Many thanks.
That is, there is no halakhic explanation for it?

See here — mdabraham on the Otzakh forum:
https://www.bhol.co.il/forums/topic.asp?topic_id=2746181

Wow. What erudition!! It turns out that I actually did write about it once, and I no longer remembered. And reading it now, it seems to me that I wrote quite well.
Much appreciated for the reference.

How painful it is to see our teacher and rabbi, the old Rabbi Michi of blessed memory, from whom we learned so much. And today he doesn’t even invest thought in it, because it’s a homily 🙁

Really a shame. A large part of Michi’s creative abilities and talents no longer find expression. Too bad. And because of that, we lose out.

Can someone copy the material here, for the benefit of those for whom “Otzakh” is blocked?

I’m truly moved by the eulogies, although the rumors of old Michi’s death are exaggerated and premature. The difference is not between the old Michi and the new Michi, but between Michi who had time and Michi who has no time. And between Michi who wrote long ago and Michi who forgot what he wrote. Study that carefully.
But since I too once knew the old Michi, I can only join the eulogy. He really was a great man. May his merit protect us.

I too noticed the change. Really a shame. I hope he rises quickly at the resurrection.

For those of us who are blocked among us (it’s not that I’m not blocked; it’s just that Etrog can’t resist our rabbi’s articles):
and this is what he wrote:

The Talmud in Pesachim 53b brings a puzzling a fortiori argument:

Come and hear: There was also this exposition of Theodosius of Rome: What did Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah see, that they gave themselves over for sanctification of God’s name to the fiery furnace? They derived an a fortiori argument on their own from the frogs: if the frogs, which are not commanded regarding sanctification of God’s name, about whom it is written, “and they shall come up and enter your house … and your ovens and your kneading bowls”—when are kneading bowls found next to an oven? You must say: at the time when the oven is hot—then we, who are commanded regarding sanctification of God’s name, all the more so.

What is the meaning of this a fortiori argument? Do frogs have free choice? And the medieval authorities (Rishonim) there immediately begin discussing what the initial assumption of Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah was, such that they needed to infer from the frogs. Rashi writes that they considered expounding “and live by them”—and not die by them. And Tosafot reject this, since it was a case of idolatry and in public (see Tosafot there), so it is obvious that one must give up one’s life, and “and live by them” does not apply (except according to Rabbi Ishmael, whose view is not accepted in Jewish law). And the Maharsha there refutes the a fortiori argument, since frogs do not have “and live by them,” so the argument is refutable.

Now I saw in Tosafot Rid here (and after him a whole flock of later authorities—see Tzelach, Sefat Emet, Hatam Sofer, all of whom do not cite him) that they learned an a fortiori argument that if the frogs were saved from the ovens despite not being commanded, then they certainly would have the furnace cooled down for them as well (as indeed happened). That is of course difficult in the plain sense of the Talmud.

By the way, this consideration is brought in the Talmud as an indication that Theodosius was a great man (= a Torah scholar), and therefore they did not place him under ban even though he issued an erroneous halakhic ruling (to eat a whole roasted kid on Passover eve). But immediately afterward an opinion is brought that he merited this because he supported Torah scholars and not because he was a great man. And it is hard to avoid the thought that this statement ignores the previous proof because it treats this strange a fortiori argument with contempt.

So what did the Sages and the medieval authorities (Rishonim) really want here? Are homilies not bound by some elementary logic? What is this really meant to teach us? How is it possible to take this consideration seriously, to interpret it in halakhic terms, to raise objections to it, and so on?

I have a possible explanation, but first I’ll wait to hear what the public thinks.

End quote.

And indeed, with great sorrow and dark grief, we witness that same rabbi who truly attributes great importance to the aggadic statements of the Sages, and does not accept other Sage-statements from those who do not treat this particular Sage-statement as something substantial.

“I have a possible explanation, but first I’ll wait to hear what the public thinks” — a quote from the above.
So what is the possible explanation?

See the link above. It appears later in the thread.