When Is Thought Like Action? The Chida on Intent and Sin
This background sets the stage for the Chida's (Torah Ohr) profound insight into the nature of intent and action. We’ll begin with a discussion found in the Gemara (Kiddushin 40a):
מַחְשָׁבָה טוֹבָה מְצָרְפָהּ לְמַעֲשֶׂה ...אֲפִילּוּ חָשַׁב אָדָם לַעֲשׂוֹת מִצְוָה וְנֶאֱנַס וְלֹא עֲשָׂאָהּ – מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ עֲשָׂאָהּ.
Hakadosh Baruch Hu links a good thought to an action... Even if a person intended to perform a mitzvah but due to circumstances beyond his control he did not perform it, the verse ascribes him credit as if he performed the mitzvah.
As a simple example of this principle, when a person intends to give Tzedakah but upon reaching into their pocket finds there is no money, they are credited for the act of giving, nonetheless. Be careful though, as this only applies occasionally, and in genuine cases. There are some who reach into their pockets each morning in shul, pretending to be surprised that their wallet is missing, but knowing full well they left it at home to save a few dollars. In such instances, no credit is awarded for the intention. Besides, the Gemara instructs us to check our pockets on Erev Shabbat to ensure we are not carrying money, implying that one should always carry money to be prepared to give Tzedakah. And I’m talking about bills and coins, not cards and checks, or apps and taps. ליבידיקע כסף – live money! Something the recipient can use right away without having to process it and wait.
Based on this principle, if a person notices water dripping from their ceiling and – motivated by a desire to help – quickly gathers their toolbox and plumbing supplies to assist their upstairs neighbor, only to discover upon arrival that a plumber is already addressing the issue, they are given credit. They receive credit for having helped their neighbor along with credit for spending the next hour learning instead of sweating.
What about the opposite side of the coin? We’re talking about someone who intends to commit a sin but then fails in their act of following through. Imagine someone approaches you with an offer to share a juicy piece of lashon hara. You ask, “Is it about one of the regional council candidates?” and they reply, “Of course! Who else do we relay gossip about these days!” Your eyes light up and you open the door wide, “Bring it on! Let’s hear it!” To your amazement, they then tell you that mayoral candidate Moshe Cohen said that on election day it won’t rain. That’s it? That was the big scoop? You wouldn’t have even paid attention had it rained or not on that day, as it’s of zero interest to you and contains no malice whatsoever.
Now let’s dissect what actually took place. The individual approached you with the intention of sharing genuine lashon hara but, upon seeing your excitement, realized it was better to refrain. Rather than say, “Nevermind,” and spark even more intrigue, they slammed on the brakes and reversed out with a harmless comment about the weather. Does the Gemara’s principle apply here? Is it as if you committed the sin of lashon hara despite only listening to an amateur weather report? The answer is: No. The thought is not considered as action, and you did not engage in the sin of lashon hara. Similarly, in the example of an individual who prepares for theft by preparing to climb a building but then decides against it upon realizing how high the window is and the effort required, the sin of theft is not committed, despite the initial intent. (Note: intent to sin is indeed considered an act when it comes to the nations of the world, but not for Bnei Yisrael.)
The Chida asks whether the principle of מַחְשָׁבָה כְּמַעֲשֶׂה (thought as equivalent to action) is real or not. Does it work or does it not work? Why does the principle apply to positive intentions that go unfulfilled, treating them as though the mitzvah was completed, yet does not calculate unfulfilled negative intentions, such as intending to commit lashon hara or theft? Furthermore, in the context of Avodah Zara, the Torah does treat thought and intent as a transgression, as indicated by: לְמַעַן תְּפֹשׂ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּלִבָּם – [for the idol worshipers] to capture Bnei Yisrael in their hearts. Which is it?
The Chida seeks to understand the criteria for when intent is treated as action and when it is not. He explains the discrepancy as follows.
