Studying “regular” law

Thanks for the answer
Let's assume then that the Sages had an opinion to say fixed as half upon half. This is obviously not a complete opinion, since they feel the need to demand this law from a verse.
So I have another question: How do we study the laws of life for the entire Torah? Can we paraphrase ”What about the laws of life that have a demand and investigation, do we not generally say “fixed”, and that it applies to the entire Torah, which does not have a demand and investigation? ”
And if so, for the entire Torah, we are left with an incomplete explanation without a sermon from a verse

That's hard for me to answer. It seems that at least after studying the verse, they understood that the explanation in itself is correct, and if so, it is not a kola bi-nesfhot but a sweeping halakhic rule. In other words, if it were a formal halakhic principle that is not anchored in probability, then there would be room to say that it is a kola bi-nesfhot. But they apparently understood that there is a probabilistic claim here, even though a verse is required to deduce it, and therefore there is no distinction between nefhot and other halakhic contexts.

If I understand the rabbi's proposal correctly, there are several steps in this sermon:
1. Conjecture
2. Applying an explanation to the laws of souls by virtue of a sermon on the verse “And I arose and laid wait for him”
3. A (misguided?) understanding that the original explanation was indeed probabilistic
4. Extending the law to the entire Torah

Is this what the rabbi means?

(It's a shame, the rabbi's article actually convinced me that a fixed law cannot be interpreted using probabilistic tools, and that it is worth looking for other types of explanations – legal ones, for example…)

First of all, the truth is never a “sorrow.”
Secondly, I didn’t understand your paragraph 3. An explanation is not wrong.
And thirdly, I don’t remember what was in that column anymore, but I also suggested statistical explanations for the fixed law (if only because the fixed law is only stated for most of the data available and it itself is not probabilistic). But even if the explanation is legal and not statistical, if it is not formal but has (legal) logic, it is still correct to extend it to other areas.

A fixed law is indeed learned from the verse that speaks of souls, but the exemption in it is from the “most” genders – such as for example, I will teach the laws of lighting from adding oil to the menorah [is it considered lighting the Hanukkah candle or not] to the rabbis of a kindler on Shabbat, which is a work [according to one opinion] that requires stoning, and we will be asked how one can learn from Hanukkah rabbinic works for Shabbat, [if I remember correctly, I am simulating the things, but the principle is clear and is very much found in the issues of the Shas to learn rules in this way when what is being learned does not arise from the subject being taught. [And perhaps this is also the intention of the rabbi]

He himself asked about this: Why is this a general principle? It was stated in terms of souls, and the expansion can be expanded to include: “What about souls, for they are relieved of a good punishment from the law, and they saved the community.”

I think the answer is simple. The exemptions in the law of life are when there is doubt whether the accused is indeed the murderer, and in this case it is said, "And save the congregation" to save the one who may be justified. But there is no logic in exonerating convicted murderers because of the "And save the congregation" argument, because we really do not want to save murderers. Therefore, if according to the normal rules the person who threw a stone at Lego is considered a murderer (because most of Israel) then it is not possible to exempt him from the law, "And save the congregation." Unless it is a general law in the Torah that is established as a half and the exemption of this murderer is not from the "And save the congregation" (but only indirectly, according to the normal rules he is considered as a half on a half, and then our friend, "And save the congregation" comes and saves him as he saves others).

Very unlikely. And the witness saved him, talking about situations where it's clear he's the murderer.

Can you give an example of such a situation? (Then my suggestion would be completely unfounded and not just very unlikely.) What I wrote about the rescuer dealing with when there is still doubt and with extreme care to clarify every right side that exists, I did not write from knowledge, but only from the detail that I saw in one of the mishnahs of the Law of Momun, where the differences are that souls are twenty-three and there is no opening for duty and no one is being held back for duty and no one is being returned for duty, etc.

What is the logic in saving someone who is clearly the murderer? If the Torah does not want us to kill murderers, then don't say kill murderers.

You can see a review here: https://asif.co.il/wpfb-file/avn-15-9-pdf/
For example, in special testimony there is no real doubt about the facts, and there is more.
And if we follow the majority in our minds, then there is no real concern about doubt about the facts. And yet we do not follow the majority in our routine.

I see that my suggestion is indeed unfounded. What you wrote at the end of your words, “and yet one does not always follow the majority,” I did not understand what you were trying to say, because from that I concluded (according to the suggestion that was refuted) that a fixed law cannot be on the part of the saved party to avoid relying on the majority in such a case and save the murderer, but rather that it is a general law in the Torah.

I argued that even in the case of a majority, there is doubt and yet we follow it. Halacha does not hesitate to trust a majority.

The Rabbi's words: ”But even if the explanation is legal and not statistical, if it is not formal but has (legal) logic, it is still right to expand it to other areas.”

That is exactly what I am asking about, and I will elaborate:

What is your opinion:

If an explanation is not strong enough on its own, as if it were without a verse, then it should not be studied except:
– in the case described in the verse
– and in cases that are no more than months older than the case of the verse (if there are any)
Therefore, we will study only the laws of souls and in the other cases in which ”and saved” (if there were any)

If an explanation is strong enough and does not require anchoring in a verse, then the fact that the Torah chose to mention it specifically in the verse that speaks of the laws of souls, in which there is ”and saved” Proves that this explanation cannot be upheld in other laws that do not include ”and saved”

And to that I answer again: Explanation is not enough to renew the law without a verse. But after the verse, we understand that it is indeed an explanation. And since there is an explanation here, and I understand that its essence is a fundamental innovation in the majority law and not a law of lightening souls, I apply it to all other contexts in halacha.
We repeat ourselves. We have exhausted ourselves.