Rephael Cattan

 We are continuing in siman 4, discussing the concept of oseik bmitzvah patur min hamitzvah.  In siman 71, the Biur Halacha writes that oseik bmitzvah applies only when both mitzvos are mitzvos asei. However, oseik bmitzvah does not exempt someone from a mitzvas lo saasei. Thus, in the case we discussed yesterday of an ani […]

 We are continuing in siman 4, discussing the concept of oseik bmitzvah patur min hamitzvah. We learned that according to the Ritva, the chiddush of the pasuk which teaches oseik bmitzvah patur min hamitzvah is to teach that one should not leave mitzvah A to perform mitzvah B, even if mitzvah B is a mitzvah

 We are continuing in siman 4, discussing the concept of oseik bmitzvah patur min hamitzvah. We left off with a question regarding the reason the Torah teaches the concept of oseik bmitzvah patur min hamitzvah twice. We learned that according to the Ran, the second pasuk comes to teach that even when a person is

1We are continuing in siman 4, discussing the concept of oseik bmitzvah patur min hamitzvah. There are many machlokos surrounding this concept, but one of the most famous is between Tosfos and the Ran in a situation where one can perform two mitzvos without one diminishing from the other. The Ran holds that once a

We are continuing siman 4, regarding the concept of oseik bmitzvah patur min hamitzvah. We learned that the Chayei Adam writes that the idea that one is patur from mitzvah B is only when the mitzvah B will require tircha (effort) which will take one away from mitzvah A. The Chayei Adam had given two

We are beginning siman 4. The Chayei Adam will discuss the concept of oseik b’mitzvah patur min hamitzvah, that when one is involved with mitzvah A they are not chayav to switch to mitzvah B.  The Chayei Adam writes that the source for the halacha that oseik b’mitzvah patur min hamitzvah is the pasuk u’velechtecha

We are continuing in siman 3, discussing the concept of ain osim mitzvos chavilos.   The Gemara in Pesachim (102b) discusses a group eating a meal on Erev Shabbos which extends into Shabbos. Rav Yehuda holds that they need to make kiddush on a kos immediately, and should bring a second kos when they are ready

We are continuing in siman 3, discussing the concept of ain osim mitzvos chavilos.  We left off with the Chayei Adam’s opinion that ain osim mitzvos chavilos is a din derabanan. The Gemara itself does not clearly state ain osim mitzvos chavilos is derabanan, but it is implied. We learned (shiur 1385) that Rav Shimon

We are continuing in siman 3, discussing the concept of ain osim mitzvos chavilos.   We left off with the Chayei Adam’s opinion that ain osim mitzvos chavilos is a din derabanan. The Gemara itself does not clearly state ain osim mitzvos chavilos is derabanan, but it is implied. We learned (shiur 1385) that Rav Shimon

 We are continuing in siman 3, discussing the concept of ain osim mitzvos chavilos.   The Chayei Adam refers to the Gemara in Sotah, which discusses whether a kohen can process two sotahs simultaneously. Rav Yehuda holds that a kohen can not process them together, because the pasuk says vehe’emid osah, that the kohen has her–in

 We are beginning siman 3. The Chayei Adam writes that Chazal were concerned about a person performing multiple mitzvos through one process. This concern is known as ain osim mitzvos chavilos, that one should not perform mitzvos in bundles. One should not perform two mitzvos simultaneously, because we are concerned one will not have proper

 We have finished siman 2 and have a few points to clarify. First, we need to clarify whether the concept of bizayon of a mitzvah is deoraysa or derabanan. The Chayei Adam pointed out that it appears to be a drasha deoraysa, and that appears to be the consensus. Second, this question raises the question

 We are continuing siman 2, where the Chayei Adam discusses the concept of not doing mitzvos in a manner of bizayon. We learned the first two applications of this concept, that one should not do a mitzvah in a manner which appears flippant and degrading, and that one should not do a mitzvah in a

 We are continuing siman 2, where the Chayei Adam discusses the concept of not doing mitzvos in a manner of bizayon. Yesterday, we learned the first application of this concept, that one should not do a mitzvah in a manner which appears flippant and degrading. The Chayei Adam writes that the second application of not

We are beginning siman 2. Although the point of the Chayei Adam will appear to be obvious, he will explain specific points which fall under the umbrella of this idea, and will codify it for us.   The Chayei Adam writes that one cannot perform a mitzvah in a manner which appears to be a

 We have finished siman 1, and are discussing some points brought in the sefer Nasiach Bechukecha which are not addressed by the Chayei Adam.   Yesterday, we left off needing to discuss the definition of pagah, encountering a mitzvah. In other words, at which point is it considered that one has become engrossed in one mitzvah

 We have finished siman 1, and are discussing some points brought in the sefer Nasiach Bechukecha which are not addressed by the Chayei Adam. The final point he raises regards a conflict of two mitzvos in which A is more tadir and B is less tadir. We have learned that tadir supersedes ain ma’avirin, and

 We have finished siman 1, and will discuss some points brought in the sefer Nasiach Bechukecha which are not addressed by the Chayei Adam  His first point regards one who transgressed and was ma’avir al hamitzvos. For example, mitzvah A presented itself first, but the person passed over it to perform mitzvah B instead. Should

 We are continuing in siman 1. We are beginning the third limitation to the concept of ain ma’avirin. The Chayei Adam writes that included in the concept of ain ma’avirin is the idea not to delay performing a mitzvah (as we learned from the pasuk of ushmartem es hamatzos, see shiur 1370). This pasuk teaches