Here are a few points of similarity I found:

A parallel to the ordeal of the suspected adulteress from the laws of Ur-Nammu (testing by river water):
If a man accuses the wife of a
young man of promiscuity but the
River Ordeal clears her, the man
who accused her shall weigh and
deliver 20 shekels of silver.

A parallel to the 40 lashes from Assyrian law:
If a man [says .,.] to another
man in a quarrel, “You have spoken
blasphemy, […] and furthermore
you have pilfered the temple,” […]
they shall strike him 40 blows with
rods;

A parallel to the section on forbidden sexual relations in Hittite law:
41 187 If a man has sexual relations60 with a cow, it is an unpermitted sexual
pairing: he will be put to death. They shall conduct him to the king’s court.
Whether the king orders him killed or spares his life, he shall not appear
before the king (lest he defile the royal person).
1 188 If a man has sexual relations with a sheep, it is an unpermitted sexual
pairing: he will be put to death. They will conduct him [to the] king’s
[court]. The king may have him executed, or may spare his life. But he shall
not appear before the king.
41189 If a man has sexual relations with his own mother, it is an unpermitted
sexual pairing. If a man has sexual relations with his daughter, it is an unpermitted
sexual pairing. If a man has sexual relations with his son, it is an
unpermitted sexual pairing.
41 190 If they … with the dead—man, woman—it is not an offense. If a man
has sexual relations with his stepmother, it is not an offense. But if his
father is still living, it is an unpermitted sexual pairing.
41 191 If a free man sleeps with free sisters who have the same mother and
with their mother—one in one country and the other in another, it is not an
offense. But if it happens in the same location, and he knows the women are
related, it is an unpermitted sexual pairing.61
4[ 192 If a man’s wife dies, [he may take her] sister [as his wife.] It is not an
offense.®

A parallel to levirate marriage from Hittite law:
41193 If a man has a wife, and the man dies, his brother shall take his widow
as wife. (If the brother dies,) his father shall take her. When afterwards his
father dies, his (i.e., the father’s) brother shall take the woman whom he
had.®

More parallels to forbidden sexual relations from Hittite law:
41194 If a free man sleeps with slave women who have the same mother and
with their mother, it is not an offense. If brothers sleep with a free woman,
it is not an offense. If father and son sleep with the same female slave or
prostitute, it is not an offense.
41 195a If a man sleeps with his brother’s wife, while his brother is alive, it is
an unpermitted sexual pairing. 1 195b If a free man has a free woman in marriage
and approaches her daughter sexually, it is an unpermitted sexual pairing.
1 195c If he has the daughter in marriage and approaches her mother or
her sister sexually, it is an unpermitted sexual pairing.

A parallel to the Torah’s distinction between rape in the city and in the field from Hittite law (“If there is a young virgin who is betrothed to a man, and another man finds her in the city and lies with her, then you shall bring them both out to the gate of that city, and you shall stone them with stones that they die—the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he violated his neighbor’s wife; so you shall remove the evil from your midst. But if the man finds the betrothed young woman in the field, and the man seizes her and lies with her, then only the man who lay with her shall die. But to the young woman you shall do nothing; the young woman has committed no sin deserving death, for just as when a man rises against his fellow and murders him, so is this matter. For he found her in the field; the betrothed young woman cried out, but there was no one to save her.”)

41 197 If a man seizes a woman in the mountains (and rapes her), it is the
man’s offense, but if he seizes her in her house, it is the woman’s offense:
the woman shall die.64 If the woman’s husband discovers them in the act, he
may kill them without committing a crime.
41198 If he brings them to the palace gate (i.e., the royal court) and says: “My
wife shall not die,” he can spare his wife’s life, but he must also spare the
lover and clothe his head,’65 If he says, “Both of them shall die,” they shall
‘roll the wheel.’66 The king may have them killed or he may spare them.

More parallels to the section on forbidden sexual relations in Hittite law:
41199 If anyone has sexual relations with a pig or a dog, he shall die. He shall
bring him to the palace gate (i.e., the royal court). The king may have them
(i.e., the human and the animal) killed or he may spare them, but the human
shall not approach the king. If an ox leaps on a man (in sexual excitement),
the ox shall die; the man shall not die. They shall substitute one sheep for
the man and put it to death. If a pig leaps on a man (in sexual excitement), it
is not an offense.
41 200a If a man has sexual relations with either a horse or a mule, it is not
an offense, but he shall not approach the king, nor shall he become a
priest.67 If anyone sleeps with an arnuwalas-woman,68 and also sleeps with
her mother, it is not an offense.

