Q&A: A General Prohibition
A General Prohibition
Question
Hello Rabbi,
Attached here is this responsum, following my search for the source of why one does not receive lashes for a general prohibition. In several places, the Talmud already assumes that we know this (and it seems from it that this is because of the prohibition of muzzling, like the Talmud in Pesachim 41), but the Talmud does not bring an orderly source for it the way it usually does when deriving the source for some matter ("From where are these words derived?" etc.). I wanted to know what the Rabbi thinks about the interpretation that the Avnei Nezer wanted to burn.
And perhaps the Rabbi can help me regarding the source.
Also, the Talmud in tractate Makkot 23 says that one receives lashes for erasing the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He, and learns this from the verse, "You shall not do so to the Lord your God," etc. This law is also brought by Maimonides in Laws of the Foundations of the Torah 6:1, that one is lashed for this. Why is this not a general prohibition?
And why is this not a general prohibition?
Avnei Nezer, Choshen Mishpat, siman 92, wrote: By the grace of God, Sunday, Korach, in the year "truth and justice" according to the minor reckoning, here in Sochaczew.
Warm greetings to the honorable young scholar, as his learning shows, our teacher Rabbi So-and-so son of So-and-so, may his light shine, in the holy community of So-and-so, may it be established and rebuilt speedily in our days.
Your letter has reached me. And the matter is clear that one verse yields several reasons, whether in halakhot etc., but in a way where there is no logical reason to derive this more than that, therefore both are included, for which of them would you exclude? And so is the language of the Talmud in several places: they are of equal weight, and therefore both are included …
But what entered your mind to say, Heaven forbid, that there is only one true interpretation—this matter of a general prohibition, that one does not receive lashes because it is a doubt—cannot be said at all. It is forbidden even to hear such a thing. And I am very distressed about your stature, that you should go, Heaven forbid, in crooked ways like this. And out of respect for you I wanted to burn the letter. But I will wait a little longer until your words come again. And as for the health of your body, when your learning is conducted in the proper way, surely the Torah will be healing to your navel and marrow to your bones:
Answer
I don’t know of a source. In fact, I’ve been wondering about this myself for quite some time—why one does not receive lashes. The questioner’s argument is interesting, but really not plausible. A general prohibition is not a doubt, but a collection of definite prohibitions. For example, in "You shall not eat over the blood," Maimonides counts a warning for the stubborn and rebellious son. If everything were doubtful, he should not have counted even that. The rule is that for none of the prohibitions does one receive lashes, but one of them is counted and not more.
Why because of this one should burn letters? That you’ll have to ask the Avnei Nezer.