Our Gemara on Amud Beis records a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages regarding if the prohibition of Gid Hanashe is active in regard to a non-kosher animal:

“The prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve applies to a kosher animal and does not apply to a non-kosher animal. Rabbi Yehuda says: It applies even to a non-kosher animal. Rabbi Yehuda said in explanation: Wasn’t the sciatic nerve forbidden for the children of Jacob, as it is written: ‘Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sciatic nerve’ (Genesis 32:33), yet the meat of a non-kosher animal was still permitted to them? Since the sciatic nerve of non-kosher animals became forbidden at that time, it remains forbidden now. The Rabbis said to Rabbi Yehuda: The prohibition was stated in Sinai, but it was written in its place, in the battle of Jacob and the angel, despite the fact that the prohibition did not take effect then.”

The Rambam in his commentary on that Mishna explains the position of the Sages: Regardless of the story or the origin of the prohibition, our covenant and relationship with this prohibition only stems from Moshe’s revelation and the experience at Mount Sinai. That is the defining moment and basis for our obligation, even if Yaakov or his children conducted themselves accordingly.

Rav Yosef Engel (Beis Haotzar, Klall 1:4) suggests that this dispute might depend on a similar dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish (Gittin 60a):

“Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Bana’a: The Torah was given from the outset scroll by scroll…, Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: The Torah was given as a complete book.”

Conceptually, Rabbi Yochanan seems to hold that each part of the Torah is individually binding, while Reish Lakish holds that it is one totality, possibly echoing the Rambam’s idea, that its basis of obligation and beginning point is at Mount Sinai.

The Maharal (Tiferes Yisrael 59) explains the significance of the idea that the Torah is seen as a whole or its parts. It is about whether one mitzvah is beneficial standing alone, or the benefit only comes within the context of the totality. He compares it to a brick in a house. Though a single brick is an important component to building a house, and let us say 1,000 bricks become a house, one brick is not even considered 1/1000 of a house. It is merely a brick. It only becomes a house when it is complete.

The Gemara (Sanhedrin 107b) relates that Yeshu’s early act of defiance was to “set up a brick and declare it to be an idol.” Rav Kook understands this as a metaphor (Beurei Oros, Rav Zev Sultanovich, 3, Yisrael U-Techiyasu Piska 19). The problem with Christianity, and ultimately any polytheistic belief, is that it takes a part of God or a part of the Torah as a separate idea instead of a unity of will or totality. One might say Christianity emphasizes love or mercy to the extreme, and possibly Islam a sense of uncompromising religious fervor. Each disembodies the totality of the Torah, and is erroneous in the same manner that believing a brick is a house is erroneous.

Though of course, it is better to do one mitzvah even when one is unable to do all of them, that is from a personal subjective stance. However, theologically, it is important to keep in mind that the Torah works as a system. The benefit of keeping one mitzvah in comparison to keeping all of them is not proportional but rather exponential. The totality is a different entity than the parts.

sponsored by https://empowermentaftertrauma.com/

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

Free resource for couples/families:

The Chosson and Kallah Shmooze You Wish You Had But Never Got

Over 80 lectures on heathy communication, marriage and sexuality from a Torah perspective  Click here

If you liked this, you might enjoy my Relationship Communications Guide. Click on the link above.

Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, LCSW-R, LMFT, DHL is a psychotherapist who works with high conflict couples and families. He can be reached via email at simchafeuerman@gmail.com