YU Rosh Yeshivah: We should set aside those Gemaras which don't have the proper values

I recently heard a shiur from a well known YU Rosh Yeshivah. He's a really nice guy and I don't want to get him into trouble, so even though his shiur was given in public I'm not going to say who it is. The topic of his shiur is the well known conundrum for MOs, when the Torah's values are inconsistent with what we regard as 'the right values'.

The examples he gave were:

• Not having to return an avedah to a goy
• Tous Akum muttar
• And that all time favorite: Can you be mechallel shabbos to save a goy?

He gave a few approaches:

1. In reality, you should be able to keep an avedah (finders keepers), it's not theft since the owner has lost his property rights For "achichah", the Torah says you should go lifnim meshuras hadin and return it. Same deal with Tous Akum.
2. The Torah is talking about "uncivilized" nations (he didn't exactly define what that means.) Nowadays, especially in the US, of course people are civilized, so you have to return to them. There's also a reading in the Meiri which implies that the'res no distinction between goyim and yidden in this regard, i.e. an uncivilized Jew (an atheist?) would also not merit having his lost object returned. Also, it could be that since nowadays it's regarded as morally normal to return an avedah, that becomes the halachah too.
3. He went on about the famous Meiri at length. He said its unbelievable how in some sectors of Judaism they ignore that Meiri and continue to treat goyim like second class citizens (background players).

He also talked about what if you were on a remote desert Island with a goy (so there was no issue of 'ayvo' or 'chillul hashem') would you save him on shabbos? He said he asked some roshei yeshivos - one replied, "yes, but then I'd beg hakodosh boruch hu for forgiveness afterwards", another responded yes, and I wouldn't have to ask forgiveness. He said he could accept either of these two views (though he held like the second one), but couldn't accept someone who said 'no'.

He also said we need to create a torah shebaal peh on the torah shebaal peh, i.e. to decide which bits are ok and which bits are not.

Anyways, it was more detailed than my scrappy notes above, but he spoke quickly and I couldn't take notes.

There are, of course, some fundamental issues with his whole approach, and I wasted no time haranguing him about them. To his credit he held his (shaky) ground, and responded to my harangues with good humor and grace. If ony all RY's were like this guy!

This is what I asked him:

1. Who defines "proper values"?
2. We don't follow the Torah (i.e. the biblical text). We follow Chazal, even when Chazal completely reinterpret the Torah (e.g. ayin tachas ayin). So since our entire religion is chazal based, and you say we can disregard chazal when they don't have proper values, what does this do to our religion?
3. If you say we should disregard gemaras which don't reflect the "proper values" (his words), then where does this stop? Why not disregard the gemara about homosexuality (HS) too?
4. The only serious source for much of his talk was that one Meiri. So if the Meiri didn't exist then what?
5. He claims he is not influenced by "Western Values". But clearly he is, since Chareidim in Bnei Brak don't struggle with these issues!

His response, in a nutshell:

"HS is clearly forbidden in the Torah. True, Chazal reinterpret Torah on occasion, but where they don't, we can't. There's no chazal discussion or rishonim or anyone who mattirs HS, so there's no wiggle room there for us. However the Torah is vague about aveda's akum (etc), and there are rishonim (i.e. the Meiri) who have the "correct values", therefore of course we should follow the Meiri (and similar approaches when we can)."

On the one hand I applaud his attempt to try and make halachah as morally acceptable as possible. And most peoplethere felt the same way and were very happy with his speech. But on the other hand, his approach is deeply flawed. How does he decide that the Meiri has the proper values here? The Meiri was a yochid, maybe the proper value is like the Chareidim? So he'll say it's obvious. But surely only from a Western POV? So he'll say, no, it's a Torah POV. But clearly it isn't. Secondly, if that Meiri didn't exist, then what? So he admitted he would have a problem in that case.

Also, the parallels here to the intellefundie Science and Torah kvetches are interesting. They follow a similar approach. They have the Rambam and Saadyeh Gaon for Breishis, so they kvetch metaphor. But when it comes to Shemos, they're a bit stuck. Sadya says you can go metpahorical, only if a) logic/science demands it, AND b) it doesn't affect ikkaei hadas. But when you go metaphorical in shemos (e.g. 2 million people leaving egypt), it starts to affect the whole storyline, leading to Har Sinai, so it becomes problematic, so they won't kvetch it. Plus we have Rishonim and Acharonim who were liberal on Breishis, but no one credible who was liberal on Shemos.

I asked this YU RY about all this too, he said he rejected the DH (surprise!) but that he was troubled by the 2 million. Gil admits that too. (Note to Militant Skeptics: You want to make some progress - attack the 2 million number).

So basically, he goes as far as he can within the tradition, as long as he can find some Rishon (or maybe a famous Acharon) to support him. He (claims he) believes that this is all driven by Torah values, but I think it's clearly driven by Western values. Though values in general is a tricky subject (nature vs nuture etc).

Anyways, if I were him I would just say that values are subjective anyway. Who's to say what the right values are? But of course being MO he can't say that. He has to say there's one true set of values, and his are it.