The point is that even the overall whole does not necessarily speak about all the commandments and laws of the Torah. After all, the proof from the fact that there is inexplicable antisemitism in the world is proof that we are the chosen people, which again leads to the fact that there was a giving of the Torah, but it does not compel anything beyond the giving of the Ten Commandments. And likewise the other notebooks that supposedly lead to the conclusion that God wants and demands something from us do not compel anything beyond that. And you too keep emphasizing on a number of occasions that the main thing is to prove that there was something there and nothing more is needed. But it may be that this “something” was so minimal that it is not supposed to change our way of life at all, and not meant to generate empty discussions on irrelevant topics.

If there really was a Sinai revelation and a Torah was given to us, then the question of what exactly is included in it is secondary. Logically, as long as you have not clarified that something is mistaken, the presumption is that it is part of what was given. One can understand the claim that the entire event is fabricated, and then the burden of proof is on whoever claims there was such an event and that this or that commandment was indeed given there. But someone who accepts that there was such an event—why would he claim that some commandment was not given there? In that case, the burden of proof that some commandment was not given there is on him.
Clearly there are many additions and interpretations in Jewish law, and presumably the matters were given with that in mind. But even if not, I do not base the obligation on authenticity, meaning on whether the thing was given at Sinai. The Torah itself says that the role of the sages is to interpret and enact ordinances, etc., and that this is binding.
Beyond that, the Torah that has sustained us throughout history is the Torah we observe, not the Torah we received at Sinai. If what happened there had been something so minimal that it was not supposed to affect our lives, then it presumably also would not have affected our lives and appeared in history in this way.

Hi

I’m asking not in order to provoke or argue (in any case, neither you nor I have changed our minds on the matter).

Don’t you think that a central component of the witness argument, the thing that gives it its force, is that the Torah is one unified whole? As I understand it, if we reject the principle of the whole, the very plausibility of the Sinai revelation is weakened. In other words: isn’t your statement above (that the question of what exactly is included in the Torah is secondary) effectively a rejection of the witness argument?

See my answer here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%A9%D7%A7%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%93%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%95%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A3-%D7%9C%D7%9E%D7%A0%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9F-%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A8-191/#comment-19291

Doron asked (there):
Okay, but if the reliability of the details is not important and all that can be said is that there was a revelation on the mountain (and that “something” was conveyed there), then this does nothing to defend the exclusivity of Judaism. Other religions will embrace—and in fact have embraced—this minimum requirement enthusiastically, while drawing from it the conclusions that suit them.

And this was my response:
Who said that the witness argument proves that the other religions are not true? That has to be discussed with other tools (even if one indeed assumes that they are not true).

Because if they are true at least as much as Judaism—and according to them, even more so—then they should be accepted in place of Judaism, that is, in place of the Torah of Israel.

Doron,
You’re pushing at an open door. See here in the discussion about Ethiopian Jewish law:
https://mikyab.net/%d7%9e%d7%91%d7%98-%d7%a2%d7%9c-%d7%9e%d7%a2%d7%9e%d7%93%d7%9d-%d7%94%d7%94%d7%9c%d7%9b%d7%aa%d7%99-%d7%a9%d7%9c-%d7%a2%d7%95%d7%9c%d7%99-%d7%90%d7%aa%d7%99%d7%95%d7%a4%d7%99%d7%94-%d7%98%d7%95%d7%a8/#comment-17950

The Rabbi also has another new discussion about Islam from which it comes out that he does not see it as a possibility at all (I couldn’t find it at the moment). Same for Christianity, which has no Jewish law at all.

Hi

I read that post in the past, looked through it again now, and in addition read Notebook 5 carefully. And still I have found no cure for my pain.
Could you summarize the argument in a sentence or two?

Basically, my question was about the necessity of the principle that the Torah was revealed as a complete corpus. Seemingly, the force of the witness argument is precisely that (and not, say, the claim that what was revealed was only the Ten Commandments, as the questioner asked). If, as Michi says, the content of the revelation is not all that important, then there is no need to stick specifically to the “Torah” and to traditional Judaism.

Hi Doron. Let’s say you said only a few words to your wife: “Behold, you are consecrated to me,” etc. Would that not be sufficient reason for you that she should not go around looking for strangers? And in the analogue: since the covenant was made with the people of Israel, why does it matter how many sentences “the One who sanctifies Israel” said to them? They exist. He exists. We have no testimony that He divorced us (“Where is your mother’s bill of divorce?!” Isaiah 50), so why assume that He is grazing in foreign fields, and what would permit us to replace Him with another relationship?

Hi Gil,
You brought a nice analogy, but in my opinion it is not precise.
The more fitting analogy is this: I met a woman I know, and it turns out that she also knows me. She tells me that we committed ourselves to one another, but she is extremely stingy with evidence about the occasion on which that commitment was created, and I myself do not really remember what happened there. Since I am a serious person (let’s say…), I want to commit with all my heart to my true wife, except that at the moment I am not sure that this is really her (I even suspect that it may be her sister). Therefore I “interrogate” this woman to try to see whether what she says makes sense and is grounded in reality.

The analogue: I understood that from the standpoint of Jewish tradition (at least one central voice within it), the wholeness of the Torah (= the Five Books) is a central criterion for defending the authenticity of the Torah (or the authenticity of the tradition). More than that: in my opinion this is a logical demand that follows from the model of Torah from Heaven. Now I understand that there is a different claim.

In any case, I’m sure that none of the readers of this site has any real interest in clinging to a “woman” he believes is not authentic.

I did not understand the Rabbi’s words at all; they sound completely puzzling to me, and I would be glad for an explanation.
In the second answer you wrote that even if the Torah was not given with the later halakhic additions developed by the Sages in mind, that does not matter because it is mentioned in the Torah that they have the authority to do so.
But I do not understand: if that is the plain meaning of the text, then certainly the Torah was given with that in mind. And if it is not the plain meaning of the text, then what reason would there be to assume that the Torah was given with that in mind? (If not for the tradition—about which this very question is being asked.) In my humble opinion, it seems obvious that in that case there is no reason to observe the words of the Sages, perhaps only as a custom on the national level and the like. But more than that, it is not clear that one can claim this is the plain meaning of the text. As is well known, the Karaites (and Christians) hold that the section beginning “If a matter is too difficult for you” speaks about monetary law, and even if not, to derive from there fences and enactments already sounds perhaps more far-fetched.

A quote from your answer:
“Clearly there are many additions and interpretations in Jewish law, and presumably the matters were given with that in mind. But even if not, I do not base the obligation on authenticity, meaning on whether the thing was given at Sinai. The Torah itself says that the role of the sages is to interpret and enact ordinances, etc., and that this is binding.”

I did not understand the question. What I wrote was that if something was given from Sinai, it is binding; and if not, it is still binding because the Torah was given with that in mind. And even if the Sages innovate something mistaken, something for which the Torah was not given with the intention that this is how we would interpret it, the Torah still gave them the authority to innovate and obligated us to obey. What is unclear here? Fences and enactments are something else. Here I was talking about interpretation and exposition of the Torah’s own laws.
To interpret “you shall not turn aside” as speaking about monetary law is nonsense contradicted by the verses themselves (“between lesion and lesion” and “between blood and blood,” and “if a matter is too difficult”). And we have already dealt with this here quite a bit.

Thank you. Earlier I understood you to mean that if all the words of the Sages are mistaken because the Torah was not given with the idea of interpretations in mind, even so it would still be binding.