Kant’s Categorical Imperative – Explanation

Thank you very much, indeed I feel that there is something problematic there but nevertheless there is something very true in Kant's command.

There is another thing that I don't quite understand in your words in the fourth notebook. Throughout the notebook you repeat that it is not possible to deduce a norm from factual claims, but we do feel that there is a general law in the matter. On page (97) you divide between descriptive claims and prescriptive claims. These claims are charged with a negative or positive charge. That is, with the help of my conscience I can observe the moral ideal and decide whether act x is good or bad.
But even if the moral ideal indeed says that it is bad to murder, this is a claim of fact. - It really says so there!
But how can I deduce a norm from it - and refrain from committing murder?!

I think I explained it there. The claim is that normative facts are different from physical facts. Physical facts are neutral (descriptive) and normative facts are charged (prescriptive). From a normative fact (described in a prescriptive sentence) a norm can be derived.

I accept the theoretical distinction, but how can such a reality of norm claims exist? Every reality is a fact and does not cause action. Maybe the rabbi has a parable for this?

I thought about the idea of a state law book, for example. But that too is not a norm claim, but a fact. It does indeed say there that it is forbidden to cross a red light. But that does not deter me from taking action.

I don't know what examples I can give. There are laws and there are moral principles. If you don't perceive them as charged facts, you won't be bound by them (to obey the law or morality). Therefore, you have two options: either deny what we all understand to be binding (charged) facts, or accept it. If you accept it, then you have examples of charged facts.

Sorry if I'm repeating myself with the question but that's not how I understood it

How can there be an existence for such a reality? A book of laws that the ruler issued is an example of this?
Z”a exists a writer – fact. And there is a writer (the ruler) who claimed the fact to be an action?

The existence of the book is a fact, but it is not what I am talking about. This book reflects a legislative act, and that is the relevant fact. A legislative act is not a neutral fact but a charged fact, and it is binding. By the very fact that an authorized entity enacts a law, it binds the recipients.

Thank you, but it is still not clear to me how the legislative body has the power to expropriate from factual speech (it was said in his words, "Do not murder") to a normative command (I was told not to commit an act of murder)?

I didn't understand the question. Nothing is expropriated from anything. Speech in itself is a neutral fact. But speech/command of an authorized legislator is a normative fact. It is not expropriated from the category of fact, but it is a different kind of fact. And the evidence is that people understand that it obligates them (just as they understand that an ordinary fact is neutral).

Okay, thanks, I think I understand. Your words just raised another question for me, so is there a supreme being who told us the moral laws? Why should we listen to it and see its words as binding?

Because she is the authorized authority. If you do not see her as such, do not listen to her. The proof in the fourth notebook is “theological”. See the explanation there.