In the Talmud, we have widely differing views on the purpose and meaning of the Mitzvot.  Some of the rabbis saw them as the "pipeline" for Divine blessing.  Some rejected any earthly meaning or benefit, and saw them as preparing our places in Paradise. Some saw them as reminders of G-d's presence. Others saw them as forces beyond anything which we can fathom, with meanings well beyond our meager perceptions. All, however, shied away from interpreting the meanings of specific mitzvot. After all, only three mitzvot list reasons in the Torah itself, all relating to the King (not to have too many wives, not too much wealth, not too much horse trading). Solomon, the wisest of men, fell through in these, as he thought that he could get away with violating the law, without violating the reasons. He was mistaken. The human capacity for rationalization is remarkably vast. What the rabbis of the Talmud were primarily concerned with was determining what the laws are, and the best way to fulfill them. Already in the early Talmudic period, a Hellenized Jew, Philo of Alexandria (25 BCE-50 CE) attempted to find philosophical reasons for the Mitzvot, as well as the narrative parts of the Torah. So, for example, Adam and Eve became an allegory for the relationship between form and substance. The mitzvot are also analyzed as allegories, not really intended to be observed. Philo was virtually ignored in Jewish, non-Hellenized circles, but had a major impact on several early Christian thinkers. Man historians believe that he had great influence on Paul. It post Talmudic times, an entire genre developed of "Taamei HaMitzvot" (the reasons for the mitzvot). But many opposed this literature, as it would be the height of hubris to pretend to know the thoughts of G-d. This literature sometimes takes the form of philosophy, similar to Philo but emphasizing  the need to actually fulfill the laws. Some took the approach of mysticism. Some an approach of ethics. The most famous of these works  is Maimonides' "Guide for the Perplexed". Let me just say that although I am well aware that some people believe that Maimonides didn't really believe what he was writing, and merely was trying to win back those Jews who had given up Moses in exchange for Aristotle, or, alternatively, his writings are in a sort of code, that concealed great Kabbalistic secrets, I totally reject these views based on Maimonides' own extensive writings.. Some people have a need to show that all rabbis are, and always were, on "the same page". To me, it is one of the best features of Judaism; there are different approaches and understanding, all fully within the Tradition. Our  minds are not in chains, bound to one understanding. Yes, I am aware of books published several centuries later that said that he studied Kabbalah in his later life, but wan't able to retract his words, which he now greatly regretted. There is, however, no hint of this in his own later writings, or those of his son or his disciples. Maimonides lived in a time and place where Aristotle was seen as the repository of all Truth. Torah had to be put in harmony with Aristotle (as some modern rabbis go to great lengths to reconcile Torah with modern science), or, if irreconcilable, philosophical "proofs" must be used to show Aristotle wrong, based upon Aristotelian logic itself. I will go into some depth on Maimonides  Guide, both in terms of its triumphs and failures. For the sake of transparency,  I must note that I am a follower of Rabbi Nachman of Breslov. He considered Maimonides Guide one of the worst things ever written, and should not be looked at at all. Most Breslovers will not even say the name of the book. I will attempt, to the best of my ability, to give a fair analysis, and discuss both sides of this issue. It cannot be denied that this work had a huge impact, still felt in many circles.