I can’t remember what I said that was inappropriate. Not nice, dear Michi—I wrote a long post lol, and rewriting it is a hassle for me 🙁 (
What I asked was this: since the principle of causality is an a priori rule of reason/logic, and therefore all its force is only within reality and not outside it, and since the process of creating reality/the world/the universe preceded reality, then we have no way to compel the conclusion that this principle was valid then as well. So I have a bit of difficulty with the coherence of inferring that the world has a Creator from the principle of causality or sufficient reason or whatever—because, as stated, the process of creation preceded creation itself, and therefore also preceded the law, so it is not subject to it.
I’d be glad for a response.
2. Also, in that same context, I once heard you say that God is subject to logic. I’d be glad for an explanation, because as above, God is the one who created logic, so how could He be subject to a principle that He, blessed be He, preceded?
3. I always answer the regress question—who created the Creator?—by saying that since the Creator created reality, He therefore preceded the principle of causality, and therefore He, blessed be He, is not subject to this law. So His existence does not require an explanation/cause/creator. Do you agree?
P.S. It’s important to me to note that I’m a former atheist who came to his senses/opened his eyes, and I recognize the reality of the Creator through the truth of the Torah. But I’d still be glad to get an explanation from the Rabbi on my questions—to sharpen the issue.

I hope the hassle will get the message and the lesson across.
1. The principle of causality is a priori, as you wrote in the earlier version, and therefore it applies to everything and not only to our reality. Besides, the creation of our reality is the creation of the things familiar to us, so the principle of causality is definitely relevant to it.
2. I’ve explained this here on the site more than once. See, for example, here: https://www.google.com/url?client=internal-element-cse&cx=f18e4f052adde49eb&q=https://mikyab.net/%25D7%259B%25D7%25AA%25D7%2591%25D7%2599%25D7%259D/%25D7%259E%25D7%2590%25D7%259E%25D7%25A8%25D7%2599%25D7%259D/%25D7%25A2%25D7%259C-%25D7%25AA%25D7%2595%25D7%25A8%25D7%25AA-%25D7%2594%25D7%25A7%25D7%2595%25D7%2595%25D7%25A0%25D7%2598%25D7%2599%25D7%259D-%25D7%2595%25D7%2598%25D7%25A2%25D7%25A0%25D7%2595%25D7%259F-%25D7%2590%25D7%259E%25D7%2595%25D7%25A0%25D7%2595%25D7%25AA-%25D7%25A1%25D7%25AA%25D7%2599%25D7%25A8%25D7%25AA%25D7%2599/&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwj7t5nppq-QAxXRWUEAHRMfB1QQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1u0dIO6hxh643weZ01mQM3
3. No, as I explained above in section 1. The Creator is an exception to this rule because the alternative is infinite regress, so there is no choice but to exempt Him. Were it not for that, I would assume that He too is subject to the principle of causality.

Thank you for your reply.
I agree that the principle of causality is an a priori law of being, but I argue that all its force is within the reality that it governs.
My difficulty with your formulation of the solution is this: there is no need, and no logic, in declaring that God is “subject to causality” but exempted from it because of a logical consideration (preventing regress).
Here’s what I’m suggesting: God is not subject to the principle of causality by the very definition of Him as the “being” that preceded reality and its laws. God is the primary being that caused reality to exist, and therefore causality does not apply to Him and He, blessed be He, is not subject to it.
2. And regarding what I asked—how do we infer that there is a cause for the process of the world’s creation, if the world’s creation preceded reality? So I thought about it all morning, and what came out for me is this: the process of the world’s creation did not precede reality, because the only thing that “preceded” reality is the primary being—God. Rather, the process of the world’s creation was within reality; that is, God created material existence out of nothing, not reality out of “nothing.”
What do you say about that?
Yoav.

Where does that claim come from? Beyond that, I explained that the principle of causality deals with objects in our world, so creation should certainly be subject to it.
I don’t understand this discussion. If your formulations seem better to you, then fine, health to you. I suggest ending it here.