Q&A: Self-Imposed Prohibition
Self-Imposed Prohibition
Question
I remember once reading something you wrote, that a litigant’s own admission operates through the mechanism of “it is in his power.”
And I wanted to understand:
A. How does that work against witnesses? After all, we have discussed whether, in matters of prohibition, “it is in his power” works against an established presumption, and it seems that against witnesses it certainly should not work. And even if we say this is a “strong case of it is in his power,” still the reasoning is basically “why would he lie,” and we do not find any reasoning or presumptive assessment that works against witnesses.
B. Is the same true for self-imposed prohibition (“shavya anafshei chatikha de-isura”)? Seemingly, why not? And if so, why are there distinctions? In particular, according to what you wrote, this is full-fledged credibility, so in the case of self-imposed prohibition should it also become forbidden for others to eat food that he himself rendered forbidden? That seems difficult to me, even according to Ketzot.
C. What is the basic understanding of the rule of “it is in his power,” or of the Rosh who says it is based on “ownership”? Bottom line, he did not actually do anything. And you also cannot simply attach it to the straightforward “why would he lie,” because it works even in cases where that does not apply—for example retroactively, where migo does not work but “it is in his power” does work (Shev Shema'teta 6:3 and elsewhere). More generally, is this similar to “it is in his power” in the area of legal rights—for example, a man can forbid his wife to himself even though this disadvantages her, since it is in his power to divorce her? There too the underlying logic is really not clear.
Have a good week!
Answer
My claim was that the credibility of a litigant’s own admission, like self-imposed prohibition, is subjective credibility—that is, a person’s right to determine the law as it applies to himself. Therefore it works even against witnesses, since this is a subjective credibility regarding himself. That is why, when it affects others, he is not believed—not because of schemes or stratagems, as some commentators explained, but because once he goes beyond the subjective domain, he has no credibility.
A strong case of “it is in his power” also works against witnesses, as in “the mouth that forbade is the mouth that permitted,” which is also a kind of “it is in his power” (it was in his power not to forbid).
See my article in Midah Tovah on the Torah portion of Miketz, 2006.
Discussion on Answer
It is always discussing a case where he himself does not want to accept it; otherwise it would never come before a religious court.
If this is subjective credibility, then why do we need any basis of credibility such as “it is in his power” / “why would he lie”? The very fact that he is testifying about himself should be enough, because bottom line it applies only to himself…