Question

Hello Rabbi,
First of all, I wanted to thank the Rabbi for his wonderful books. Beyond the content itself, I want to thank you for the style of discourse the Rabbi encourages and for the refusal to compromise on the truth.
 
A number of questions came up for me while reading the Rabbi's first and second books; I’ll actually start with the last question that occurred to me.
 
Regarding knowledge and free choice, the Rabbi sets the assumption of free choice alongside the assumption that everything is known in advance—not in the sense that someone knows it, but in the sense that the knowledge exists—and explains that these assumptions cannot coexist; that is, to state both of them is a logical contradiction—"nonsense," in the Rabbi's terminology.
 
Why is it nonsense?
 
When a person chooses Y and in the infinite knowledge it is written that he will do Y, there is no contradiction between the two assumptions. When the person chooses X and in the infinite knowledge it is written that he will do X, is there really a contradiction between the two assumptions? In my humble opinion, no—only when we add the assumption that when there is a mismatch between the existing infinite knowledge and the actual choice, then it is impossible to say that both things coexist.
It follows that there is no logical contradiction! Rather, we have merely assumed the conclusion. (To be honest, I remember that the Rabbi discussed the issue of assuming the conclusion in "Truth and Stability" and in the first book, but I do not remember all the details connected to that.)
 
In addition to this question, I wanted to ask about our attitude toward the words of the sages.
The Rabbi assumes that the only tool given to human beings (or at least the only one currently available to us) is our intellect.
Is that a correct way to relate to the words of the sages?
Is it correct to relate to the words of Maimonides as things grounded in the science current in his time? Even though when we study the Mishneh Torah, after a deeper look into his words we find that Maimonides' golden language, which sometimes seems obscure and illogical to us, is actually precise and not obscure as it appeared at first glance?
 
I definitely accept that statements like "Maimonides said" will not satisfy me as an answer, but they will certainly lead me to try to find a resolution for his words, and when I reach the point where things seem obscure to me—I will probably remain with the matter requiring further investigation and not say that his words are incorrect.
 
As for my last question, I wanted to ask about the example brought on p. 157 in the book "No Person Rules Over His Spirit," which discusses the matter of conspiring witnesses.
The Rabbi attributes the execution of the defendant to the actions of the judges, and according to this there truly was no human act involved (if of course everything was carried out according to true law, etc.). But the reason the person was sentenced to death is not because the judges decided so through some "natural" or "divine" procedure, but because the witnesses conspired to testify against him—and therefore, in my view, the example is not suitable, since here we clearly see that human action is precisely what caused the defendant's death, and so there is no point in coming and saying that there was supposedly a divine act here, and indeed the law remains puzzling.
 
In any case, I wanted again to thank the Rabbi for the wonderful work he is doing.