The book from Bnei Brak

Hello Rabbi Michael Avraham!

Regarding the debate over the ‘Sefer Mibnei Brak’, regarding the question of whether there is an obligation or interest in abstaining from speaking something that is forbidden by law, because a commandment requires intention. As I recall, I cited various sources from the ARI that require intention, while you claimed that this is nonsense.

Recently, a comprehensive and wonderful book called ‘Torat Mitzvah’ by Rabbi Aharon Rubinfeld (from the Torat HaKininim section) was published, which is an instructive encyclopedia of various aspects of fulfilling the mitzvah (dealing with the mitzvah of exemption from the mitzvah, intention in the mitzvah, the mitzvah following the transgression, etc.). I have read his book, and even spoke with him on this subject in person.

Mainly on the issue of the mitzvah of intention, he presents two sides (with many references and quotations): Is the requirement of intention (Lmd. Mitzvahs require intention) an additional detail on the fulfillment of the mitzvah, since the Torah’s desire is that it be “the work of God” in its existence, that it be fulfilled in thought and deed? Or is intention part of the mitzvah itself, since without intention, the act of the mitzvah is defined as “busy”, has no value, there is no “action of the mitzvah” and is considered as if the mitzvah was not fulfilled.

Another thing, he goes on to prove that even if the intention does not hinder, there is still an obligation to perform the act from the beginning. The fourth commandment of the first commandment, the intention of the second, is only retrospective (Rabbeinu Yonah Barakhot 2, Ritva R. 5:28, Haredim 1:17, and more). And in explaining this obligation, the Ritva wrote in Pesachim 7, Haredim 1:17, and more, which is because “and work with all your heart.”

Some have written that there is an obligation to initially follow the Torah. And the question arises – if the obligation is from the Torah – how does it not hinder it retrospectively? And the answer is – because if the obligation to initially stems only from the verse ‘and serve Him with all your heart’, then this is an additional detail regarding the fulfillment of the mitzvah, and therefore does not hinder it.

From now on, if we say that the intention is part of the mitzvah, without which the act is considered to be “engaging,” it is true that it does not make sense to the Ari, since when one is prevented from a prohibition of the Law, there is no action that must be performed. However, if we understand, as the other side does, that the intention is an additional detail of the mitzvah because “and serve Him with all your heart,” we can understand why even when performing the Law, there is a concern for the intention. For even when a person refrains from the forbidden thing, the concern of “and serve Him with all your heart” is required of him, in thought and deed.

That is, there is indeed a dispute as to whether the intention is a hindrance, and what the reason for the intention is. But since it is agreed that initially there is a need to direct the mind to the law (also according to the fourth commandment of the

(I can send photos from the book).

I would be very happy to receive a response.

Regarding the classes in Petah Tikva, I have longed and been exhausted to continue participating, but it is currently difficult for me both because of the time and because of transportation. I hope to resume my participation in the future.

What issues are you currently addressing in class and in the near future?

Thank you very much!!!