without proving why, or “there was no battle at all,” which is not relevant to the discussion in the first place (because it is supposed to be a victory poem), shows that the person answering you (judging by the style, it’s Hofesh) is using belittling rhetoric and not substantive arguments. These are professionals; like anyone else, maybe they are mistaken (I think not), but their statements cannot be dismissed without substantive grounding by claims that say nothing. Evidence has to be discussed in an orderly, straightforward, and substantive way. It seems to me the respondent is not doing that. By the way, I too do not see Berman’s or Zertal’s arguments as decisive if each stood on its own; rather, it is the accumulation of the testimonies (indirect, philosophical, and evidentiary) that makes the whole event credible.

It’s important to understand that there really are archaeological disputes regarding the Bible. There are decent arguments by those who see it as a historical source, and others see those arguments as nonsense. Every time you raise some confirming claim, the opponent will simply send you the opinions of those who objected to it. And so it goes around and around. Since, as you said, you are not knowledgeable in the material, it will be hard for you to decide between the two scholars. You have two options: either decide a priori in favor of a specific view (someone you trust), or you need to learn the views of both sides and form your own position. True, that takes time, but if you want to clarify things, that’s the only way. And again, if you’re looking for proofs on which there is no disagreement, you won’t find them in any field of archaeology, all the more so on a topic connected to religion and politics.

Personally, I can tell you that I studied the topic (independently of faith), and I find that most of the arguments of those who affirm the story are a more *straightforward* interpretation of the findings. I may always be biased, but still, that is how I understand the interpretation.

See here and here for a demonstration of these principles:

http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/190230

סדרה של תוהו ובוהו | יואל בן–נון

By the way, as I wrote before, even scholars who in principle do not accept the Bible as a historical source see the Exodus story as a story with a core of truth (this is what the greatest of the opponents, Finkelstein, writes). The debate is only about the number of those who left (in their view, a small core of priests. And between us, you don’t need more than that, but this is not the place to elaborate).

In any case, I would suggest one of two things:
1. Read books on the subject. Start with “Until This Day” by Rabbi Bazak. It isn’t very comprehensive, but it will give you an initial background on the subject. If you’re in the central region, I can lend it to you (I have quite a few books on these topics).
2. Do as the Rabbi advised. Turn to a professional who understands this world (I know a few academics who could answer you on this. The Rabbi surely knows others as well). And speak with them.

One last thing: if you notice, I write in a tone of “maybe” and “I may be mistaken,” and that can be confusing. This does not stem from insecurity in what I write. On the contrary, I think these things are actually quite well grounded. The difference between me and the person answering you is that I am trying to be honest—with you and first of all with myself—because I may always be wrong. I have simply outgrown thinking that I am right about everything. That does not contradict the fact that I still stand behind what I say and am willing to defend it. I suggest you ask yourself whether the commenter whose words are full of “obviously…” is trying to be honest with himself and examine the arguments fairly, or just dismiss them because obviously they simply cannot be true.

Best regards.

https://www.hofesh.org.il/yodea_lishol/personal_stories/spinoza/spinoza.html
An interesting article with sources that I received. I’d be glad to hear solid counterarguments.

Israel, if you want to discuss it, raise one question at a time and we’ll discuss it. Forgive me, but I don’t have time to do research projects and read articles for every questioner.

Hello Rabbi. Continuing my previous questions, I want to change the angle somewhat, since I am in the process of moving from materialist thinking to idealist thinking, and trying to refine it in all its dimensions. Although I still have doubts about revelation, certainly regarding certain parts of the Torah, I am trying to feel my way from every angle. I found an article that talks about the various religions, connected to idealism at least in some respects, and is very critical of them. I really connected to what was written. I would be interested to know the Rabbi’s opinion on the subject.
I will quote the main points.

