Don’t demand anything miraculous from you.

Rabbi Michi Shalom
In one of your YouTube lessons, you give an example of a midrashic interpretation in the case of the prohibition of a woman’s testimony in the law of property, on the grounds that women today are different from before (open, educated, etc.) and therefore there is a reason to allow it.
A. There are other reasons written for why a woman should be banned from testifying, some of them under arguments that are also consistent with today’s reality (a woman with an emotional world, can break down during interrogations, all her dignity as a princess is hidden inside, modesty, etc.) So how can one choose one reason and based on it say “it is not relevant today.”
on. The teaching of the prohibition of female testimony is learned from the Torah from a derivation of the same, this is a “heavy” source and not some kind of sage ruling or reservation. If you take the explanation here and remove the relevance, you can turn the entire Torah upside down.
1. What do you perceive as the limits on the ability to independently understand how to proceed in terms of interpreting the reasons for prohibitions?
2. The question of authority. Who, in your view, was given the authority to decide whether here we are demanding that “if the reason is nullified, the law is nullified” or has it changed a little? Are you speaking on a theoretical level and expecting the Sanhedrin or are there things that, in your view, can be implemented today?