Do offenses require intent?
Hello Rabbi,
Has the question in the title been discussed? Is the discussion regarding transgressions the same as the discussion regarding commandments?
In a mitzvah, there is a discussion about whether one fulfills one’s duty or not. In offenses, there is no obligation, and therefore when there is no intention (meaning when he did not say, “For the sake of the uniqueness of God, I intend to transgress against His will”), it is not waived. It is true that I wrote that mitzvot require faith, and without faith, even offenses are not offenses. See my articles on the fall of a secular person into a transgression here on the site. Regarding “Do not add, not in eternity,” there is a distinction between intending to add and not intending to.
I was actually surprised by the answer.
Is intention necessarily for the sake of uniqueness? When they say that a commandment requires intention, the meaning is awareness that there is a commandment in it, right?
In offenses, one must (prohibited) enter into an obligation. These are all the discussions about not intending to engage in and the like, aren't they?
And even when one must make amends for an accident, that in itself is an innovation, isn't it?
Mitzvot require intention, meaning an intention to fulfill an obligation (i.e., an intention for the sake of a mitzvah). The phrase “for the sake of uniqueness” is just an expression of this. My words are as they are.
This has nothing to do with the question of the one who is concerned and does not intend prohibitions. A Rabbi who believes that he does not intend an exemption does not believe that mitzvot do not require intention.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
