The biblical criticism of the Book of Judges claims that "And there arose another generation after them who did not know the Lord"—the meaning is knowledge of facts, and therefore they argue that the Jewish people did not receive a tradition—that is, that the Torah is an invention (is this what biblical criticism means??)
Rabbi argued against this that if the Jewish people did not know, and the meaning is that they factually forgot, then why is it described as "they turned aside from the path that their fathers had walked"—from what path did they turn aside? (After all, there had been no tradition beforehand.)

What I want to say is that the Rabbi's argument is technical, and it can be worked out within the verses.
In my opinion, the bigger question is: how can a nation claim that it forgot a factual tradition while claiming that it received commandments at Mount Sinai?

A technical answer can be given in the name of biblical criticism:
the fathers in the verse "they turned aside from the path that their fathers had walked" and the fathers in the verse "and when the judge died, they would turn back and act more corruptly than their fathers" are the same fathers, just at different times—before the first judge and during the time of the first judge. And it does not refer to fathers who were alive at the time of entry into the Land.
Then it is understandable from which path they (the later generations) turned aside—from the path that those fathers invented and kept during the time of the first judge.

I'm sorry, but I didn't understand the bigger question, and not the answer either.

Thank you very much anyway. I'll try one last time, and if you still don't understand—I got the message.
The Jewish people in the time of the first judge who saved them kept the way of God for 40 years.
In the verse "they quickly turned aside from the path that their fathers had walked," how does the Rabbi know that "their fathers" are not the generation mentioned here—the generation in the time of the first judge, who kept the way of God? Then it would mean that the later generations did not keep the way of the "fathers" I mentioned.

There is no message here. I really didn't understand. You need to spell things out more if you want people to address what you're saying.
If I understood correctly, you're asking why we shouldn't interpret the "fathers" being referred to as the previous generation rather than Moses our rabbi and the generation of the wilderness? Maybe so. What does that mean? Let's say they kept the way of their fathers, meaning the previous generation. Does that mean there was no wilderness generation or no revelation at Mount Sinai? What's the connection? The Torah says there was a revelation, and if you don't believe it then don't believe the verses in Judges either. In short, why is this interesting at all? Assuming I understood the question…

Thank you very much for the answer, the Rabbi understood the question.
Regarding the Rabbi's last point, that if the Torah is not true then the Book of Judges isn't either—I understand, thank you again.
I'd be glad if the Rabbi could show me what my mistake is:
If from the verse in Judges "And there arose another generation after them who did not know the Lord" we assume that the Jewish people did not receive a tradition—then it can be argued that they invented a Torah, a way to serve the Creator. Therefore one can say that in the verse "they turned aside from the path" it is speaking about the invented path, and the revelation at Mount Sinai and the generation of the wilderness are inventions.
And to that one can answer that if the Torah is not true, then the Book of Judges is also not true.

You can argue that. So what? You can also argue that when the verse says there was a revelation at Mount Sinai, there wasn't one. You can argue anything, especially in interpretation of the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) (see my posts on the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh)). Christians also make claims from the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) that supposedly prove Christianity and the messiahship of Jesus. The gates of interpretation have not been locked. As I said, I don't really understand why this discussion is important. If you're building your faith on trusting the authenticity of what is written in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh), meaning that if the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) is interpreted differently there is no basis for your faith, you won't get very far.

I consider the discussion important because I asked myself: why did the Rabbi bother answering in the fifth notebook the claim of biblical criticism (that there was no tradition, based on "did not know…")? Because seemingly, if there are counter-answers in the name of biblical criticism to what the Rabbi answered in the notebook—does that mean biblical criticism is correct?

For some reason you moved to another thread, and there also isn't much new in what you're saying. I don't understand what the discussion is about and what has not been answered. I'm bringing here the question you sent there, and I'll answer one last time:

Hello, honorable Rabbi.
First of all, I start from the assumption that the Torah is true, in significant part thanks to the Rabbi's arguments in the fifth notebook. Still, I wanted to ask the Rabbi about biblical criticism:
In Judges chapter 2: "And there arose another generation after them who did not know the Lord, nor yet the work which He had done for Israel"—biblical criticism claims from this verse that the Jewish people did not receive a tradition, and therefore the meaning is that the Torah we have today was invented by this generation. The Rabbi refuted the claim with the question: if the Jewish people forgot intelligently, then why would there be divine wrath? I wanted to ask: why did the Rabbi ask that question? After all, the Rabbi starts from the assumption that the Torah is true, and biblical criticism does not. Their understanding is that the Jewish people invented a Torah, based on the assumption that an entire generation (40 years), the "other generation," forgot the Lord—and that assumption contradicts any traditional Torah up to that point, so why did the Rabbi ask it? Why does it matter whether the god they invented gets angry or not? After all, according to them it's all just an invention.
I personally understand the Rabbi's second argument, that this knowledge means connection. But I still haven't understood how to refute the claim I mentioned here. Thank you very much.

Your difficulty is about the tradition, and therefore the tradition should answer it on its own terms. If you want to propose an alternative, that is a question and not a difficulty. But if you don't believe the tradition, then there is no point in the discussion. You assume there is no God and interpret the verses according to that assumption. And if you do believe it, then you can only challenge it on the assumption that it is correct. Therefore I answered according to the traditional assumption.
That's all. I'm done, and I ask that you not open any more threads on this topic and also not come back here again and again with the same points.

To M, regarding the book that compares the survival of different nations—what is it called and where can it be obtained?