יִרְאֶה לַעֵינַיִם וַה' יִרְאֶה לַלֵּבָב – Man sees only what is visible whereas sees into the heart. Even angels are not privy to the thoughts and intentions within a person's heart. Only Hakadosh Baruch Hu sees our thoughts: יוֹדֵעַ מַחֲשָׁבוֹת. This belief is recited by Bnei Sefarad every morning in the Thirteen Principles of Faith: הֲרֵי אֲנִי מַאֲמִין בֶּאֱמוּנָה שְׁלֵמָה בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה עִקָּרִים שֶׁל הַתּוֹרָה הַקְּדוֹשָׁה ...וְיוֹדֵעַ מַחְשְׁבוֹת בְּנֵי אָדָם.
I believe with perfect faith the 13 principles of the Holy Torah ... He knows the thoughts of people.
In Sefer Iyov, it says: הַ' נָתַן וַה' לָקָח – The Lord gave, and the Lord has taken away. The Yerushalmi inquires why a connecting vav is used only in the second half of the pasuk, and explains that when Hakadosh Baruch Hu gives, He does so unilaterally, without consultation. However, when He decides to take away, He first consults His heavenly court before proceeding. This consultation is denoted by the vav in the second half of the pasuk.
The Chida elaborates on this concept with a magnificent insight. He explains that when a person commits a sin, a destructive force (משחית) and accuser (קטיגור) are born from the act – forces that then work against the individual, pushing them to sin more, prosecuting them, and seeking to have them punished. Conversely, merely thinking about a sin does not create such a force because if it did, the existence of the thought would be known to that angel, contradicting the principle that Hakadosh Baruch Hu alone is aware of our inner thoughts. Therefore, should Hakadosh Baruch Hu consider penalizing someone based on sinful thoughts, He would have to personally inform His heavenly court of these thoughts when consulting with them, as only He knows their specifics – the date, the time, the subject, etc. If the person sinned in actuality, the kateigor created by that sin would be in the know and could testify as to the act and its details, but in the case of an intent to sin, only Hakadosh Baruch Hu is in such a position.
However, there's an intrinsic snag with this proposition. Hakadosh Baruch Hu cannot serve as a witness and testify in such a heavenly court against the individual because, as our Father, He is disqualified from testifying against His children. We all know that parents are disqualified from testifying against their children in Beit Din. The Chida is pointing out that even in moments of sin, a person's love for Hakadosh Baruch Hu does not cease. This is a פֶּלֶא פִּלְאֵי פְּלָאוֹת – a true wonder of wonders! A person can commit a sin moments after davening Maariv and sincerely expressing וְאָהַבְתָּ אֵת ה' אֱלֹהֶיךָ, and the two acts are not mutually exclusive. The sin does not negate the love and faith, even if just minutes apart.
I can provide an example, not found in the Chida’s writings. Described in the Gemara (Berachot 63a, Frankfurt and Ein Yaakov versions) is the case of גַנְבָא אַפּוּם מַחְתָרְתָא רַחְמָנָא קָרִי – a paradoxical case of a thief who engages in genuine prayer before stealing. Just imagine his prayer! “Ribono Shel Olam, please let it be that the old lady inside is sleeping, the gold and silver are easily found, the neighbors are away, and any police officers nearby are distracted on their iPhones until I make it home on my bike... and if it all goes according to plan, I promise to donate half of the proceeds to tzedakah. Amen.”
If you were to ask him how he can commit such a sin just after davening, just after attesting in his Shemonah Esrei that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is the provider of all sustenance and the source of all parnaasa, perhaps he’d respond, “Look, we all need to do our hishtadlut.” This thief clearly believes in Hakadosh Baruch Hu and his act of stealing does not sever that underlying bond. The relationship remains intact, and thus, one who merely thinks about sinning, Hakadosh Baruch Hu remains their Father throughout the entire process and cannot testify regarding the act.
Avodah Zara, however, is the exception to the rule. It's inconceivable that while entertaining thoughts of engaging in idol worship and committing oneself to idolatry, one can simultaneously remain steadfast in their belief in Hakadosh...
