The Torah is according to the will of God.

To the K.I.
Peace and blessings,
I heard from you at the time the principle that the Torah has a dual status –
1. A commandment in 1333. 2. Value as a phenomenon of revealing God's will.
(And in the novellas of Maran Ri'z, end of the halakhic verse, blessings in the name of Mor Abi's father, may God have mercy on him, and you brought a book by Rabbi Volba, "Mitzvot Hashulot").
The argument then – and it turns out – that the main devotion to the TAT is from the point of view of the value of the matter, and indeed the words are pleasing to those who said them. However, I have two difficulties with this:
1. I am studying two holders, the beginning of the chapter (in fact the vast majority of it) deals with the law of the claimant and the defendant. There are many discussions there that have no basis in the written Torah, everything is from interpretation – the perception of the holder as being held in half or in whole, migo (to take out, it is necessary to keep quiet, from money to money), there is no doubt that he takes out of my hand and certainly (2:1, and this takes a quarter), the confession of a litigant, he goes. Although there is the witness of the assistant and the majority and the gifts of the priesthood on pages 6-7, all of the above require real effort when they are not the will of God in themselves, perhaps it is God's will that they be conducted according to them, but then we have returned to the value of a mitzvah and technical study of learning in order to conduct themselves and know what to do (cf. T. for women). God's will is that the laws of justice be discussed, but seemingly, civil law teachings can equally meet the requirement. Is it true that the one who claims and is being argued is nothing but "Torah in the highest degree"?! I wonder.
2. A similar difficulty arose in me during the last Purim Shoshan. I carried and gave a little in the laws of shishlokh manot, and then I realized that this is all something that humans invented and that I should do. After all, Rabbi Meir Simcha (Deuteronomy 17:11) said that it is not necessarily the will of God in the body of the commandment, and if so, there is no intrinsic value in studying all the laws of the rabbis. And since I have a Megillah and Purim that are not invalid for the Jewish people (Rambam, Seph, of Megillah) and regard them as the Torah itself (just as the Gerizim in the first shtikkel on Megillah) and their foundation is in the words of Kabbalah and Rohka (I would be happy if you could also clarify this point), what about the rest of the laws of the rabbis?
 
Reading the Torah and expressing our heartfelt gratitude for your contributions to the world of Torah in particular and Judaism in general,
Mickey