My point is not about the halachic process nor about which authority may or may not make changes; it's about the cultural shifts (over hundreds of years) that accompany and precede the changes.
So what if they made the wrong interpretation hundreds of years ago? That wasn't possible?
Of course interpretations may be wrong. Judaism does not believe in infallibility of any mortal. But there is a Halachik process (which we consider divinely derived) in place to prove so. You don't "prove" something because you don't like it.
Considering that all interpretations of Jewish law were subject to the thorough examination and careful scrutiny of the literally tens (hundreds?) of thousands of brilliant scholars throughout the centuries, and when said interpretations were found faulty they were discarded, it isn't really realistic (downright impossible) to think one will be able to disprove anything of significance at this point. (This is something anyone who is familiar with the Talmud and it’s commentators is intimately familiar with, not a forced belief.) It’s application to hither-fore not discussed applications though is of constant discussion and debate within the framework of the Halachik process.
What has never been done, contrary to
@Welders post, is to adjust the law outside the framework to be reconciled with secular norms and moral beliefs of the day. And by using examples like capital punishment and animal sacrifices, which the Talmud explicitly accepts literally, he is clearly not working within the frame, because the idea that the Talmud’s conclusions is non debatable is part of the process and not subject to change. Ever. No matter how many
cultural shifts (over hundreds of years)
take place.
May I suggest for both you and
@Welder the following recently published book titled: Is The Good Book Bad
https://www.amazon.com/Good-Book-Bad-Traditional-Indictments/dp/1952370795/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1559L58V6YUXQ&keywords=is+the+good+book+bad&qid=1662860793&sprefix=is+the+good+%2Caps%2C299&sr=8-1 I perused through it a couple months ago and it appeared to do a decent job explaining some of the things in the Bible that seem to bother him/you.
As for the examples he gave:
There is a law in the Talmud that one may not get a haircut from a non-jewish barber, reason being concern the non-jew would assault or kill them.
But over generations this law slowly evolved and was 'normalized', permitting it if there was a mirror or other people present, until today when no one really thinks about this anymore. because it's not relevant and comes from historic phobias.
While it's true it is no longer relevant, and is a class A example of
Pagans. Whole different story.
as described succinctly by the Meiri (a prominent early Jewish authority), it isn't true that no one thinks about it. It has the same problem we run into with never relying on a non Jew. The law cannot be changed. The real explanation why it isn't adhered to, is because the robust protection under the law of modern governments for all citizens, including Jews (fairly modern history) would have been adequate protection even from the pagans the laws were originally enacted for (crucial point). When and how we apply these concepts are subject to nuances in Halacha way beyond the scope of this post.
