Contradiction between Torah and morality

Well, there’s room in a new thread to address these points. First, I will go ahead and clarify my argument further. In one of the first issues of Tzohar, a part of a book was published in which Rabbi Kook criticized the New Testament. I read it and pinched myself to see that I was not delusional. I have never seen such absurd things. In principle, he criticized the New Testament verses from the ‘Ketzot’ (as a metaphor. And I think at least once it was real). The contradictions he found there were much less than the contradictions that others find in our sources. So what is the difference? The question is whether you are inside or outside. If you have empathy for the Jewish-Halakhic tradition, you will reconcile these contradictions in ways that will seem to others as pressing, but from your point of view it will be satisfactory. Because you have a basic trust that it comes from heaven and that it is true and that there is certainly no nonsense there. And if you look from the outside, then all of this and pressing will seem ridiculous to you. Therefore, such criticisms are pointless. By the way, I am not speaking on a subjective level. In my opinion, both sides are right. Whoever comes to the conclusion that the tradition in question is reliable from his point of view is right in being willing to accept settlements. Barely. After all, the alternative is that this tradition is talking nonsense. And this is the interpretation of the Rishonim on the doctrine of “God judges all people equally” in the Avars. The same is true with criticism of other positions and beliefs. When it is done from the outside, everything seems terribly clear and logical, and they seem like a restless herd of fools. But if you ask them, then at least for some things you will find a solution (yours will probably seem cramped, and so on). Not everyone there is a complete fool, and in my experience Tamar is not either. I asked her some of these questions, and I was left with the feeling that I disagree with most of them and that at times it is an absurd approach. But it is clear to me that those who are on the inside see things differently. Now you will understand that the questions I asked you, and I wrote to you that I agree with most of your assertions, were meant to reflect to you the way others could make it difficult for you. Your excuses will seem to them the same as the excuses of the Reformers seem to you. Beyond that, as I wrote to you, I am not their representative on earth. They are alive and exist, and if it really interests you, you can contact them and ask them. It’s like learning about Christianity from all the writings of Abraham Korman and the Ramban debate. You understand that it’s not serious. Now to my/your questions: 1. Death penalties. I already mentioned that these were abolished when they were still around when the murders increased. Is there a halakhic source for this? So were the Sages also Reform? You are content with the excuse that when the murders increased in the 14th century, they would be able to uproot something from the Torah in the Book of Revelation (as far as I remember, without any source for this principle). You understand that from the outside, this seems like a broken excuse. They simply did not want to kill too many people, even though the Torah commands it. Not to mention that the Sages occasionally uprooted even in the Torah, and this is when they themselves write that there is no permission to do so. So are they Reform again? The answer is yes, if you look from the outside. You and I prepare from the inside, and therefore it is clear to us that there is an internal logic to things, and that is enough for us. And also the issue of the neighbors, there is the “shlichiyot” regulation, which in itself is nothing but absurd (in the eyes of outsiders). Since when have we heard of shlichumi without an appointment, and a shlichumi whose dispatcher died (the opinion of a single scholar in the Rambam that was rejected with contempt by the Aharonim as nonsense that has no basis). And if they already did shlichumi, why wouldn’t they also do it for the laws of persons? After all, it is a great need to prevent murder, isn’t it? But what, a Reformer will tell you, they wanted not to kill (as was the policy even when they were neighbors – a murderous-fatal trial) and they anchored it with formal platitudes (even when they were neighbors, they used the same Reform platitudes, a puncture instead of a sword, etc.). So were they Reform or not? It all depends on whether you are an insider or an outsider. 2. The same is true regarding Amalek, for which we have cited all sorts of reservations that have no real source. The Bible simply states that they must be killed, including children and women, from young to old. But Chazal and even more so Maimonides, were very specific about this. So they are also Reformers? Furthermore, do you understand that if this were to happen in our day (and the Reformers, to remind you, did not operate during the time of the Temple, but in our day), we would make more of these kinds of excuses, such as “we have no power to attack,” etc., and flee the scene on the left foot with a change so that we would not have to actually do it (even on a deserted island). So the Reformers honestly put this on the table. Again, I do not intend to say that they are right, but rather to demonstrate to you your external and unbalanced point of view in this discussion. 3. There is no need to expand on the subject of taking down and not raising up. A strictly Reform invention. No one knows how to prove it, rape in opinions, our hands are not strong, a baby that was captured, etc. All of these are reasons that I personally accept, but from an external perspective they look no better than the Reform reasons in your eyes. By the way, someone just posted a link here to an article by Yehoshua Berman, which presents biblical law as customary law and not statutory law (in my opinion, an inaccurate terminology). It’s interesting to read and be impressed by the “Reformists.” https://rationalbelief.org.il/%D7%A4%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%94%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%A2-%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%9E%D7%9F-%D7%A1%D7%AA%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%90-%D7%9C/ 4. In general, my relationship to all these commandments is described in column 15 and in many other places here on the site. In my opinion, they are valid, but in practice most of them will not be carried out (as they were not carried out in the past). Until you live the things and are required to carry them out, as long as you are peppering the court, you are adhering to the law as the statutory article. I promise you faithfully that when you are required to carry them out in practice, you will be a reformer of the double. And a parable turns into a story in the mishna at the end of the book of Demach in the dispute between the R.G. and the R.A. and the R.T. Amp. In the Sanhedrin, no one was ever killed. They in the court (neither of them were in the Sanhedrin) intervened and saved the whole world and his wife from death. But the R.G. was the president of the Sanhedrin and was responsible for order. He cannot afford to have many bloodsuckers in Israel. I gave another example of this in my article on Gazia: https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%94%D7%99-%D7%92%D7%96%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%AA-%D7 %94%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%911-%D7%A2%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%91%D7%93%D7% 99%D7%9F-%D7%A2%D7%93%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%96%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9D/ Think about two witnesses who testify that Reuven killed the soul. Now two brothers come and plot against them. As is known, brothers are ineligible to testify, and therefore the law is upheld. The murderer deserves death and the plotters are exempt. What do you think the court will do? In the court, everyone I spoke to said that this is indeed what would be done. And I say that whoever does this is an idiot and an evil person and should be immediately removed from the judicial bench (and transferred to the Rabbinate’s court. There, these exalted qualities are a virtue, certainly if he is the cousin of Aryeh Deri’s servant). Why? After all, this is the law? True, and it is still clear that the court does not kill an innocent person. They will evade it by claiming a fraudulent law, etc. (which has no halachic basis in this case). [Just to remind you that the Torah invalidates the testimony of relatives not because there is suspicion of lying, as is written in the issue of the second part and cited in the Rambam and Shulchan Arutz Sheva. That is, the two brothers are truthful and their testimony is a testimony on the factual level, even if not halakhic.] 5. The same goes for saving a Gentile on Shabbat. In the High Court, everyone is harping on this prohibition to death, but in practice no one enforces it. There are excuses from here to Petah Tikva, but in practice it is not enforced. And it is not because of the excuses, but because they understand that dos is not proper. Reformers like them. And again, this is about my own positions. If you have questions about the Reformed or the Christians, this is not the place to clarify them. Go there and ask.