Q&A: Intention in Commandments
Intention in Commandments
Question
As part of the series on intention in commandments, in the first lecture you mentioned that there are two types of intention: (a) intention for the act itself, the opposite of acting unawares, and that this is required only ab initio; (b) intention to fulfill one’s obligation in a commandment, and there is a dispute whether this is indispensable. My question is: how can it be possible for a person to be acting unawares and also intend to fulfill his obligation? After all, according to the view that this is indispensable, while the first kind is only ab initio, it comes out that a person could be acting unawares and still intend to fulfill the obligation.
Answer
First of all, that is impossible. So in truth, even though from its own standpoint it is only ab initio, in the end it is always indispensable, because without it there is no intention to fulfill one’s obligation. Unless one follows the view that commandments do not require intention.
But in the later lectures you will see that in the passages themselves it is explicit that the intention that excludes acting unawares is specifically indispensable according to all views, even according to the view that commandments do not require intention. If you look there in the first lecture, you will see that I added that the later authorities are discussing a different kind of intention, not exclusion from acting unawares, which is certainly indispensable.