I think the Rabbi answered properly; I’d just like to add one response to the Rabbi,
let’s start from the end:
how do we know that the commandment of tefillin is not a metaphorical commandment?
The commandment of tefillin appears four times in the Torah, twice in the book of Exodus and twice in Deuteronomy. If we were to open only the book of Exodus, then indeed it is quite possible that the commandment of tefillin would look like a metaphorical commandment. (And see there the plain-sense commentators on the passage.)
By contrast, if we open the book of Deuteronomy, and especially the section of Shema, for example (chapter 6), there we discover explicitly that the commandment of tefillin does not appear to be metaphorical.
A. The juxtaposition of the commandment of tefillin to the commandment of mezuzah proves that this is not mere figurative language. It is impossible to attribute a symbolic meaning to the law of writing on the doorposts of the house.
B. “And you shall bind them as a sign” upon your hand, etc.—the sign is something tangible with symbolic value. A sign everywhere in the Torah is a specific object that serves as a sign. (The rainbow, the hammered metal plates of Korah, Aaron’s staff, the altar, the observance of the Sabbath commandment) and more.
C. There are many ancient external sources for the commandment of tefillin: the Septuagint, the Letter of Aristeas, Matthew 23:5, tefillin were found in the Judean Desert and also at Qumran, and even among the Sadducees.
In the book The Oral Torah: Its Authority and Its Methods by Yehoshua Enbal, p. 119, he further explains the contrast between the very similar sentences in Proverbs. See there.
The idea of what I wrote here is also taken from him; there too there are sources.

As for the claims in the videos from the Israeli Logic and Science channel, many times they do not understand the Kuzari argument from revelation at all.
You can see more at length on the site “Values at the Front” – https://rationalbelief.org.il/
and specifically here – https://rationalbelief.org.il/category/the-historical-tradition-of-the-torah/

Regarding the Israeli Logic and Science videos against the giving of the Torah (“Giving of the Torah—Did It Happen or Not?”), see four response articles here toward the end of the page:
https://rationalbelief.org.il/category/pseudo-scientific-propaganda/

Regarding tefillin, assuming that the Torah intends a concrete act and not a metaphor, there is a question what exactly was supposed to be written in those tefillin. This question seems weightier to me, because there is historical and philological evidence against our tradition.

As for the Bible code, see the Rabbi’s very qualified position (especially regarding the methodology of both sides) in the appendix to God Plays Dice. Also see here: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ83BXaD02o
This is a lecture by Professor Maya Bar-Hillel, delivered in the presence of Professor Eliyahu Rips himself (the father of the modern skip-code method, that is, after Rabbi Weissmandel).
It is a lecture describing an experiment that rejects the conclusions of those who support the skip-code method. The lecture is presented very clearly, and tells about “codes” that were found in Tolstoy’s War and Peace; see there.
Although I don’t have the tools to decide the issue, I feel rather deceived by the fact that the kiruv people hide this experiment. I spoke with several of them, including a personal conversation with Professor Rips himself, and I never heard from them about this experiment.

To our master, the Rebbe, may he live long and well,

May one wish mazal tov in honor of the fifteenth of Tevet (“the bright day”)?

See the article by David Nahman, “The Content and Order of the Tefillin Sections from Qumran and the Jewish law of the Sages—the Similar, the Different, and Some Historical Conclusions” (Cathedra 112; cited in the Wikipedia link under the entry “Tefillin”). From his analysis it emerges that there was a common denominator to all the tefillin (except for one): in all of them, there were four sections connected to the places where the commandment of tefillin is mentioned in the Torah. There are tefillin in which the same sections appear as in the tradition of the Sages—the “condensed version”—and there are tefillin in an “expanded version,” in which there are additional sections adjacent to the sections in our tefillin. There are tefillin in which the section “And it shall come to pass, if you surely listen” and “And it shall be, when the Lord brings you” are missing, but one cannot determine in those cases whether they were not originally there or whether they were there and were lost.
As for the order of the sections—there one also finds both Rashi’s order and Rabbenu Tam’s order (their common denominator being that “Sanctify to Me” and “And it shall be, when the Lord brings you” are on the right; “Hear, O Israel” and “And it shall come to pass, if you surely listen” are on the left), as well as the reverse Tannaic order (“Hear, O Israel” and “And it shall come to pass, if you surely listen” on the right; “Sanctify to Me” and “And it shall be, when the Lord brings you” on the left). And see the explanation of the Arukh HaShulchan, Orach Chayim 34, that by Torah law both Rashi’s and Rabbenu Tam’s order are valid.

