Bots, Bureaucrats, Interface administrators, Suppressors, Administrators, wiki-admin, wiki-controller, wiki-editor, wiki-reader
1,208
edits
Onen: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
m
Text replacement - "S"A" to "Shulchan Aruch"
m (Text replacement - "S"A" to "Shulchan Aruch") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
# One who only accompanies the meis only until a certain point, but not all the way to the burial, is no longer an onen once they leave the meis.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 375:2, Aruch Hashulchan Y.D. 341:21-22. Although the Aruch Hashulchan in 324:23 indicates that this is only true if the meis will be traveling for at least a two-day's journey, see Minchas Shelomo 91:25. See there also regarding a relative who will not be with the meis at all the entire time.</ref> | # One who only accompanies the meis only until a certain point, but not all the way to the burial, is no longer an onen once they leave the meis.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 375:2, Aruch Hashulchan Y.D. 341:21-22. Although the Aruch Hashulchan in 324:23 indicates that this is only true if the meis will be traveling for at least a two-day's journey, see Minchas Shelomo 91:25. See there also regarding a relative who will not be with the meis at all the entire time.</ref> | ||
# The relatives of someone who died in captivity do not practice aninus at all, and not aveilus until the burial (or until the relatives give up hope of having a burial).<ref>Tosfos Brachos 18a, Rambam Hilchos Avel 1:3, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 341:4, Shach 341:15</ref> However, many believe that this was only the case if the captors wouldn't release the body until ransom negotiations were made, but today, if the meis is being held for medical or legal reasons, aninus does apply right away, because one can be sure that the meis will be returned to the family eventually.<ref>Noda BiYhudah Tinyanana Y.D. 211, Aruch Hashulchan 341:18</ref> | # The relatives of someone who died in captivity do not practice aninus at all, and not aveilus until the burial (or until the relatives give up hope of having a burial).<ref>Tosfos Brachos 18a, Rambam Hilchos Avel 1:3, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 341:4, Shach 341:15</ref> However, many believe that this was only the case if the captors wouldn't release the body until ransom negotiations were made, but today, if the meis is being held for medical or legal reasons, aninus does apply right away, because one can be sure that the meis will be returned to the family eventually.<ref>Noda BiYhudah Tinyanana Y.D. 211, Aruch Hashulchan 341:18</ref> | ||
# Aninus applies equally to men and women.<ref> Yalkut Yosef Kitzur | # Aninus applies equally to men and women.<ref> Yalkut Yosef Kitzur Shulchan Aruch OC 71:1</ref> However, a child who is an onen can still recite keriat shema or tefilla, and he can eat meat or drink wine.<Ref> Yalkut Yosef Kitzur Shulchan Aruch OC 71:13 </ref> | ||
# If a person is in the middle of saying Shema, Shemona Esrei or Birkat Hamazon when he finds out that a relative for whom he would be in aveilut it is permissible to complete the mitzvah and only afterwards does the Aninut begin.<Ref>The Shvut Yakov 1:7 writes that if a person becomes an avel while doing a mitzvah it is permissible to continue and finish the mitzvah since doing mitzvah when one is an onen is only a rabbinic prohibition. Since it is only a rabbinic prohibition it is permissible to continue since the Tosfot Yoma 13a (s.v. heneh) understands the gemara as saying that it is permissible to complete a mitzvah that one started when it was permitted even though in the middle he became a mourner. The Pitchei Teshuva 341:6 quotes this. Chazon Ovadia (Aveilut v. 1 p. 130) supports this opinion because of the concept of osek bmitzvah patur min hamitzvah, besides the opinions of Rashi and Rambam that it is permissible to optionally fulfill mitzvot when one is an onen. Whether osek bmitzvah applies even to a rabbinic mitzvah such as tefillah is a long discussion in Kovetz Haarot 69. Rav Ovadia cites rishonim hold that there is osek bmitzvah even on derabbanan's including Rav Avraham Min Hahar regarding going to be mekabel peni rabo to exempt from sukkah. However, Pri Megadim E"A 72:4 and Biur Halacha 72:4 seem to hold that osek bmitzvah for a mitzvah derabbanan of Nichum Aveilim doesn't exempt from a biblical mitzvah of Kriyat Shema.</ref> | # If a person is in the middle of saying Shema, Shemona Esrei or Birkat Hamazon when he finds out that a relative for whom he would be in aveilut it is permissible to complete the mitzvah and only afterwards does the Aninut begin.<Ref>The Shvut Yakov 1:7 writes that if a person becomes an avel while doing a mitzvah it is permissible to continue and finish the mitzvah since doing mitzvah when one is an onen is only a rabbinic prohibition. Since it is only a rabbinic prohibition it is permissible to continue since the Tosfot Yoma 13a (s.v. heneh) understands the gemara as saying that it is permissible to complete a mitzvah that one started when it was permitted even though in the middle he became a mourner. The Pitchei Teshuva 341:6 quotes this. Chazon Ovadia (Aveilut v. 1 p. 130) supports this opinion because of the concept of osek bmitzvah patur min hamitzvah, besides the opinions of Rashi and Rambam that it is permissible to optionally fulfill mitzvot when one is an onen. Whether osek bmitzvah applies even to a rabbinic mitzvah such as tefillah is a long discussion in Kovetz Haarot 69. Rav Ovadia cites rishonim hold that there is osek bmitzvah even on derabbanan's including Rav Avraham Min Hahar regarding going to be mekabel peni rabo to exempt from sukkah. However, Pri Megadim E"A 72:4 and Biur Halacha 72:4 seem to hold that osek bmitzvah for a mitzvah derabbanan of Nichum Aveilim doesn't exempt from a biblical mitzvah of Kriyat Shema.