04 Jun MY LENIENCY AND YOUR STRINGENCY

The complex nature
of halachah leads to
multiple opinions
on various issues
— expert judgment
often varies. We
expect that two
scholars who legitimately disagree still
respect each other’s right to an opinion.
If I eat a certain food that is controversial,
I would not feed it to someone who
believes he may not eat it. This is basic
courtesy. Yet we find a great Sage who
acted to the contrary.
Rav and Shmuel disagree whether you
may eat fish that has been cooked in a
meat pan, when that fish is served together
with a dairy food. The pan is clean but
has absorbed meat flavor — a secondary
taste. When cooked in that pan, the fish
absorbs a permissible tertiary taste —
which in Talmudic terms is called a nat
bar nat de-heteira. Something neutral like
fish that contains a tertiary meat taste is
subject to this disagreement of Rav and
Shmuel. Shmuel permits and Rav rules
strictly (Chullin 111b).
When Shmuel served such a dish to his

and Rav’s student, R. Elazar, the latter
declined to eat it. Shmuel responded that
he had provided the same dish to Rav,
who had eaten it. R. Elazar still refused
to eat it and later asked Rav whether,
since Rav had eaten the meat-pan-cooked
fish with dairy as served by Shmuel, he
had changed his mind. Rav denied the
incident, saying that G-d forbid someone
like Shmuel would feed Rav something
the latter considers forbidden.
According to Rav, you are not allowed
to feed someone a food he considers
forbidden. However, Shmuel seems to
have done just that and even lied about
it, telling R. Elazar that Rav had eaten
it and presumably retracted his strict
ruling. How could Shmuel have acted
that way? Different interpretations have
been offered.
Rav Levi Ibn Chaviv (Ralbach) escaped
religious persecution in Portugal around
the year 1500 and settled in Jerusalem
after a brief stay in Salonica. He was part
of a generation in which Jews of different
communities and practices lived side by
side, making this a timely issue for him.
Ralbach quotes Rav Aharon Ha-Levi

(Re’ah) who says that you
may feed someone something
he considers forbidden as long
as the food is evident, so the
recipient can choose whether
to eat it. Ralbach offers three
possible explanations of the
above incident.
1. Miscommunication –
Ralbach suggests that a
miscommunication occurred.
Shmuel believed that Rav had
changed his mind and now only forbade
if the meat came from an unusually
strong taste. He told R. Elazar that if
Shmuel would feed Rav fish cooked in
a pan with normal meat taste together
with dairy, Rav would eat it. R. Elazar
misunderstood and thought that this had
actually happened.
2. Confusion – Alternately, Shmuel
fed Rav the kind of fish with dairy in
a way that was not evident. Shmuel
thought Rav considered this kind of fish
permissible. Since Rav ate it without
asking any questions, Shmuel assumed
he was correct about Rav’s opinion.
However, really Rav did not change his
mind but assumed that Shmuel would
make sure to serve him food that Rav
considered permissible.
3. Investigation – Or maybe Shmuel
fed Rav regular fish, untainted by
even a taste of meat, together with
dairy. However, since Rav didn’t ask
any questions, Shmuel interpreted
this behavior as indication that Rav
believed even fish cooked in a meat pan
can be eaten with dairy. Really, Rav did
not change his mind but assumed that
Shmuel would make sure to serve him
food that Rav considered permissible.
Rav Shmuel de Modena (Maharshdam)
was born in Salonica in 1506, when
the Greek city was full of exiled
Jews. In a question to Maharshdam
(Responsa, Yoreh De’ah 227), Rav
Moshe Rusho suggests a different
explanation:
4. Independence – Shmuel was trying
to determine whether R. Elazar would
not eat the dish because he thought it was
forbidden or merely out of deference to
Rav. If the former, then Shmuel would
honor his beliefs. If the latter, Shmuel
could insists on his own honor. In front
of Rav, R. Elazar has to respect Rav
even if he disagrees with him. In front
of Shmuel, R. Elazar should choose

respect for Shmuel over respect for Rav.
Therefore, Shmuel removed the element
of respect for Rav to see what R. Elazar
truly believed about the food.
Maharshdam replies with his own three
interpretations to answer the questions
posed by his teacher, Ralbach.
5. Accident – Shmuel presented the
food to Rav, thinking the latter realized
what it was. Rav did not and unwittingly
ate something he considers forbidden.
Shmuel thought that Rav had changed
his mind but Rav was unaware of the
whole incident.
6. Authority – Shmuel felt that in his
community, his position should be
followed. Therefore, he fed the fish with
dairy to Rav and later to R. Elazar. Rav
either did not realize what he was eating
or felt he should not take a stand on this,
in order to avoid a disagreement.
7. Providence – Shmuel relied on the
saying that G-d does not let the righteous
sin accidentally (Chullin6b). Therefore,
he fed the food to Rav thinking that
G-d would only let Rav eat it if Rav
really agreed with Shmuel. He ate it
unwittingly. Therefore, Rav was unaware
of the incident but Shmuel still claimed it
as vindication of his view.
All these explanations assume that
Shmuel would not violate Rav’s
conscience. If someone believes that
a certain food is forbidden, we should
not be tricking him into violating that
belief even if we are confident that he is
mistaken.
On the other hand, we also have to
confirm things we hear and see. Just
because people say that a rabbi ate
somewhere or something does not free
us from the obligation of asking whether
we may eat likewise. Even if the story
comes from a reliable source, which is a
big “if,” we may still be missing the full
context. A missing detail can change the
answer completely.