[aiomatic-realtime-chat model="gpt-4o-realtime-preview-2024-12-17" voice="alloy" instructions="you are going to give answers and talk only about the folowwing article, like you were a ortodox man very friendly, cool, and conversational -talk very quikly like a young teenager and go right to point – to students that have questions about the mount sinai ceremony:
start article – The common denominator of all religions and the uniqueness of the Jewish religion
Indeed, the common denominator of all religions in the world is the recognition of the necessity of prophetic revelation, which is the vehicle for conveying the divine message to humanity about the purpose of creation and the role of man through the prophet-messenger. However, the abysmal contrast between the Christian message and the Muslim, Buddhist, or Hindu message, and between them and the Jewish message, in contrast, raises serious doubts in the objective observer about the reliability of the prophets of religions (who call each other heretics who must be exterminated) and about the authenticity of their messages, since it is impossible for God to demand one thing from humanity and the opposite.
Since a crack has already appeared in the credibility of a human being when he seeks to convey such a serious and absolute message, who will argue that the message of Moses (who was also born of a woman) is more reliable than another message? Should we really believe the prophecy of every guy who claims to have had a *revelation*? Or is he hallucinating?
It is true that the success of the *prophet* who claims to be revealed is usually linked to his ability to demonstrate supernatural ability, and it is his *miracles* that inspire the people's trust to listen to his words. All those religious prophets did indeed demonstrate miracles and fervor (otherwise the masses would not have followed them), which ostensibly verified their message.
But the profound person is not moved by *miracle magicians,* because if you accept the miraculous miracle as confirmation of the truth of the prophecy, you will find that every religion and its opposite are present, because they all have miracle stories, and this is nothing more than the *miracle* only proving that this person has metaphysical powers. Such powers exist not only for a true prophet, but also for magicians, sorcerers, sorcerers, parapsychologists and all those who use various kinds of magic. There is only a fact of the supernatural here, but the fact of the connection between the prophet and God and the fact of this person's choice to be a messenger to convey the message are missing. Facts were not proven by performing a miracle, because even alongside impurity, the metaphysical ability to perform miracles was granted, for the purpose of selective balance and concern for equality, *God made this in comparison with this.*
However, there is one motif unique to the Jewish religion, which you will not find in any other religion throughout history. Even if equal value is given to the stories of revelation in the tradition of all religions, the common aspect of all the stories of *revelation* in other religions is: mystery.
If this is the Muslim religion, which originated in the visions-dreams of Muhammer, to whom the angel Gabriel appeared, according to him, in his dream. Can a dream encounter be objectively confirmed?
If this is the Christian religion, which originated in the mythological belief that the Christian man was born of a virgin by the Holy Spirit. Is there direct evidence of a connection between him and God? *And this without referring to the historical problem, which historians are tired of solving, which is the maze of contradictions in the imaginary legends about this unknown figure Even if we were to accept the very fact of his *working wonders,* as narrated in the sources of Christianity, there is no evidence or confirmation of his being a messenger of God and a prophet for the transmission of the divine religion. All his miracles could have stemmed from sorcerers, or, according to a legend from Jewish sources, from the use of the explicit pronunciation of the name that he learned by trickery in the Temple, and so on.) So it is with regard to the Eastern religions, which all began with some old monk who secluded himself in a remote cave, and upon whom rested the spirit of *transcendent knowledge,* but who saw this and who will testify to it?
In short, in every religion there are, according to tradition, mass testimonies of those who saw the prophet, who saw miracles. Indeed, but no one directly saw the contact between him and God, nor did anyone directly hear the divine message from the Creator to the prophet (on the contrary, in their opinion, no one born of a woman is capable of receiving prophetic messages, only the prophet himself), and thus there is no one who can refute the words of the story of any prophet, but there is also no one who can confirm them.
Not so the Jewish religion, whose beginnings are not shrouded in mystery, and in which one does not rely on the sincerity of hallucinatory hallucinations and his mystical stories about encounters of the third kind. This is the only religion that tells of a direct divine revelation (not the one that Moses saw in the bush. This was a private and secret revelation, but) before the eyes of a vast public: a people of sixty thousand military men, besides their wives, children, and elders, totaling several million people, who saw this revelation with their own eyes at the foot of Mount Sinai, and heard with their own ears (not the prophet telling the story of meeting G-d somewhere, but) the voice of the Creator Himself speaking the Ten Commandments to them from out of the fire.
Such massive testimony from millions of people cannot be an illusion or a fantasy. It is a historical status that has all the characterizations (qualifications) for historical verification of a folk tale, with all that this entails.
The Creator's appearance in such a popular way before the eyes of the multitude (something considered a *descent,* as the Scripture says: *And the Lord descended upon Mount Sinai* 1 ) is necessary because of consideration for human criticality, as Moses claimed when the Creator commanded him to go on his mission to the people: *And they will not believe me – (and in any case) – nor listen to my voice* 2 (and the reasoning:) – *For they will say, 'The Lord has not appeared to you.'* To this the Creator answers Moses, before his appearance on Mount Sinai: *Behold, I come to you in a thick cloud – so that the people may hear the words of your people, and may also believe in you forever*!
The Creator wanted to grant humanity absolute certainty in the authenticity of the divine message about the purpose of creation, and therefore He was not content with basing this status on the traditional belief in the prophet's stories, as a seal attesting to his authenticity, thereby leaving room for skepticism about his credibility. Instead, He decided to appear before the eyes of the entire nation, in its millions, and to make His supernatural voice heard in their ears, directly, without intermediaries. Such a motif, of divine revelation in a mass forum, before millions of people, eyewitnesses and hearers, who directly confirm the very contact between the Creator and the prophet and the entire nation together, does not exist in any other religion, except Judaism.
*And maybe things never existed*?
