Our Gemara on Amud Beis draws a distinction between an animal shared by two individuals and a barrel of wine. Each partner may take a portion of the contents of the barrel up to his limit of the techum boundary without being bound by his partner’s techum boundary. Yet partners in an animal cannot do so, and each is bound by the other’s limit. What is the reason for this distinction? The Gemara explains that a live animal cannot be divided into two parts for ownership; each part of its body depends on, and is nourished by the other. Consequently, even if the designation of the respective portions takes place retroactively, each portion continues to draw from the other part, so that at the time of division the two portions are once again mixed together.

Rav Moshe Amiel in his Middos L’Cheker Halakha (Part II:12 Chiyuv V’shelilah 70) explains that Torah is compared to a living thing as well, and each part derives life from the other. Torah cannot be divided any more than a living thing can be divided. He says, when you study Kodashim (the section of Shas that deals with Temple sacrifices) you are also learning how to free agunot. That’s the systemic and organic way Torah works. 

Torah is not just systemic in its content but also in its experience. We learn a lot of tropes in grade school that we never understand deeply. One of them is the principle, אֵין מוּקְדָּם וּמְאוּחָר בַּתּוֹרָה “there is no absolute chronological order in the Torah” (Pesachim 6b). What in the world is that supposed to mean? I’ll tell you what I think it means. Some parts of the Torah do not follow consistent chronology but that is not the cause, rather it is the effect of a deeper cyclical, systemic and holistic way in which Torah is to be explained. It is not a syllogistic linear line of reason where chapter two is based on chapter one. In fact, often chapter two literally contradicts chapter one, such as in the two accounts of creation and many other dual narratives that are in the Biblical stories. Pesach tells us something about Succos, but Succos tells us something about Pesach. Avraham teaches us about Ezra Hasofer, but Ezra Hasofer teaches us about Avraham. Zachor and Shamor (Shavous 20b) were said at the same time, but that means in God’s consciousness, so to speak, it’s deeply simultaneous. For that matter, the sexual restrictions relate to shabbos, and the shabbos restrictions to sexuality. Why is that?  We need family life and context to both appreciate the value of shabbos and the value of monogamy.  Each one reinforces the other.  This is why some older singles have more difficulty staying observant.  The systemic meaning and benefits package of Yiddishkeit is markedly reduced without family life.

This reminds me of a profound thought by the theologian Abraham Joshua Heschel. When you try to understand religion scientifically, it is the same as trying to understand a living organism scientifically. You kill it, take a slice of it, and put it under a microscope. You might learn a thing or two, and come up with a fancy theory, but you won’t be observing the living organism while it’s alive.

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)