In any case, from all their words we learn not like the opinion of Rabbi Nissim. And according to my understanding, it seems to me that since it is stated that now that the entire law has not been said, one must consider the reason, it is based on strict legal reasoning, and not just for the sake of the matter itself, because when it is a doubt in Jewish law, one must be stringent in both biblical and rabbinic matters, and also in cases where the reasoning of Rabbi Nissim does not apply to negate the enactment, as written by the Beit Halevi. And one should be precise as he interprets from the language of the Talmud, which concluded, 'both this and that required the reason,' and the term 'required' implies an obligation ideally.