Morality

There is a logical error and an interpretive error in what you are saying here. On a logical level, when proving the existence of a from phenomenon X, this phenomenon does not need to be essential and central to a. It only needs to be exclusive (that a causes X and that there is no other creature that causes X). Suppose that from footprints in the sand you proved that the creature that caused them was lame and concluded that it was a because there is only one lame creature in the world). Now you have found a book of his and there is no mention of the issue of lameness. Is there a contradiction here? What is needed is that there should be no other lame creature except him, but lameness does not need to be the mainstay of his doctrine and appear in his writings. Furthermore, he can even come out against lameness as an ugly and undesirable phenomenon, but at least he can say that it is not an important issue. On an interpretive level, the Torah does command morality and expects us to be moral. Halacha, which is only a part of the Torah, strives for other amoral values, and sometimes there is a conflict between these values ​​and moral values, but conflicts also exist between different moral values ​​themselves. See more on this in column 541.