Here goes…
The dialectical process: when one adopts the position that philosophy is correct in its own time, an antithesis arises saying that if philosophy expresses only its own time, something is missing. The antithesis negates the thesis, a negation of the thesis; it is not parallel to it. When there is a clash between thesis and antithesis, a synthesis is formed; this expresses an ascent to something higher through the combination of two things. This is the dialectical process, a thing and its negation creating a higher truth. This is the process that occurred up until Hegel, but it is a teleological process, since each thesis is higher than the previous one and contains additional elements. Therefore, in the end one arrives at what Hegel called the absolute truth, the non-relative truth that arises from its time but encompasses everything. His philosophy, in his view, is the absolute truth because it contains within itself the entire history of philosophy. It does not generate an antithesis because it contains everything.
Hegel’s philosophy of religion: the history of religion parallels the history of philosophy, but religion is the popular and formative version of philosophy (which concerns only the educated). The spirit of the age (Zeitgeist), which philosophy expresses, is expressed among the masses in the form of religion. Religion is the reflection of the spirit of the world. The history of the world is the history of the changing spirit of the world. The world-spirit understands itself—this is the meaning of arriving at absolute truth.
How does religion develop? Greek and pagan religion was a religion that expressed the sensory world-spirit of the people of that era, in which the aesthetic and the sensory were at the center of the spirit of the age. That religion failed to contain the more spiritual sides of human existence. As an antithesis, Jewish monotheism grew up (a complete reversal), ignoring desires, emotion, and aesthetics, and placing an abstract religion of laws. Inscribed morality—a dialectical reversal of Greek paganism. The new world-spirit, as expressed in the Jewish religion, fails to explain the physical existence of man in the world, and therefore one advances to the Christian religion, which is the religion of love, in which both desires and laws are embodied. The Protestant stream is, in Hegel’s eyes, the absolute truth.

I mean methodological materialism.

Hello Israel.
Hegel’s slogans do not impress me at all. And his megalomaniacal attitude toward himself as God who contains all philosophy is obviously foolish. It reminds me of the inquiry of our cousins from Mercaz, whether Rabbi Kook is totality itself or only one of the streams included within it.
What do you want me to say about this collection of empty slogans? There is here a sociological-metaphysical speculation about what each religion expresses and the spirit of the age. That’s a matter for sociologists and/or metaphysicians. I ask whether the claim X that someone makes is true, not what religion it belongs to and what it expresses of the spirit of the age. If there is some argument/claim you want to examine, then please write that, and not what it expresses and whether it is relative or absolute, general or partial. All of these questions are completely uninteresting to me.

Okay, it seems I touched a problematic point because I detect something of an aggressive tone. In any case, I’m not really knowledgeable in the material; I only saw this anecdote and the general idea, and I liked it.
I personally take it in the direction of combination. Therefore in a certain sense I connect more to things in religion that seem more essential, at least in my eyes, like equivalence of form, repairing the world, and the like. And not Jewish laws like selecting on the Sabbath, or whether to cut toilet paper on the Sabbath or not.

(I come from a Haredi home, and there usually it’s more blatant. I was once staying with a Haredi family, and there was a discussion whether it is permitted to spin a spinner on the Sabbath (a meaningless toy), and I could barely stop myself from laughing out loud.)

And therefore Christianity, or some combination of these things, seems to me in certain respects more essentially correct in these senses. I’m saying all this so you’ll understand my angle of view.

Israel, do you want the kindergarten teacher’s approval for your path?
I’ll try, God willing, to get you signed approval from Michi to convert to Christianity,
on condition that you give him a free diagnosis.

If you don’t have more intelligent ways to respond, then don’t respond! Don’t make me look cheap!!