But there is still room for skeptics to argue: While this motif of a divine appearance before the eyes of the multitude is unique to Judaism, and the originality of the idea should be noted, this is still no guarantee of its historical truth. While it cannot be denied that such a massive testimony from several million people is a strong and convincing argument, who can deny that this story itself really happened and is nothing more than a fictional thriller? Could you present us with two or three witnesses from among the millions of spectators at Mount Sinai? The common skeptic asks, *And perhaps the things never happened,* and is this nothing more than a successful creation of some ancient Jules Leran, whose fascinating *stories* have become a widespread folk legend?
The test of the skeptic's sincerity *who claims to appear to be a person interested in seeking the truth* will be conducted by comparing his skepticism of the stories of the Bible to his confidence in the foundations of verification agreed upon by all of humanity that knows the stories of history.
Let's examine it honestly: What is the logical confirmation that verifies all the events of the history of ancient Rome and Greece, of the Middle Ages, and of the First World War? The common side of them is that there is no living witness today to confirm its presence at the time of the historical event. And why is everyone so sure that this historical event is indeed a real fact?
Lest you say: Archaeological remains confirm the story of Masada and the suicide of the zealots. There is still room for the cynic to make a similar argument: *It is true that the remains of the wall, the hair, the pebbles and the bed indicate an ancient age (according to archaeological measurements) of about two thousand years, but is it not possible that these remains were dressed up with a story whose inventors suited the remains, and perhaps the truth is completely different: Two thousand years ago, a group of drug-smuggling bandits fortified themselves at the top of Masada, and the army guard came upon them and destroyed them, and the findings in our hands are their remains, remnants of that struggle (but the whole story about Elazar ben Yair and the group of zealots who committed suicide for their freedom is nothing but an ancient nationalist fiction).*
And perhaps you will say: *And don't these ancient remains match what was found in ancient scrolls discovered in a pottery vessel at the site? Then the event was immortalized by the zealots at the time.* The cynic will answer: *Indeed, in that ancient period, a watchman stood in one of the drug smugglers' watchtowers, and to relieve his boredom, he wrote himself on parchment a literary work from his fertile imagination, a story that over time became a folk legend. This legend, which has been preserved, is used to educate the youth movement members, and in the place where it took place, the soldiers of the armored forces are fed.* (Please do not be outraged by these cynical arguments. They are an exact copy of your claim, honorable cynic, which doubts the truth of the biblical story).
It is understandable that from a psychological perspective, the reader's attitude towards hearing a historical story *which concerns an event that was ordinary, which does not require the mobilization of mental forces of belief in the miraculous* is different from his attitude towards the stories of the Bible. These are extraordinary events, and even seem impossible to the rationalist, and place the believer in them in a ridiculous light in his own eyes –
However, from the moment you are aware of the fact that the inhibition that prevents you from accepting the facts is psychological – even though objectively these facts are confirmed according to all the accepted rules of proof in the field of history – from that moment you admit that your approach to the subject is not objective. You know that you are deterred by mystical beliefs, due to your prejudices, and by the fear of the personal conclusions that are required by recognizing the truth of the story of the divine revelation at Mount Sinai, a revelation that requires obedience to the daily burden of 313 commandments…
And since *knowledge of the disease is half the cure,* there is hope that objective logic will finally prevail over emotional inhibition, and the question will be presented in its full severity:
What is the difference between the clear recognition of the existence of Napoleon and the stories of his battles (for which there is no living evidence in the present) based on historical accounts, and the skepticism that grips us upon hearing a historical story about the Ten Plagues, the parting of the Red Sea, and the standing of Mount Sinai? Is it my sympathy for a particular event or my repulsion from it that determines whether it actually happened in reality or not? Is this an objective approach?
And perhaps you will say: What is the basis for historical authenticity in general? Perhaps the stories of Napoleon, Julius Caesar, or Zealots, like the Bible, are not true in their entirety, but rather they have gained human agreement regarding them as being irrelevant to our present lives, and not requiring drastic changes in our lifestyles and thoughts? Perhaps?
However, the very fact that history is treated as a university subject in the Faculty of Humanities, as well as the lessons that humanity draws from historical processes, prove that the attitude toward historical stories is serious and full of trust, and that this attitude apparently has an objective scientific basis.
The definition of a historical story is: *an event of public importance that occurred in the eyes of the masses* (as distinct from a personal story, which is a biography, and as distinct from stories that take place in celestial spheres and not in the eyes of the masses, which are nothing but mythology), and therefore, the *watchdog* that guards the historian from distorting historical facts is none other than the public, that same mass audience that stars in the historical story.
So any attempt by a historian to falsify the facts is doomed to failure, because there is no way to tell the masses what happened to them if the same thing did not happen to them. Mass psychology will rebel against the distortion of its public history, will not *buy* the story and will not pass it on from generation to generation, from father to son, and even if such a false book were printed, without public support it would not have circulation. On the contrary, it would be denied by everyone.
There is no need for archaeological remains or hidden scrolls to prove the existence of Napoleon as a historical fact. The mere transmission of the message about him from generation to generation, from father to son, by millions of French people is massive evidence for the existence of the personality or historical story, for it is impossible to convince millions of French people that a king they had never heard of ruled over them, because he did not exist, and that they participated in wars, won or were defeated in them, even though they know nothing about their occurrence.
Let's imagine an Egyptian historian. Who will maliciously try to rewrite the defeat of the Six-Day War. And publish a thick book that will describe in a military style the victory of the Egyptian army over the IDF in six days. Which ended with the occupation of Tel Aviv. Even if the historian distributes the book in a million copies around the world, will he succeed in changing the historical information of all humanity in the 20th century? And won't he even succeed in convincing his own people, who fled the bombings in the city of Suez, that they live in Tel Aviv…
*Although it must be admitted that even in general history we find different versions of a particular event from the subjective point of view of the historian,
And how do we know which of the versions is correct? However, a distinction must be made between the realm of facts and the realm of interpretations. The difference between the versions is legitimate in the realm of interpretation, and each interpreter comes to interpret the event from his own perspective, but there is usually no dispute between them regarding the facts themselves.
