For the source text click/tap here: Yevamot 92
To download, click/tap here: PDF
The mishna further taught that if she married by permission of the court she must leave him, but she is exempt from bringing a sin-offering. On this issue, Ze’eiri said: The mishna is not accepted, and this is derived from what was taught in the study hall, as it was taught in a baraita in the study hall: If the court ruled that the sun had set at the conclusion of Shabbat, which means it is permitted to perform labor, and later the sun shone, this is not a ruling for which the court is to blame, but an error.
Consequently, the court does not have to bring an offering for the unwitting communal sin. Rather, each individual is liable to bring a separate offering. Here too, although the woman married with the consent of the court, they did not issue a mistaken ruling of halakha but simply erred with regard to the facts. She is therefore an unwitting sinner and is liable to bring an offering. And conversely, Rav Naḥman said that the court’s permission is considered a ruling that renders them liable to bring an offering for an unwitting communal sin.
Rambam (1) cites the two examples of mistaken rulings mentioned in our Gemara, namely, incorrectly declaring that Shabbos ended and granting a woman permission to remarry based on the testimony of two witnesses.
The Noda B’Yehuda introduces a fundamental query and based upon it he establishes a famous rule.
Why is it, he asks, that a person is obligated to bring an offering when he acts in error due to his relying upon Beis’s din? What blame should he bear in this case? In fact, there are several other cases where a person errs, but because he did so while following halachic guidelines there is no blame associated to the person at all. In these other cases he is considered an אנוס.
We explore cases of batei Din who err including the struggle about agunot following the world trade disaster leaving some 15 women in this tragic situation.