A parallel to the prohibition of sorcery from Hittite law:
Telipinu Edict 41 50: Regarding cases of sorcery in Hattusa: keep cleaning up
(i.e., investigating and punishing) instances. Whoever in the royal family
practises sorcery, seize him and deliver him to the king’s court. But it will go
badly for that man (C adds: and for his household) who does not deliver
him.

I’d be glad to hear what you think about these points of similarity.

This is the source document:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fRCi2AXqh5ChM2-a102KmOVsWI0nUlCU/view?usp=sharing

I haven’t had time to get into these details, but I already wrote that I agree with both possibilities you raised. So what practical difference follows from these points of similarity?

I was interested in your opinion on the degree of similarity and its significance. Maybe when you have time to skim through it a bit.

Foreign-language prose is a bit much for us, grandchildren of Israel our grandfather, and there are also some difficult words in there, so I, your faithful apprentice, girded my loins and translated the excerpts with a bit of editing and shortening.
[And by the way, a few notes. Since the bitter waters of the suspected adulteress are miraculous, there’s no problem if they chose a miracle modeled on something familiar. Forty lashes is the maximum estimate of human endurance, so it makes sense that it would be similar. The prohibitions of forbidden sexual relations seem reasonable enough even today, and the Torah was under no obligation to decree incomprehensible decrees. Levirate marriage also makes sense, since people do not seek hardship for a widow, and we know it was practiced in the world even before the Torah, as with Judah, etc.
That said, from some formulations in the Torah here and there (for example, “lest the fullness of the seed be forfeited”) and various places in the Prophets (for example, “would not that land be utterly polluted?”), I have the impression that all the commandments of the Torah were self-evident to their original recipients—that is, they fit the recipients’ general view of the world and of what is permitted and forbidden, and nothing especially surprised them.]

* Suspected adulteress:
If a man accuses the wife of a young man of promiscuity but the “river ordeal” clears her, the accuser shall pay 20 shekels of silver.
* Lashes:
If someone accuses his fellow during a quarrel of cursing God or of stealing from the Temple, he is to be struck with 40 lashes by rods.

* Forbidden sexual relations:
Someone who has intercourse with a cow, sheep, pig, or dog has committed a prohibition and shall surely be put to death. He is brought for the king’s judgment, who will decide whether to kill him or not. Either way, he is forever forbidden to appear before the king, lest he defile him.
If an ox mounts and has intercourse with a human, the ox is put to death, and in place of the human they put a sheep to death. If a pig mounts and has intercourse with a human, it is exempt.
It is permitted to have intercourse with a horse or a mule, but the offender may never appear before the king and may not be appointed a priest.
Sleeping with one’s mother, daughter, or son is forbidden.
Intercourse with a corpse is not an offense.
One is permitted with his stepmother after his father’s death.
A free man who sleeps with free sisters and their mother, one in one land and the other in another, has committed no offense. But if it was in the same place and he knew the women were related, he committed a prohibition. If the sisters and their mother are slaves, it is permitted.
Free brothers are permitted with one woman. A father and son are permitted with the same woman only if she is a slave or a prostitute.
A man is forbidden with his wife’s daughter, his wife’s mother, and his wife’s sister if both are free women.
After his wife dies, he may marry her sister.

* Levirate marriage:
The brother of the deceased must marry his brother’s widow. If the brother dies, their father takes her. If the father dies, his brother takes her.
One is forbidden with his brother’s wife while the brother is still alive.
* Rape:
One who assaults a married woman in the mountains is the criminal. If he assaults her in her house, she is the criminal and is put to death. If the husband catches them in the act, he may kill them. If he decides to bring them to trial, he may decide whether both of them die together or both of them live together. The king’s decision to kill or to spare overrides the husband’s decision.
* Sorcery:
You shall not let sorcerers live. Anyone from the royal family who engages in sorcery is brought for the king’s judgment. One who conceals him is punished.

With God’s help, 5 Elul 5780

The waters of the suspected adulteress are the exact opposite of “ordeal” tests, in which the suspect is placed in a naturally dangerous situation and surviving that natural danger proves innocence. A miracle is needed in order to survive.

