Highlights From Rav Kanievsky

In the Sefer מועדי הגר"ח it brings that Rav Chaim Kanievsky was asked if woman are obligated to learn the laws of a yom tov 30 days in advance and he said they are exempt because they are exempt from Talmud Torah.  That means he holds its an extension of the din of Talmud Torah.  He follows this approach to explain why the Rambam leaves out the din of שלשים יום because its included in the regular obligation of Talmud Torah.  However, on the next page he was asked if one who’s learning the laws of the yom tov 30 days in advance is of the holiday is exempt from mitzvot unlike one who is learning, and he responded that that the learner is exempt.  That means he understands it’s not an extension of the din of Talmud Torah which is a contradiction to the previous page?  Then on the next page they asked him this contradiction and he answered נכון and I’m left baffled what that is supposed to mean (pg. ט-יב .)

In the footnotes it appears that they are equating the din of ל' יום to the din of הל' חג בחג.  On the first question they cite the Steipler in Megillah #3 who assumes that the din of הל' חג בחג is an extension of Talmud Torah and woman are exempt from the din.  On the second question they point you to a journal, Kol Torah issue 58 where Rav Moshe Lepkovetz cites Rav Baruch Povarski to explain a difficult Rashi in Sukkah.  Rashi on the Mishna 25a explains the rule of שלוחי מצוה פטורין מן המצוה applies to one who is on the road to learn Torah from his Rebbe.  Everyone asks that there is no rule of עוסק במצוה regarding Talmud Torah, so how can one just on the road to learn be exempt from mitzvot?  Rav Povarski explains that Rashi is referring to one who is going to learn Torah on the holiday, and it has a din of שלוחי מצוה for a mitzvah separate from Talmud Torah. We see that הל' חג בחג is viewed as a separate obligation from that of Talmud Torah (what the nature of this obligation maybe what we explained here.)