Regarding the trilogy

So what do we have in the commandments? The act is subject only to the commandment, like Leibowitz?

I didn't understand the question. I wrote that in my opinion the mitzvot have a reason, and I also wrote that we have no way of knowing what they are. I also wrote that those who deal with the reasons for the mitzvot usually do not reinvent anything (they base the mitzvah on a reason or reasoning that was clear to them and to us even before, and if it was not clear to us, we would not accept it even after his interpretation), and therefore there is no point in dealing with it.
So what was not clear here? What is the question? Why do the mitzvah? Obviously, because of the commandment. And is there anyone who says otherwise? See Rambam, Soph. of Kings.

In my opinion, you are simply assuming what you are asking for, even if you think that the essence of Judaism is the Halacha, there is certainly an experiential dimension to the service of God (instead of having served God your God with joy and good heart - or even then you would say that you should learn from your Bible) and for this there is a need for the reasons of the commandments and as for how this can be discussed, one must examine it according to "Shimahi logic" and draw conclusions from it in a rational manner (and see in detail in the book Emet and Unstable).

Peace and blessings,
I really disagree with what is said. The reasons for many of the mitzvot are revealed by the Torah itself. And in places where the Torah does not reveal it, the sages spoke about it themselves, and in many other places the Rishonim were required to do so. So first of all, the Torah does explain the reasons, and the Rishonim themselves also have a fair amount of agreement among themselves about most of the mitzvot in terms of their reasons (simply put, most of the Rishonim's reasons are very clear and either understandable or can be reached on their own with honest understanding). Therefore, my argument is that there are reasons for the mitzvot, and these reasons are very clear.
G-d did not give us a mitzvot to be done without any apparent reason - this argument has no logical basis and is far from reasonable to say so. There is no person who would agree to do (no matter what the motive) and dedicate his life to doing something that he does not understand the meaning of the actions that make up this work.

And we say, Amen.
If you have ever learned anything from studying the reasons for the mitzvot, blessed are you. I have never seen any innovation there (in the sense that concerns the learner. There may be innovation in a renewed explanation of the mitzvah, but not in a way that would convince me to accept something that I would not have accepted without it).
And if you keep a mitzvot only from knowing the reasons, blessed are you, for you are greater than all the gods. I have never met a person with such understanding as you.
Incidentally, when the Torah itself reveals the reason, there was disagreement about what this meant. According to the law, the reason is not required even when the Torah revealed it (at least this is the Maimonides’ method. See our article on the fifth root for more detail).

Hello again to Maran Malka Moft Hador and Deru,
I didn't understand exactly what you meant by "I learned something from the discussion of the reasons for the commandments." I didn't mean to say that we learn something from it, but rather that the Torah commands things that it explains the reasons for, or that their reasons are quite understandable, or that there is a consensus among the Rishonim as to what it means by such and such a commandment. For example, tzitzit to remember the commandments of the Lord, the commandments that depend on the land to remember that the land belongs to it, and so on.
But the claim that the Lord commanded commandments whose meaning we do not understand is a baseless claim. A person cannot make commandments that he does not understand have a meaning and understands their meaning, even if God commanded it, even if he receives a reward and even if he is offered various and varied benefits for it. Therefore, I do not understand what you are saying. I would be happy to receive clarification.

Talk| Second, I did not hang the observance of the commandments on the work of the ’ I only said that it is inconceivable that the ’ would not clarify the meaning of the commandments that he commands and would hide them from us and command it arbitrarily. Of course, even if I do not understand, I will observe them, but still, in terms of reality, there is a clear and obvious reason for the commandments.

Regarding the conditions – I will not go into this topic, but in general I am talking about the level of the plain text of the Bible and there the reasons are quite clear.
Thank you!

