Q&A: A Commandment-Act According to Maimonides
A Commandment-Act According to Maimonides
Question
It is said in discussions of the philosophy of Jewish law that something done on the basis of rational judgment is not a commandment-act. Why is it necessary to say that not receiving reward means that no commandment was performed? Perhaps the explanation is based on Maimonides in tractate Makkot: "Rabbi Hananiah ben Akashia says: The Holy One, blessed be He, wished to grant merit to Israel; therefore He gave them much Torah, etc." One of the principles of faith regarding the Torah is that when a person fulfills one commandment out of the 613 commandments properly and correctly, and does not combine with it any worldly intention in any way, but does it for its own sake out of love, as I have explained to you, then he merits through it the life of the World to Come. And concerning this Rabbi Hananiah said that since the commandments are so numerous, it is impossible that a person will not perform one of them in his lifetime in its proper form and complete perfection, and by doing that commandment his soul will live through that act." In other words, there is no reward, but it is still considered a commandment-act.
Answer
Who said anything about reward? Maimonides at the end of chapter 8 of Laws of Kings says that one who acts on the basis of rational judgment is not among their pious, and in my opinion his intent is that there is no commandment here, but at most a good deed.
Discussion on Answer
So what? He doesn't derive the commandment itself from the reward; he states both things. If anything, then the opposite: because it isn't a commandment, there is no World to Come.
It's the same logic as Maimonides in Makkot: there is no reward if one doesn't act for the right reason; more precisely, there is no World to Come, meaning the soul's continued existence. And just as among Israel there are many commandments so that through one commandment performed properly one merits the World to Come, so too among the descendants of Noah. But clearly we would not say that among Israel, commandments done without complete intention are not considered commandments; therefore there is no reason to innovate anything further regarding the descendants of Noah.
I didn't say that if a Jew performs a commandment without intention it isn't a commandment. Where did you get that nonsense from? Read my article here, "Causing a Secular Person to Sin." We've exhausted this.
The impatience expressed toward my last comment was based on a fundamental misunderstanding. I did not mean to say that you said, "if a Jew performs a commandment without intention it isn't a commandment"; only this: that Maimonides in Laws of Kings can be understood in light of Maimonides' words in his Commentary on the Mishnah on Makkot, regarding a Jew who performs a commandment not for the right reason—who, in his view, will not inherit the World to Come—and it is still obvious that it would be considered a commandment.
The beginning of the halakha refers to their share in the World to Come.