For example: The confrontation between the Roman Titus and the Jerusalem Zealots can be interpreted from the perspective of Josephus Flavius as a hired Roman penman, or from the perspective of a loyal Jewish man, but there is no dispute between them about most of the facts:
Dates, generals, victories or defeats. Interpretation deals with the analysis of motives, conclusions and character traits of the individuals operating behind the *facts.*
Yes, there are examples of public attempts to deny accepted history, such as the Holocaust denial movements. However, this is an attempt that is made with a determined head, and which is unsuccessful, because the thousands of survivors who experienced the horrors firsthand and the tens of thousands of Allied soldiers who entered the extermination camps and saw,
As well as the tens of thousands of numbers tattooed on the arms of the remains, and even the testimony of Eichmann, whose name will be erased, before an Israeli court, in which he himself recounted the atrocities of Nazism, all of this is a slap in the face to the deniers. Furthermore, this only proves that when a certain public has a biased psychological interest, it is capable of denying tangible facts, but does such denial have any objective scientific value?!*.
Let us return to the stories of biblical miracles and revelations. If these stories were indeed the figment of the imagination of some biblical writer, who concocted these *folk tales,* he would have had extraordinary audacity to present them to his reading public in the style of *You have seen what I did to the Egyptians*! *3* *And all the people saw the voices and the torches* *4* , while they saw nothing…
How do you think the Exoduses would have reacted to the events, which are fabricated stories, and which, the impudent author dares to claim, they saw with their own eyes? Moreover, following these stories, the imaginative writer demands that his readers accept upon themselves the burden of the commandments which they *heard* (in his words) from the mouth of God, who performed for them, in their sight, such great miracles that they themselves know nothing about. After all, if Hocha and Italo had not been both the writer and his book, his foolish stories would not have been accepted by the people and would not have been passed down to the generation of children, and in any case they would not have reached our generation.
You have no greater testimony than that given by millions of Jews from all over the world who celebrate the Passover holiday even in the 21st century, and tell the same story of the miracles of the Exodus in the name of their ancestors, in the name of their grandfathers, in the name of their great-grandfathers. Those Jews received from generation to generation a historical testimony that has passed for three thousand three hundred years, and in which there have been no changes, disputes or versions that have changed between generations. This is proof that the first generation, the father of the tradition that was passed down from generation to generation, was indeed an eyewitness in its multitudes, even experienced together the miracles of Egypt in the flesh, and the divine revelation at Sinai with all its senses, and from the strength of the tangible certainty of the first generation managed to pass this story on to generations without cracks or disputes.
Although some argue that even if it is indeed impossible to print a fake history of the present, because the public will not *buy* the bluff, there is still the possibility that the publisher of the Bible is introducing to the public a story describing their ancestors and the lives they lived five hundred years before the publication of his story. The same publisher claims that the statement *you saw* is not directed at his readers, who saw nothing, but at their ancestors, who saw these miracles, which he decided to immortalize for generations in this book. In this way, he succeeds in *infusing* the consciousness of the masses with a false story about their ancestors. Maybe?…
However, the reader will immediately notice that even in this way the deception will not succeed, because even if the Bible were first published during the First Temple period, say, and the author claimed that this was the discovery of an ancient book that recounts the history of the ancient patriarchs, this would not be accepted by the masses. They will argue:
If, according to the version of this book, our ancestors, who lived five hundred years ago, experienced a series of tremendous and stunning experiences, witnessed by the masses of the people, is it possible that such tremendous events left no impression in the tradition of the generations and were not recounted by our ancestors to their sons, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren? Is it possible that until the discovery of this rare book, no rumor about these wonderful events reached us? Is it only the author of the ancient book who knew the story and passed it on to future generations, or did the events only occur in the feverish mind of the forger?
Who would accept such fabrications and pass them on in vibration to their sons? And who would take upon themselves the burden of a restrictive and illogical cult, encompassing all hours of the day and life, when it is based on a lie, and he himself knows that it is a lie? Is it possible?!
*Shall we be like this great thing or what sounds like it? * 6 ?
Based on this, a miracle in the history of human religions will be understood:
It is universally accepted that many religions copied ideological and ritual motifs from the religion of Israel. They do not even hide this. Therefore, it is difficult to understand how all the creators of other religions did not manage to introduce the motif of mass testimony into their creations-Torah. Think about it, if Muhammed had reported in the Quran that millions of people saw with their own eyes how the angel Gabriel handed him the Quran, wouldn't the foundation of Islam be much more solid, which would have saved many religious wars intended to convince the infidels by sword. Go and search all the Western and Eastern religions. Not only did they not have such a revelation, but they did not even try to write that there was one. Why?
Based on the above, this puzzlement becomes clear: if they had used the biblical motif *you saw* (while their believers did not), it would have worked against them like a boomerang, and all their believers would have immediately sobered up and realized that there was a fraud here. The only way left for them to gain the trust of the masses in their *prophets* was: the mythological mystery system, which claims to be revealed in mystery, which cannot be refuted…
*According to this, a remarkable biblical precision in the parshas of inciting to idolatry can be understood: *If your brother, your mother's son, or your son or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your neighbor who is as your own soul, entices you secretly, saying, 'Let us go and serve other gods,' which you and your fathers have not known (Deuteronomy 13:7). On the face of it, the word *secretly* is unnecessary, for even if he entices you in the street of a city and in public, he will be sentenced to death. Rashi does resolve this simply, saying: *The Scripture speaks in the present tense,* that is, he used a current example. The missionary always operates underground and unseen…
However, in light of the above, this precision can be interpreted in a sermonic style: the phrase *in secret* is not only interpreted in terms of its incitement, but also in terms of its content, that is, what is the story that is familiar to you? That the *revelation* to the prophets of that idolatry occurred *in secret,* in mystery? This is a sign to you that it is a lie or a hallucination.
And perhaps you will say: How did those false prophets succeed in convincing millions to worship and believe in what their eyes have not seen?