There are two questions here, both of which are about him in this thread (even if not yours). 1. Are there reasons for the commandments and can they be known? 2. What is the point of dealing with them? Question 2 is a derivative of 1, but also constitutes an indication of 1. The added value in it is that even if we reach the reasons and accept them, they are still always banal reasons that teach us nothing. But as you say, you chose not to deal with that, but with 1.
I answered question 1 that I think there are reasons, but in most cases (sometimes even in the simplest ones) they cannot be known. I see no problem with the commandments being given to us without us understanding their reasons. The wisest of all people did not understand the reasons for some of the commandments, and I assume that they are still observed. If you have faith in the giving of the commandments, you observe them even without understanding because you know that it is the right thing to do. It is like a medicine that you get from a doctor. You do not know how it works, but if you have faith in it, you take the medicine.
Those seeking records have already demanded that in all situations where this amusing idiom is used, “it is unthinkable,” that it is always about something that not only comes to mind but actually happens. This is the case here as well.
I don’t know what the level of simplicity of the Bible is and what the conditions and conditions are. In short, in my opinion, you don’t know the reasons for the mitzvot that you keep. You may know reasons for the mitzvot that are written in the Torah that you don’t keep (according to the tradition of the Sages). Furthermore, when you know the reasons, you will always see that they can be achieved in another and perhaps better way (as in the tzitzit “the blue is like the sea”), and yet you probably don’t do it. And hence you also understand that these are not the real reasons.
But good luck.
Maran Moft Hador, etc., etc.
Place of signature (-)

Hello again Maran,
Thank you for the good order of things. Indeed, I am dealing with the first point.
I would like to comment briefly on the things you wrote:
A. Many of the reasons for the Torah are explicit. This is a fact. Even those for which there is no clear consensus in the first few regarding their reasons. It is possible that these are banal reasons from which nothing can be learned, but the reality is that the reasons are explicit either because they are explicit or because their understanding is clear.
B. Is it possible to keep the commandments and worship the ’ without understanding the meaning of the commandments? You claim that it is. I claim that it is not. And there is no point in comparing this to a doctor because I can indeed take medicine once or twice, maybe even 5 times, and base an entire life on it, and in addition to that, a connection with G-d, in such a way that I do actions whose reasons I do not understand at all, but rather as rituals in the dark – One cannot expect a person to live in this way and it is difficult to imagine that God asks a person to live this way. Therefore, my argument is that he did discover the reasons for the commandments, etc., as stated in section A.
Incidentally, regarding King Solomon, he did not understand the commandment of the red heifer at all, and even that is only one detail that is not understood: why it purifies the impure and defiles the pure. Indeed, regarding the details within the commandment, this is less clear, and indeed this can be assumed in practice if the general intention is quite clear.

I would love to hear your opinion,
And by the way, thank you for dedicating your time and patiently answering not only me but everyone. I see that the rabbi here is answering countless questions at a crazy pace, enough to study, teach, and write books that in my opinion have a tremendous contribution and therefore a lot of quantity and quality. This alone makes me disagree with you and understand that there is a private heavenly providence from God here and help from heaven for the rabbi who denies this fact (:
So again, a huge thank you and may you continue your tremendous work!

Thank you for your words. If so, then anyone who disagrees with me is a dissenter from the Divine Presence. Beware of their embers. 🙂

A. I don't know where you found many reasons that are explained. In the fifth root, the Rambam deals with places where the Torah explained the reasons, and there they are seen as isolated places (this is for those like me who learn about what is written in the Torah from the "ketzot").
B. If you claim that it is impossible to observe without understanding the reason, then I don't understand how you observe those that you also admit that you don't understand? Like the commandment of the cow of King Solomon. I personally claim that you understand almost none (the reasons that are presented in the commentaries also do not fit the boundaries of halakhic law. Moreover, quite a few of them are controversial. So you make a condition there on the commandment of the Avenger (on the Afikomen): If the reason is this, I do it for this purpose, and if the reason is this, I do it for this purpose?).
It is certainly possible to expect a person to live like this, and the fact is that many do (I argue that everyone lives like this. Because even those who think they understand are deceiving themselves and us). Once again we are back to the issue of “unthinkable”…