David Enoch and Rabbi Shimon Shekap

It's just like morality, which is also not related to the commandments of Halacha, and yet is binding by virtue of the will of God.

Mikhi, I don't understand your method.
If logic dictates that morality precedes Torah (and certainly Halacha), wouldn't I expect the Torah to explicitly inform us of this? Your eyes, seeing that we all get confused about this all the time, and the Torah, as a document that takes itself so seriously, should probably have taken this into account and placed it before our eyes, on the table.
The precedent has a gullet. Isn't that right?

First, it is not prior but parallel.
Second, the Torah does say this. “And you shall do what is right and good”.

This is a very interesting answer, but it does not agree with what you said a few hours ago in the response above. But even if you go back in the next few hours and assume that there is a precedence of morality over Torah (“and you did what is right and good”) you have not solved the problem. I will explain:
Here I am reminded of your consistent position that almost nothing can be learned from Torah. As you know, I think this is a wild exaggeration, but in certain cases people do indeed project onto Torah the thoughts of their hearts without any control. I think this is also the case with your claim regarding “you did what is right and good”.

First (and this is a less important claim) the scope of these adjectives (good, honest, etc.) in the entire text is very limited.
Second, the more fundamental argument: From the perspective of the Torah, when there is a dilemma between religious values (primarily the acceptance of the Torah and the observance of the commandments) and moral and universal human values, the choice is almost always the former. There is no equivalence (the equivalent in your language) between the two. And here is evidence: the main validity of both moral and religious laws is the status of Mount Sinai reported in the Torah itself, that is, a purely religious principle that carries on its back both universal morality and religious principles. This is a commandment (norm) addressed to a specific group only and therefore the correct way to interpret it is as giving precedence to the religious sphere over the moral one.

If you like: From the perspective of the Torah, it itself is “right and good” because God gave it, not that God gave it because it was “right and good”.

I don't see a single word I repeated about it.

For your convenience:

This is your first claim:
“That system also receives validity by virtue of the will/command of God, but it precedes the Torah. God also brought charges against Cain for murdering even though He had not yet commanded him to murder. There are norms that exist by virtue of the will of God and precede the Torah.”

And this is the second, in answer to my question regarding the precedence of morality over the Torah:
”
First, it does not precede but is parallel”

You are mixing gender with non-gender. Rabbi Shkop is not talking about morality but about property laws. These truly preceded Halacha.

The Way of the Earth Preceded the Torah

Okay. You haven't answered my main question yet: You claim that there is equivalence in terms of the Torah between the moral system and the religious system, but in my opinion this conflicts with the fact that the Torah assumes the believer's commitment to it as a supreme value. In other words, it places a certain religious value prior to all other values (whether it is moral values or specific religious values – commandments).
How does this fit in with what you said?

On the sidelines of the matter, I am also interested in your assertion that property law precedes halacha. It seems puzzling to me, since these are “laws”.
Moreover, I know that classical halachic literature does indeed discuss them extensively as “laws” that can be ruled upon. But as mentioned, this is a marginal question.

I didn't understand what the equivalence you're talking about means. These are two parallel systems that both originate from the will of God. If that's what you meant, then that's what I'm claiming.
But the commitment to both is of equal status. Both are supreme values. What's the problem? What doesn't work here? And what doesn't work with it?

Regarding your trivial question, the halacha discusses all laws. Those that are based on reason, agreement, or a command in the Torah or the regulations of the sages. Property laws precede non-halacha commands.

Regarding my main question, I have already explained: If it is indeed about equivalence between the two systems (both of which originate from the will of God), why does the Torah place itself and the obligation to obey it as a prerequisite for all other norms, religious and non-religious? Don't you agree with me that when it does this, it itself prioritizes a religious value over all other values (among them moral values)? And if it is true, it does not align with your claim that there is equivalence.

Regarding property law, it really seems very vague to me… Above you replied that property law precedes halacha, and in your last answer you claimed that it precedes Zioni, not halacha. So do they precede or not?

I think my words are clear and unambiguous, and you insist.
The Torah did not set itself as a condition for all other norms. Moral norms are also found in the Torah, just not in the Halacha. Property norms precede the Halacha command but are part of the Halacha (a part that is not based on a command. There are other parts like that).

Well, we'll probably be left with a debate about who's the stubborn one here.
I'd be happy if other readers who share your position would be willing to explain it in other words. I don't find any logic in it.
Regarding the second issue, now you're talking about the "norms" of property and not about what I asked (laws). If this is your answer, then it makes more sense (previously it seemed like you were saying that the laws of halakhah precede halakhah, which is like saying that the laws of the Knesset precede the laws of the Knesset..).