Parshat Amor = A priest with a defect

Hello Rabbi Y.
1. I read. I assume that Rabbi Lichtenstein here is following the custom of his father-in-law (regarding the right-to-right assumption), who wrote that the assumptions came down from Sinai and are eternal. In my understanding, it is unlikely that he himself believes this, and he probably wrote this to answer the questions of the species. Rabbi Lichtenstein is certainly well aware of the effects of reality and renewed values ​​on Halacha, and he is probably also afraid of a Reform drift.
2. Although there is a fine line between this and the attitude towards the deaf and hearing impaired (where Maimonides already writes in Pihamash that this is not a fundamental problem but rather an inability to learn, and when this is resolved there is no reason to change the halakha in this regard), therefore Rabbi Benny’s example is not successful.
3. And of course, it is still desirable to prove from the sources that the problem is indeed that having a disability is considered something inferior (not acceptable to the Pasha), and then there is room for the claim that today this has changed.
4. Incidentally, the argument in section 3 is different from Rabbi Benny’s argument. As I understand it, he argued that today’s norms require a change in the attitude toward people with disabilities because there is an obligation to bring them closer and there is a value of equality. For this reason, I can understand Rabbi Lichtenstein’s indignation, who rejected the possibility that the Sages acted immorally towards people with disabilities (I’m not really sure he’s right). This is a change in values ​​that affects the halacha, and Rabbi Lichtenstein opposed this. But in my opinion, it should be phrased a little differently, that the change is factual and not value-based, and then it’s a completely legitimate halakhic argument: Today’s norms have caused the disabled person to not be considered inferior, and in any case the halacha itself does not disqualify him because today he does meet the criteria for sacrificing to your brother. This is a completely different formulation from the first, despite the apparent similarity. Here, the argument is that the halacha itself requires a change in application due to a change in circumstances, while Rabbi Benny’s argument is that the halacha disqualifies the disabled person but contemporary moral values ​​prevent us from acting in this way. This really smacks of reform and a lack of commitment to the halacha, but rather to the values ​​of the time (by the way, this is not mandatory disqualification either. According to the fifth part of the Shulchan Arba’ah, and ECM).

5. I am submitting two articles, one dealing with converts and the other with changes in halakha in general:

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%94%D7%9E%D7%A2%D7%9E%D7%93-%D7%94%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%99-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%92%D7%A8-%D7%90%D7%A4%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%99%D7%94-%D7%90%D7%95-%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A1-%D7%97%D7%91%D7%A8%D7%AA%D7%99/

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%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/

6. Regarding the blind man, I did not understand the question. Do you mean that the blind are obligated by the mitzvot? Here too, all of the above types of arguments must be discussed.
Incidentally, also regarding the desecration of the Sabbath for saving an eye, the defenders of the De’ina should discuss in detail why eye danger is a sin (Rashi and his grandson R’t disagreed on this, as is known (Ezra 28:2b): one of them bases this on a medical argument (eye danger endangers life) and the other on a substantive argument (loss of an eye is as important as loss of life). Both of these reasonings are worth examining in light of today’s reality and, of course, contemporary medical knowledge.