July 10, 2026 Categories: Halacha & Hashkafa / Torah
Daf Yomi
A Halachic Referral
“It [the Lung] Erupted in Blisters”
(Chulin 48a)
Raba (supra 46b) ruled that a lung upon which a sircha (adhesion) is found is treifa. Rashi (s.v. “les l’hu b’dikusa”) explains that a sircha is an indication that the lung was punctured. Shmuel on our daf ruled otherwise in the case of blisters found on the lung, and permitted such an animal.
The Gemara on our daf relates that R. Yitzchak b. Yosef was once following R. Yirmiya in the butcher’s market and noticed certain lungs with blisters. R. Yitzchak b. Yosef, in an attempt to learn his colleague’s opinion as to its permissibility, asked R. Yirmiya whether he would buy some of that meat. R. Yirmiya was reluctant to express his opinion and thus replied, “I have no money,” to which the other responded, “I can arrange your purchase of it on credit.” R. Yirmiya then explained that whenever such a case came before R. Yochanan, he would direct the questioner to R. Yehuda b. R. Shimon, who would rule, on the authority of R. Eleazar b. R. Shimon, that it was permitted, though his own view was to forbid.
Passing the Buck?
Me’iri (to our daf) deduces from R. Yochanan’s conduct that if a rav is asked to rule on a matter that he is inclined to prohibit though most authorities permit, he may evade the matter by redirecting the matter to a colleague, though the latter will rule leniently. Further, Me’iri quotes some who are of the view that he need not refer to another but may explicitly respond that according to such-and-such authority, this matter is permitted.Humility
According to Me’iri’s understanding, why didn’t R. Yirmiya initially offer R. Yehuda b. R. Shimon’s view in the matter? Mei’ri explains that if one undertakes a chumra (a halachic stringency) and refrains from a matter that most authorities permit, he should do so in an inconspicuous manner so as not to attract attention to his stringent conduct. Therefore, R. Yirmiya, out of humility, properly sought to evade the issue altogether.A Sale of Two Cities
Rabbi Moshe Stern (Responsa Ba’er Moshe vol. 5, 135:11-12) argued that one who acts stringently because in his view there is very little doubt as to the item’s impermissibility – as opposed to the case of R. Yirmiya, whose view was only that the matter was questionable – should be forbidden to present the prohibited matter to his fellow. Yet Rabbi Stern found a lenient position in the matter of meat slaughtered in different kehillos where one town has a stricter view than the other. Normally, one would prohibit the item in such an instance; however, in the case of meat provisions produced from animals that were permitted according to a leniency as practiced in one city, Ksav Sofer (Responsa, Orach Chayyim 66) ruled that it is allowed to be sold even in another city where that leniency is not practiced.
