Commandments without intention
Shalom Rabbi, there are some mitzvot that even those who do them unintentionally and sometimes even without knowing it are considered worthy (charity, eating matzah on Passover night, etc.). My question is, is it possible for such a person to receive a reward for that mitzvah? I will give an extreme example to illustrate the difficulty: A terrible person gets up in the morning and goes to work. On his way, he encounters a poor man who asks him for charity. That man scornfully pushes the poor man away from him and even goes down on him. Further along his path, a 100-shekel bill falls out of his pocket and the poor man who asked him finds the bill a few minutes later. Ostensibly, that terrible person fulfills the mitzvah of charity, but I think he is not worthy of a reward.
I don’t think there’s any need to talk about a terrible person. Even a normal person, I don’t see why he would get paid for it. At most, they could perhaps offset his suffering from the lack of 100 NIS (this gave him some punishment/torment and it’s deducted from his account).
The Gemara says that one who gives charity so that his children may live or that he may merit the Hereafter fulfills the mitzvah. But fulfilling the mitzvah by engaging in a trade seems problematic to me. Even in transgressions, it is said that engaging in a trade is like not working, but in terms of the mitzvah, to say that it is like not working is puzzling.
I do not think that there is a fulfillment of a mitzvah in someone who is engaged in either charity or eating matzah or anything else. The discussion is about a person who was forced or forced by Persians, but not about someone who was engaged in something that he did not even know he was eating matzah. Although the Rabbi in the issue of Reh there (regarding forced Persians to eat matzah) introduces the argument “because he enjoyed it” (and as far as I remember, the Rabbis also brought it), which is a major innovation regarding positive mitzvahs, but this is a very puzzling position.
In conclusion, the punishment is neither the fulfillment of a mitzvah nor a reward.
There is a beautiful article on this subject by our friend Avishai Greenzig:
http://www.mgl.org.il/magal_article/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%A6%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9A-%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%95%D7%A0%D7%94-%D7%9C%D7%A9%D7%9E%D7%94-%D7%91%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%A6%D7%93%D7%A7%D7%94/
In his conclusion, he states:
Recently, we have found two approaches regarding the need for intention in the commandments of charity. Some have written that the commandment of charity, like the other commandments, requires intention. But some of the latter have written that the commandment of charity does not require intention because the poor man finally received his money and the charity was beneficial to him.
According to the law, the first opinion seems to be more appropriate. And an act that is not a clear act of charity but that helps and benefits the poor man, if the giver intends for the sake of the commandment of charity, the act will be considered as actual charity for him, and the same is true if it is intended for the sake of the commandment and for his personal benefit together. But if it is intended only for his benefit, the act will not be considered as charity for him, even if his act was beneficial and helped the poor man and gave him enough of his needs.
I don't know what approaches there are in the latter, I only know what logical approaches there are. This is not one of them.
By the way, now on second glance, I noticed that even Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah does not claim that the person who fell out of his pocket from the money fulfilled the commandment of charity, but only that he “earned” it:
My book (Ki Titze; paragraph Refag):
Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah said: “Where does one who loses a rock from his hand and finds a poor person and goes and makes a living from it, does the scripture make it seem as if he earned it?” The Talmud says that it will be for the stranger, the orphan, and the widow. And aren’t things easy, especially if someone who did not intend to earn it and earned it, the scripture makes it seem as if he earned it. The one who intends to earn it and earns it, all the more so.
This means that it is considered a merit for him and not that he fulfilled a mitzvah. Perhaps this can be explained by the well-known saying that a merit is rolled over by a meritorious person.
Of course. That's what I was talking about. To the best of my knowledge, there is no source that says that there is fulfillment of a mitzvah by someone who is busy and without knowing that it exists.
A person who heard a shofar while busy would have done his duty, wouldn't he?
Simply put, no. If he does not know at all that he is hearing the shofar, it is clear that he did not come out. But the latter have already insisted that the definition of "behaving carelessly" is very difficult (the relationship between it and "without intention," which depends on the dispute over whether mitzvot require intention, and also in relation to "accidental"). See Rambam, "Shofar," 2:4.
Perhaps it can be said that a person who did a good deed unintentionally will receive a reward for it from the following consideration:
If I caused harm to another, I must compensate him even if I did it by mistake, perhaps from the law of the "property of the harmer", just as I am liable for the damage caused to my property even though I did not do it, so I am liable for the damage to myself that was done by mistake.
And if this is the case with a monetary obligation, why is it not said the same about wages?
There is no connection between the two. In the case of damage, there are two parties (this is civil law, not criminal). If you do not hold the harmer liable, you are liable for the damage (which he lost and was not compensated for). Therefore, the default is to hold the harmer liable even if he was a rapist (a person destined for eternity).
Regarding damage caused by your property, as is well known, the latter have investigated whether it is due to negligence or the actual damage that binds you. Your comparison is only to the first party, if at all. In Beit Yishai, Volume 1, you argue your point (that the damage to his body by rape, a person sleeping with a stone in his lap that caused damage, is like his own money). But as stated, it cannot be compared to the reward of a mitzvah.
If we have already talked about the reward of a mitzvah, how do you know that God, the Holy One, pays a reward to those who do His will?
I have no idea. Although the Bible talks about wages, it's difficult to learn anything definitive from the Bible.
Does the Rabbi know if there is any literature that deals with the subject of wages from a philosophical perspective?
And if there is no philosophical literature on the subject, how can I research the subject, where can I go? What field of knowledge can help with this?
What is wrong with tradition in the Torah and the words of the prophets?
I don't think there's a way to test this philosophically. Either it is or it isn't. These are questions of fact. I don't know of a way to investigate this.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
