What do we do?

Thank you Rabbi for the answer. I didn't understand why the Rabbi understood that this was a direct obstacle to him. It says there that what is relevant is that the Jew came at her with malice. It's not about what she did or didn't do.
Another question: What is the rationale for dividing between a Jew and a Gentile in this context?
In addition, how is a person living in a Western environment supposed to reconcile the conflict that exists within him between a ruling of this type and everything that shaped him as a person who was influenced by the values of the Western world and finds positive and correct principles in them?
What am I supposed to think about the Rambam who issued a halachic ruling of this type from under his own hand? These things really bother me. The Rambam is considered a great man in the world, and on the other hand, his perception of the Gentile is horrifying (at least to me). It's hard for me to contain the contradiction between this problematic ruling and the attitude I'm supposed to give to his image. How can we deal with the gap between the greatness of the sages of Israel, and things they said or wrote that seem very difficult to a person living in Western culture? And in general, is this aversion to the execution of a raped girl Western?
I admit that issues of this kind make it very difficult for me to be part of the religious community.
Thanks to the rabbi in advance.

Hello.
What leads me to interpret this way is precisely your question. Why interpret it in a harsh way? When he came to her with malice, that is, she failed him and he cooperated. Except that her failure was accidental.
Regarding the resolution of difficulties of this type (there is no difficulty here, as above), I will tell you two things: 1. The norms change over time, and there is no reason to rule as the Rambam specifically did. 2. Even if all the poskim agreed here, there is room and permission (and even an obligation) for the poskim of the time to change this. It should be remembered that the Gentiles once acted in a completely different way than the Gentiles today, and therefore this criticism is anachronistic. See my article Here:
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%9C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D 7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And here:
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%92%D7%95%D7%99-%D7%A9%D7%94%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%90-%D7%94%D7%9B%D7%99%D7%A8%D7%94/

It is worth Also see column 15 where I dealt with common errors in the perception of the relationship between morality and halakha and real difficulties (unlike the one here):
https://mikyab.net/%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%A1-%D7%91%D7%A9%D7%A2%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%A8%D7%91-%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94-%D7%95%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A8-%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A8-15/

Thank you very much.
But then another question arises for me: If we are indeed changing the halakha or at least adapting it to the norms of our time, then what is Judaism really? One can imagine that the norms currently prevalent in the Western world would look different due to various historical developments that would have put the West on a different path, and then our norms would also be different. From all this, it seems that the priesthood would be like a surrogate, and Judaism would pass through the sieve of the West. And then it is also not clear why Judaism is needed at all. After all, we judge it through lenses shaped in light of the norms of our time. It seems that we can dispense with it altogether. After all, our conscience does not need a book to understand that that ruling of the Rambam does not make sense in our time.

I will only add that in the case of a woman of good looks, they add another level to the Torah's permission to behave in this manner, and forbid it due to universal morality, but in the case of this halachic ruling by the Rambam, the move is different and the rabbi claims that certain behavior that is obligatory according to the halachic law (according to the Rambam, at least) should be abolished due to considerations of contemporary Western norms. (I am ignoring for now the fact that some disagree with the Rambam. I am talking about the principle. After all, there are other examples of such halachic laws that require immoral behavior according to the Western perspective.)

You make a strange assumption that we have some admiration for the norms of our time and therefore we find it appropriate to conform to them. And it is not. I simply think that these are indeed the correct norms, just as the sages learned from the culture of their time. Therefore, I adapt the Torah to what I think is right (and they always have). The world is moving towards the correct norms and not by chance falling into accidental norms.

There is something I don't understand. If the Torah is adapted to the norms of the time, it means that we know how to act without the guidance of any book. If so, the question returns, why do we need the Torah?

The Torah is not adapted to these norms but is also interpreted according to them. There is a very big difference between these two claims.

The difference between the claims is indeed great, the question is how this difference is expressed in practice. When will there be a situation in which the norms and conscience say A, and the Torah says B, and we decide B? What is the rule to distinguish between cases in which we decide A, and those in which we decide B?

Beyond all of the same, there are many laws that are not related to contemporary norms at all.
The practice is a topic in itself and I cannot write a complete essay here. If there is an example, it can be discussed.

