Haosek Betorah

So, let’s return to Rav Lichtenstein’s paper העוסק בתורה פטור מן המצוה in the collection מנחת אביב. The short of is that the sources on how העוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה applies to Torah Learning divide up as follows:

• There are several sources in the Gemara and Rishonim(for instance ירושלמי ברכות פ"א ה"ב) that make it crystal clear that העוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה doesn’t apply to Torah Learning
• There are also Gemaras(for example ירושלמי פסחים פ"ג ה"ז) that draw a distinction: if another person can do the mitzvah then the ptur applies, while if only you can do the mitzva you must stop learning and do so. However, since this distinction is only mentioned with regard to Torah Learning, it may be that we aren’t dealing with the general principle of העוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה, but rather something that specifically applies to Torah Learning
• There are also sources that imply that העוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה does apply to Torah Learning

It would be tempting to claim that this spectrum of sources represents a machloket, but in many cases the contradiction is explicit: the Rambam contradicts himself explicitly, the Yerushalmi contradicts itself without ever mentioning a machloket. So how can we explain these contradictions?

Rav Lichtenstein’s Answer

Rav Lichtenstein’s answer draws from the Yerushalmi(ירושלמי ברכות פ"א ה"ב):

ולית ליה לרבי שמעון בן יוחי הלמד על מנת לעשות ולא הלמד שלא לעשות שהלמד שלא לעשות נוח לו שלא נברא...

Fundamentally, העוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה does apply to Torah Learning just like any other mitzva, in fact more so since Torah Learning is such an important mitzva. The difference, though, is that the mitzvah of Torah Learning must be על מנת לעשות in order to be valid. Therefore, in most cases, העוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה doesn’t apply in practice since one must stop learning and do the mitzva in order to preserve the aspect of על מנת לעשות.

Rav Aharon goes on to explain the aforementioned sources using this svara. For instance:

• The reason the ptur only applies if someone else can do the mitzvah is that, since it still gets performed, one’s learning doesn’t lose its על מנת לעשות nature.
• The Rambam(אישות טו:ב) allows one to push-off marriage and thus Pru Urvu in order to learn because it’s only a temporary delay and therefore doesn’t harm the על מנת לעשות nature of one’s learning.
• העוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה applies to the mitzvah of walking to learn Torah(סוכה כה א), but not to the learning itself, because the walking doesn’t require על מנת לעשות(in fact, it is itself עשיה)

The one source Rav Lichtenstein doesn’t attempt to apply his thesis to is the Meiri(מו"ק ט ב), who states explicitly that העוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה simply doesn’t apply to Torah Learning. 

 ואע"פ שהעושק במצווה פטור מן המצווה לא נאמר כן בתלמוד תורה הואיל ועיקרה לידיעת קיום שאר מצוות

Presumably, the Meiri thinks that the ptur in the case of אפשר לו ע"י אחרים is a separate principal, perhaps based on the great value of Torah Learning, but not on the general rule of העוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה.