Here, Rabbi, look here. A religious professor admits it and brings proofs for it. You don’t need to watch the whole thing, only from 1:30 to 2:50.

Yoni
Is this link binding because of the professor or because he’s religious?
Or maybe only because both are present? And if so, is this just some simplistic cumulative reasoning, or is there some kind of combination of legal presumptions being fulfilled here?
(Not that I’m saying it isn’t true; I’m just wondering how Shinan’s “admission” is supposed to contribute to the discussion.)

I didn’t understand why you didn’t understand how Shinan’s remarks contribute to the discussion.
Are his words correct or not? Even though almost all of his examples are from before the giving of the Torah.

This is an old scholarly question. The consensus is that this is, at the very latest, an enactment of Ezra the Scribe’s Sanhedrin, and some say it is an even earlier (that is, original) interpretation.

In any case, the above views in scholarship are based on reasoning, not on any proof one way or the other. From the verses themselves one can quite easily understand that there is a decent likelihood that the Sages’ interpretation is the original intent here.

In any case, all of this scholarship is completely speculative. Clearly, if the plain meaning does not compel otherwise, then there is no difficulty in accepting the traditional view (which also fits the opinion of some scholars—not that this should matter).

Beyond that, even if the original intent was different—which, as stated, lacks sufficient evidence—that should not be too exciting, since the Sanhedrin has the authority to interpret the verses anew according to the needs of the generation and their understanding.

To Yishai.
It’s an accumulation of evidence, each piece weak on its own, but together it’s strong.
Also a professor, also religious, and also “a litigant’s admission is like a hundred witnesses.”
And if you want one last reinforcement: the missionaries think so too, and we are duty-bound to accept their words.

Why both “religious” and “a litigant’s admission”?
Aren’t they the same thing in this case?

No, those are two different things.
A litigant’s admission is one thing.
And “religious” is מצד the power of “it is in his hands,” or the credibility of a woman giving birth, and the like.

How exactly is he considered a litigant if not because he is religious? How are you separating things that are attached to each other? What does “it is in his hands” have to do with this, or the credibility of a woman giving birth, for the sake of accumulating evidence?
I’d be happy for some clarification.

I can understand why one would believe a professor as a starting point, but anyone can examine his arguments and check whether they are correct. His title doesn’t matter for that.
I didn’t understand what being religious has to do with it or where “it is in his hands” comes in.
It’s not clear whether a litigant’s admission works by force of credibility, but in any case here he is creating liability for others. (Not that I understand why one would apply halakhic rules of credibility to a factual discussion, but I went along with you.)
In short, if you think he raises good arguments, ask about the arguments, not about the person. By the way, this site belongs to a rabbi, PhD, and heretic—begging his honor’s pardon if he still reads this—and if he thinks the opposite, then we should discuss which is weightier: a religious professor or a rabbi, PhD, and heretic; but this is not the place.

Mushon
Where did I write anything about Shinan’s remarks? I don’t even know what they are (I don’t have the energy for YouTube, and the topic doesn’t interest me all that much; off the top of my head the claim sounds reasonable). I was only wondering about Yoni’s way of drawing conclusions and wanted to improve it.

I’d be happy if you taught me how one manages to believe in something that goes beyond one’s own conclusions in order to escape the status of heresy. I’ve always wondered what value there is in this label that people attach to others. Complete absurdity.

Mushon
Are you talking to me? Is there any connection between what I wrote and what you replied?
This is already the second time here that you’ve pinned things on me that have nothing to do with what I wrote.