Evaluating Mitzvoth Bein Adam L’chaveiro
Adapted from Rabbi Braun’s sermon in 5771
One of the most important lessons for every married couple can learn, young and old, is that you are not always right. You need to be able to reflect and re-evaluate and if necessary admit that you are wrong and change positions.
In the spirit, I would like to re-evaluate a position that I took at shalosh seudot a number of months ago. The question that I raised then was as follows. You take out a loan for $1,000.00. There is a mitzvah in the torah to repay a loan that you owe. When you go to repay that loan do you simply return the money and the mitzvah is done or do you have to have specific intention to fulfill a mitzvah as you return the money. There is an argument in the Talmud as to whether or not mitzvoth require Kavanah, or intention. The Gemara wants to know – when you perform a mitzvah must you specifically intend to do it for the sake of performing a mitzvah or is it enough to simply perform the act. If you blow shofar for practice- have you fulfilled the mitzvah? You did not intend to perform a mitzvah but you did perform the activity. The codified position is that mitzvoth require kavanah- you must intend to fulfill your obligation when performing the activity.
In halachic terminology the question that I raised at shalosh seudot was: do mitzvoth bein adam l’chaveiro, mitzvoth between man and his fellow man or woman require kavanah.
Think about it- when you give tzedaka- is it enough that you want to help a poor person and this ani now has money or must you as you give the money intend to fulfill God’s mitzvah as you do it.
You have heard me speak many times about the need to appreciate that the mitzvoth bein adam l’chaveiro, are spiritually and religiously equivalent to the laws that govern our conduct visas vis God, the mitzvoth bein Adam l’chaveiro. One cannot be an observant Jew without being honest, ethical, kind and considerate. They are mitzvoth just as keeping Shabbat and keeping kosher. That is a core belief and as such I assumed that there should be no difference in terms of intention between the two realms. If mitzvoth require intention than it should not matter what kind of mitzvah it is. There should be no difference between tefillin and tzedaka. I have been thinking about this on and off for the last few months and although there does not seem to be a lot of literature on it I did find enough to indicate that I might have been wrong, or that at least what I thought was abundantly clear was actually far from it.
Rabbi Elchanan Wasserman, 1875-1941, was one of the greatest Talmudist of his times. He lived in Lithuania and was murdered in Kovno in 1941. In the second volume of his Kovetz Shiurim he suggests that there is a difference regarding the need for intention between two different types of mitzvoth.
- Mitzvoth where the activity is the focus such as Shofar and Lulav
- Mitzvoth where the result is critical, such as redeeming captives, paying back loans, having children and eradicating idolatrous cities.
Although he does not split between person/person mitzvoth and Jew/God Mitzvoth I think that most of the person/person mitzvoth are result oriented and would therefore not require kavanah.
Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach was one of the leading rabbinic figures in Israel in the 20th century. His status as a talmid chacham was matched only by his reputation for being a mentsch. In the first responsa he published (Minchas Shlomo 1/1) he argues that one does indeed require kavanah for all mitzvoth. He gives the following example: when you have a roof that you can go out on the Torah commands us to erect a maakeh, a fence, so that no one will fall and it further commands us not to “place blood on our houses” by not having one. There is a positive commandment to put up a maakeh and a negative commandment violated if you don’t have one.
Let’s say you put up a maakeh without intending to fulfill a mitzvah. According to Rav Elchanan Wasserman this is a result oriented mitzvah, i.e. no one should fall, and should not require kavanah.
Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach argues that if you put up the maakeh without intention for mitzvah, while you are not in violation of having a house without a maakeh, you have not fulfilled you mitzvah of putting up a maakeh because you did not have the requisite intention! You did it to be safe, not to perform a mitzvah. He entertains extending this idea to all person to person mitzvoth, even paying your workers, which is a Torah commandment. Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach’s position is eminently logical- a mitzvah is a mitzvah and all mitzvoth require kavanah.
What is the logic of the other position, taken by Rav Elchanan? It seems that by activity focused mitzvoth such as Shofar and Lulav, while they can be logical, we perform them only because God commanded us- that is their value and if that is so then we must understand that as we perform them. The intention tells us exactly that- we do this because God commands us.
With regard to result oriented mitzvoth – it seems in addition to doing X because we are commanded, we also do X because there is an inherent value in the activity. By Shofar, it is good because God commands it. By repaying loans etc God commands us to do it because it is good. Thus as long as you get to the desired result, which is what God wants, you have done what you need to do. That result does not depend on intention and thus intention is unnecessary. Yet I wondered, it still is a mitzvah. And if we want people to understand that it is commanded why not introduce kavanah here as well?
I found a great answer to that question in the writings of Rabbi Yechiel Yaakov Weinberg, 1878-1966. In his responsa, Sereidei Aish (1/60/pg172), literally remnants of the fire (of the holocaust) he responds to the following question- why is there no beracha recited on the giving of Sholoch Manos? There are a few answers to this question- (see dvar Halcaha shaloch manos early 2) but Rabbi Weinberg’s is fantastic.
He writes that the point of Sholoch Manos is to increase peace, love and friendship amongst Jews. Thus it is better to give it willingly from a feeling of love to your fellow Jew than it is to give it only because you are commanded. If you give it only because of the command it detracts from the feelings of love that should accompany the gift. And the same applies to tzedaka- he argues. If you give out of compassion and love it is better than giving because you feel obligated. Thus there is no beracha because the beracha reinforces the command element.
That is wild because this is a Torah command. Possibly what the Sereidei Aish means is that what Hashem wants from us in the interpersonal realm and what we are commanded to do is to perform these actions of out of love, compassion and concern. I know it sounds strange but we are commanded to give willingly and with love. That is the kind of people God want and commands us to be.
