What do you think about 2, 3, and 5?

Apparently Yair is writing from his phone, so it’s hard for him to copy even a little or summarize.

My question is whether you agree with what he wrote there.

2. It’s not clear what he means. Is his claim that the Sages erred in interpreting the Torah, or is he claiming that they interpreted it correctly but nevertheless this is not God's will? The second is certainly not correct, because otherwise God would not have commanded it. The first requires discussion. But in my view there is no problem, and the first is also not correct. The Sages did not err, but what they concluded is the Jewish law. Jewish law does not overlap with morality. Beyond that, there is a difference between the gentiles of old and the gentiles of today, as the Meiri wrote.
3. I do not agree. There is no problem with reciting the blessing "who has not made me a woman." She is obligated in fewer commandments. Therefore the laws of precedence in rescuing her in Horayot are also different. Jewish law itself undermines the value of equality between men and women. When we solve that, we can move on to discuss the blessing.
5. It’s true that this is not a matter of centimeters, but it’s not just a vibe either. It is a question of norms, which change from place to place and from time to time.

Rabbi, what do you think regarding point 7, particularly in the context of "when the reason ceases, the enactment does not cease"?
And regarding point 8? And especially regarding the far-reaching conclusion that one may rely on a minority opinion with such ease, simply because there is some opinion like that there at all? (At least that’s how I understood it.)
Thank you.

7. I completely agree. None of the points are connected to "when the reason ceases." Demons and spirits are laws that rest on incorrect factual assumptions, whether Torah-level or rabbinic. They are null and void from the outset. If metal vessels do not absorb, then there is no issue. The facts determine the law here. The same goes for the birth of a daughter. One recites a blessing over a joyous event, and the question is what counts as a joyous event.
8. Here I do not agree. But my approach is that one should not rely on opinions at all. One must reach a conclusion as to what the truth is, and if you have no position then there are the laws of doubt. Rabbi Shemach’s position, for example, is completely unfounded, and certainly one should not rely on it. I wrote an article about this, which can be found here on the site.

Regarding 7, how do we know that the assumptions of the Sages regarding demons, for example, were not correct? There are descriptions in the Talmud of encounters between Sages and demons. Also, it is possible that today demons are not visible to us, but if the Sages established laws concerning them, why wouldn’t we still have to obey them even if we do not "see" them? (You wrote above that what the Sages concluded is the Jewish law.)
And regarding absorption in utensils, how do we know that the absorption according to the Sages does not include a metaphysical dimension? And even in the physical context, is it really so implausible that diffusion would occur between particles of the food and the metal vessel, especially under heat?

In addition, have you written an article/post about "when the reason ceases, the enactment does not cease," and in particular what the criteria are (if any) according to which it is permissible to repeal an enactment, whether the reason has ceased or not?

Thank you very much.

There can be no certainty about anything. But at least today it is very clear that there are none, and apparently there were none then either. And when the whole matter has no root or branch whatsoever, it seems that these laws are void. It is not that the reason ceased; rather, the whole thing has no standing and has evaporated from the world.
The absorptions being discussed are not metaphysical. I don’t know what metaphysical absorption is, but everyone makes calculations of percentages of absorption. Beyond that, even the Sages could not have known anything about metaphysical absorption, even assuming such a thing exists.
There is an extensive discussion in the third book of the trilogy. See also the article here on the site:

ביטול ושינוי תקנות בימינו

Regarding metaphysical absorption, what I meant was, for example, just as there is holiness and impurity in certain vessels, so too there could perhaps be some metaphysical aspect like that to the taste of a prohibition absorbed in a vessel. Why do you think there are laws of absorption at all if, according to your view, metal vessels do not absorb? What is the definition of absorption in this context at all? (Suddenly this is no longer clear to me 🙂 ) That if one cooks a new dish in such a vessel, then when someone eats from that dish he will actually taste the prohibited flavor as well?

How can one know whether something came down through tradition all the way from Sinai, or whether the Sages established it more or less out of whole cloth, especially regarding Torah-level matters? I recall that one of the explanations for the discussions in the Talmud is basically the desire of the Sages to "work out" for themselves the details of the laws and so on that were transmitted from Sinai, not that they were inventing or establishing laws out of whole cloth. According to your view, is that not correct?

Thanks again.

Almost no Jewish law came from Sinai, except for those that are explicitly said to be a law given to Moses at Sinai. And even those passed through the interpretation of the Sages. It was the Sages who determined the overwhelming majority of Torah-level laws.

If metal vessels do not absorb, then there is no law of absorption. But it’s not black and white. The question is how much absorption there is. In most contexts the prohibition depends on its taste, and the question of how it can be that one tastes nothing at all is an old question, and I have no answer to it.

Thank you for the answer, Rabbi.

A few clarifying questions:
1. On what basis do you conclude that almost every Torah-level law was "innovated" by the Sages? And is it indeed true, to the best of your knowledge, that this is not the prevailing view among halakhic decisors?
2. How did people conduct themselves before the period of the Mishnah? According to your view, was the amount of Jewish law that had to be observed in practice more or less limited to those that in the period of the Mishnah were defined as laws given to Moses at Sinai?
3. The Sages determined that there is absorption in metal, so I assume that when you say "if metal vessels do not absorb then there is no law of absorption," you mean specifically regarding the vessels of our own time, right? And if we assume that nowadays there really is no absorption in metal vessels because of the way they are manufactured and so on, then aren’t we back to the point of "when the reason ceases, the enactment does not cease"?
4. Forgive me, but it is still not clear to me what the criterion is by which we determine whether a vessel of a certain type/material is considered absorbent from a halakhic standpoint. For example, if one cooks a dairy dish in a meat pot that was used within the last twenty-four hours, then if a person who tastes the dish can detect a meat flavor, would we say that in such a vessel there is absorption of taste?

1. On the basis of familiarity with Jewish law. By the way, Maimonides also says this explicitly in several places (according to his view, anything that came from Sinai was not subject to dispute. In a responsum he writes that only about three or four exegetical derivations came from Sinai, and more than that). I don’t think the halakhic decisors paid attention to this. They are used to quoting rabbinic sayings that everything was given at Sinai (everything that an outstanding student will one day innovate, etc.), but it is clear that the intention is that everything should be treated as though it descended from Sinai.
2. I did not say that all Jewish law was created by the Sages of the Talmud. It was created by the Sages of the generations. I have no knowledge of what was created when. But there is no doubt that Jewish law expanded, and continues to expand, through the generations.
3. No. I mean also the vessels of their time. If it turns out scientifically that there is no absorption, then they erred.
4. It is either taste or quantity of absorption (volume).