Halacha and Morality: Following the Discussion with Yaron Yadan

Hello Rabbi Michael.
Following the discussion, I thought I would ask you about the categorical division you make between halakha and morality. For this purpose, I think it is necessary to divide the discussion into two components:
1. The theory itself regarding the categorical division – that is, the very claim that it is possible for God to command religious values, separate from the moral values ​​learned from conscience, and to ask for two separate normative categories.
2. The question of whether the Torah indeed constitutes a case of a separate normative category that is not morality.
That is, it is certainly possible to agree with 1 (which is possible and coherent) but still not the case with the Torah (i.e., not agree with 2). In my opinion, most of the questions directed at you concern the first level of the discussion. Questions like: Why didn't he also command morality? What will you do when there is a contradiction? And so on and so forth. In my opinion, you answer them satisfactorily, and show convincingly how this conceptual structure is indeed coherent and logical.
However, in my opinion, the central question is not only whether it is possible for a Torah to be given that does not convey moral values, but whether this is the case in the Torah before us. And in my humble opinion, it is very difficult to read the Torah and understand it in this way. I believe that a straightforward reading of the Torah shows that these are commandments that come to effect a moral correction (or moral advancement) of society.
There are two reasons for this:
1. Style – The language of the Torah often describes the commandments in a figurative, emotional, and moral way. There are many expressions that justify the commandments in this way: "Is man a tree of the field, that he should come before you in a siege?", "For he is his covering alone, his garment for his skin, wherewith he shall lie down, and it shall come to pass, that he cry unto me, and I have heard that I am gracious," "And thou shalt not oppress a stranger: and ye knew the soul of a stranger, because ye were strangers in the land of Egypt," "Her first husband, which sent her away, shall not be able to take her again to be his wife after she is defiled: for that is an abomination before the Lord, and ye shall not make the land sin…", "And unto a boy [or to a girl] thou shalt do nothing: for a boy [or to a girl] shall not sin by death: for when a man riseth up against his neighbor, and slayeth a soul, so is this matter," and so on. A straightforward reading of the Torah seems to show that it constitutes a moral manifesto. If it were a question of detached and abstract laws that stand on their own, I would expect a completely different style.
2. Correspondence with present-day customs – The disconnection of the Torah from morality (and indeed from any realistic and human context) leads to the expectation that the halakha will constitute timeless laws that are disconnected from cultural norms of a particular time. For example, if there is a religious value in wearing a red garment every Monday, this value should not be related to this or that current fashion. In other words, I expect that it was true even before the creation of the world. But if by chance this value was given in a period when this was the accepted color (or alternatively, it was accepted among infidels to wear the "enemy" of red – blue) this makes this perception very difficult.
And indeed, the Torah often comes as a response to the customs of the period in which it was given. That is, there is a custom X, and the Torah commands to do X in a modified manner or alternatively Y, which is exactly what X became as a response to it. The archaeological knowledge we have today powerfully reveals this matter to us and shows that there is clearly a counterpoint to the existing culture here (Prof. Yehoshua Berman's book "I Believe" illustrates this, among other things).
Another point is that in some of the Torah's commandments, it is actually based on existing practice. For example, in the verses describing divorces, it is stated: "If a man takes a wife and her husband, and it happens that she does not please him because he finds some kind of sexual misconduct in her, then he writes her a certificate of divorce and gives it in her hand and sends her out of the house," while the Torah mentions the institution of marriage along the way as something that is self-evident. How do those marriages exist? – It is clear that there was an accepted practice for this in that generation, and the Torah takes it for granted. It only renews the law regarding divorce from such a relationship (and in fact, not even regarding the divorce itself, but only regarding the restriction on returning to the first husband after marrying a second one). In these cases, the Torah is merely an extension of existing practice and does not command a "tabula rasa."
In light of these facts, it is clear that the Torah comes against the backdrop of a particular culture – which it attempts to shape and change. But if the Torah presented detached halachic principles, we would not expect to find such cases.
Here is an example of this: Let's assume that there is an abstract religious principle in the existence of a tabernacle, in its details, and that it precedes the act of Genesis. Is it likely that that tabernacle – even before the creation of the world – would have the same proportions as the battle camp of Ramesses II? Of course not. But what, that is what happens. In other words, it turns out that all the verses of the details of the tabernacle do not constitute abstract halakhic principles that preceded the world, but rather are in full correspondence with the reality of ancient Egypt.
 
In my opinion, from these two arguments, the simple understanding is that the Torah came against a certain cultural background that it is trying to improve/change, etc. It does not seem to have come to posit a set of abstract, new, and independent principles. It is unlikely that those very principles happen to be such an accurate reflection of cultural customs that existed at that time.
 
In conclusion, I would like to add thanks for the anticipated and instructive debate (is it perhaps possible to transcribe the arguments that arose in the last 10 minutes?).
I would love to hear your opinion on what was said.
Thank you and have a good day.