By contrast, there is no natural danger at all in drinking water with a little dust and a tiny amount of ink dissolved into it. Being harmed by drinking the waters of the suspected adulteress is entirely miraculous, as a result of the oath of curse, in a case where she committed adultery and swore falsely. When the natural scenario occurs and nothing happens, the reliability of the woman’s oath is proven.

The woman is not obligated to drink the waters of the suspected adulteress, since she has the option of divorcing without receiving her marriage settlement, which she forfeited because she brought suspicion upon herself by secluding herself with a strange man despite her husband’s warning. Her oath, after which she was not punished by a miraculous punishment, restores trust in her.

What an immense difference!

Best regards, Shatz

Paragraph 2, line 1
… dissolved into it a quantity of …

Paragraph 3, line 3
… she was not punished with a miraculous punishment …

It still raises questions that specifically in the case of the suspected adulteress there is a water test, and they didn’t use this, say, as a substitute for the oath of bailees. Everyone I’ve seen dealing with comparisons like these eventually ends up needing Maimonides’ idea that the Torah used the worldviews of the people of that time and adapted them to its own outlook.

Never mind other law books; obviously thought was invested in them. But the daughters of Zelophehad? Why in the world did the Torah write down the question the daughters of Zelophehad asked? Who cares about that?

Oren, see here at length (as an overview and from the theological angle):

https://www.knowingfaith.co.il/%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%90-%D7%95%D7%90%D7%A8%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%92%D7%99%D7%94/%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%90-%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%97-%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%93%D7%95%D7%9D-%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%99-%D7%92%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%9E%D7%A9-%D7%95%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%A0-%D7%9A

And here (from the scholarly angle):
https://www.knowingfaith.co.il/%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A8/%D7%94%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%9C%D7%9D-%D7%94%D7%A2%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%A7

A fundamental question for the Rabbi: does it actually matter if there are earlier sources to the Torah that contain commandments and laws similar to it? Meaning, let’s suppose for the sake of argument that in the future they find sources older than the Torah in which all the matters of the Torah’s commandments appear—Sabbath, kashrut, ritual impurity and purity, sacrifices, festivals, etc.—with a very high degree of similarity. Would that change anything in your worldview?

Not necessarily. I would assume there were earlier versions of the Torah from Adam, Noah, Shem, and Eber.

Seemingly there are two separate points here. One is as an indication regarding the question of whether the Torah is from Heaven, and the second is as an indication regarding whether it makes sense to interpret the Torah according to deep understandings of the details and fine points, or instead to think that the great conceptual structures are a rabbinic creation completely detached from the Five Books of Moses—which does not necessarily affect one’s sense of obligation. The assumption of earlier versions removes both of those points together. But it seems to me that the assumption that the Torah used then-current conceptions as a substrate (perhaps this is an extension of “the law of ordinances”) and changed them at crucial points still leaves room for the second point.

Your wording implies that you too understand there’s no necessity to your claim. Even if the Torah used an earlier substrate, the Holy One, blessed be He, is responsible for the final product, and therefore there is room to analyze it closely.

True, you wrote that once, so I left it open. But for myself, I think resolving speculation is one thing and resolving reality is another, and if in fact they were to find in some ancient excavation from before the giving of the Torah the commandments in the Five Books of Moses, with the divine name replaced by the name Chemosh, and even if there were a few other changes there too, that would be no simple problem, and I think it really would have implications—at least for me, and certainly implications for Torah study.
If there really was such an adaptation of conceptions that were current then, and their processing into the framework the Torah wanted to lay out, then to ignore such a significant force—isn’t that like trying to analyze the motion of a body while ignoring the force of friction, which would surely add enormous complication to the system? And if not, then do we need to assume that there are higher principles from which, and only from which, the Torah derives, principles unknown to the nations, and by sheer luck they for their own reasons arrived at a theory that coincides with many of the results?

Both parts of the question at the end assume there was only a certain amount of adaptation, like one of the examples in the link M brought: piercing the ear of a slave who refuses to go free, instead of cutting off the ear of a runaway slave who was caught. If the ancient peoples had cut off a finger rather than an ear, then presumably the Torah might have commanded, say, tattooing a mark on the finger, and the rabbinic exposition about the ear that heard “For the children of Israel are My servants” would have flown away.

I just now thought that one should distinguish between similarity to laws that belong to the category of the Noahide commandments and similarity to laws that do not belong to that category. The examples I brought above belong mainly to the category of the Noahide commandments, so the difficulty is less severe than it would be if there were similarity to the laws of Sabbath, kashrut, etc.