The answer lies in human psychology: Since faith exists in every person as a fundamental mental trait (on which axioms, mutual trust in experts, and even various superstitions are based), and since the psychological need to depend on and rely on a higher power is potentially present in every person (even if they declare themselves *secular*), it is very easy to *dress* this natural belief with various objects. This is done by using magical tricks or personal charisma, which ignite the imagination of believers whose souls thirst for a mystical experience that aspires to the abstract and the hidden. Therefore, when the *prophets of religion* presented mythological figures and ecstatic ways of worship to the masses, using *miracles* and referring to the unseen, the listeners did not seek objective verification. And this for two reasons:
• According to their gentile understanding of the concept of religion, it doesn't matter so much what the exact ritual act is (so there is no need to objectively verify it), and what matters is the emotional-religious expression behind it.
• Since the practical requirements of other religions are not so restrictive and encompass all areas of life, and constitute nothing more than a mystical *raisin* in the gray life, which leaves extensive autonomous areas in life and as a personality and flexible perception of the requirements, according to the person's convenience, therefore no internal need arose for an objective examination of the *prophetic* message *however, all the few, courageous sages of the nations, who tried to objectively verify the message, indeed very quickly came to apostasy in the values of their church, and sometimes even converted*.
Not so with Judaism, which emphasizes the importance of criticality of the message and its objective verification, for the same two reasons:
• Judaism views the commandments not as symbols, but as active acts that are *conductors of the divine current* into nature. Since only an action that is truly chosen and willed by the Creator is capable of projecting divinity into the world, it is very important for us to verify the authenticity of the commandment and whether this action is truly a *conductor of the divine current.*
• The burden of obligations and the scope of limitations that Judaism dictates in its requirements, which demand the dedication of every person to serve his Creator and do not leave him any autonomy without obligation *as the sages say: *And all your actions will be for the sake of Heaven* * ,
And as it is said: *In all your ways – know Him* , *, created the urge and the need to test the reliability of Moses' prophecy using the most objective and rigorous standards,
Before accepting such a comprehensive and demanding burden.
This is what Moses meant in his speech to the second generation (who did not see what their ancestors experienced): *For ask now of the former days that were before you (= go out and investigate the history of the nations)… and from one end of heaven to the other (= in the religions of the West and the East, *5* *6* ancient and modern) – is there anything like this great thing (= a state of divine revelation before the multitudes) or something like it?* *7 *
Why is the unnecessary double entendre *or what is heard like it* required in the verse? What does he add (and isn't it simply that if we don't exist, then we won't hear it either)? This is nothing more than his intention to imply to us that not only has such an event never actually occurred, but also that no religion has even dared to tell such a story (although religions have not shied away from many legendary mythologies), because the historical test that passes through the filter of the masses has not allowed those religions to tell myths as if they were history.
The natural-scientific interpretation
After we have ruled out the blasphemous, denialist approach to everything, and have factually verified the very existence of those wonderful events, according to the rules of historical verification, there still remains a margin of evasion for the skeptic, who is not willing to easily put his head under the burden of the commandments before the last shadow of doubt is dispelled from his consciousness.
*In a certain sense, there is a blessing in this intellectual demandingness, for after he is convinced of the negation of all alternative explanations, the skeptic's devotion to religion will be more complete, and will be supported by the inner identification of his consciousness. However, courageous perseverance is required to examine things to their conclusion, and not to throw a question into the void and retreat, a retreat that proves that it was not a question, but an excuse to relieve a burden.*
And the nagging doubt is still:
There still remains the approach to modern biblical interpretation from a natural-scientific perspective, the one that *somewhat acknowledges* the actual events from a factual perspective, but denies their mystical-miraculous meaning, a meaning that attributes them to deliberate divine intervention. This approach claims that all these miraculous events – which did indeed occur, as recounted by the multitude of witnesses – have a natural-scientific interpretation.
This approach is based on the assumption that the primitiveness of that ancient generation did not sufficiently know the laws of nature and their phenomena, leaving room for Moses our Lord, one of the only virtuous people of his generation who had information about natural phenomena, and perhaps even the ability to predict in advance the times of their occurrence. Moses took advantage of the people's ignorance, and sold them rare natural phenomena (which today every baby can explain) as if they were miraculous miracles, and this, with the help of theatrical stunts using his magic staff…
And is it not possible, idiots with this attitude, that the plague of lice was simply a contagious lice epidemic, and that the plagues of boils and other things were nothing more than foot-and-mouth disease, and that, lacking knowledge about the extent of an epidemic, those primitives saw this as a punishment from heaven? Is it not possible to interpret the darkness as a solar eclipse (which is perceived to this day in the minds of primitive tribes as something monstrous, threatening to swallow the sun)? Is it difficult to understand that the parting of the Red Sea is nothing more than a phenomenon of the tides, and that during the low tide Moses led the Israelites through, and during the high tide the Egyptians drowned? Moses, who grew up in the house of Pharaoh and his archons, the *wise* Egyptian priests, apparently knew how to predict these rare phenomena (as he did as a weather forecaster), to threaten Pharaoh with them and impress the Israelites with his magical power…
An interpretation of this kind, taught in state schools and originating from scientific encyclopedias, indirectly confirms that there was indeed an undeniable chain of events, otherwise there is no point in finding a scientific explanation for an event that did not occur at all, but that, according to its supporters, these were accidental natural phenomena, and in doing so they somewhat admit it. It will be to the credit of these scientific interpreters that they recognize the basic premise that history cannot be falsified, but that they are trying to present an alternative explanation for the *phenomenon.*
Let us examine with an open mind whether it is indeed possible to explain the miracles of the Exodus from Egypt and the giving of the Torah with natural scientific explanations, while maintaining coherence with the factual description, as narrated by six hundred thousand eyewitnesses, or whether an analysis of the facts without prejudice will highlight some motifs in the biblical description, which force us to see these events as deliberate divine interventions, and negate any
A. The timing. Part of the factual side of the historical evidence is the precise timing of the phenomenon, with the conditions that Moses had set in advance in his threat to Pharaoh, and the successful timing of the phenomenon's disappearance at the exact moment Pharaoh yielded to his conditions and agreed to let the Israelites go. To believe that ten times in succession Moses was lucky enough to encounter. By chance, a contagious plague or a solar eclipse, which would disappear exactly when Pharaoh would break down (and it was not known in advance whether and when he would yield) requires fanatical stubbornness, which is inconsistent with the theory of probability. Furthermore: There are biblical references that this thesis, which sees plagues as random natural phenomena, was the Pharaonic thesis that deified nature and even believed in the God of nature (God in Gematria = 86), as implied by Pharaoh's words: *Since God has made all this known to you, there is no one as wise and discerning as you* (Genesis 4:39). However, Pharaoh denied the supernatural God (implied in the name of God = was, is and will be all one) by saying: *Who is God, that I should obey his voice? I do not know God, and I will not let Israel go.*
And how did the revered Pharaonic leader explain to himself the fact of the miracles? He argued – as do modern-day scientists – that all that was needed was to expose Moses' method of prediction, which exploited his knowledge to fool the ignorant masses, and for example:
In the plague of frogs, the Torah describes an unbearable situation in which frogs roamed everywhere. And even though the magicians were able to imitate the example, they were unable to remove the plague. When Pharaoh saw this, he decided to humiliate himself, and gave up his royal prestige. He urgently called Moses and Aaron and pleaded: *Pray to the Lord that the frogs may be removed from him and from my people.* In other words, he recognized the supernatural power of the leaders of the slave people to cause the phenomenon and remove it with their mouths.
