Question

The Rabbi wrote in one of his biting (and very beautiful) articles:
 
"I am willing to accept the claim that sometimes a principle rooted in an understanding of reality is turned into a formal principle detached from its source, if only as a tactic used by someone who lacks the tools to deal with the difficulties. But in my view, such a thing can be done only in certain cases, when there is a need and justification for it, and that is indeed what was always done. But nowadays it really looks like a cancerous growth. Significant parts of Jewish law are losing their meaning and appear absurd on their face, and many people, including outstanding Torah scholars, are therefore losing faith in Jewish law in general and in the rabbinic establishment in particular. The One above is my witness that I am no small formalist myself, and nevertheless, precisely because I do not believe in the Leibovitzian detachment between Jewish law and its contents, I am not willing to accept such sweeping formalizations."
Could the Rabbi expand on this a bit? When is formality justified and when is it not? If there is no clear boundary, then when do we say this and when do we say otherwise? I would be grateful if the Rabbi could elaborate a little.