Morality I did not follow.

Shalom Rabbi
I am not sure that the example from the Maharl shows that the halakha has no connection with morality. The halakha is concerned with both the morality of one person to another and the self-morality of the person. At a basic level, it is concerned with the person trying to find out who the object belongs to. So much for the owner's despair. From there on, it is blessed but not obligatory. The very fact that from the beginning the Torah tells you to search for who the object belongs to, and even to the point of the owner's despair, clearly has a connection with morality.
In addition, there is also a lesson in building a person's personality, which in my opinion is also a moral thing, correcting one's manners, even if it is not expressed in an action towards another person. The very fact that the Torah tells me not to use even if the one who lost it never comes to demand it, builds in a person a deep consciousness that he is using only his own, what he worked for, perhaps even in order to distance himself from the prohibition of theft. Therefore, a moral aspect can be found in both matters.
And the very fact that in many of the laws, and especially the laws that are between man and his fellow man, a moral basis can be seen, shows that the law really has a close connection to this. Because otherwise, I would expect the mitzvot that are between man and his fellow man to appear arbitrary on a regular basis and not just in extreme cases like a gentile on Shabbat... Why don't you steal? You won't murder? You won't covet? And if so, in the mitzvot that are between man and his fellow man, we can look at the general system of the mitzvot and assume that even the least understood ones have a moral root, because there is no reason to divide between the purpose of the mitzvot that are between man and his fellow man and the purpose of the other mitzvot.

It's not that there is no connection to morality. Halacha adds a religious layer on top of the moral one. The fact that some of the commandments are of a moral nature (although their definitions differ from the categories of morality. Like murder in the gram and reducing, etc.), does not mean that all of them are like that. At most, we can say that the Torah also wants morality, but certainly not only it. This is reinforced if we see that food prohibitions, like many other commandments, do not reflect anything moral that I can discern. So why assume otherwise?
According to your logic, if there are commandments that come to protect property, that means that all the commandments come to protect property. That's strange, isn't it? In my opinion, it means that there are commandments that come to protect property because the Torah wants that too.

So what else could the Torah want? What else can be achieved from the commandments? If this is something that we do not understand and never will, and that we will never see any benefit from it in reality, either in the world or within ourselves, then the commandments lose their meaning. If we do not see any result from the actions and never will, why keep them in the first place?
And if you say that the action is to show the commitment to the thing even if it makes no sense, then the commandments are arbitrary and it would not matter at all what we were commanded.

Wonderful questions (in the sense of “not wonderful is it from you”). But they are irrelevant to your claim.
I wonder what your answer is to these questions: that the Torah wants morality? What to do if it does not stand the test of facts. The prohibition of pork has nothing to do with morality, nor do other forbidden foods and many other prohibitions and commandments.

So there are 3 options in my understanding. 1) Try to understand what is moral in these mitzvot. If I am not mistaken, Rav Kook goes in this direction. And again, this does not mean that this is the absolute reason, there will always be other dimensions. 2) Do not try to understand what is moral in the specific mitzvot, but understand through deduction that if the system of mitzvot comes to purify me morally, this is also what happens when I keep mitzvot that I do not understand. 3) Come to the conclusion that certain mitzvot have no benefit in any way, and therefore derive from this that I simply have no reason to keep them. Isn't this the expected result?

1. There is nothing moral in these commandments, so it is a waste of time. Indeed, God tried to go in this direction and in my opinion he brought up clay in his hand (as expected).
2. I don't really see this "deduction". But the conclusion may be correct (I have no idea).
3. Even if they have no moral benefit, it does not mean that they do not have other benefits. If God commanded it, it is reasonable that they have benefits. Therefore, I do not understand why the conclusion from this is that there is no reason to keep them.

1. Perhaps there is nothing moral in the act itself, but if the act creates a moral consciousness in me, which may also later be expressed in moral actions - it is a moral act.
3. So if the act has some benefit or other that improves reality, by performing the act and being useful, I am performing a moral act. Isn't it?

You say that there is a benefit and therefore one must keep the commandments. But just as you say that there is no moral benefit because I cannot discern it, what reason is there to say that there is any benefit at all? After all, I do not see any benefit and if we are consistent, just as there is no moral benefit because I do not see it, so there is no benefit and therefore there is no reason to keep the commandments. If so, it must be said that although there is no apparent benefit, there is certainly a benefit because it causes me to keep the commandment, and therefore although I do not see the moral benefit at the moment, it is very possible that the moral benefit is the goal.

1. As I wrote, it is possible that these actions have hidden moral effects. Although I do not notice this and do not see any indication of this. I also do not actually see a relationship between the degree of adherence to the law and the degree of a person's morality. Beyond that, if the commandments are a means, then it is possible to think of other, perhaps better means to achieve the same result. This actually empties them of their content a little.
3. There are various improvements to reality and they are not necessarily related to morality. This is what I call religious values. Renovating the house of the Almighty is not necessarily moral. Just as the goal of creating the world is unlikely in my opinion to be a moral improvement (because morality is a means to create a better society, but then it is better not to create a society and not to ask it to improve and be good).

There is a fundamental bug in the comparison you made at the end. Regarding morality, you and I understand very well what morality is and know how to distinguish what is moral and what is not, what contributes to morality and what does not. Therefore, here I assume that if I do not see a moral aspect in a certain mitzvah, then it does not exist. But as for other (religious) purposes, I do not know what they are, and therefore it is difficult for me to determine that in one or another mitzvah there are none. On the contrary, as I wrote to you before, a very reasonable logical consideration says that it is very likely that creation and us have such purposes beyond morality.