And here is Moses answering Pharaoh: *You boast about me, when shall I intercede for you?* (That is, you determine the exact time when you want the frog to leave…) And what did Pharaoh answer him? Did he ask to remove the plague immediately? No! He acted unexpectedly, and requested a postponed time, saying: *Tomorrow.*
The commentators explain that Pharaoh suspected Moses of having a prediction that the frogs would leave Egypt that day, and the fact that Moses generously suggested that Pharaoh determine the timing stemmed from the fact that he was certain that Pharaoh would, in his distress and the distress of all his people, order the immediate removal of the plague, and then Moses could present the phenomenon to a gathering that he himself had brought about. Therefore, Pharaoh got wise and ordered: *Tomorrow.* If, as he thought, the phenomenon would naturally disappear (as expected) today, it would become clear to everyone that Moses was in trouble. However, in the end *8* *9* Moses agreed to the timing, and the plague was removed not before the next day arrived, at the time that had been ordered…
In the plague of hail, the Torah describes Moses' warning to Pharaoh: *Behold, I will rain hail tomorrow .* *10* *11* *12* What is the meaning of the paradoxical phrase *tomorrow?* The sages interpret: *He drew a line on the wall. Tomorrow, when the sun reaches here, the hail will fall* (a replacement for the modern clock…), and thus he returned to the path of precise timing when the plague came and went for ten times (!). This repetition convinced even Pharaoh that this was not a natural coincidence but the hand of God.
* * *
B. Discrimination. The historical evidence documented in the biblical story repeatedly emphasizes the motif of discrimination, which was intended to prove to Pharaoh the hand of private providence that directed the blow with sterile precision only to the address of the punished (*And of the children of Israel not one died* 3 ', *And to all the children of Israel there was light in their settlements**' and so on).
Anyone who tries to interpret the phenomenon on a natural-scientific basis will be required to explain how blind and random nature could have struck an entire country with a plague and skipped over members of a certain race. And perhaps you will say: This can be attributed to the high personal hygiene of the Israelites, and perhaps even to genetic resilience – even though the history of mankind has proven that an epidemic does not distinguish between circumcised and uncircumcised. But an explanation will still be required for the other plagues: How does a *solar eclipse* affect the entire Luxor and Nile region, and not be felt in the *Jewish Quarter*? Is this also related to hygiene?
Although, it is not difficult to argue that this motif of discrimination is the fictional part of the story, which is inflated from its historical-concrete core. However, here we will once again bring into the picture the motif of public control *which may be able to ignore marginal details, but*: Such a detail will certainly not be absorbed by the public, since it has the potential to completely change the entire historical meaning of the story and determine whether it is a natural or miraculous event. Millions of people who have witnessed an event of natural dimensions will not agree to believe and pass on to their children a *fictional addition* that turns the event into a miraculous one, and in any case also requires acknowledging gratitude to the causer of the event, and even obeying his binding dictates.
And if the discrimination motif passed the barrier of criticism, and the masses approved of it (by actually writing it, by accurately transmitting it traditionally, and especially by accepting the lifestyle required by belief in the sacredness of the event) – then this proves that this detail is part of the factual story, which no commentator can erase in order to adapt reality to his rustic theory.
• The form. Even if we were to ignore the precise timing motif and even the discrimination motif, even then there would be much bewilderment in the natural-scientific interpretation, because out of an eagerness to deny faith and the burden it imposes on man, many modern interpreters have failed in the scientific ignorance that oozes from their explanations (and since it is difficult to accuse them of a lack of intelligence – they have a lot of merit in their argument, and to determine that they are acting with malicious disregard…).
And what are these things supposed to mean? The modern rewriting, which attempts to explain the natural processes that gave rise to the plague, ignores the contradiction between the form described in the Bible through mass testimony and the form in which we know such an occurrence through natural processes:
The most contagious plague needs a minimal amount of time to develop and transmit its bacteria from the focus of the plague to the entire population of the country, while the Bible describes the immediate outbreak of plagues, boils, or lice, simultaneously throughout Egypt at the wave of Moses' hand.
The darkness of a solar eclipse, described in the Bible as a pitch-black darkness that can be felt (*and there was darkness* ) and does not allow for movement or movement (*and no one stood under it* 6, ), is different from the solar eclipse we are familiar with, which is nothing more than the dimming of the sun's light like the light of sunset shadows, and not as complete darkness. It is even more ridiculous to attribute a total darkness lasting three days to the natural process of a solar eclipse, which, as we know, is the result of the position of the Earth and the Moon in relation to the Sun, and since these stars are constantly moving, the phenomenon of the eclipse lasts only a short hour. Did the moon in Egypt really hide the sun for three days without moving? And if so, do you have a greater miracle than that?
