Lomdus vs. Reality 

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר כִּי דַּיָּינֵי דְקֵיסָרִי, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ כְּרַבָּנַן דְקֵיסָרִי, דְּאָמְרִי: עִיגּוּלָא מִגּוֹ רִיבּוּעָא — רִיבְעָא, רִיבּוּעָא מִגּוֹ עִיגּוּלָא — פַּלְגָא.

The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥanan spoke in accordance with the opinion of the judges of Caesarea, and some say in accordance with the opinion of the Sages of Caesarea, who say: A circle that is circumscribed within a square is smaller than it by one quarter; with regard to a square that is circumscribed within a circle, the difference between them is equal to half the square. According to this explanation, Rabbi Yoḥanan calculated as follows: Since a square of four by four handbreadths has a perimeter of sixteen handbreadths, the circumference of the circle that encompasses it must be fifty percent larger, or twenty-four handbreadths.

How could the sages of Cesearea made such an obvious mathematical blunder that one can readily see with one's own eyes? If you drew this out, that is, a square inside a circle and then a square around the circle, you would clearly notice visually that the diagonal of a square is not double the side . Tosafos asks this question and explains that the sages of Cesearea are referring to the area, not the perimeter, and that in this case the calculation is relatively accurate. Just as in our mathematics the perimeter of a circle is diameter times pi, while the area is two times pi squared. In biblical and Talmudic math they did not use pi which is 3.14..etc, instead they just approximated as three. (Such as the Mikvah Shlomo made by the Beis Hamikdash as described in Melachim I:7:3, which had a diameter of 10 and circumference of 30.) 

What this means according to Tosafos, is that Rabbi Yochanan did make a mathematical error in following the teachings blindly without checking the calculations in real life. Because had Rabbi Yochanan stepped out of his studies and actually drew a circle and a square he would’ve seen immediately that he misheard or misinterpreted the sages of Cesearea. Had Tosafos not said this we would not be allowed to say this.

This is fascinating because it speaks of a certain kind of scholarly mode. Sometimes, you could be so involved in the details and the lomdus that you miss out on real life implications and practicalities. This reminds me a bit of how certain rabbinical authorities have dealt with real life problems trying to use lomdus.

For example, during the early years of growing awareness of sex abuse within the community, perpetrators were able to escape major consequences by dint of the fact that the rabbonim in various batei din were following there lomdishe kup and not real life. Below are at least four lomdishe errors that contributed to cover ups, which today, after having paid a heavy price, the thinking has re-oriented itself.

 

• We cannot trust the testimony of a young child.

 

• The person admitted that he is sorry and repented, therefore we must accept him and it is considered l’shon hora to bring it up anymore nor tell his future employer.

 

• It wasn’t actual penetration so it is a “mild” crime, halakhically speaking.

 

• It is mesira to give information to the secular authorities that might lead to this person‘s arrest and incarceration.

 

Now all of these halakhos are technically true but in a practical sense inapplicable due to the realities of the situation, such as: 

 

• Many perpetrators need treatment and repentance alone will not change their behavior. In fact, some perpetrators may not even be able to control their urges no matter how sincerely they want to or try to. Certainly, those who committed sexual acts with minors should never work with children again.

 

• Even though technically one cannot trust the testimony of minors, the potential severe and communal dangers call for extra legal actions and considerations. Consider the following metaphor: if a young child “testified“ that someone threw cyanide into a baby formula factory , no Rabbi or Beis Din would rule that the testimony is inadmissible in a practical sense because the danger is too great to ignore.

 

• The amount of trauma suffered has little to do with the extent of actual violation of Jewish law, therefore the analogy about non-penetration is irrelevant. It is kind of like saying that since we hold in lomdus that the majority nullifies the minority we can drink from the cup of someone who just had Covid as long as I add a majority of fresh liquid. Clearly, the medical realities do not care much about the halakha. In fact, this kind of application of lomdus to real world situations, probably explains some of the magical thinking that is employed in regard to coronavirus.

 

It is worthwhile to keep in mind Rav Kook’s words in Shemonah Kevatzim 1:463, (translation mine):

 

האנשים הטבעיים שאינם מלומדים, יש להם יתרון בהרבה דברים על המלומדים, בזה שלא נתטשטש אצלם השכל הטבעי והמוסר העצמי ע"י השגיאות העולות מהלימודים, וע"י חלישות הכחות וההתקצפות הבאה ע"י העול הלימודי, ומ"מ הם צריכים לקבל הדרכה בפרטי החיים מהמלומדים. והמלומדים צריכים תמיד לסגל לעצמם, כפי האפשרי להם, את הכשרון הטבעי של עמי הארץ, בין בהשקפת החיים בין בהכרת המוסר מצד טבעיותו, ואז יתעלו הם בפיתוח שכלם יותר ויותר. וכן הדבר נוהג אפילו בצדיקים ורשעים שישנם רשעים כאלה, שהחלק הטוב שנשאר אצלם הוא מבונה בכח טבעי עצמי וטהור כ"כ, עד שצדיקים צריכים ללמוד מהם ולקבל מהם, ואז דוקא יתעלו הצדיקים במעלתם העליונה. וכן הדבר נוהג גם בכלל האומות ביחש כל אחת מהם לחבירתה, וביחוד בין אוה"ע לישראל.

 

“The folk who live according to their instincts, and are not learned, are actually superior in many respects to the learned folk. In particular, their instinctive common sense decency and morality was not corrupted by the intricate, wearying and too-clever burdens of scholarship."

for Video Shiur click here to listen:  Psychology of the DAF Eruvin 76

Translation Courtesy of Sefaria