By the way, I'm not saying that one should observe it because of the benefit. One should observe it because God commanded it. It's just that it's likely that without benefit, it wouldn't have been a mitzvah.

What do I care about renovating the house of the Holy One? If there was no value in it, I wouldn't do it. The question of "what does the Holy One care about me putting on tefillin" takes on real meaning, because I really don't know what He cares about and what He wants from me. Looking at the mitzvot as unrelated to the commandments and our improvement loses their content. And yes, we also keep the mitzvot because we understand that this is what needs to be done. If I didn't think that this is what is true, I wouldn't be interested in it being "the word of God." Because the word of God without any connection to us has no meaning for me.

The conclusion according to your system is this: Your father comes and orders you to stand on one leg every morning. Since you don't see any logic in this, you tell yourself that it must be beneficial to make me a richer person and therefore I will do it every morning. Oh, don't you see how this is beneficial to wealth or anything else? It doesn't matter. I want to survive and there is no other logic, so you decide that there is this explanation against all logic.

The only difference is that in the first place my father would not have commanded me something that was illogical and meaningless and would not benefit me or him. Since God does not need us, what remains is that it is for our own good.

See Toss’ Yevamot v. 8221;a that the obligation to honor parents is only (!) when it is in their best interest. And so some rabbis state that if they command for your benefit and not theirs, you are not obligated to obey them.

Does this seem like honoring parents to you? To do it only when it is beneficial to you?

I wrote to him or me. And of course, even more so, that my parents' benefit is my benefit - at least the moral one.

But He probably does need us, otherwise He would not have created us. As I wrote above, creating us for us is an oxymoron. He would not have created and there would be no one missing who needs to do things for Him.
Beyond that, the benefit can be for us, but not a moral benefit but a spiritual-religious one. For example, the commandments can purify us and make us closer to Him. This is possible in principle even without any moral improvement.

Can you give examples of religious spiritual benefit? What does it mean to draw closer to Him? Are they just words? Is it correction of morals? Personality building?

First, if possible, please give one example of the moral benefit of not eating pork or milk (during pregnancy).

I didn't say I have. But a religious spiritual benefit without explaining it is like saying benefit x. From what I know, devotion to God is likening Him by adhering to His qualities. What is He merciful, even you. And is that immoral?

We have exhausted ourselves. I will summarize my position and part as friends:
My argument is that there are commandments in the law that clearly seem to have no moral significance. Therefore, it is unreasonable to attach hidden moral benefits to them. The alternative I propose is that perhaps they bring a different kind of benefit (spiritual, religious, devotion to it, etc.). Perhaps they refine my soul on the moral plane in some hidden way and make me a more moral person (something that does not really correspond to the facts as far as I understand it, but in principle it is possible).
I cannot explain what all this means, but this is the conclusion that follows from the facts. Thus we conclude from the phenomena that bodies with mass fall to the Earth that there is a gravitational force that attracts them. A person can ask, "Please explain to me what that gravitational force is," and he will not receive an answer. It is simply a conclusion that follows from the facts that there is such a thing. I have no direct description or explanation for this thing that there is an abstract existence.

One thing is clear. Anyone who, due to his lack of understanding, attributes to these commandments vanishing moral benefits is suffering from a serious error: he is converting something we do not recognize into something we do know is not true. So what is the benefit of such explanations?

All the best

Thank you and have a good weekend.

My opinion is that whoever calls the force of gravity – the force of gravity is a heretic, because it is a force that God created only after the completion of creation. And it is not correct to call it that, but rather a miraculous force, because this force only works when there are several bodies. And the purpose of God in creating this miraculous force is so that the creatures in the lower world will stay here and not fall, because we are on a ball in the air. Only on Wednesday were the rest of the luminaries created, and yet we are not attracted to bodies larger than the earth.
So from now on, call it a miraculous force

Shalom Rabbi
Following the Maharal's words that you quoted from the Exile Commentary, he continues to explain the logical reason for the Halacha's attitude towards loss after the owner's despair, claiming that the Halacha draws from objective truth (and thus also has a positive effect on those who observe the Halacha) as opposed to the moral religion that originates from interpretation.
Doesn't this contradict your claim about the lack of logical/moral reason for the Halacha?

I never claimed that there is no logical reason for the law. I claimed that the law does not necessarily reflect a moral reason.
On the contrary, it seems reasonable to me that there are reasons for the law, even if they are unknown to us. The Mehrab explains that the laws of Shabbat Avidah are not consistent with morality – and these are my words.

His claim that it is not appropriate for polite religion, why necessarily define it as morality?
The source of the loss should not be returned after the owner's despair because according to the truth the loss no longer belongs to the owner of the loss. Is it not possible to define morality according to the truth, if it turns out that it is precisely following the truth that is beneficial, and the real correction?

There the Maharal explained that from this halakha we learn about the value of a person's wealth and other possessions as they are not essential to him, in that after leaving his possession it is no longer his. In contrast to Torah and good deeds which are essential to the person himself, and therefore halakha is supposed to influence the world of a person's values and moral considerations. Isn't this a moral reason?

Gabi Shalom.
The religion of politeness is morality and ordinary human justice. See his words there.

No. At most it teaches an important lesson, but it does not justify not returning a loss to its (moral) owners.

From the Rabbi's words "Morality and Ordinary Human Justice" does it mean that there is another type of morality, what do you mean?
Can you also give a brief definition of the concept of morality?
Thank you

No. There is no other type. For the apocalypse of those who talk about supreme divine morality and other nonsense.
I don't have a simple definition. I assume everyone understands well what we are talking about.