And the most counterintuitive is the attempt to attribute the factual description of the Red Sea's parting to tides. Not only because the effect of the tide is only noticeable along the coast, as the waterline recedes, but the tide does not pave a dry *path* into the sea between two enormous water bodies *unless you change the facts narrated in a way that would fit the tides thesis*, but mainly because the phenomenon of the tides is not the kind of phenomenon that transcended the understanding of the *primitives* (like the innovations of physics and biology), and it belongs to the kind of normal phenomena that were known to every Egyptian. And the evidence: Egypt is a country devoid of rain, and its entire economy is based on an artificial irrigation system, whose canals and ponds are filled every day at high tide and emptied at low tide. If the parting of the Red Sea was a normal, familiar phenomenon, how did Moses manage to *sell* it to the masses as a supernatural phenomenon, when every Egyptian farmer knows this phenomenon as something everyday on the banks of the Nile?
• Persistence. Some of the miracles occurred persistently, throughout the entire wilderness period (forty years), a phenomenon that has no parallel in magic or hypnotic fantasies (which operate in a one-time and fleeting manner). There is no natural explanation for the very existence and livelihood of a people numbering millions in the wilderness, their heavenly food, their miraculous waters, the clouds of glory, the pillar of fire, the durability of their clothes without ironing or washing, etc., and the people's dependence on the observance of God's commandments (such as the failed attempt to gather manna on the Sabbath, when, most miraculously, the *natural phenomenon* of manna did not occur on this very day, or the attempt to store and save portions of manna beyond the daily quota, which caused it to become wormy and rotten).
It should be noted secondly that these four characteristics are not an interpretation, but an integral part of the description of the facts *and not just marginal facts, but ones that determine the attitude of millions of people who describe the events as a miracle, or, conversely, as a natural phenomenon*. Anyone who remains attached to the factual description of the masses will in no way be able to explain the phenomena from a natural perspective, unless they deny the factual data (like those interpreters of biblical history who try to attribute the location of the miracle of the parting of the Red Sea to the shallow marshes of the bitter lake known as Lake Bradville).
They could just as easily claim that it was in Gordon's Pond, and after all, they are like that bum who looked for his lost item under an electric pole, and when they asked him if he lost it here, he replied: No! But there is light here, it is convenient to search here…).
And since it was explained above that from the perspective of historical science, it is impossible to deny the testimony and hearing of millions of people, any researcher who has the truth at his feet will be forced to admit that such events, with such characteristics, are a clear *finger of God.*
And were the Ten Commandments uttered by the power of *sorcery and witchcraft * ?
It must be admitted that at the level of intellectual thinking of 20th-century philosophy, where skepticism about the very possibility of proving the existence of an external absolute truth is so fashionable, there is still room for the skeptical intellect to cast doubt on the interpretation of miraculous phenomena (which occurred in Egypt, in the desert, and on Mount Sinai), and to claim that even if the fact of their occurrence is proven, it is not sufficient to confirm absolute confirmation that this was indeed a direct and unmediated encounter between human consciousness and God, Blessed be He, since only according to the Bible was He the One who spoke to us at the time of the Mount Sinai stand.
And in order to cast doubt on the identity of the entity that caused these phenomena, there is no need to deny the credibility of the millions who have passed on their impressions of the phenomenon from generation to generation, nor is there any need to rape the facts with narrow-minded pseudo-scientific platitudes and pass them off as natural phenomena.
On the contrary, one can believe the overwhelming historical evidence, and even agree that the mysterious factor causing these rare phenomena is a supernatural force, but all of this still does not give us the absolute certainty that what is behind all of this was indeed God.
*This is especially so in light of the fact that the human consciousness refuses to believe that an infinite and perfectly perfect God is capable of demanding the existence of many details in the message of the commandments, an existence that sometimes seems either meaningless and primitive or contrary to the intuitive morality inherent in the human instinct for justice.*
This skepticism gave rise to a system of alternative explanations, which attempt to point to the reason for the existence of these supernatural phenomena without identifying their creator as the gods of the world *with the added caveat that they do not consider this alternative explanation to be absolute, and they have not been able to get out of doubt. Furthermore, in their opinion, there is no way to reach absolute objective truth, because the tools – the senses and consciousness – are subjective and limited*.
Therefore, the doubt creeps in that the creators of these phenomena were nothing more than magical powers of sorcery, who by the power of their tricks created an optical illusion whose entire existence exists only in the minds of the viewers, and which has no connection with any real existence outside of consciousness *and doesn't the Torah of Israel also confirm the very existence of sorcery powers capable of creating miraculous phenomena, such as: the sorcerers in Egypt or the masters of false prophets…*
Even in modern culture (where the very existence and ability of magic and witchcraft are viewed with great skepticism), an *alternative belief* has developed in science fiction, which raises the possibility of the existence of entities from outer space, with a tremendous level of spiritual awareness, who may be responsible for and the originators of these *phenomena* *perceived by innocent humanity as a divine revelation*. They do this out of their own interests, and we have no way of understanding them and their motives for landing on Earth in order to deceive human beings.
As long as such a theory *whose modern representative is Erich von Thieken, author of *Chariots of the Gods*) remains a possibility, even unproven, it will be difficult for the intellectual, who expects absolute verification, to devote himself to living a lifestyle dictated to him by an unclear entity, and without the certainty that the details of the commandments in the Torah do indeed stem from the absolute divine truth.
