Does Intent Matter?
A Talmudic Debate At The Heart Of Today's Culture War
The sages of the Talmud famously debate whether “commandments require intentionality” (mitzvot tzrichot kavannah). The short answer is that some commandments require intentionality, while others don’t. I must intend to fulfill the commandment of hearing shofar to fulfill my obligation to hear shofar. If I simply listen to the shofar on Rosh Hashana because I like the sound, I have fulfilled nothing. But if I tithe because it’s the right thing to do or because I feel like being generous, I am no less in fulfillment of my obligation than if I give because I regard it as a divine commandment.
In modern times, one of the main axes of debate between Hasidim and Mitnagdim was the extent to which intentionality (kavannah) matters. Some Hasidim would rather not pray than pray without intent. For Mitnagdim, the prioritizing of intent above action is a form of antinomianism.
You might think this Talmudic debate, transposed into an intra-Jewish argument about the value of personal piety relative to behavior, is obscure, but we find a similar debate today about the role of “intentionality” in the argument between progressive activists and “basic” plebs. Progressive activists say “intent doesn’t matter,” meaning that one can say or do something terrible even if one doesn’t mean to. Moreover, since oppression is defined mainly as structural or systematic, individual intent and effort are less important than social position or “privilege.”
Should I attend a rally, place a sign on my lawn? An activist might say I ought to, whether or not I have researched the issue or feel connected to it. I am obligated to demonstrate loyalty to a cause whether or not I feel loyalty. Such a stance is consistent with the Mitnagdic Jewish view. The antinomian position, the position of those who would wait to pledge allegiance until they have cultivated a deep relationship to what they are pledging, is intrinsically non-activist.
Thus, a religious debate about piety lives on in secular society, where a commitment to “thoughtfulness,” “nuance,” and “complexity” play the same formal role that a personal relationship to God once played in a religious society.
One metaphysical reason Mitnagdim stressed behavior over and above piety was that they didn’t think God was immanent. Since God was effectively absent, distant, all they had was the commandment. The commandment is consolation for a world where the higher things are impossible. The pious are rebels who reject the status quo because they dare hope for more.
Ironically, today’s antinomians are not those who march, but those who want to learn more—and believe they can—before doing so.
What is Called Thinking? is a practice of asking a daily question on the belief that self-reflection brings awe, joy, and enrichment to one’s life. Consider becoming a subscriber to support this project and access subscriber-only content.
You can read my weekly Torah commentary here.