Relevance in the written Torah, details of laws, contempt for scholars

In the SD
Greetings to Rabbi Michael!

1. How do you think it is right to treat long Semitic lists in the Torah, the numbers of commanders, and similar things, the relevance of which is unclear. The Sages say that a prophecy that was needed for generations was written, but I am unable to find what was needed for generations in these lists and their long details (the sacrifices of the presidents, for example). Should one try to find meaning (perhaps in the secret world?), or should one continue to read two books of the Bible and one translation, in order to “do one’s duty,” even without finding interest in the things.
2. When dealing with the details of the laws, I often come away with the feeling that things have gone beyond the legislator’s intention, and that God did not intend for such an excessive preoccupation with details. Is it possible to understand that God would leave room for man’s logical judgment within a certain range (after reading the general direction of the commandment) or is it true that precise guidance must be found in every detail of life, and one must try to claim with certainty that this is God’s will?

Doesn’t guarding against a slippery slope come at a heavy price of disbelief in the observance of the grammar of the mitzvot as doing God’s will?

1. Regarding the Rabbi’s formulation regarding scholars. In the Rabbi’s discussion “Am I an Epicurean,” the Rabbi denies the possibility of authority in matters of thought. But Chazal also called those who insult scholars “epicureans,” and this is ostensibly the exercise of authority over actions. Why does the Rabbi not accept this authority? Is it because he believes that those he is speaking out against are not scholars, or is it because you believe that there is importance in harsh wording, and for that you are willing to be called an “epicurean”?