“כל העושה על דעת ראשונה הוא עושה” – Comprehensive Summary

Introduction

The principle “כל העושה על דעת ראשונה הוא עושה” (“One acts according to his initial intent”) is a Talmudic rule with ramifications across various areas of Halacha. This summary presents three classic Talmudic sources, three approaches in the Acharonim, and significant practical applications and debates among contemporary authorities.

I. Talmudic Sources

  1. Korban Pesach & “Lishmah” (Zevachim 2a-b)
    • Case: If one begins the slaughter of the Pesach offering “for the sake of Pesach” but is silent for the remainder, the offering is valid—one does not need to repeat their intent throughout.
    • Gemara’s Reasoning: “One acts according to his original intent.”
  2. Pigul in Menachot (Menachot 16a)
    • Case: When one performs a service with the intent of pigul (disqualifying thought) in one part, and is silent in another, does pigul apply?
    • Rav: Yes, because “one acts according to his initial intent.”
    • Debate: Whether this applies when silence intervenes or only when both actions are with intent.
  3. Expansion in Zevachim (Zevachim 41b)
    • Case: Regarding multiple components of an offering (e.g., kometz and levona), if pigul is intended for one and silence for another, Reish Lakish rules that the initial intent governs.

II. Acharonim: Three Approaches

1. Sefat Emet – Sentiment/Presumption

  • “Daat Rishona” is treated as an assumed sentiment or presumption unless there is evidence to the contrary.
  • If the person explicitly did not have the original intent during the later act, the rule may not apply.
  • The law is built on practical sense and presumption (אומדנא).

2. Netziv – Contextual Presumption

  • Emphasizes the context: When the later act is related to the first, we presume the original intent continues unless specifically contradicted.
  • The law depends on the circumstances (e.g., is the person still “involved” in the original matter?).

3. Brisker Rav (R. Chaim Soloveitchik & Briskers) – Parameter/Status

  • Treats the rule as a formal halachic parameter, not just a psychological presumption.
  • Even if the person forgets or explicitly denies the original intent, the halachic status follows the initial declaration.
  • This makes “daat rishona” a legal status that persists, not a state of mind.

III. Ramifications & Applications

a. Tzitzit

  • Mishna Berura (O.C. 11): If one begins making tzitzit with the intention of “lishmah,” the rest are also “lishmah,” unless he explicitly states otherwise.
  • Rav Schechter (Ba’akvei haTzon): Only applies to one continuous act, not to separate, independent acts.
  • Rav Willig: Sides with the Mishna Berura; the doctrine is expansive and applies to multiple acts if they are part of the same process.

b. Heter Iska (Interest-free Business Arrangements)

  • Rav Aharon Kotler (Mishnat R’ Aharon 20): Objects to using a one-time declaration for all future transactions—limits “kol ha’oseh” to private acts, not interpersonal/business law.
  • Rav Willig: Disagrees; applies the rule to broader cases like ribbit, citing the Raavad who extends the principle even to interpersonal law.

c. Forgetting the Original Intent

  • Rav Aharon Kotler: If the person forgets the original intent, the rule does not apply.
  • Brisker Rav, Rav Willig, Or Zarua: Forgetting is irrelevant; the status remains as per initial declaration.

d. Multiple or Separate Acts

  • Rav Aharon Kotler: The rule does not extend to multiple, separate acts (e.g., different pairs of tzitzit, writing different sections of a Sefer Torah at different times).
  • Rav Willig, Brisker Rav: The rule can apply to extended or multiple acts if they can be seen as connected.

IV. Bottom Line – Halacha

  • Rav Willig rules expansively: “Kol ha’oseh al daat rishona hu oseh” applies broadly—including to tzitzit, ribbit/heter iska, and more—unless explicitly negated in subsequent acts.
  • Support from Or Zarua: The principle is a legal status (“din”), not just a presumption or sentiment.

Table: Three Approaches to “Kol ha’oseh”

Approach Nature of the Rule Can it be Overridden by Later Intent? Forgetting Matters? Applies to Multiple Acts?
Sefat Emet Sentiment / Presumption Yes Yes Debate
Netziv Contextual Presumption Yes (context-dependent) Yes Debate
Brisker Rav Halachic Parameter/Status No No Yes (if acts are linked)

Key Takeaways

  • The status of “initial intent” (daat rishona) can persist through a process unless explicitly revoked.
  • The extent and limitations of this principle are debated—between treating it as a legal status (Brisk) or as a practical presumption (Sefat Emet, Netziv).
  • Major ramifications exist in practical areas like tzitzit, heter iska, and possibly other mitzvah processes.