Simmering in the shul kitchen was a large pot of cholent. On a shelf nearby stood a cup of milk, left over from the morning. Someone walked by and knocked over the cup. Milk spilled onto the cover and down the side of the cholent pot.
“Oh no!” cried the caterer, Mr. Fleishman. “What should we do?!”
Mr. Fleishman turned to Boaz, his waiter. “Rabbi Isser lives down the block,” he said. “Go ask him.”
A few minutes later, Boaz returned. “Rabbi Isser ruled that the cholent is prohibited,” he said.
Mr. Fleishman decided to consult a more senior rabbi. “Is there any room for leniency?” he asked Rabbi Posek. “It’s a terrible loss!”
Rabbi Posek considered the issue and said. “In a case of great loss, there is room to be lenient, if the milk is less than a sixtieth,” he said (see Rema, Yoreh De’ah 92:6-8; 242:31). He then discussed the matter with Rabbi Isser, who conceded after a few minutes that Rabbi Posek was correct.
The caterer ran back to Boaz. “The cholent is permissible!” he exclaimed.
“I already dumped it into the garbage,” Boaz replied.
“Why did you do that!” exclaimed Mr. Fleishman. “That’s a lot of money.”
“I was only following Rabbi Isser’s ruling,” he replied.
The two went to Rabbi Dayan. “Does Boaz owe me the value of the cholent?” Mr. Fleishman asked.
“Shevut Yaakov [1:61] addresses a similar case,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “A person was sent to a rav with questionable food. The rav ruled that it was completely prohibited, so the person threw it out. It turned out, though, that the rav made a mistake, and the food was actually permitted. The owner then claimed payment from the rav and/or the person.”
“Shevut Yaakov rules that neither is liable,” said Rabbi Dayan. “The Shulchan Aruch [Choshen Mishpat 25:1] writes that the rav is not liable since he did not directly cause damage and did not intend to do damage (grama). Although the Rema cites an opinion that the rav is liable, it remains a matter of doubt and we cannot extract money under such circumstances (muchzak). Furthermore, the Shach [25:5] sides strongly with the Shulchan Aruch.”
“What about the person who asked the question?” asked Mr. Fleishman. “He threw the food away without permission.”
“Shevut Yaakov writes that he is also exempt since he acted based on the rav‘s ruling,” answered Rabbi Dayan. “Although he caused damage, he is considered an anuss (someone who acted based on reasons beyond his control).” [Pischei Teshuva, Yoreh De’ah 242:17]
“Are there other examples of people being exempt for acting based on a halachic ruling?” asked Boaz.
“Yes,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “A guardian who transferred an entrusted item to others based on an erroneous ruling of beis din is exempt. The Radvaz [1:299] explains that he is considered an anuss. Similarly, renters who paid the wrong landlord based on beis din‘s instructions are exempt.” [Rema 297:1; Nesivos 140:10; Pischei Choshen, Pikadon 3:31]
“Thus,” concluded Rabbi Dayan, “since Boaz threw out the cholent based on Rabbi Isser’s ruling, he need not pay Mr. Fleishman anything.”
