ONE WHOSE DECEASED [RELATIVE] IS LAID OUT [UNBURIED] BEFORE HIM. In Rashi’s text this perek mee shemaso, appears afterthe perek t’feelas hashachar. However, it appears to R”I, that it should be after היה קורא(as it is in our Gemaros), for at the end of היה קורא the Mishna is discussing rules of k’reeas sh’ma. And here the Mishna also starts with exemptions from k’reeas sh’ma. And in Yerushalmee the text is as we have it.

[HE IS] EXEMPT FROM THE RECITATION OF THE SHEMA. Rashi says that the reason for the exemption is because a person occupied with the plans for burying his relative is similar to a choson who is occupied with involvement in a mitzvoh. Tosfos quotes a Yerushalmee that has a more specific source for this rule. The Yerushalmee explains the reasonfor the exemption. **Rav Bon said: it is written (D’vorim 16, 3) “so that you should remember etc.” till “all the days of your life”.**The verse could have concluded with “all your days” by saying “all the days of your life” it is implying that the obligation to perform mitzvos is for **days that you are occupied with life and not on days that you are occupied with death.**See the חרדים ספר מבעל פירוש on the Y’rushalmee for an explanation why an additional verse is needed to exempt one when occupied with the death of a relative and the general exemption for one involved in a mitzvoh is insufficient. **This is the text.**One whose dead relative is in front of him is exempt from reading sh’ma, and from prayer¹ and from t’filin.

footnotes: ¹ This text is very problematic. We will soon see in the Tosfos on this page that it appears that Tosfos did not have the words and from prayer in his text of the Gemara.

THIS IS RASHI’S TEXT: Those pallbearers that are behind the bier, even if they are still neededto carry the bier are obligatedto recite the sh’ma, because in reality they were never used to carrythe bier,¹ because they had already carried their share. And it is somewhat bewildering to explain this idiom. What is the Mishna sayingwith the words “even when they are needed”? For thosewho were behind the bier, according to Rashi’s explanation never actually carried the dead body. Therefore it appearsthat the correct text is as the bookswhose text reads: those who are in front of the bier and those who are behind the bier, those who are neededto carry the bier are exemptfrom reading sh’ma and those who are not neededto carry the bier are obligatedto read the sh’ma.

footnotes: ¹ See Rashi ד'ה ושלאחר. It seems that Tosfos might have had a slightly different text of Rashi. In Our reading of Rashi, it seems that he is saying that since those who are behind the bier fulfilled their obligation to do the mitzvoh; they must now recite the sh’ma. It does not say that they were never called upon again to carry the bier.

BOTH THESE AND THOSE ARE EXEMPT FROM [RECITING THE AMIDAH] PRAYER. Those who are needed to carry the bier and those who are not needed are exempt from prayer. However, to recite sh’ma andwear t’filin they are obligated. And the beginningof the Mishna that saysan onain **whose dead relative is lying before him, is exempt from reciting sh’ma and wearing t’filin etc.**even though the Mishna does not mention that he is exempt from prayer, it is a kal v’chomer that he is exempt from prayer. If so, why didn’t the Mishna mention that one’s whose relative died is exempt from reciting sh’ma? But the Mishna only wanted to mention in the beginning the differences between the pallbearerswho are not needed because they already carried the bier and one who’s dead relative is laying before him.