Hello Israel, no sore point. It wasn’t anger but impatience (and apologies for that). I simply don’t like unreasoned slogans, especially when they are presented as philosophy (as Hegel does).
I’ll give you an analogy by way of example. Suppose I claim that capitalism is the correct socio-economic path. Now someone comes and tells me that I am expressing the spirit of the age—in other words, he rejects my words not by argument but by means of a slogan. Then he adds that actually this is only a partial truth, whereas his own claims (which he doesn’t detail at all) are the absolute and complete truth.
I have no problem with someone saying that, but why should I relate to it? There was no actual claim here. Why should I respond to that?
And in the analogy: suppose the Jew claims that the Holy One, blessed be He, revealed Himself at Sinai and commanded us, and we are obligated to obey Him. Now someone comes and says that his claims are a primitive and popular expression of the spirit of that time (while he himself constitutes a generalization of all the claims in the universe put together—the full and absolute truth). To that I ask: what do you expect me to say about it? Basically he is saying that I am talking nonsense (my words are not true, but a technical expression of some spirit, God knows what), without giving reasons. No wonder I have nothing to say about that. When he raises an argument and explains why I am wrong (and only afterward associates it with the spirit of the age), I can relate to his words.
I hope now I was clearer (and more patient). 🙂

Clarification: the move I’m trying to make is to critique and question the Jewish religion before they bring me reasonable evidence that the Torah is from Heaven. So that the claim won’t come that once the Torah is from Heaven, there are no more questions.
Here are the questions..

1. How do practical commandments such as selecting, cutting toilet paper on the Sabbath (if doing it differently is allowed, how does that change things essentially?), meat and milk—for example, if you eat meat you wait 6 hours, but if you eat dairy you don’t wait at all. Fine, if the Torah had said wait 6 hours in every case, that would be more reasonable. How does all this connect with equivalence of form, repairing the world, and all those things that are supposedly at the heights of the world? This puzzle doesn’t fit together. And all this is just the tip of the iceberg..

2. Why does it seem that the biblical God has needs, such as revelation, that we should worship Him, “Ascribe strength to God,” and the like; and anthropomorphism, and even worse than that, childish and egotistical characteristics such as wrath, anger, jealousy, “and the anger of the Lord burned.” At least that’s how it seems?

Please don’t stone me to death)

That the Torah is from Heaven*

Israel, could you try working a bit on the wording? This whole thing is very confused. You’re mixing different questions together, and not formulating them clearly. I ask that you work a bit on the wording (if only out of consideration for me. I try to answer everyone, but it’s a shame for me to spend time just figuring out what people want from me).
1. You ask: how do practical commandments…? How do what?
From the rest of your words I assume you mean to ask how they repair the world. But within that you suddenly ask why the waiting period between meat and milk isn’t symmetrical. What does that have to do with your general question? Would symmetry repair the world and asymmetry interfere with the repair?
As for your question (if I understood it), I don’t know what repair of the world there is in the Torah. You apparently assume it is moral repair, but I don’t think it is moral repair (see Column 15). Once we know exactly what is being repaired, we can think about how meat and milk repairs or damages it.
You write that the question is without assuming the Torah is from Heaven. But without that I have no answers. Without the Torah being from Heaven, I see no value in most of the commandments. Faith that the Torah is from Heaven is what gives me confidence that they have meaning and that they repair something.
And regarding the asymmetry—what’s the problem? The Torah doesn’t want us to have meat together with milk in our stomach. And since milk is digested more quickly than meat, there is asymmetry.
2. Anger and wrath seem to you childish characteristics, but I assume these are modes of description aimed at us. They are not His characteristics, but forms in which He appears to us in order to educate us and be understandable to us.
Regarding the needs implied by “Ascribe strength to God,” this is not childishness (again, you’re not working on wording and organization), but rather a principle that seems puzzling to you. But apparently He created us because He really does need us (that we give Him strength). Revelation too contains nothing childish. I assume here too you mean to ask why it is needed. But this I really don’t understand: obviously it is needed so that we know what to do and that we should believe in Him.

Just a note regarding the side issue of the asymmetry in waiting between meat and milk: it’s not because “the Torah doesn’t want us to have meat together with milk in our stomach. And since milk is digested more quickly than meat, there is asymmetry.” The Torah doesn’t care what’s in the stomach. The waiting period is an instruction of the Sages so that there won’t be a mixture of meat and milk in the mouth and throat: meat also gets stuck between the teeth, and sometimes when there are digestive difficulties it comes back up from the stomach toward the throat. That is not the case with soft dairy foods that are easy to digest, where there is much less concern that they will get stuck between the teeth or come back up in reflux.

