Creation of the world

Thanks for the answer, and it follows from what you said that regarding the issue of whether the Torah came to correct the world, that is, the issue that people discuss whether the reasons for the mitzvot are a correction to the world or not, there is no evidence.

Indeed. These are two different questions. But from observing the system of commandments, at least the vast majority of them do not seem intended for moral-social correction.

Why would you say that?

Except for a few commandments that require in-depth explanation, all of the commandments are very well understood, either as worship of God and devotion to Him, or as the improvement of the world, or as moral leadership.

Which of your four categories is appropriate for things like beheading a donkey's head if you don't want to redeem it, eating the leftovers of offerings and a remaining prohibition, slaughtering in certain ways, not eating the sinew of the female, not eating any part of the animal and blood and meat in milk, intermarriage with plants and clothes and animals, incest, Ammon, Moab, Egypt, Amalek, the cloths will be in the rings of the ark and will not be removed from it.

Which of the four?

Beheading a donkey's head, what is not understood? A donkey's head is written in the Torah, the reason is explicit, eating the remains of offerings, etc. Again, this is a detail in the laws of sacrifices that concern a form of worship towards God. To slaughter in certain ways is the least sorrowful. Not eating the sinew of a woman is written in the Torah, the reason is blood, it is written explicitly in the Torah, the reason is fornication, very understandable, Egypt, Ammon, and Moab, it is written in the Torah, why? In short, most things are explicit, and those that do not need to be thought about, and this is no reason to say that things are without reason.

I don't see any good reason here in any of the things you've given. Even if it is explicitly written in the Torah, for example, that Ammon was not provided with bread and water and therefore would not come in the congregation of the Lord, the reason that explains why the reason written in the Torah is reasonable is still not understood. If in your opinion the explanation that Jacob quarreled with an angel and he touched his thigh, so it is forbidden to eat the sinew of the calf, is a good enough explanation, then you'll be fine. In my opinion, it is clear that behind this "explanation" there is some explanation on a more "higher" level that is not attainable. In the language of the Maharal, the reason for the cause. And all this is still in the "greater" commandments. If we go into the details of the commandments (for which the Maimonides himself threw up his hands and said that anyone who looks for reasons for them is going crazy, a great madness) which are, by a rough estimate, 99% of the effort in the Gemara and Poskim, then we are no longer working directly with the plane of tastes and purposes, but rather trying to decipher some abstract world of "correct" principles; in other words, we are not trying to correct the world. And even your text also includes the work of God and adherence to Him, which are already the lion's share of the "great" commandments; there is no explanation for the need to offer sacrifices and keep His Sabbaths and remember that He created the world unless there is a high, sublime, and invisible, exalted and haughty need here, and in my opinion, if it were not written, I would not think that there is any more "correction" in this for the human soul than a person planting zucchini in a field of Kaddish apples.

If you write me your phone number I will explain it to you, but in general you cannot take simple things that are written in the Torah and invent other things. If the Torah says Shimon and Moab, the problem is that they did not advance it, then that is exactly the problem. Now the details of the commandments are not. I mean that they have no point, but every law has a framework in an extreme case regarding keeping the Sabbath. I have no idea what you wrote.

You did not touch or harm, and yet between you and the point is a distance like the distance of a bowstring. Let's take Ammon and Moab. An Ammonite or Moabite will not come into the congregation of the Lord for something that they did not precede you with bread and water. Is this an explanation? This is a very preliminary explanation. Like telling a child not to read a storybook at night because then you might fall asleep late. And what's wrong with him sleeping late? Because he won't get up on time in the morning. And what's wrong with him not getting up on time in the morning? He'll be late for class. And what's wrong with him being late for class? He won't know the material. And so on. Until you reach a reason that has a final explanation (and this is a kind of what the Maharal calls the "reason for the reason," as I mentioned). The same goes for Ammon and Moab. If the ancestors of the Ammonites did not precede the ancestors of our ancestors, then what? And if we do, what will happen if we bring them into the people of Israel? Will the pots in the garden rot? Will the water canal start flowing backwards? Do you want to avenge them for the sins of their ancestors whose descendants will not be allowed to enter under the wings of the Divine Presence? These are empty words that I am trying to avoid. Therefore, we are performing a “retreat to metaphysics” – An Ammonite who converts apparently has some spiritual defect that is “not suitable” for the ”people of Israel”. And this unknown defect was probably also expressed in the fact that they did not promote and hire Balaam. These are mystical words, but without them the Torah becomes a choka and an italula. The rest of the things I will give to the wise and the wise and if it is empty, etc.’.

I don't think Mikhi Avraham thinks in your direction, but you also say that there is a correction of the commandments, but it is not visible to our eyes.
As a matter of fact, at the time of the act, their actions were very ugly and the Torah established a rule that one should not marry such a corrupt people. Apparently, they lived with the clear knowledge that they owed gratitude to the people of Israel, so there was such a collective identity. Now, to ask why a private stranger should not be accepted is an incorrect question, because this is the rule. A boundary is set and it is not crossed. I see no need to add the issue of souls here.

Of course there is no question why today they do not accept A. It is a rule that was established then and the abhorrence was at a level that could remain for many generations. B. Really today when it is not appropriate it really does not exist because Sennacherib confused the nations

There is definitely a correction to the commandments, who says otherwise? But it is not that the correction is a correction of things that are accepted and only hidden (like giving in secret), but rather that the correction is on higher and abstract levels.

I ask you now that if Sennacherib were there and now all the Ammonite people had come as one man with one heart to convert, why wouldn't we accept them? You explain that the reason is that they would be corrupt converts and would commit many offenses between a man and his fellow man? Is that the explanation?

Maybe that's why it doesn't exist today. That's how we turn from above

Maybe if Sennacherib hadn't confused the nations they would have had the same character to this day as many nations have a certain character like Arabs and the like. Maybe if the nations hadn't interfered it would have been much more inherent in the character.
And maybe it's possible that since that's how the Torah decreed it, then it's a law that doesn't change. In short, the gates of excuses weren't closed.
.But taking things that are written in the Torah and adding an addition that has no source and saying that this is the obligatory simplification is very strange.