What do George Bush, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and Donald Trump all have in common [besides having been President and having LOTS of money]? They have never and will never have the geshmak of learning the Torah that you are about to learn. So ברוך אתה ה' אלקינו מלך העולם שלא עשני גוי and ברוך אלקינו שבראנו לכבודו והבדילנו מן התועים ונתן לנו תורת אמת וחיי עולם נטע בתוכנו!!!
I wouldn't give this up for all the money in the world. YIDDEN - WE ALL WON THE LOTTERY!! We learn Torah! ENJOY!!!!!
Continuing where we left off...
I wouldn't give this up for all the money in the world. YIDDEN - WE ALL WON THE LOTTERY!! We learn Torah! ENJOY!!!!!
Continuing where we left off...
A] We saw in the previous post that according to the Ramban, one whose animal is falling or if he lost an object, is obligated to be מוחל in order that his friend should be able to perform his mitzva בין אדם למקום. Now, if the owner of the animal or object has a mitzva to perform but he would lose more than a fifth of his money if he doesn't attend to his animal or lost object, he is not obligated in the mitzva because one is only obligated in mitzvos up until a fifth. However, his friend doesn't have to pay heed to this rule and should do the בין אדם למקום mitzva and ignore the falling animal or lost object, even at a significant loss to his friend.
B] This is all before he begins helping his friend. But once he starts helping his friend then the rule of עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה applies and he should continue helping his friend.
C] If the מצוה בין אדם למקום is only a ספק and helping his friend is a ודאי what is the halacha? It would seem that he should still perform the ספק בין אדם למקום and not help his friend because his friend is obligated to be מוחל so that he can fulfill his ספק מצוה.
D] What is the halacha if the בין אדם למקום is מדרבנן and the בין אדם לחבירו is מדאורייתא, for example נר חנוכה vs. השבת אבידה?? The Biur Halacha [רס"ו י"ג ד"ה אסור] who wonders about the halacha where one finds a lost object that is muktza on Shabbos. Should it be returned despite the איסור מוקצה? It appears that he rules that the object should be returned because the מדאורייתא of השבת אבידה takes precedence over בין אדם למקום that is מדרבנן. His hesitation was that איסור might be different and one wouldn't return the object. But if they were were both mitzvos then no doubt that the מדאורייתא that is בין אדם לחבירו takes precedence.
E] What about an instance where one needs to save his life and can do so by eating a treif piece of meat [בין אדם למקום] or stealing kosher from his friend [בין אדם לחברו].
[מאוצרות הגר"א גנחובסקי זצ"ל]
One final important point to make is that every מצוה בין אדם לחברו is ALSO בין אדם למקום because Hashem commanded the mitzva while בין אדם למקום is ONLY בין אדם למקום. When one harms his friend he needs to receive מחילה from both his friend and Hashem while עבירות בין אדם למקום require only מחילה from Hashem. The Rosh says this somewhere [if I remember correctly] but I can't recall where.
E] What about an instance where one needs to save his life and can do so by eating a treif piece of meat [בין אדם למקום] or stealing kosher from his friend [בין אדם לחברו].
[מאוצרות הגר"א גנחובסקי זצ"ל]
One final important point to make is that every מצוה בין אדם לחברו is ALSO בין אדם למקום because Hashem commanded the mitzva while בין אדם למקום is ONLY בין אדם למקום. When one harms his friend he needs to receive מחילה from both his friend and Hashem while עבירות בין אדם למקום require only מחילה from Hashem. The Rosh says this somewhere [if I remember correctly] but I can't recall where.
