What is challah?

Amiel asked:
I read the Rabbi's article 'What is challah', and I would like to try to understand more about what the Rabbi meant. The Rabbi devoted a large part of his article to explaining that understanding challah as a concept that exists independently of its implications can explain the existence of contradictory challahs. The Rabbi gave as an example that salt and sugar, although their implications are contradictory (salty and sweet), can exist in the same dish. In other words, we can divide the cases (this is my way of saying the question, but it is difficult even without the example). In the case of sugar and salt, the distinction between the objects and their implications made us understand the objects in a way that they do not contradict each other, because the implications of both are positive implications, salt causes a salty taste and sweet causes a sweet taste. And positive consequences are contradictory only in their collision and not in their actual existence – their causes can exist simultaneously next to each other (as happens in the same stew that has both of them) and they will simply fight until blood is shed.. Admittedly, the consequences of a married woman and a divorced woman do contradict each other on a logical level, and the reason that the distinction between the consequences of the challahs and the challah itself helped us understand why the challahs can exist is by obscuring the challahs as things that we do not have the tools to analyze and as such we do not know that they contradict each other. But this view assumes that it is not possible to understand challahs by their consequences, and from the consequences to conclude anything about the challah itself, because we would conclude from the consequences of a divorced woman's challah on the challah itself, as far as I understand, the challahs themselves can also contradict (the rabbi has no proof that the objects of concepts cannot constitute a contradiction). If we are unable to draw conclusions from the implications for the halals, then he has no tools to discuss them and they become meaningless to us – we are unable to determine when they exist and when they do not, nor what their implications are. The same question also exists regarding halals of ownership without all the implications that we know to be derived from ownership – this is essentially a determination of our ability to analyze the concept of ownership itself, and so, for example – how do we know that in a sale it ceases and passes to another? I apologize if the question is a little confusing, I am confused too. I would very much appreciate further clarification of the matter.