A person involved in a mitzvah does not have to stop to do another one. Suka 25
"A groom and his friends do not have to sit in the Suka."
Braita: "A groom and his friends do not have to pray or put on Tefilin, but have to say the Shema."
Rashi says that Braita is going like the opinion: When is doing one mitzvah, he is obligated to do another one."
From what I can tell by looking at the back of the Gemara in the Rif at the Raavad, Ramban and Meor there is that this is an argument of tenaim [sages of the Mishna] and that we poskin [decide ] that one does not have to stop. So a groom would not even have to say Shema.
This looks to me how the Gra was thing about learning Torah. He says one can stop to do a mizvah. Not must.
The reason for the confusion is the Rif brings both braitas; and after him the Shulchan Aruch also.
So what is happening is the is an essential contradiction that is being presented as a consistent opinion.
So why the Rif does this no one knows. But they all come out saying that even if we don't know what the Rif was thinking, still we do know the actual pesak halacha.[decided law] העוסק במצווה פטור מן המצווה
This has far reaching ramifications, as you can imagine.
I have not learned this "sugia" with a learning partner, so I must say my conclusions are only tentative.
Also I should mention that not everything can be called a mitzvah in this context. People like to expand the definition of mitzvah beyond what the Torah says is a mitzvah. And that kind of thinking would not work here.
"A groom and his friends do not have to sit in the Suka."
Braita: "A groom and his friends do not have to pray or put on Tefilin, but have to say the Shema."
Rashi says that Braita is going like the opinion: When is doing one mitzvah, he is obligated to do another one."
From what I can tell by looking at the back of the Gemara in the Rif at the Raavad, Ramban and Meor there is that this is an argument of tenaim [sages of the Mishna] and that we poskin [decide ] that one does not have to stop. So a groom would not even have to say Shema.
This looks to me how the Gra was thing about learning Torah. He says one can stop to do a mizvah. Not must.
The reason for the confusion is the Rif brings both braitas; and after him the Shulchan Aruch also.
So what is happening is the is an essential contradiction that is being presented as a consistent opinion.
So why the Rif does this no one knows. But they all come out saying that even if we don't know what the Rif was thinking, still we do know the actual pesak halacha.[decided law] העוסק במצווה פטור מן המצווה
This has far reaching ramifications, as you can imagine.
I have not learned this "sugia" with a learning partner, so I must say my conclusions are only tentative.
Also I should mention that not everything can be called a mitzvah in this context. People like to expand the definition of mitzvah beyond what the Torah says is a mitzvah. And that kind of thinking would not work here.
