Why not necessarily conclude from this, above all, that intention has no small significance for us—perhaps even primary significance?
In the sense of: the Merciful One wants the heart.

??

The keyboard….

What I meant was to ask:
Why not conclude from this, by force of necessity, that there is significance to what stands behind the commandment—maybe even that the main significance of the commandment is the intention.

I have a hard time with cryptic writings.

Again the keyboard.

The question is as follows.

Since we have no explanation that really sits well with the heart except for the accepted explanation—true, it is a forced explanation, but it is the most plausible one—so the question is, why not conclude from this that the main purpose of the commandment is the intention behind it. After all, as is well known, the Torah is usually concise, and it seems there is a message here. As long as no message other than the accepted one is found, then that is the binding one, no?!

And therefore a commandment without the intention behind it may perhaps not be a commandment at all, or at least intention has very strong significance.

Thanks in advance.

This is the last time I respond to these cryptic writings.
I don’t know what the accepted explanation is. If you mean a specific explanation, please present it. If it’s the least forced explanation, then I suppose it can be accepted tentatively until something better is proposed. I wouldn’t build too tall a tower on that. That’s all.
What does any of this have to do with intention in commandments? The devil knows.

Gloomy Father, it’s very strange and a little annoying that twice you type and send without even minimal proofreading, and then write a message that, while it doesn’t have typing errors, is impossible to decipher.

The accepted explanation is that of the midrash: that each one was repeated separately in order to show that although the type of offering was identical, the intention was different, and therefore it is considered that each prince brought a different offering.
This explanation is apologetic, but seemingly it is also the least forced, and the question therefore was: as long as this explanation is the most plausible, have we learned from it that the main part of the commandment is the intention?

In order to show*

Even if we accept this lame explanation (who says each one had a different intention?), I have other explanations too, as many as you like. For example, the Torah wanted to commemorate their generosity for generations in a grand way.
And even if we accept that explanation, there is no proof from here that intention is the main thing, but at most that intention is important. Truly an astounding novelty. I’ve already heard greater novelties.
And even if that were the novelty, and even if it were a great novelty, it’s interesting that the Talmud does not learn from here that commandments require intention.