Q&A: Self-Imposed Prohibition and Autonomy
Self-Imposed Prohibition and Autonomy
Question
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to suggest an interpretation of the rule of self-imposed prohibition (“shavya anafshei chatikha de-isura”), and I wanted to know whether the Rabbi has any comments on it. (It is of course possible that others have said similar things, and if so I would also be glad to know that.)
There is a value of “subjective truth,” meaning that each person should act in accordance with the truth as he understands it. (This is actually similar to the value of “autonomy” in halakhic ruling that the Rabbi mentioned in the lectures on study and halakhic ruling—but on the individual level.)
There is also value in maintaining a general legal system.
Sometimes these two values conflict with one another. In such a case, the legal system overrides the subjective opinion—if Rabbi Yehoshua thinks that today is Yom Kippur and the Sanhedrin decided otherwise, then Rabbi Yehoshua’s opinion is not valid even for himself—and he must come to Rabban Gamliel with his staff and his money.
But sometimes these two values do not directly conflict with one another—when a man says, “I found an open entrance,” although this is not legally valid testimony, we also have no other legally valid testimony that contradicts his words.
In such a case, on the one hand this man’s words do not have the power to determine the woman’s status, but on the other hand the legal system also does not have the power to uproot the value of his “subjective truth,” and therefore he remains bound by it.
Answer
That is unlikely, because in the simple understanding the rule of self-imposed prohibition applies even when there are two witnesses against him. True, some have questioned this, and perhaps according to their view one could say what you suggested (although even there some distinguish between one witness and two).
The case of Yom Kippur is not connected to this, since regarding sanctification of the month and intercalation of the year, the head of the Sanhedrin has authority even if he errs or acts intentionally. That is a special rule.
In my view, this is not connected to a person’s duty of autonomy, but rather to the fact that a person has authority / credibility to determine reality in his own territory. The laws of evidence exist only when we are dealing with an objective territory outside the person. I discussed this in Column 374.