Q&A: Ben Ish Hai Responsa
Ben Ish Hai Responsa
Question
I once saw in one of your lectures that you cited the Ben Ish Hai, who relates in his responsa about his grandfather, who was also a rabbi in Baghdad, that the members of his community mistakenly put on round tefillin. Then an emissary from the Land of Israel came there and told them they were mistaken. So of course they replaced them. And the Ben Ish Hai writes: do not think that they did not put on tefillin; rather, it is considered for them as though they had put on tefillin. So you said that you do not understand this. Fine, they would not be punished because it was unintentional. But how is it considered as though they put them on?! So I would argue that the Ben Ish Hai assumed that the Holy One, blessed be He, combines a good intention with the deed. Do you think that answers it?
Answer
No. An intention to fulfill is not a commandment-act. Compulsion is not like one who acted.
Discussion on Answer
He has a similar story in two places: Sod Yesharim, sec. 6, and also in the responsa itself.
I cited it in my opinion piece on citric acid on Passover.
As the early commentators explained, if one acted, then the thought is also joined to the deed.
According to the explanation of the early commentators, thought is joined specifically if one performed the act, and it is not enough on its own. Even though their explanation seems to fit the plain sense of the saying, it appears impossible in the context of the Talmudic passage, since the Talmud brings Rav Asi's exposition in support of this saying:
A good thought is joined to a deed, as it is said: "Then those who feared the Lord spoke one with another; and the Lord listened and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him for those who feared the Lord and for those who thought upon His name" (Malachi 3:16). What is the meaning of "and for those who thought upon His name"? Rav Asi said: Even if a person intended to perform a commandment, and was prevented by circumstances beyond his control and did not perform it, Scripture credits him as though he had performed it.
So it is explicit that a good thought is considered as though he performed it even if he did not perform the commandment itself!
It seems that according to those early commentators, one must take into account the reason the act was not done. When a person thinks of doing something but ultimately does not do it because he changed his mind, for whatever reason, it becomes clear retroactively that the initial thought was merely a passing notion and did not amount to a final decision. But if the thought had already reached the level of a decision, and that decision was not carried out only because of circumstances external to the person, then there was genuine resolve here, and for genuine resolve one can receive reward. And all the more so, if a person intended to perform a commandment and did perform it, then his thought certainly had the status of a decision and a fully formed thought, and he receives reward for it. Indeed, this is implied precisely by Rav Asi's own words, according to which it is specifically when he was prevented and did not perform the commandment that Scripture credits him as though he had performed it.
According to this explanation, even those early commentators agree that the reward is for the thought in itself, even if it was not carried out. But in their view, the mere desire to do something is not enough to be considered an act. It is not the desire that is credited, but the planning and the decision to carry it out.
Where does the Ben Ish Hai bring this story? I've been looking and can't find it.
Thanks