TB Khullin 43b-44a Choose your lane.

Dappim TB Khullin 43b-44a explains how one should find the answer to his/her halakhic question. As we shall see in the following story Rav Ukva thought he was being pious by accepting the contradictory stringencies of  Rav and  Shmuel. Ultimately he wasn’t being pious, but rather foolish.

 “The Gemara relates an incident involving a certain bull that belonged to the sons of Rav Ukva, where its slaughter began with a small incision in the entrance of the gullet and concluded in its majority in the gullet. Rava said: I impose upon it the stringencies of Rav and the stringencies of Shmuel, and deem it a tereifa.

“I impose the stringencies of Rav, as Rav said: The animal is a tereifa if any part of the entrance of the gullet was perforated before slaughter. Such is the case here, since the incision began in the entrance of the gullet. Perhaps one will ask: But doesn’t Rav say that the entrance of the gullet is a location fit for slaughter, in which case the initial incision should be considered the beginning of the act of slaughter? To this I will respond: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, who says that it is not a location fit for slaughter. If one asks: If I hold in accordance with the opinion of Shmuel, doesn’t he say: It is a tereifa only if it was perforated in its majority? To this I will respond: I hold in accordance with the opinion of Rav, who says: If any part was perforated. Consequently, I deem the animal a tereifa.

“The Gemara relates that the matter circulated, and it came before Rabbi Abba, who said to his students: This bull is permitted for consumption, both according to Rav, who holds that the entrance of the gullet is a location fit for slaughter, and according to Shmuel, who holds that it is not a tereifa unless it is perforated in its majority. Therefore, go tell the son of Rav Yosef bar Ḥama, i.e., Rava, that he is to pay the value of the bull to its owner, since he improperly deemed it a tereifa.

“Mar, son of Ravina, said: I offer a conclusive refutation to the enemies of Rava, a euphemism for Rava himself, from a baraita: The halakha is always in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, but one who wishes to act in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai may do so, and one who wishes to act in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel may do so. But if one wishes to adopt both the leniencies of Beit Shammai and also the leniencies of Beit Hillel, he is a wicked person.

“And one who wishes to adopt both the stringencies of Beit Shammai and the stringencies of Beit Hillel, with regard to him the verse states: “The fool walks in darkness” (Ecclesiastes 2:14). Rather, one should act either in accordance with Beit Shammai, following both their leniencies and their stringencies, or in accordance with Beit Hillel, following both their leniencies and their stringencies.” (TB Khullin 43b-44a, Sefaria.org translation)

Finding a rabbi to answer your halakhic questions is the complete opposite of what the musical group The Miracles advise when seeking a bride. They sang “My mama told me, you better shop around (shop, shop around, uh-huh-huh) Whoa yeah, you better shop around (shop, shop around). You shouldn’t shop around to find the Rabbi who will give you the most lenient answer (I never heard of a person who shopped around for stringent opinion although that type of person must exist). Once you ask a rabbi for a halakhic decision whether it is lenient or stringent, you should comply with that decision.

I recommend finding a rabbi whose overall theology and approach matches yours. This is the Rabbi you want to ask all your questions. Today’s daf teaches us to choose a lane and stick to it.