Thank you very much for the answer! (And congratulations :])

With your permission, I’d like to respond to these lines:
“Beyond that, even if I reached the conclusion that this is indeed the meaning of the verse, there is the possibility that the verse was not in the original and was added later.”

Don’t you think that lowers the value of the entire Torah as a moral authority when you “trim” it so that it fits your moral values? After all, what is really the difference between “each person does what is right in his own eyes” and “each person picks out from the Torah the parts that seem morally right to him and attributes everything else to later additions”? Or, as Richard Dawkins phrased the question in one of his debates, why bother with the Hebrew Bible at all if you pick and choose what to accept and what not to?

As for your saying this is a hypothetical question: you are absolutely right. I exaggerated too much in order to sharpen the point. So now I’ll ask a different, non-hypothetical question that comes from the Hebrew Bible itself:
Suppose the Temple is rebuilt tomorrow (amen). I have no doubt that, assuming there isn’t some cosmic mental shift, quite a few vegans and vegetarians will get up and refuse to offer sacrifices, for obvious reasons: if animals have feelings and so on, what fault is it of theirs that we sinned? Why should they have to die? Where is the justice in that? Seemingly they are right, no? Do you see a substantive difference between the extreme example I gave above and this example? Thanks in advance for everything. I’m in the process of repentance because of you, but these problems trouble me.

Hello.
First, it is more convenient and easier to present things as though the whole Torah was shot from Sinai as is. But what is easier is not necessarily what is true. In principle, the assumption is that everything is binding, because even if it was not given at Sinai, it was written or edited by later prophets. But in an extreme case, this possibility should also be taken into account. In order for me to murder, I need absolute certainty that this is what the Holy One commands me to do, and in practice there is no such situation. But as stated, there is no such commandment, and therefore the question is hypothetical, and as I said, discussion of hypothetical situations is not useful. It would be worth reading the article in the link I sent you; it is explained well there.
Beyond that, there are in the Torah commands that are non-moral, as distinct from anti-moral ones, and there my commitment would certainly come into expression. Therefore it is not correct to say that I do whatever I want. I do what the Holy One wants, but His will is expressed through Jewish law and morality together. If I simply want something, that certainly does not override God’s will.
By the way, the Sages and the halakhic decisors also did and do this quite a bit, and nobody disputes that their interpretation is binding.

Regarding vegetarianism, it depends on what the circumstances will be then. Will there be abuse of animals? Because from my perspective, their very killing is not so problematic. Is the prohibition against killing animals, in my view, really that extreme? When we live in that situation, under the conditions that prevail at that time, we’ll talk.
Beyond that, it truly is not clear that the obligation to slaughter animals will in fact return. Rabbi Kook and his student Rabbi Nazir cite a midrash of the Sages that says it will not. Again I’m saying that you are engaging in hypothetical discussions, and there is no benefit in that. See the aforementioned article.