Well, what can I say, you’re right.

But,

True, I don’t have the tools, because I don’t know the damage. But the spiritual damage too is just my assumption; God claims there is such a thing, and I believe Him, but I haven’t seen it.

The question is whether I can bring myself to assume and assess that there is any justification at all for such awful behavior.

Let me give an example:
When I see someone beating and raping a little girl in an abandoned warehouse, while groaning lustfully.
Can I assume and say that there is probably no justification whatsoever for such an act.

I assume that right now nothing would convince me why this is a proper and good situation. I simply assume that at a high level of confidence.

The question is whether I can find any possible potential justification for God’s violent and brutal behavior.
Can one accept the possibility that such behavior is in fact extraordinarily moral.

If the rapist were to present you with a reasonable claim that justified his behavior, there would certainly be room to consider it. I can understand that when you are standing in front of the situation it would be hard for you to accept it, but that would be a mistake of following emotion. Even in such a case, one should examine his claims on their merits and only then form a position.
In our case too, God presents such a justification. Now you have to decide whether you accept it or not, and try to neutralize the anger in the face of the harsh descriptions you read in the Torah. I trust Him. That is where it all begins and ends, and that is what everything rests on.

Okay, thank you very, very much.
I’m trying to build that trust.

I have to note that this is not stormy emotion,

This really is testing the plausibility of any justification at all for this behavior.

I’d be glad to understand one more thing that is really related to the issue.

I saw that in the past someone asked you in the responsa section about the commandment to blot out Amalek, and there you answered that there is Maimonides’ more moderate interpretation, that one first calls to them in peace.

The questioner challenged you that Rashi’s view is to kill the seed of Amalek in every case.

And you answered him: why choose such a harsh interpretation?

And now for the question.

If we assume that the spiritual damage is immense and terrible and justifies terrible punishment,

then why choose Maimonides’ interpretation? True, it is more moral, but who knows what damage an Amalekite who remains alive causes?!

I assume that Maimonides himself interpreted it this way because the moral issue was difficult for him.
And that is also why you chose to go with his interpretation.

So the question is why interpret it in such a way, which seemingly fits the plain meaning of the verses in the Prophets less well.

After all, the spiritual damage could be no less terrible, and as we have seen, it justifies difficult moral costs in order to prevent it.

Obviously, among the possible options you choose the one that stands in less direct conflict with morality. True, there may be a command that does not fit morality, but we do not expand disputes unnecessarily.

For someone who insists on believing in a moral God, there is another way to deal with the dilemma: conclude that although He fulfilled the curses in the Hebrew Bible, He did not write it.

Granted, any person capable of tying his own shoes is also capable of understanding that the entire Hebrew Bible was written by human beings, some of whom probably did so while hallucinating that God was speaking to them, but the dilemma you raised really does help one free oneself from the absurd religious story.

Wow, good thing Yom Kippur is approaching, so there’s no need to tie shoes. I really do feel my tying ability has declined a bit. (Also my command of parentheses…)

I do not know whether you tie your shoes by yourself on weekdays. Be that as it may, I am convinced that the moment you dare to think for yourself and independently, you too will reach the conclusion that the 24 books that make up the Hebrew Bible are a human creation, partly marvelous and partly sick.

We’ll wait until I gather some courage. For now I’m really afraid to think and hold unconventional religious positions, and certainly to say out loud what I think. Maybe it’s the parentheses?…

Holding unconventional positions or positions that are subject to dispute does not mean that you think independently. Even a yeshiva student reading Derrida in Hebron Yeshiva thinks of himself as a subversive intellectual, though in practice he is swimming in shallow water. A child who talks back to his parents also thinks his insolence has a purely rational source, and does not understand that it is a simple psychological reaction of adolescent rebellion.
To take one specific example: your inability to admit that you do not believe there was a revelation at Mount Sinai, for instance, is a clear example of your lack of courage to think independently.

True. Exactly as I said. Thank you for making me aware of my shortcomings. Know any good geriatrician?

I didn’t understand your answer, Rabbi,

Why choose the interpretation that clashes less directly with morality, even when it fits the plain meaning of the verses less well?

After all, maybe when you choose a moderate interpretation you are causing harmful and terrible spiritual damage by not killing an Amalekite — if the truth is in accordance with Rashi.

True, you spared the risk of killing an innocent person when you went with Maimonides,
but maybe one really must kill every Amalekite in accordance with Rashi for spiritual reasons, and you are leaving the world with that terrible danger?

For two reasons:
1. A discussion of what the truth is. In most cases there is overlap between morality and Jewish law. The world was created such that the spiritual goals too are achieved through “do not murder,” “do not steal,” charity, honoring parents, and so on. The exceptions testify that the moral goals are different from the spiritual ones, but one Creator gave both.
2. A discussion of decision even when I am in doubt. Even if one does not know what the truth is, the moral goal still stands, and the moral price still exists. To override it, evidence is needed. The heavier the price, the stronger the evidence required to override it. In order to kill a baby, I need to be completely sure that this is what the Torah wants.

By the way, these two reasons are what cause people to get confused and think there is an identity between Jewish law and morality. There is not.

Elhanan,
It seems to me that this question can be asked about reality itself, completely apart from the Torah. After all, on the one hand the world is full of good, with billions of people who experience many pleasant and enjoyable things over the course of their lives, and on the other hand in that same world there is also much evil and suffering. How can one understand this immense contradiction?

This question has occupied many people throughout history. Some concluded from it that the world is run by two powers wrestling with each other; some concluded that it is run by a blind force lacking intelligence (called “nature”); some concluded that the ruler is evil; and some concluded that He is good, except that His conduct is not understandable to us.

The Torah undoubtedly takes the last approach, so if you accept it regarding reality, you can accept it regarding the Torah itself, which overall only adds a few important details for clarifying that same reality.
If you do not accept the last approach, then indeed you will not be able to accept the Torah as truth even before the specific question about the section of curses.

To Simple Rationality,
I do not know exactly which parts of the Hebrew Bible you call a “sick creation,” but I assume it is a small minority of the text. If that is so, then it is more reasonable to assume that there is some logic behind the “sick” material, since it is mixed together with other wonderful things; it is more plausible that there is some rationale here than to diagnose the author as schizophrenic.

Even if we assume it was a completely separate author, and only the editor was the one who was sick and mixed contradictory texts together, still, very many sages over the years did accept these things as fitting with the rest of the text, so it stands to reason that they had some rationale for thinking so, and it is worth trying to understand what it was. The assumption that they were all so stupid and only you and a few academics in recent generations are wise and rational contains no small amount of arrogance.