Innovation, conservatism, and tradition

Hello Rabbi,
I am applying to your lecture series on innovation, conservatism, and tradition and I have a number of questions that have accumulated (up to chapter 11 at least):
1. You claimed that there is public acceptance that we have accepted the Gemara and therefore it is binding. But where does this rule come from that what the public has accepted is binding on us? It sounds like it is an ironclad rule, but I really don't understand this axiom.
2. I intuitively feel that there is a fear of changing the law (values ​​or circumstances) because we really do not understand the reasons for the mitzvot. So assuming that this is true, is there no value in "Shab va al-Ta'aseh"? That is, if you do not know – do not touch. I understand that there are places where I really hurt someone if I do not change – like an agunah for example, where I would say that the hurt itself and the moral value (which I also believe is divine) require the change, but is there not some kind of hierarchy in your opinion? Does "Shab va al-Ta'aseh" not belong here?
3. If I understood correctly, you interpret "it is better for Rabbi Shimon to trust him in times of stress" as an explanation that one should trust him when there is stress in interpreting a mitzvah because there is a moral impediment, for example, so you interpret the verse in this case in a way that does not assume the difficulty. You also said that this is a situation where both interpretations are equivalent. I do not understand either assumption. A – The simple answer sounds to me that stress = physical and not interpretive stress. B – What situation do you have in which two things seem equally reasonable to you? In my opinion, there is always a tendency in a certain direction…
4. I'm looking to understand the mechanism: When do I actually change a halacha because of a value consideration? It sounds to me from your words that everyone can evaluate the value differently and also its weight – it turns out, then, that it is very personal and intuitive – which means that the halacha returns to being a halacha in reality of a plurality of opinions and disagreements without really being able to present an "orderly method" because there are no clear rules – there are personal questions here of my values ​​and the weight I give them.
5. If you change a law of the Torah when there is a change in values, I didn't understand why regarding the mishaf zakhor you are so clear that the Torah prohibited it in any situation. Who said that the prohibition was not only true at the time when we see that kings and aristocrats would take male children for fun, and then the Torah prohibited the mishaf zakhor, but today, when a large part of those who do it do it by force because that is how it is built – it is clear that the Torah did not speak about this. Is there no room for such an interpretation? And I also did not understand how this corresponds with what you said about the loss of a child, that then it was moral to break and lose and today it is not and we need to change it… So why not assume that there is really a moral change here regarding the mishaf zakhor?
6. Your interpretation of "everything that is within the scope of…" is only in the annulment of a law, but not in its interpretation – it sounds to me that a change based on values ​​= annulment of a law, not an interpretation of a law. You also reiterate that the Sanhedrin does not belong to the Dina DaGamara, which can be changed – are these not valid in your view in order to establish your view?
7. Modern Orthodox – I think you are mistaken in identifying YU as Modern Orthodox. Today they are certainly much more similar to the Haredim than to Modern Orthodox. Rabbi Weiss of Riverdale and Rabbi Lookstein of Manhattan are more similar to what you are talking about in my opinion, but I am not fully familiar with the US even though my entire family is from there.
8. Rabbi Stav vs. Rabbi Lau – You said it's all because they don't want a liberal rabbi. I think that's not true – people want a rabbi with a knitted kippah. why? Because it represents a Zionist religious ideology in their eyes. How does it manifest itself? It doesn't matter. People want people who are like them and who represent them. And yes – maybe it's stupid, maybe it's emotional, but I don't think it's just because Rabbi Stav is a liberal…