I apologize for the wording; I had autocorrect on the keyboard.

1. How do practical commandments bring about repairing the world,

2. A derivative of question no. 1: on basic commandments there are thousands of interpretations, and at the end of the “evolution of the interpretations” you simply don’t see or find a connection. It just seems like twisting the text, apparently. (The asymmetry in meat and milk that I mentioned was simply to intensify the question.)

3. Regarding childish characteristics—I accept the explanation, but why is there violence in the Hebrew Bible toward women, children, and so on?

4. I understand there are many definitions of God, like that He is perfect, the greatest thing that can be conceived, etc.
I was taught that God is a complete thing, so if He needs us there is a certain paradox here?
(I don’t think He can be defined.)

5. Why do we need practical commandments in the twenty-first century?

(I hope I’m clearer)

And all I have left to say is the closing line: It would have been better for a person not to have been created. Now I understand that more than ever.

Rather*

My dear Israel, it seems you already have answers,
you’re only looking to define the questions,
and that’s okay.
1,2,5. I think they already answered you that we don’t really understand, or need to understand, how, once we agree on the existence of a Commander and our obligation toward Him.
3. Are you stating a fact or asking a question?
4. I think the question is what and how we define a need.
But that matters less as long as it’s agreed that there is a commandment (see answer 1).
The closing saying doesn’t add or subtract anything unless its purpose is to create the ambiguity of “every postmodern man does what is right in his own eyes.”

P.S. You need a comma between the word “how” and “once.”

M., indeed. My intention was only to give an example of an explanation for the asymmetry that is unrelated to the question of whether or not there is repairing the world. There could be an explanation even if this were a Torah law.

Israel,
Sorry that I’m putting you off again. Please focus on one question at a time. We are bouncing back and forth among questions and it will never end. For example, you write:
Regarding childishness I accept the explanation, but why is there violence in the Hebrew Bible toward women and children?
What does the Sabbatical year have to do with Mount Sinai? What is the “but” here? You moved to another question without noticing.
Beyond that, where is there violence in the Hebrew Bible toward women and children? I can’t discuss things like this. You’ll have to invest more in wording, defining, and separating the questions, and explaining your assumptions and the facts you bring. Each one on its own and in a clear way.

Israel,
Regarding your questions here, I answered some of them and you’re asking again. For example, about repairing the world. And from that there is no connection to the 21st century. The commandments are needed today just as they were needed then. What changed?

Okay, one question at a time,
(I will also accept practical commandments written in the Torah even without understanding, because there is evidence that the Torah is from Heaven—assuming I accept the evidence, if there is any.. (but = reservation) regarding the various strange interpretations I wrote about in question no. 2, I would be glad to get a satisfying answer?)

There is a difference between a commandment and personal interpretation. This is supposedly “Torah that the rabbis invented,” and on that I did not get an answer.

And another question piling up here on the discussion table. About religions, and the Jewish religion in particular: what is the meaning of choice (assuming there is such a thing) when you are motivated by fear of the biblical God?

Hello Rabbi,

If I may, I have to note that from your most recent answers there rises a scent of patience, goodwill, and a conciliatory tone, which usually characterizes your answers less (especially to laymen). How pleasant and satisfying that is…
More power to you, and all that remains for me is to wish that you continue this way. (On a personal note I’ll just say that for me the somewhat alienated tone was a bit disturbing.)
With great appreciation.

Hello A., I understand from your words to the Rabbi that you are calling me a layman. There’s a bit of hidden ad hominem here. I’m not pretending to say that I’m knowledgeable in the material. And from my perspective at least some of the questions are valid.

Hello Rabbi. From a quick look through the forum, it seems that you clearly relate to question no. 2 at least in certain respects—or at least that’s how it seems from a quick look. (As I already said, I come from a Haredi background.) All kinds of “prohibitions and Jewish laws” that I grew up on, which were treated as if they were “Torah-level prohibitions”—and I’ll mention examples here: a prohibition against holding smartphones, legumes, and the like. It’s like some kind of evolution: they take a practical commandment and derive other things from it,
then from those they make things harder for those who come after. And the things do not always line up with common sense. And from here comes the wondering about the Jewish religion—at least the one I know..