Denial of a performance of witchcraft magic
Indeed, Maimonides, the teacher of the perplexed for generations, emphasized this problematic issue in his book of science 7 *, and distinguished between all the miraculous phenomena of signs and prophets from the plagues of Egypt and the unique phenomenon of revelation at Mount Sinai, and this is what he said:
Moses our Lord, Israel did not believe in him because of the signs he performed, that he who believes according to signs has a flaw in his heart, that it is possible for the sign to be made conspicuous *13* *14* and sorcery, but all the signs that Moses performed in the wilderness according to the need, he did not bring evidence of the prophecy, he had to invest the Egyptians – – he tore his yoke and smote them in it, we needed it for food – he brought down manna for us… and so did the rest of the signs…
And then he answers the obvious question:
And what did they believe in? At the presence of Mount Sinai! Which our eyes saw – and no stranger, and our ears heard – and no other, the fire and the voices and the torches and the voice speaking to him and we hear; Moses, Moses! Go tell them thus and thus…
In this passage, Maimonides makes it clear that miraculous mastery in itself does not constitute absolute proof of the identity of the creator, and there is legitimate doubt that this is nothing more than a magical illusion. However, what is not clear from his words on a superficial reading is:
What unique characteristic did Maimonides find in the revelation at Mount Sinai, which negates any possibility of casting skeptical blame on the identity hidden behind the revelation? If this is the unique characteristic that *our eyes saw – and not a stranger,* then did not our eyes see all the other signs to an equal extent, for *unlike pagan mythologies in which the people were not witnesses, and nourished by hearsay from the prophet of the sect, etc.* all the miracles of Egypt, the Red Sea, and the desert also took place before the eyes of those eyewitnesses who saw the revelation at Sinai?
But what? It is not the credibility of the witnesses that should be questioned, but rather the factor that caused the phenomenon *and therefore the signs do not constitute proof*. If so, what is the priority of the revelation at Sinai? And does not this phenomenon also have the possibility of being questioned, as if it were done by magic and sorcery?
And perhaps you will say: The breaking of the laws of nature that occurred at Mount Sigi was so amazing that it is certainly beyond the power of sorcery *such as the phenomenon of *seeing the voices,* which according to Chazal were *seeing (the sound) and hearing (the) visible* *15* , or *every word and speech that came out of the mouth of the Blessed One – their souls were aroused* *16* , etc. Or in today's style: it was an immediate experiential experience that leaves no room for doubt*.
However, there is still room for skepticism to challenge this argument:
• Also regarding the parting of the Red Sea, the Sages said: *A maidservant saw on the sea (a prophetic vision) what Ezekiel ben Buzi did not see.* 21 And also during the hailstorm, an amazing miracle occurred that included two opposites: *Fire ignited within the hail.* 22 Therefore, even the previous miracles did not fall short of the level of personal experience, or of the intensity of the deviation from the laws of nature. And yet, they do not constitute overwhelming proof of the identification of their creator *and, as Maimonides says, *that they may have been done by magic and sorcery**.
• There is no logical reason to limit the ability to sorcery only to the realm of objective phenomena, and there is reason to believe that a high-level sorcerer is also capable of inducing a subjective feeling of immediate, yet false, experience (in the mystical feelings of believers in various sects, who report experiences that occur only in their subjective imagination).
It should be noted: The Maimonides does not use any special supernatural motif in this passage (such as: *the sight of the ear and the hearing of the eye* or the blossoming of their souls), and is content with pointing to a completely simple phenomenon: hearing the (mysterious) voice, which personally addresses Moses and commands him to convey a message to the people. And this is astonishing: and is there no problem in causing this simple phenomenon of creating sound sounds through sorcery? And are there not things that are easy and obvious: if one can doubt the miraculous phenomena of fire blazing within hail or of the sea parting and a prophetic vision for all who pass through it, lest they become a spectacle and sorcery, as the Maimonides says, all the more so is there a high probability of fearing that the same sorcerer would create sounds that would be heard in the space of the world as *I am the Lord your God.* So what did Maimonides mean when he distinguished the status of Mount Sinai from other landmarks in the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt as something unique, giving the believer absolute, unquestionable certainty?
The Powers of Witchcraft – and Their Limitations
To clarify the issue, we must first understand the phenomenon of the false prophet, whose sole sign of the falsehood of his prophecy is that his message purports to add to or detract from the revelation at Sinai *claiming that God, the Blessed and Exalted, revealed himself to him and commanded him to abrogate a particular mitzvah or to add (or change) an unknown mitzvah*. In such a case, the Torah states with certainty that he is a false prophet and that he should be put to death.
And it would seem surprising: Isn't the prophetic message that the false prophet claims to deliver certainly accompanied by the demonstration of supernatural signs and wonders (otherwise no one would pay attention to his words, and he might even be hospitalized as a psychopathic hallucinator…) as explained in the Torah: *If a prophet or a stranger arises among you… and gives you a sign or a wonder – and the sign or the wonder comes to pass… saying, 'Let us go after other gods…' you shall not listen to the words of that prophet* ( 2 ).
The question arises: And isn't the very supernatural ability of that man to perform miracles and wonders a tangible fact! And certainly this is not from his own power as a man, born of a woman, and it is only because the Creator Himself bestowed this miraculous power upon him. If so, there is no doubt that the Creator supports his prophetic message, and how can we refuse to listen to the voice of the *messenger of God*? However, the Torah itself explicitly answers this question, explaining the prohibition: *You shall not listen to the words of that prophet… – for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God* and so on (ibid., 4).
This can be understood as follows: The powers of sorcery and the passions of magical spells are not, God forbid, an independent authority. We explained above that Judaism denies the possibility of two authorities, since the control of the infinite and omnipotent Creator is present in the entire universe, in every detail of His creatures, and no being in the world exists without the will of the Creator that constitutes it at every moment. This means that even the *rule* of the forces of Satan, with their mouths and spells, are subject to the protection of the one and unifying Divine will, and cannot exceed the scope that has been allowed for their activity.
And perhaps you will say: What interest does the Creator have in creating the blood-forces of sorcery and allowing them to create misleading illusions, which may sweep innocent people into their spells and lead them to follow the lie? The Torah answers: This is part of the challenging experience that man must face. Man must stand up to the magical temptation, not be impressed by the admiration of his senses, and prefer the absolute truth.
If the phenomenon of the supernatural did not exist at all in the world – apart from the miracles of the Jewish prophets and righteous men – it would undermine the equality of choice and the balance of power between good and evil, because every educated person would be forced to decide that the only absolute truth is in Judaism and its prophets, the only one capable of demonstrating supernatural phenomena, with no alternative.
