Paul was aware of the oral tradition now encoded in the Talmud, and it can be fairly said, at least as a general rule, that anything from the Mishna portions would have been upheld by him, even though he might not have agreed with every single majority opinion. In his day, this counts as contemporary belief in the "talmud" (not "Talmud").

Nobody abused chickens, as Jewish ritual slaughter has always been recognized as designed to prevent abuse. Paul did pay for animal sacrifices long after his conversion, Acts 20. The modern waving of chickens is likely similar to the waving of breast meat, Lev. 7, so would not be regarded as abusive, unless one wishes to say the practice has gone beyond its original limits and become emotionalist and excessive.

Name the coin-clippers. The first listed coin debaser was Nero by 5% in 64 AD. The first actual clippers listed were Thomas and Anne Rogers, 1690.

Paul didn't bow to Moloch or Baal, and Judaism has always condemned this even as Jews of various generations fell into it. Since it's a serious crime, it should not be charged lightly, and joining modern efforts to detect it accurately is welcome.

Paul didn't know the hexagram, which was introduced in Israel ca. 300 AD (Gershon Scholem). Incidentally, he also didn't support the star of Remphan/Chiun, which was known to Amos is the 700s BC and therefore couldn't be the hexagram (I'll spare you my dissertation on what it was). The predominant Jewish symbols then were the menorah, the olive tree, the prayer shawl, the lion, etc. Paul probably wore the prayer shawl as Jesus did (with tassels and perhaps blue stripes), and probably at times had worn phylacteries containing Bible verses (which Jesus didn't reject if they weren't ostentatious). At that time of course there was no negative symbolism associated with black cubes so the symbol was untainted.

Paul did share with other prophets (and with those with a high moral sense) a strong sensitivity to injustices against himself, but he modeled turning those into occasions to demonstrate submission to Christ. Feel free to name individuals who use victimization to imbalance justice against unnoticed victims.

In Greece, Paul upheld national boundaries and rights of self-determination for all nations (Acts 17:24-28). So he'd likely oppose the imposition of immigration onto nations as it was regularly deprecated in the OT. There is a line of argument by which Jews agreed with Cyrus's remigration of them into Judah when Samaritans lived there already (some of which might have had earlier native roots), so this view of Paul might be debatable.

Paul would have agreed with Jesus that three classes of "eunuchs" could not receive all the Jewish commands relating to marriage, indicating some leeway dealing with those struggling with sexual identity. There was no tolerance for deliberate active or passive sodomy itself. Paul would've agreed with Ezekiel (23:13-17) that staring at pornographic images to incite lust was also not to be tolerated.

The Torah position that there is to be no miscegenation without full conversion to the covenant people and polity would have been upheld, as would its position that one may not exact usury from a fellow citizen. The Torah position that the law should be the same for Jew and Gentile was largely upheld in his day. Over successive centuries, some Jews took the position that it was not their job to help Gentiles write inspired laws for themselves against miscegenation and usury, and that it was ethical to take advantage of the more lenient laws of the Gentiles when it could be done to advantage. This is a valid criticism against those Jews who adopted this stance, when they could have easily said that since Jews criminalize miscegenation and usury among themselves they should not promote them among others, and indeed this alternate stance was taken by many Jews who regarded it as essential for the sanctification of God's name. Such criticism is similar to criticism of Americans who take advantage of foreign laws to engage in activities that are criminal in America.

I leave it to you to Name The Jew For Real. Aside, I greatly appreciate your apparent remaining moderate in tone as I requested; you come across like Vlad the Impaler on one of his gentle days. However, Scored is a bit of an "elite research board" and if you remain in the character of indirection rather than firmness I believe your influence will lessen.