Q&A: A Resolved Double Doubt
A Resolved Double Doubt
Question
Hello Rabbi,
2 pieces of fat and one piece of forbidden fat, and he does not know which is which, and he ate one of them, and afterward it became clear that he had eaten the forbidden fat—according to the views that permit acting this way ab initio, would he have to bring a sin-offering?
Thanks in advance
Answer
I haven’t checked this right now, but as I understand it, if a person relied on a course of action that is permitted according to Jewish law (such as following the majority), there is no obligation to bring a sin-offering. In a situation of doubt, the category of a provisional guilt-offering applies, and then if it becomes clear that he sinned, there is an obligation to bring a sin-offering. But there, that is because ab initio there is no permission to act that way. True, according to Maimonides this is only a rabbinic prohibition, and they already challenged him as to how there can be a provisional guilt-offering; but it is clear that even according to his view one should have been careful (similar to Rashba’s words in Shevuot 18 regarding one who has relations with his wife close to her expected menstrual time, that even if fixed menstrual times are rabbinic, his status is that of an unwitting sinner who brings a sin-offering). Here, by contrast, it is actually permitted ab initio. Moreover, according to Rashba, even nullification in a dry mixture is based on following the majority, and in nullification in such a case it is obvious that there is no obligation to bring a sin-offering. According to his view, the forbidden fat is as if it had been nullified in the permitted fat at the time of the doubt. Put differently, there is no unwitting sin here for which a sin-offering is brought. There is a real permission here.
Discussion on Answer
Does your answer also apply in a case where a person asked a rabbi, and it turned out that the rabbi made a mistake in Jewish law—that the questioner is exempt from a sacrifice because he relied on a halakhic permission? And what is the status of the rabbi himself, who relied on his own ruling that permitted it in error? (It should be noted that the Torah required bringing a bull-offering for an erroneous ruling even though the sinners relied on the permission of the religious court.)
Regarding the bull-offering for an erroneous ruling: that is a sacrifice brought by the religious court, not by the individual who sinned. In a case where most of the community sinned because of the ruling, the religious court brings a bull, and through this it also exempts the individual sinners. If only the minority sinned, the religious court is exempt, and then the question arises whether the individual is obligated. The opinions are disputed about this in Horayot 2b, Shabbat 93a, and Yevamot 92a. All this is regarding a religious court. I assume that a ruling by a rabbi, according to all opinions, does not exempt.
I was speaking about an individual who acted according to the instructions of Jewish law. No mistake occurred.
A question (I’m not sure whether it’s connected to the question asked here, but it seems to me that the principle is similar): if a woman was ruled permitted to remarry on the basis of witnesses or any other admissible evidence that her husband had died, and the woman remarried and had sons, and after some time the religious court discovered that her husband was alive—are the sons of this woman mamzerim according to Jewish law?
Obviously.
By the way, regarding the title: this is not a double doubt but a majority.