We are not concerned about any rumor after marriage. If a rumor spread about a woman after her marriage that she was forbidden to her husband, the court takes no notice of these reports. The Talmud answers: There is a novel aspect to this teaching: Lest you say that since she came to the court and they permitted her, the very fact that her case had to be discussed indicates that her status is not fully established, and consequently one might think that it should be considered like a rumor before marriage, and she should therefore be forbidden, Rav Ashi therefore teaches us that even in this case, once she is married the court takes no notice of unsubstantiated rumors.
ניסת על פי בית דין תצא וכו׳. אמר זעירי: ליתה למתניתין, מדתנן בי מדרשא. דתני בי מדרשא: הורו בית דין ששקעה חמה, ולבסוף זרחה — אין זו הוראה, אלא טעות.
§ The Mishnah 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 Mishnah 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.