I thank the rabbi for his openness and ability to conduct a real discussion, and so on. These things are not at all self-evident, and I doubt there are many other Torah figures who are capable of this.
I will give a few examples. For example, the idea of fertility and reproduction, which is based on the insight “He created without chaos.” Nowadays, it is clear that there is no longer a need to bring in additional humans. The norm in the West is 2 children or even fewer per woman. Humans have conquered the globe, and therefore, seemingly, logic says that this commandment is not in line with accepted norms. Another example is Jewish slaughter, which is considered cruel by Western standards. Why not stun the animal first? It is much more humane and in line with today’s norms. And what about the issue of homosexuality? Today’s norms say that people should not be hindered as long as they have not harmed others, and therefore, seemingly, there is something very strange about this prohibition. Let’s not say dark. Let’s not talk about circumcision. Harming a tender baby's organ in the name of values that clash head-on with today's norms.
Many thanks to the rabbi in advance for his openness and tolerance.

Let's look at these examples.
1. Regarding fertility and multiplication, there is indeed room for argument that today it is not desirable to have more than a son and a daughter. The obligation from the Torah is a son and a daughter, but from the words of Kabbalah “You did not wonder at the Creator” one should bring as many as one can. The attached law can be abolished today, and the reason is that the explicit interpretation of the verse is that the goal is to settle the world. Today, when the world is settled and further multiplication may even be harmful, it is no longer obligatory. Again, this explanation can be argued, but it is a legitimate opinion (and this is indeed my personal opinion) and this is enough for me to demonstrate the way of thinking.
You asked why the verse is needed if we follow our current understanding and norms. To renew the very obligation to have children. Without the verse, we would not think that there is such an obligation. The current norms only enter in stage B to limit what emerges from the verse. By the way, these are not contemporary norms but completely logical considerations. What is contemporary here is the situation (that the world is saturated) and not the way of thinking.
2. Jewish slaughter may not be optimal (in my opinion it is not cruel, but perhaps there are methods that are less painful. I am not sure about this), but the laws of slaughter were not intended only to alleviate the pain. Ts'a'ba'ach's consideration is a consideration from a whole complex, and therefore I see no room for change here.
3. The same applies to homosexuality. This is related to column 15 that I referred you to. The Torah's prohibition is immoral and therefore should not be judged in terms of morality and values. I do think that there is no moral wrong with this, but there is a religious wrong with this. And is eating pork, or blood, or milk (in the harvest) morally flawed? After all, the Torah prohibits it. In other words, the Torah has goals beyond moral goals. Therefore, the prohibition of homosexuality is not a moral prohibition and in any case it is not possible to change it because one thinks that there is no moral flaw here. The same is true regarding circumcision.

I understand what moral evil is. According to the Western interpretation, it is an action that harms another. (It seems to me that such an abstraction summarizes a very broad thought in Western moral philosophy. Maybe even all of it except for Nietzsche.)
But I can't define for myself what the concept of ” religious evil” means.

First, moral evil is not defined in Western or Eastern terms. What does this have to do with the West?

Regarding religious evil, in most cases I also do not understand and do not know how to define it, but I am convinced by the words of God/the Torah that there are acts that are religiously evil. For example, a priest's wife who was raped must separate from him, even though their remaining together does not harm anyone and their separation is a harm after harming the couple. Apparently, separation is necessary to maintain the sanctity of the priesthood. The sanctity of the priesthood is a religious value, not a moral one. So is the sanctity of the Temple and forbidden foods, and so on.

This has to do with the West because in other places on the globe the norms are completely different. I understand that the rabbi will claim that they are wrong, but it is difficult for me to avoid the idea that, like many other things, norms are a geographical matter. (And I am not necessarily intending to say that there is no moral truth. I am speaking about the present.) We as Jews in Israel are very influenced by the West, and Jews in other periods were influenced by other norms. I recognize a Western spirit blowing from the rabbi's words. I would be happy if the rabbi gave an example of something in Judaism that deserves change and adjustment in light of norms that do not meet the West's requirements.
I understand what the rabbi is saying about religious evil. But this issue leads again to clarifying the truth of tradition and Judaism. I assume that the rabbi is convinced of the truth of tradition and the Torah to such a degree that it allows him to reject the suffering of the raped woman. Regarding eating pork, the level of conviction in tradition may be lower, since not eating bacon does not have such a great impact on reality. The point is that this scale of persuasion that allows you to act harshly from a Western perspective is not defined. Things are intuitively left to the individual. I can say that for me Judaism is ” proven” enough for me not to eat pork, because the harm in this decision is minimal to nonexistent, on the other hand it is not proven enough for me to prevent a homosexual from realizing his sexuality, or a raped Cohen's wife from being rehabilitated among her family.

Okay, the positions are understood. I'm just saying that there is no moral system that ignores harming others. Nothing to do with the West. The West (again a generalization of course) also prohibits harming innocent people when fighting terrorism, and this is a norm that I don't agree with. There is some strange tendency to identify moral principles with Western thought, which it is not. But as mentioned, we have exhausted it.

Thank you Rabbi for an eye-opening discussion.