On the issue of the disconnect between Halacha and morality, and hermeneutics.

I will ask in a different, though similar, way:
When the posak or interpreter comes to interpret a certain issue, does he come with his own perceptions and basic assumptions? In other words, if a certain halakhah contradicts the posak's philosophical perception, will he (even if subconsciously) interpret it differently or simply? In other words, what is the place of my basic perceptions when I encounter an issue?
In a slightly different way, are there only internal halakhic explanations behind a certain halakhic (or legal) determination (i.e., interpretation of ancient sources), or also philosophical/gothic/ideological explanations? I see a fallacy in the second option, because "explanation" means a necessary and sufficient reason. Therefore, if there is an internal halakhic reason for a certain halakhah, why look for another reason (i.e., the philosophical perception)? This is Occam's razor.

Or let's put it this way:
We all agree that the posak comes with his own preconceptions, he brings himself (compounded by his upbringing, etc.) to the sources. This is simply a fact. But my question is, should he make a special effort to neutralize the influence of his views on the interpretation of the text?

An explanation provides a sufficient reason but not necessarily a necessary one. Certainly the views of the arbiter are expressed in his interpretation and rulings. And who disagrees with that?
And he certainly does not need to neutralize them. That is his view. Of course, there is always the balance against interpretative honesty.

Is it okay for you that an interpreter whose view tells him that homosexuality is okay and permissible and everything, and he manages to interpret the halakhic sources in such a way that it follows from them that homosexuality is permissible, wouldn't that be a warning in your opinion? Even if his interpretation is reasonable, maybe he is misled by his view?

Absolutely. This is a private case of what I wrote. As long as his interpretation holds water (in his opinion).

Regarding the categorical difference between law and morality,
What is behind any law of law? Do the laws of the Torah reflect an ideology or different ideologies? In other words, is it possible to know, based on the fact that the Torah commanded such and such, that the Torah advocates an ideology, for example, communist/capitalist, or feminist, etc., etc.?
That is, does the question, for example, "Is the Torah misogynistic?" have any meaning or not? And if we make excuses for this, "Yes, only the husband buys and throws away, there is no problem with a cheating husband, it is written that I did not make a wife, etc.", are we right?

What is behind the law "put on tefillin"/"write a ketubah when you get married"/"a free keeper is exempt from theft"/"a man's wife is liable to death, but a cheating husband has no problem"/etc., etc., all the laws?
Is there any logic behind them that can be pointed to?
Is the Torah just a system of laws that does not teach us any ethical/moral/judicial/other lessons, or does the Torah want us to draw ethical/ideological/moral/philosophical conclusions from the laws it commands us to follow?

In general, I think it is not possible to learn general principles from the laws. In most cases that I have seen people do this, they are just vorts. Economic perception depends on common sense and should not be sought in the law.
It is true that the law discriminates against women, and there is probably a certain perception of the role of women in society behind this. But in most cases, these are laws that were shaped by the Sages and not by the Torah itself (even if they are laws from the Torah), and therefore general principles should not be learned from them either. The status of women has changed, and even if there are laws that we do not have the authority to change, there is no need nor is it logical to draw moral and principled conclusions from them.

Okay, but, is there logic (even if we can't understand it because of our smallness) behind the laws? In the law of the Torah itself, I don't know, for example, the prohibition of interest, is there any logic/ideology/philosophy behind it, or is it just an arbitrary order?

I assume there is logic and purpose behind every commandment. But the attempts to reach them are usually very questionable in my opinion. Beyond that, most of the Halacha from the Torah that we have was created by the Sages and not from the Torah itself, and I commented on that above.

Here, for example, in column 503 you concluded from the sources of halakhah that the correct philosophical view is that of a tolerant monist. Does this mean that you must be a (philosophical) tolerant monist? And if I think the truth is that one must be a pluralist, and I also think that you are right that from the sources of halakhah a tolerant monist view emerges, what should I do?

I am not talking about general tolerance but about the meta-halakhic approach. I proved there that in Halakhah the correct approach is tolerance. That does not mean that this is the approach in other areas that are not related to Halakhah. There you will act according to your own opinion.

Rabbi, I feel a little unsatisfied with the above discussion. I wanted to repeat with you a few points that I didn't quite understand:
1. What is the meaning of the disconnect between halacha and musar, with moral considerations sometimes behind halacha? Here you see that halacha (can be) derived from morality, and that morality can therefore be learned from halacha.
Is there a difference in this between rabbinical halacha and halacha from the Torah?

You explain that facts do not have formal authority. Norms do. However, what does this mean, since a certain fact (ideology) stands behind a norm? It is clear that when God commands me to do X, He does not simply command that I do X as a robot and that is it, but rather He wants that when I do X, I internalize the ideology, the ethical consideration, that stands behind X. But we have already seen that ideologies have no authority, and if I do not identify with it, nothing in the world can change that. And this is related to the question of hermeneutics, when I see that God commands me to do X, can any ideology be inferred from this?

I would be very grateful if you could explain this to me.

There are no moral considerations behind the laws. For people, when there are two ways of interpretation, we choose the one that is consistent with morality.
You are making some unfounded assumptions here. The law does not require a reason to read, and hence it is not true that the goals of the laws should be conscious of us and cause us to adopt concepts. Factually this is not true. God has reasons and goals for which the law was created, but these are His considerations and not ours.

Do you think that Halacha can regulate the daily life of the Jewish people, while it does not contain moral principles and moral norms?
If God wanted the Jewish people to conduct themselves according to Halacha, and nothing else is needed for the Jewish people to live in order like any other nation, does this mean that in order to achieve social order we do not need moral or legal rules (since in Halacha the principles and considerations are neither moral nor legal, but religious and metaphysical)??

I don't begin to understand this strange question. Halacha and morality together regulate the life of the Jewish people. But why distinguish between the two?

The role of morality is not to regulate social life. Otherwise we would legislate it.
A legal system comes to achieve a social order that will exist even without the people of society being moral people at heart.

Halacha is sufficient to manage a proper society (even if there were a law, there would be Halacha, and according to which the Jewish people were supposed to act, and therefore it can regulate social order)
Halacha does not stand behind moral principles (I am not behind any legal system in which moral principles can be found).
Conclusion: Here is an amazing phenomenon, a proper society can exist even without morality.
It is unlikely that a society can exist without morality.
Conclusion (by way of negation): Of course, behind Halacha stand moral considerations, and moral goals, and not just religious goals. CQFD.

Come on! Where does this nonsense come from? Moral rules are necessary together with Halacha, and their mode of operation is such that it does not require legislation and enforcement. What requires enforcement will be introduced through Halacha or in certain cases, the Sages will introduce it into Halacha (imposing the measure of Sodom, etc.).

Is the purpose of the Torah's laws (both prohibitions and legal ones) to achieve justice (human, social, moral, worldly, etc.)?
If so, then when there is a conflict between morality/justice and apparent law, I must correct my perceptions of what is just.
If not, then what is their purpose anyway? If you will, are the commandments arbitrary?

You asked this yourself in a parallel thread and I answered there. Their goal is religious values and not justice in the sense that is accepted here. I referred to column 15, and the beginning of the third book of the trilogy.