An alternate model for the system of Torah and Halacha could be found in the the work of Johan Huizinga. Huizinga was Dutch and wrote a book titled Homo Ludens, A study of the Play Element in Culture. He defines play as follows three times in the course of his writing:
“Summing up the formal characteristics of play, we might call it a free activity standing quite consciously outside “ordinary”life as being “not serious”, but at the same time absorbing the player intensely and utterly. It is an activity connected with no material interest, and no profit can be gained by it. It proceeds within its own proper boundaries of time and space according to fixed rules and in an orderly manner.” (p. 13)
Elsewhere, Huizinga described play as:
“ an action accomplishing itself outside and above the necessities and seriousness of everyday life.” (p. 26)
“Play is a voluntary activity or occupation executed within certain fixed limits of time and place, according to rules freely accepted but absolutely binding, having its aim in itself and accompanied by a feeling of tension, joy and the consciousness that it is “different” from “ordinary life.” “ (p. 28.)
The concept of Torah study as play might sound odd, but Huizinga would say that any rule following system comes under the category of play to some degree. However, he concedes the seriousness of play, as we see in the case of children, chess players, and great athletes.. It is a serious matter and the rules cannot be broken:
To our way of thinking, cheating as a means of winning a game robs the action of its play-character and spoils it altogether, because for us the essence of play is that the rules be kept – that it be fair play“” (Homo Ludens, p. 52)
You can break the rules of chess but you are no longer playing chess. You can break the rules of Torah study but you are no longer studying Torah. You have veered from the Mesorah which includes the text and the way to approach the text.
Talmudic Learning as Play – is the way that Chazal explore a system of thought – to see how far an idea can be stretched – what are the limits and boundaries of a halachic category or ruling?
So we have two models which merge into one – an Axiomatic System – and a Play System. Both follow fixed rules and proceed in an orderly manner within its own proper boundaries.
As Axiomatic Theory developed, it was recognized that the axioms of any system involve unproved assumptions and undefined terms. Rabbi Nachum L Rabinovitch of Yehivat Birkat Moshe in Maaleh Adumim, once remarked in a correspondence to me:
“Of course, your contention that Chazal see the whole Torah as a single system is true. However, this alone is not sufficient to refute those who wish to drop some of the axioms, whether through ignorance or some other motive. After all, a non-Euclidean geometry is also a consistent system, even though it replaces Euclid’s parallel axiom.”
Logically cogent arguments substantiating the coherency and consistency of Torah as a unified system will not, by themselves, bring about adherence to its precepts. The motivation for adherence to the Laws of the Torah and to the Rabbanim can only arise from within the Community of Israel, from Knesset Yisroel as an enduring historical entity, consisting of practicing adherents. “Naaseh ve nishma,” – “we will do and then we will come to understand” . Understanding derives from observance. Understanding cannot be a one dimensional activity of study confined to a printed text without the three dimensional workings of a community practicing Tzedaka and Mishpat.