Therefore, in order not to disturb the delicate balance between good and holiness and evil and impurity, God *allowed* the existence of supernatural forces, and granted them the ability to perform amazing signs and wonders that mesmerize the senses. But on the other hand, He gave us (for those who are interested in the absolute truth!) the means to identify the God of the mask, the fake miracles, and to determine objectively that this is only an experiment that must be endured, and that we should not be impressed by the fake stunts. This is based on the direct encounter with the king in his public appearance before all Israel at Mount Sinai, where He commanded us to have an eternal constitution, to which we will not add or subtract.
Attempt or abuse?
To clarify the issue, we will use a parable about a flesh-and-blood king: Sometimes the king decides to test the people's loyalty and obedience to his orders, and he sends them a general adorned with signs of excellence, with unlimited executive powers, which prove that he does indeed draw his power and authority from the emperor himself. Then the general calls on the people to cease carrying out a certain order, which they heard from the king. The weak in character will be immediately influenced by the signs on his chest and the demonstration of his authoritative actions and will obey his voice, but the wise knights among the people will say to themselves: What do signs and wonders mean to me? And have we not heard directly from the king himself what his will is? This is nothing more than the king sending the general to test us whether we will be tempted by his tricks.
Such an attempt is possible because the people have a clear and unequivocal truth, by virtue of which they can reject any miraculous feat as an attempt, in which the Creator allowed the afterlife to create an illusion of temptation and confront the people with the challenge of discernment.
However, could it be imagined that the emperor would allow a double in his own image to appear on television in front of the nation and broadcast the king's will to it, and the people would be convinced that the king-emperor himself was speaking to them, and after the people devotedly and humbly carried out the message they heard from the double, the real king would come out to them and scold them: *You fools, and did you not understand that this was nothing but an experiment?* It goes without saying that in such a case it is not an experiment but abuse, and that it is impossible for the king to allow such a phenomenon to occur.
And the analogy: For every sorcerer's trick, it can be said that God gave the sorcerer the power to tempt us, in his attempt to get us to abandon the immediate message we heard on Mount Sinai. However, it is inconceivable that the Creator would allow the powers of sorcery to appear in His own image, and to utter *I am the Lord your God , * and that the entire nation would think that the Creator Himself was speaking to them. After a hundred and twenty years in which a Jew would faithfully keep the commandments of the sorcerer's double, they would sneer at him in the court of heaven and say to him: *And did you not realize that all this was to test you? Will you be tempted to put on tefillin and keep Shabbat?*
And what tools were available to the public listening to a *mystical voice with a personal identity* (*me*) to expose the falsehood of the illusion? And what divine interest would be achieved by *falsifying His (God's) will – with His (God's) will*?
The very lack of logic, justice, purpose, and utility in an attempt of this kind constitutes proof that a *personal* appearance of the Creator is in no way a magical imagination or UFO trick *which are also, of course, controlled by the same omnipotent Creator, who will not allow the message of truth to be thwarted*. It is worth noting that throughout the history of sorcerers, prophets of Baal, magicians, mediums, etc., none of them have succeeded in *producing* a *personal* divine appearance. Maimonides alluded to this distinction when he distinguished between miracles and revelation. Miracles are devoid of a *personal* appearance of the Creator and devoid of a message of commandments (such as the plundering of the natural systems that occurred in Egypt and the Red Sea), and they do not constitute absolute proof regarding the one who produced them (the one who claims prophecy), since there is a possibility that they were produced by the power of sorcery and black magic. Revelation, on the other hand, involves a *personal* appearance, transmitting the Creator’s will and commands to humanity in an immediate manner. Such are the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai, which *our eyes saw* (and what did they see?) *and no stranger* – not a strange phenomenon, but the revelation of the King himself – *and our ears heard (and what did they hear?) and no other* *17* – not someone else speaking on behalf of the King, but a direct encounter with the King himself. Such a phenomenon cannot be an attempt at illusion. The Creator has no interest in allowing and perpetuating the distortion of the truth and transmitting such disinformation, for in doing so he himself would disrupt the implementation of his own will. Would that be called an attempt?
who set out on a journey of mischief on Earth, and created a fictitious status that was mistakenly perceived by primitive humanity as a divine revelation. Von Daniken does not deny the existence of the Creator, the creator of the entire cosmos, but rather that in his view as a Christian, with all the pagan motifs in Christianity, the Creator's providence does not encompass everything that happens in the cosmos, so it is possible that alien entities coveted them and called God a stick in the wheel.
However, the God of Israel in the Jewish view is not so senile that he does not notice what is happening under his nose, or is unable, God forbid, to stop a phenomenon that could disrupt the entire purpose of creation. Therefore, for us, as Jews, believers in a supreme, personal, and encompassing providence for all creatures in the world, it is clear that such a foolish theory is completely impossible.
In this, Israel was distinguished from all nations and religions, thanks to the direct encounter that took place between the entire nation and the Creator of the world, without intermediaries: *And all the people see the voices* and perceive the will of the Creator and the public authority that He granted to the father of the prophets, Moses, our Lord, *the faithful ambassador,* who was publicly trained as an ambassador to continue the connection between God, the Blessed, and His chosen people. In this, we were granted a source of absolute truth, a point outside the world, by whose power we can lift the world.
" show_chat_log="show" show_user_log="show" temperature="" max_tokens="" autostart="no" start_recording="Start Recording" stop_recording="Stop Recording" not_recording="Not Recording" recording="Recording…" record_button_color="#007bff" record_text_color="#ffffff" record_status_color="#f8f9fa" record_status_text_color="#333333" chat_container_color="#e4e8ec" chat_log_container_color="#ffffff" ai_bubble_color="#f5f5f5" ai_bubble_text_color="#000000" user_token_cap_per_day="#000000" user_bubble_color="#0084ff" user_bubble_text_color="#ffffff" enable_god_mode="disabled"]