[HE] DOES NOT RECITE A BLESSING. The term onain has different meanings. For the purposes of our Gemara an onain is a person whose close relative has died. He is responsible to take care of the burial. After he discharges his duty as an onain, he usually becomes an אבלa mourner, and he is governed by the rules of mourning. Rashi explained that he is not required to recite a b’rochoh. And it seems from his explanation that if he wants to recite a b’rochoh he may do so. However, Yerushalmee says that if one wants to be stringentand recite a b’rochoh, we do not listen to himand he is not allowed to be stringent. Therefore, it is sensible to say that “he does not recite a b’rochoh” means that **he is not permitted to recite a b’rochoh. And Yerushalmee explains why and says because of the honor of the deceased.**When an onain insists on reciting b’rochos even though he is not obligated to do so, it seems that he is not truly concerned with the needs of the dead. **Or, because he does not have “one who will carry his load”.**¹ If the deceased’s closest relative is involved with performing other mitzvos, who will carry the deceased to his resting place? In order to insure that the deceased receives a proper burial, the relatives may not perform other mitzvos until they have discharged their obligation to bury him properly. **And the Yerushalmee asks: We have learned in a Braiso that he,**the onain, is exempt from picking up a lulov. And the Yerushalmee originally thought thatthe exemption we are speaking of is on Yom Tov, and on Yom Tovthe onain **is not occupied with carrying his load,**i.e. he will not bury the deceased on Yom Tov. If the reason for the exemption is that the relative should be free to bury the deceased, the exemption should not be in effect on Yom Tov when the onain will not bury him in any case? AndYerushalmee answers: it should be construedthat the Braiso that speaks of an exemption for picking up a lulov is discussing a weekday. The explanation: theintermediate weekdays of the holidaywhen one is obligated to take a lulov and may also bury a dead body. The Yerushalmee continues with its questioning of the opinion that the exemption is because otherwise nobody will involve themselves with the burial. And we learned in a Braiso that he is exempt from blowing shofor? Can youpossibly say that this isalso **speaking about a weekday and not Yom Tov?**There is no time that we blow shofor on a weekday. Tosfos explains that the Yerushalmee is saying that this is bewildering; it is not an answer to the question. It is clear from the second Braiso that the exemption from mitzvos for the deceased’s relatives is in effect even on Yom Tov when he will not bury the deceased in any case. This does not make sense if the reason for the exemption is that the relative must be free to bury the deceased. It seems that our only option is to say that there are certain things that may be done to prepare for the burial even on Yom Tov and that is why the deceased’s relative may not perform the mitzvoh of blowing shofor. AndYerushalmee answers: Rav Chanino said thateven on Yom Tov the relative is required to prepare a coffin and shrouds as we are taught by the Mishna (Shabos 151a): we may wait for darkness atthe edge of theShabos boundary² beyond which one may not travel on Shabos, so that we will be in a more convenient place **to bring a coffin and shrouds for the deceased.**Since we may make these preparations even on Shabos, even though we do not actually bury the deceased on Shabos, it is also a day that one is involved in “carrying his load” and the onain may not occupy himself with other mitzvos. What evolves now is that according to the Yerushalmee’s answer, even on Shabos and Yom Tov an onain may not occupy himself with other mitzvos as we see from the Braiso that an onain may not listen to shofor on Rosh Hashonoh. We see thateven on Shabos and Yom Tov one is not permitted to recite a b’rochoh or to pray because he is occupied with waiting for darkness at theedge of the Shabos boundarybeyond which one may not travel, in order to bring a coffin and shrouds. And this conclusion is contradicted by the end of our Braiso that teaches that on Shabos we may recite a b’rochoh for the onain and we may count himtoward the special zimunrecited before the b’rochoh after the meal. And so too, we learned in a Braiso in Yerushalmeeabout the status of an onain. When are these thingsprohibiting the onain in the performance of mitzvos **said: during the weekdays, but on Shabos he may recline and eat and recite a b’rochoh and we answer omain after he recites a b’rochoh.**We see that on Shabos and Yom Tov the laws of onain are not in effect and this seems to contradict the conclusion of the Yerushalmee. Sometimes contradictions are too difficult to resolve. **And R”I says: that the beginning of the Braiso and the end are in disagreement with each other.**The beginning of the Braiso holds that laes of an onain are in effect on Shabos and Yom Tov and the end of the Braiso holds they are not. There are many times throughout the Gemara where the Gemara says that the one who taught the beginning of the Braiso did not teach the end of the Braiso, which means that the first part of the Braiso and the second part were authored by different Tanoim. This is not a preferred resolution to a contradiction but it is sometimes used. In Yerushalmee it is used more often than in Bavlee. Tosfos will now offer another approach. And R’ N’sanail used to say that it is possible to reconcilethe Braiso that teaches that the laws of onain are in effect on Shabos with the end of our Braiso that teaches that the laws of onain are not in effect on Shabos. For certainly if one intends to wait for darkness at the edge of theShabos boundary, we should then say that he is occupied with waiting for darknessat the edge of the Shabos boundary, and he may not recite a b’rochoh. However, in the end of the Braiso it is speaking of when he has no intention of waiting for darknessat the edge of the Shabos boundary, and therefore he is not actively involved with the needs of the deceased and he may recite a b’rochoh and do other mitzvos as well. However, this explanation has nothing to do with theother reason mentioned in the Yerushalmee for prohibiting an onain from performing mitzvos because of the honorof the deceased. The onain’s involvement with mitzvos shows that he is not truly concerned