Chronologically, morality existed before the Torah.
Rabbi Cherki’s approach (and that of many others) is that beyond the chronological point, morality is the foundation of being a “Torah person.” So according to Rabbi Cherki, “proper conduct precedes the Torah” is both chronological and, more importantly, a moral stature that every person should have.

He brings proofs for his view:
“If one is worthy, it becomes for him an elixir of life” — “worthy” in the sense that he purified himself, that he reached a certain moral level.
And also halakhically: an unworthy student is not allowed into the study hall.

And I would add that in the Talmud, Torah scholars are mentioned whose “inside is not like their outside”; maybe from here too one can learn that morality is the basis for being a Torah scholar.

It sounds very logical to me: someone who can whistle off large parts of the Babylonian Talmud and the Talmud generally by heart (and does it for the service of God), but drives like a maniac and cuts people off on the road (assuming that’s only one symptom of his decay), then Torah study becomes a deadly poison for him.

This is a 6-minute video of Rabbi Cherki, may he live long, that pretty much sums up his approach:

In any case, it would be interesting to know whether there is any way to determine who is right regarding the inference from “proper conduct precedes the Torah” — your approach or Rabbi Cherki’s approach

Just to be precise: many preceded you in drawing the distinction between morality and Jewish law — and Leibowitz used to mutter it even in his sleep from how habitual it was on his tongue (it’s quite a common opinion, which is what made the Hazon Ish need to “prove” that it wasn’t so in Faith and Trust).

You are the first to argue that there are cases in which morality overrides Jewish law.

Kavak, I understand that you came to prove my point. Indeed. There is a way. See my series and my columns on morality and Jewish law.

Ashi,
I don’t know of any such systematic doctrine in Leibowitz. As far as I know, he has no explanations of all the halakhic categories and their significance.
But mainly, I think you are mistaken because his claim is that morality is an atheistic category in terms of the source of its validity and motivation (which only means that proper conduct precedes the Torah and the Holy One, blessed be He). In my view, its source is God. That changes the whole picture (especially regarding conflicts).

By the way, the Hazon Ish there was not trying to prove the opposite. I’ve pointed that out more than once.

There are a few things I don’t understand about this approach. A. Why did the Torah need to give religious force to commands that I would have followed anyway based on moral norms? What is the point of commanding “you shall not murder” if even religious courts are obligated by the moral imperative and that is sufficient reason? B. A question I keep coming back to: if morality alone is not a sufficient reason for the existence of humanity, why were 99.9% of the world’s population created, when Jewish law obligates them in nothing and grants them nothing? (According to our view.)

“By the way, the Hazon Ish there was not trying to prove the opposite. I’ve pointed that out more than once.”*

—-
* On this: in the lecture series “Jewish Law and Morality” (available on YouTube).

And this clarification has already been given in a number of places, for example: (a) https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%AA%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A8-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%97%D7%96%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A9/ (b) https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%95%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%97-%D7%A2%D7%9C-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A8/ (c) https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%A2%D7%96-%D7%91%D7%A9%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A3-%D7%91%D7%AA%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A8-%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%91%D7%95%D7%91%D7%99%D7%A6%D7%99%D7%90%D7%A0%D7%99/ (d) https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%94%D7%97%D7%96%D7%95%D7%9F-%D7%90%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%95%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%A8/

I’ve already answered this ad nauseam.
A. Because it wanted to say that they also have a religious aspect. What’s the problem? Beyond that, it also introduced the idea that there is punishment. Morality does not determine a punishment for murder and the like.
B. The mission applies to all humanity, not only to the Jewish people. Even within the Jewish people there is a division between priests and Israelites. Just as in a body there are different organs and each has its own role. Beyond that, the perspective I present is from the Jewish angle. Christians and Muslims claim that they fulfill their purpose in their own way. Exclusive discourse is, in my opinion, for internal purposes.

Every time, I still don’t understand what this sentence means: “exclusive discourse is for internal purposes.” I’m asking according to your claim, not according to the Christians’. And according to your claim, this mission was imposed only on the Jews, as I understand it. Between priests and Israelites there is a division of roles; here there is no division — there is one group that received a mission and one group that didn’t.

If every time you don’t understand, then ask about it and don’t ignore it. This is not my claim but my point of view. There is a big difference. From my perspective, the main mission is mine. But I myself understand that from the perspective of others there may be other main missions. And still I will live this way, or at least understand those who preach living this way, because that is the best way to fulfill the mission. Like morale between brigades in the army. Golani are sure they’re the main thing and everyone else is pathetic. The same with the paratroopers and the armored corps, etc. Everyone lives as though he is the center of the universe because that is how they will best fulfill their mission. But the truth is that everyone has a mission, and there is no primary and secondary.

Since we’re already talking about the mission of the other religions, is your claim that first you reach the conclusion that there is a God, and if there is, then why shouldn’t He command something, and a tradition has come down to us that He did command something, so the two ends meet, each from its own side, and together a unified and plausible theory is created — but what if I follow that same line and say, okay, there is a God, and if there is, then why shouldn’t He command something, and a tradition has come down to us that ___ fill in as you wish (Muhammad, Jesus, Buddha, and so on), the tradition makes sense in some way, so again the two ends connect — then what are we left with? Either to say that in this case the tradition is not reliable enough and only the tradition of the six hundred thousand makes sense, or alternatively to say that yes indeed, this one as well as that one are acceptable, except that I was born Jewish and therefore this is my mission — but here we return to your (trivial) argument that the fact that I was born here says nothing about the truth of my religion (and also nothing about its falsehood), so which of the two options do you choose? Or is there a third?

I don’t understand. The answers are in the body of the question. First, all monotheists admit that there was a revelation at Sinai. After that there are claims that there was a change (which are based on rather weak traditions). Our tradition is both earlier and stronger. Therefore, from my perspective it is reasonable that it is more correct. Of course, one can argue that I am captive to it because this is where I was educated and raised, so as far as I’m concerned one can give up exclusivity. What is the question?

So I won’t ignore it and I’ll keep asking — Golani and the paratroopers have a real mission, more important or less important is debatable, but according to your view Christians do not have a real mission, only something they imposed on themselves because of a revelation that never happened. The question is according to Judaism and according to the Torah, what is their role beyond the Noahide commandments (which are moral commandments that you said are not sufficient)?

To go to church and eat the host. Or to wage jihad and circumcise women. I already answered.

So I can decide that my mission is to put a flowerpot on my head, and that will be the reason God created me? He is the one who is supposed to impose the mission on me, and according to your view He imposed nothing on them. How does that answer it?

I give up.