</ref> | ||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
Pri Megadim (Peticha Hakolelet 2:28 and M"Z 480:1) writes that an onen is exempt from destroying his chametz. Shomrei Mitzvah ch. 11 fnt. 1 p. 124 questions this since osek bmitzvah doesn't exempt a person from the mitzvah of tashbitu (see further). He ends up explaining that the Pri Megadim could accept the Aruch Lner that only rabbinically osek bmitzvah doesn't apply and for the honor of the dead the rabbinic prohibition is waived. Shomrei Mitzvah writes that the Hagahot Rabbi Akiva Eiger 448 cites this Pri Megadim. | Pri Megadim (Peticha Hakolelet 2:28 and M"Z 480:1) writes that an onen is exempt from destroying his chametz. Shomrei Mitzvah ch. 11 fnt. 1 p. 124 questions this since osek bmitzvah doesn't exempt a person from the mitzvah of tashbitu (see further). He ends up explaining that the Pri Megadim could accept the Aruch Lner that only rabbinically osek bmitzvah doesn't apply and for the honor of the dead the rabbinic prohibition is waived. Shomrei Mitzvah writes that the Hagahot Rabbi Akiva Eiger 448 cites this Pri Megadim. | ||
Osek Bmitzvah regarding biur chametz: | Osek Bmitzvah regarding biur chametz: | ||
* The Mishna Pesachim 49a states that if someone is going to do a mitzvah and has chametz if he has to choose between destroying his chametz or doing the mitzvah he should do bitul chametz and continue to do the mitzvah. In the afternoon when bitul chametz isn't possible, Maharam Chalavah, Meiri, Michtam, and Magen Avraham all hold that one should destroy one's chametz and not do the mitzvah. Why isn't osek bmitzvah relevant to continue to do the mitzvah? [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20961&st=&pgnum=20 Olot Shlomo Zevachim 19a s.v. pturin] answers that since not destroying one's chametz is a prohibition osek bmitzvah isn't relevant. Shomrei Mitzvah ch. 11 fnt. 1 questions this assumption that there is baal yiraeh on the afternoon of the 14th, which is the opinion of Rashi but most rishonim hold that it isn't the case (Raavad Chametz Umatzah 3:8, Maggid Mishna there in Rambam). | * The Mishna Pesachim 49a states that if someone is going to do a mitzvah and has chametz if he has to choose between destroying his chametz or doing the mitzvah he should do bitul chametz and continue to do the mitzvah. In the afternoon when bitul chametz isn't possible, Maharam Chalavah, Meiri, Michtam, and Magen Avraham all hold that one should destroy one's chametz and not do the mitzvah. Why isn't osek bmitzvah relevant to continue to do the mitzvah? [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20961&st=&pgnum=20 Olot Shlomo Zevachim 19a s.v. pturin] answers that since not destroying one's chametz is a prohibition osek bmitzvah isn't relevant. Shomrei Mitzvah ch. 11 fnt. 1 questions this assumption that there is baal yiraeh on the afternoon of the 14th, which is the opinion of Rashi (Pesachim 4a s.v. ben) but most rishonim hold that it isn't the case (Raavad Chametz Umatzah 3:8, Maggid Mishna there in Rambam). | ||
* Regarding the mishna itself the Aruch Lener Sukkah 25a s.v. tos s.v. sheluchei wonders why if there's time to destroy one's chametz and do the mitzvah should interrupt one's mitzvah in order to destroy one's chametz. According to Tosfot since it is possible to destroy the chametz and return to the mitzvah one should do that. However, according to the Or Zaruah (Hagahot Ashri Sukkah 2:6) that someone traveling to do a mitzvah is exempt from another mitzvah even if it is possible to do the other one and return to this one, the question is valid. The Aruch Lner answers that in fact osek bmitzvah is relevant, however, the rabbis did not let him rely on the concept of osek bmitzvah since it is possible that he will come to eat chametz on Pesach because of this decision. Shomrei Mitzvah notes that this concepts seems to be rabbinic. | * Regarding the mishna itself the Aruch Lener Sukkah 25a s.v. tos s.v. sheluchei wonders why if there's time to destroy one's chametz and do the mitzvah should interrupt one's mitzvah in order to destroy one's chametz. According to Tosfot since it is possible to destroy the chametz and return to the mitzvah one should do that. However, according to the Or Zaruah (Hagahot Ashri Sukkah 2:6) that someone traveling to do a mitzvah is exempt from another mitzvah even if it is possible to do the other one and return to this one, the question is valid. The Aruch Lner answers that in fact osek bmitzvah is relevant, however, the rabbis did not let him rely on the concept of osek bmitzvah since it is possible that he will come to eat chametz on Pesach because of this decision. Shomrei Mitzvah notes that this concepts seems to be rabbinic. | ||
* In summary, according to the Olot Shlomo osek bmitzvah is irrelevant to tashbitu, while according to the Aruch Lner potentially it is.</ref> | * In summary, according to the Olot Shlomo osek bmitzvah is irrelevant to tashbitu, while according to the Aruch Lner potentially it is.</ref> | ||