about the death of his relative. Earlier in the Yerushalmee, it seemed that it was satisfied that according to this reason one is not allowed to pick up a lulov or listen to shofor. This indicates that the laws of onain are in effect on Yom Tov. This point was never challenged and remains true even at the conclusion of the Gemara. According to that reason we must say that the end of the Braiso, which allows an onain to perform mitzvos on Shabos, does not agree with the Braiso that prohibits an onain from performing mitvos on Yom Tov. There is no way of resolving the contradiction according to the opinion that an onain may not perform mitzvos because of the honor of the deceased. Tosfos now moves to another issue about the rules of an onain. And from the Yerushalmee that answers, thatthe Braiso which says that **an onain is exempt from picking up a lulov is speaking of the intermediate weekdays of the holiday, when an onain is occupied to “carry his load”,**¹ we can learn that on theintermediate **weekdays of the holidays the laws of onain apply when one’s deceased relative is laying before him. And since the laws apply when the deceased is lying before him,**so too, when the responsibility of burying the deceased is upon the onain, it is as isthe deceased is laying before himand he is exempt from the performance of mitzvos. **And the same is true of the reverse situation.**For **one whose deceased relative is lying before him but is not responsible to bury him,**the laws of onain are not in effect. And so it seems from Yerushalmeewhich says that **when the bier is handed over to the multitude,**³ who will transport the body to another city, the onain, who is not accompanying the deceased **may eat meat and drink wine.**These activities are prohibited while he is an onain. The permission to engage in them signifies that the period of onain is over. **When he is handed over to the shoulder carriers,**⁴ who transport the deceased to the local cemetery **it is as if he was handed over to the multitude,**and the period of onain has passed. Tosfos will now analyze exactly what happens when the deceased is handed over to the multitude and when the period of onain ends. And we are compelled to say that when the phrase “handed over to the multitude” is used, it means thatthe period of onain ends even thoughthe deceased is still **in front him. For if it meant when the deceased is no longer in front of him,**why is the fact that he was handed over to the multitude mentioned at all? That is not significant, for once the deceased was removed from in front of the onain, we should know thatthe laws of onain do not apply, **because he immediately becomes a mourner as soon as the deceased is removed from the doorway of his house.**Since Yerushalmee says that the period of onain ends with the bier being “handed over to the multitude”, this implies that it is not the same as when the bier is removed from the doorway of the house. If so, we must know why the period of onain ends when the bier is handed over to the multitude, even before it leaves the doorway of the house. The reason must be that at the time he hands over the bier to the multitude he has discharged his obligation to take care of the burial and he is no longer involved with it and even though he has not yet become a mourner till the bier leaves the doorway of the house the period of onain has passed and he must perform mitzvos. We see that the laws of onain are in effect only as long as one is involved with the burial. Tosfos is now reaching the major point that he was attempting to teach us. And since the laws of onain do not go into effectwhen one is not involved with the burial of the deceased, if so, a person who cannot bury his relative’s body, for example a person who died in prison and the governor does not allow him to be buried, it appears that the relatives are not obligated to observe the laws of onain, because it is not incumbent upon them to bury him since they cannot redeem him and remove him to bury him, as we learned in Maseches S’mochos: when the relatives give up hope of burying the deceased they begin mourning, and the rules of onain end. It would appear from the Braiso in Maseches S’mochos that when they give up hope of burying their relative, the period of mourning begins. If so, when the governor does not allow the burial of their relative, they should begin the period of mourning. **However,**for him who was held by the governor, they are also not obligated to begin mourning. For this is not similar tothe case in Maseches S’mochos where the relatives gave up hope of burying the deceased, for in that case they no longer expect to bury him. However, herewhen the governor is not allowing the relatives to bury the deceased, **they are still expecting to reach a compromise with the governor, that he should allow them to bury him.**They are therefore not in the period of onain, because at this point in time there is nothing they can do about burying their relative. They are also not in a period of mourning because they still hope to be allowed to bury the deceased. **And so too, with the story of R’ Elozor Ben R’ Shimon in Bovo Metzeeo 84b,**the Gemara relates that he was not buried for many years, once the decision was made not to bury him the mitzvoh ofbeing an **onain ceased,**and his family were not bound to the laws of onain. And it happened that the sister of Rabainu Tam died on Shabos and he was informed after Shabos. He ate meat and drank wine and he saidin explanation of his behavior, since she has a husband who is obligated to bury her, he,her brother, is not forbidden to eat meat and drink wine. And it is possible that even if Rabainu Tam had been in the city itselfwhere his sister passed away, **he would have been lenient for that reason.**Since his reason was that her husband was obligated to take care of her needs, Rabainu Tam’s presence in the city where she died would make no difference.

footnotes: ¹ This is a euphemism for one who will take care of the needs of the deceased. ² On Shabos there is a limit to how far one may walk outside a city. It is two thousand amos, approximately 0.8 miles. This is called the Shabos boundary. ¹ This is a euphemism for one who will take care of the needs of the deceased. ³ This expression is used when the deceased is going to be buried in a distant place. ⁴ This expression is used when the burial will take place locally.