Which leads us right to the idea that the God in question expects us to do us some thinking, and where we must make a decision, we work to find a just decision.If, therefore, the statutes of the Torah could not be properly understood in the generation in which it was given, how much less could it be understood by later generations?
Too hard to understand, or too hard, such that I don't want someone to suffer what I consider is too much?if there arise a matter too hard for thee, thou shalt turn unto the judge that shall be in those days," and "according to the tenor of the sentence which they shall declare unto thee from that place… According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee shalt thou do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, neither to the right hand, nor to the left
Or...
I use my personal understanding, and if I think a punishment is too harsh, I, maybe after explaining, can reduce the sentence?Furthermore the Oral Law lays down explicitly that from the moment of the giving of the Written Law – "from Heaven," at Sinai, but in the language of men and to men – it is handed over absolutely to the judgment of the human intelligence of the scholars of the Oral Law, who accept the "yoke of the kingdom of Heaven" but give halakhic ruling according to their understanding
I think that settles that, but...so the bet din may rule at some particular time that some precept of the Torah may be transgressed temporarily in order that it may be preserved" (Yad, Mamrim 2:4). Then the sages rightly maintained that the Oral Law is the major and the main part (i.e., both in quantity and quality) of the Torah.
This also alludes to the idea that the Bible need not be taken literally, because if I sincerely think lopping a hand off ain't gonna do much good for the individual or society, I can say don't lop off no hands, 'cause it ain't good, if only for here and now.
So that God (or better the OT / Torah) might "literally" demand that hand loppin', but by using my best judgement, I've declared that the passage in question should not be taken literally (and would, as my right as a bit den guy, be as legit a ruling as any)?
I gotta say, that's a pretty danging argument against taking an "all out literal" approach to the OT / Torah (while allowing maybe the Christians got them some other deal for their own).
