Question

Have a good week,
I’m now reading your third book in the trilogy (by the way, the book is written in an extremely orderly and clear way; I’m really enjoying the order and coherence on every single page).
So in the first part you raise your claim there that the Torah instructs only on the religious plane and does not address the moral questions involved.
You support this position on the basis of the immoral laws found in the Torah (a priest’s wife who was raped, and the like).
You also presented two other approaches and rejected them. The first approach argues that all the laws promote morality, and perhaps we simply do not notice it; and the second approach denies morality. Clearly, you rejected both.
I’m asking why a fourth approach does not belong here, one that you did not raise. This approach says that the Torah really does address all questions, both moral and religious, and it decides between them. I’m still not saying that one must always preserve the halakhic ruling; suppose that at the time the Torah was given, the psychological harm to a priest’s wife who was raped and to her family was much smaller relative to the religious value that requires divorcing the woman (and in our time the Jewish law should be annulled).
According to this approach, of course it is possible to find conflicts between religious and moral values, just as according to your approach such conflicts are also possible.
But just as in the end we decide these conflicts ourselves (such as the example of the soldier and the lonely grandmother), because in practice we will have to do one of the two things, so too the Torah decided for us. One could even add a further dimension and say that it is in God’s hands to know what is ultimately better; His intuition is stronger. But there is no need to insist on that dimension if in your view it has a flaw.
I hope my question is clear.
 
And again, I really enjoyed reading the book on the Sabbath