Apologies in advance for
missing words here and there (I don’t see an option here to edit afterward). I’m writing fast from the phone.

Srul, it really seems you didn’t know Michi well enough.
He is the last person who would defend the Judaism you know.
At long last you’ve started reading; keep it up.
I believe you’ll draw out pearls and answers to the rest of your questions.
And to A’—
In my eyes, Michi is a model and symbol of substance and patience.
There’s no problem with being an idiot as long as you use reading comprehension; the Rabbi writes the same things
and discusses the same claims dozens of times,
and always some over-smart person will jump up who will “discover Mount Sinai for us”
without making the minimal effort of going over the posts Michi writes morning and night,
and without checking whether maybe someone already asked the question.

Hello Y.
You have still presented two different questions here in parallel (the interpretive evolution and choice). Also, you split them into several messages, which makes things very cumbersome and difficult.
Since I’ve already put you off several times, I’ll answer your questions now. But please, going forward, focus on one question and move to the next only after we’ve finished the discussion on that one. In addition, think about the wording of the question in advance and write it clearly and all at once. It’s already very hard for me with the flood of questions coming at me from all directions, so please try to make it easier on me in your wording.

The Torah was given in a fairly cryptic form, and therefore a reasonable assumption is that the Giver of the Torah gave it to us on the understanding that we would interpret it according to our understanding. If He did not want our interpretations, He should have interpreted it Himself. Moreover, He Himself writes, “If a matter is too difficult for you… do not turn aside from all that they instruct you,” meaning He commands us to listen to the interpretation of the Sages. Therefore, even if the interpretations of the Sages did not hit the original intention, the Giver of the Torah still told us to act in accordance with what they instruct us.

Of course, this does not mean that every baseless invention is a binding prohibition. There are things that have no root in Jewish law (not only no root in the Torah), especially if they are invented by parties who have no authority to enact new laws (only the Sanhedrin or the Talmud, whose status is like that of the Sanhedrin, have such authority, or the local rabbinic authority in his place). Examples like a smartphone prohibition or legumes are baseless inventions with no halakhic foundation whatsoever. So we are not dealing here with halakhic interpretation by an authorized body that obligates me even if it is mistaken. If my neighbors suddenly decide that it is forbidden to stand on one foot, I won’t tell you there is an obligation to obey them because of “do not turn aside.” I am speaking about interpretation by the Sages of the Talmud or Sanhedrins throughout the generations. There is a certain weight to the words of medieval authorities and later authorities, but even that is not absolutely binding. But inventions that arise in all kinds of strange ways certainly have no binding force.

Choice does not mean that there are no rewards and consequences for each of the paths before us. On the contrary, the fact that there is a good path and a bad path is what gives meaning to our choice. Without that it would be a lottery and not a choice. The meaning of choice is not that we decide what is good and what is bad, but that we can decide whether to do the good or the bad. I detailed this in Column 72 (the discussion begins in Column 71).

In addition to the notebooks—which admittedly it’s hard to demand from the ADD sufferers of our generation (not to mention books)—
I personally, from an hour of browsing the site, had already learned answers to most of the questions that were asked over time.

To A’, I forgot to respond.
Moishdd answered you well. The flood of questions is very difficult for me, especially from people who don’t take my workload into account and don’t formulate their questions clearly, and don’t read things I’ve already written sharply, clearly, and in detail (as opposed to someone who asks or comments on what I wrote, which is excellent of course).
It turns out that I repeat the same subjects again and again (by the way, because of that sometimes I’m sure we’ve already discussed something, when in fact it’s a different thread being conducted in parallel). So I lose patience a bit sometimes. I hope to improve in that regard, and thank you for your encouragement. It definitely helps.

Thank you very much, Rabbi, for the response. I will try to formulate things with less clumsiness and in a clearer way, as much as my style allows me.