Q&A: One Who Forbids His Fellow by Vow
One Who Forbids His Fellow by Vow
Question
A well-known dispute exists between Maimonides and the Ran regarding one who, by vow, forbids his fellow from benefiting from his property: whether the person thus forbidden receives lashes for violating “he shall not profane his word.” According to Maimonides, no; according to the Ran, yes. Nevertheless, Maimonides agrees that the person who is forbidden is indeed prohibited.
It needs clarification: what is the source of the prohibition according to Maimonides?
Is there also, for the forbidden person, a positive commandment of “according to whatever comes out of his mouth, he shall do,” according to both Maimonides and the Ran?
And is this defined as a positive commandment, or as a prohibition inferred from a positive commandment?
We would be happy to receive the Rabbi’s response.
With thanks and best regards
Answer
Indeed, I have always wondered about several places where we see that the prohibition exists without the punishment—where is the prohibition derived from? Seemingly, the source for the prohibition and for the punishment is the same source. For example, the Pnei Yehoshua writes that a labor not needed for its own purpose on the Sabbath is prohibited at the Torah level, but there is no punishment; and there are several other such cases.
I think that according to everyone this is also a prohibition and not only a positive commandment, except that according to Maimonides there is no punishment. Perforce, there must be some exclusion from punishment even though the prohibition remains. It is somewhat like a person who acted unintentionally: there is a prohibition, but no punishment. Perhaps Maimonides holds that a person is not punished for something his fellow did, somewhat like the principle that a person cannot render prohibited something that is not his. But this still requires some further analysis.