Q&A: Pleasure Requires Intention
Pleasure Requires Intention
Question
How does the fact that “since he benefited” override the rule of “he did not intend it”?
Answer
First, see here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%AA/%D7%9E%D7%AA%D7%A2%D7%A1%D7%A7-%D7%95%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%92%D7%92-%D7%91%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%95%D7%AA
“Since he benefited” is said about one who acted unknowingly/while preoccupied, not about one who did not intend the act. Still, logically there is room to discuss it there too. The reasoning could be either that the pleasure indicates he probably was not merely preoccupied, but knew what was happening there, or that the pleasure serves as a substitute for knowledge. Those same lines of reasoning can also be raised regarding one who did not intend it.
It seems to me that Pnei Yehoshua on Sabbath 72a discusses this with regard to one who did not intend it.
Afterward I saw an article here:
http://beinenu.com/sites/default/files/lesson_resources/54.pdf
Discussion on Answer
And thanks for the answer!
First, that is what he answers. Second, “since he benefited” is said only about physical pleasure (sexual relations and eating).
According to what I’m trying to say, the pleasure has nothing to do with the commandment. But Eglei Tal says that it is the essence of the commandment.
Not true. He says it does not detract, and maybe it even contributes. Not that it is the essence. In his next sentence he writes that someone who studies in order to enjoy it truly is not considered to be studying for its own sake.
Yes, right. Honorable Rabbi, please allow me to quote the aforementioned gaon: “And since the good inclination is strengthened by this, certainly this is the essence of the commandment.” Have a good and blessed week. You seriously chopped that phrase off, huh?? You’re forgiven, forgiven, forgiven. How did the pronunciation of the word “forgiven” in that famous phrase end up sounding like some Merav Michaeli-style feminism?! 🙂
Did some monkey dance on your keyboard? I don’t understand a word here.
The pleasure is not the essence of the commandment, and Avnei Nezer also does not mean to say that. His intention is only to say that even if he enjoys it, he fulfills the commandment properly, and there is even an added advantage in that. That is, this is the “essence of the commandment” on the halakhic plane, not just some thing of value. In any case, it is clear from what he says there that if the motivation is the pleasure, then it is study not for its own sake, as I wrote.
I’m asking this because I tried to understand the question that the Eglei Tal answers in his introduction: why pleasure from Torah study does not detract from the commandment, even though—so the questioner asks there—it would seemingly count as not for its own sake. And I didn’t understand why, if there is pleasure, that means the commandment is being done for the sake of that pleasure. I would have answered that as much as I enjoy it, the pleasure still doesn’t take up any real place, for me, in the intention for the commandment. Like eating that is done for the sake of sustaining the body. A person acts so as not to die, and nevertheless if he eats food that tastes good he will enjoy it, even though he did not intend that. Or maybe really if a person does not intend to enjoy, then he does not enjoy? Like eating absentmindedly, where his attention is elsewhere and so he does not enjoy it.