As for the experiment that purported to refute the findings of the Torah skip-codes—the argument has already been discussed in scientific literature, and received responses and responses to the responses. A summary and references can be found by anyone interested in the Wikipedia entry “Torah codes.”
In any case, after Tolstoy taught us: “What is a Jew? One whom they have never succeeded in seducing with any of the temptations in the world, though his oppressors and persecutors offered him everything, provided only that he deny his religion and the faith of his fathers”; “The Jew is the symbol of eternity. Neither slaughter nor torture, neither fire nor the sword of the Inquisition succeeded in exterminating him. He was the first to proclaim the word of God. He who for so long guarded prophecy and transmitted it to all humanity… he is the embodiment of eternity” (see Wikiquote).
It seems to me, in light of the above, that one should trust the testimony of those Jews, for which they gave their lives.
With blessing,
S. Tz. Levinger

Thank you very much, S.Tz.L., for the reference to the Wikipedia entry.
As for tefillin, I already referred to Nahman’s article here on the site. From it, it emerges that there existed a tradition for a different understanding of the command. According to that understanding, the commandment is not to write the command itself, but another text adjacent to it. In my opinion, this understanding is much more reasonable, and its force increases where it also has a tradition behind it.

David Nahman’s innovation is not in discovering that there were tefillin with an expanded text. Nahman noticed: (a) that despite the additions in some of the tefillin, everything is found within those same four units in the Torah that include or are adjacent to the traditional sections; (b) that based on the state of the sections, there is room to say that even the sections “And it shall come to pass, if you surely listen” and “And it shall be, when the Lord brings you,” which are missing in some tefillin, were written there, so there is no proof that the Qumran practice did not include all the traditional sections.
As for reasonableness—it is not reasonable that the Torah would require every Jew to hold long scrolls in calligraphy on his head. That is a privilege that can be carried out only in an elitist separatist sect (as the Qumran sect indeed was) that thinks it and only it is the Jewish people, and out of a feeling of superiority boycotts the Temple. The more reasonable interpretation is that the Torah commands placing short sections that succinctly express the foundations of faith—the unity of God, observance of His commandments, His providence, and remembering the Exodus from Egypt; and “whoever adds, detracts.”
With blessing,
S. Tz. Levinger

Aharon, whose response has the numerical value 240 (help for the struggling: “Amalek”),
Hey Rabbi,
how do you want to prove something from a sect that separated itself from the true tradition? (Even if they say they are the ones with the true tradition…)
At the end of the day, we follow the majority of the people at the latest point where we are able to check who they were and about whom we assume they had always existed. And those are of course the Pharisees, as Yevamot already mentions that most of the nation followed them.
Besides, the commandment of tefillin obviously points to a need for the Oral Torah, even a minimal Oral Torah, so that further strengthens the religious claim.
P.S. It is worth adding that the Sages already present many forms of tefillin invalidated by all sorts of strange sectarians, and they still maintain that these types of tefillin are invalid.

In any case, the very fact that we see a broad conception across all the sects that the Torah is true certainly strengthens the foundation of faith. And as is known, errors of forgetting, outside assimilation, mistaken interpretation of an event, and exaggeration can occur regarding any foundational event—but they cannot occur with respect to whether the event itself happened. The revelation at Mount Sinai—as a constitutive event.

With blessing,
The man, the legend

With God’s help, 15 Tevet 5778

To the legendary man—many greetings,

If one silences the questioner and doubter with a rebuke (Amalek = doubt), will his questions disappear? If we want to offer him our answers, we need to have the patience to listen to his claims and questions; otherwise he will look for answers in places less sympathetic from our point of view.

With blessing,
S. Tz. Levinger