Onen: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Particular Mitzvot
m (Text replacement - " Biblical" to " biblical") Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
|||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
* (a) Since an onen is exempt from all mitzvot it follows that he doesn’t have to eat in the sukkah. However, the Pri Megadim E"A 640:10 isn’t sure about this since the onen can’t violate prohibitions and it would be a prohibition to eat outside the sukkah. The Bikkurei Yakov 640:19 argues that eating outside of a Sukkah is considered passively not fulfilling the mitzvah of sukkah. Mishna Brurah 640:31 quotes this dispute and doesn't resolve it. Rav Ovadia Yosef (Chazon Ovadia Aveilut v. 1 p. 145) quotes Rav Avraham Min Hahar as a proof for the Bikkurei Yakov. | * (a) Since an onen is exempt from all mitzvot it follows that he doesn’t have to eat in the sukkah. However, the Pri Megadim E"A 640:10 isn’t sure about this since the onen can’t violate prohibitions and it would be a prohibition to eat outside the sukkah. The Bikkurei Yakov 640:19 argues that eating outside of a Sukkah is considered passively not fulfilling the mitzvah of sukkah. Mishna Brurah 640:31 quotes this dispute and doesn't resolve it. Rav Ovadia Yosef (Chazon Ovadia Aveilut v. 1 p. 145) quotes Rav Avraham Min Hahar as a proof for the Bikkurei Yakov. | ||
* (b) As related argument, Rav Ovadia mentions that sometimes the prohibition is only to strengthen the mitzvah. Ramban kiddushin 34a writes that maakeh and hashavat aveidah have lavin but those are only to strengthen the aseh. If so, the same can be said about not eating outside of the sukkah.</ref> | * (b) As related argument, Rav Ovadia mentions that sometimes the prohibition is only to strengthen the mitzvah. Ramban kiddushin 34a writes that maakeh and hashavat aveidah have lavin but those are only to strengthen the aseh. If so, the same can be said about not eating outside of the sukkah.</ref> | ||
#Some poskim hold that an onen is exempt from the mitzvah of bedikat chametz and instead should appoint someone else to do bedika for him. However, others disagree.<ref>The [https://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=45970&st=&pgnum=11 Bet Yehuda 5 s.v. vagav] holds that the onen is exempt from the bedikat chametz while he's an onen since it is like most mitzvot that an onen is exempt from. Chazon Ovadia Aveilut v. 1 p. 180 agrees and also cites the Birkei Yosef YD 341:9 and Yagal Yakov OC 7:2 who agree. However, the Mor Ukesiah 431 argues that the onen is obligated to do bedikat chametz since not doing so could lead to owning chametz on pesach and potentially coming to eat it. Since it could lead to a prohibition an onen is not exempt.</ref> If the burial will not be before Yom Tov or the onen will not have any time to remove his chametz before Pesach and he can't get someone else to do it, most poskim hold that he is obligated to removed his chametz before Pesach even while he is an onen.<ref> | |||
Osek Bmitzvah regarding biur chametz: | |||
T | |||
e 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? Olot Shlomo Zevachim 19 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. | |||
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 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. | |||
</ref> | |||
# It is permitted for an onen to say tehillim for elevating the neshama of the deceased.<ref>Tzitz Eliezer (Ramat Rachel 5:46)</ref> | # It is permitted for an onen to say tehillim for elevating the neshama of the deceased.<ref>Tzitz Eliezer (Ramat Rachel 5:46)</ref> | ||
