פירוש על ברכות 34:6

...One whose dead is front of him is exempt from saying the Shema and from praying the Amidah and from Tefillin and all the commandments said in the Torah.

......Rashi explains that it is not necessary for one to make the Hamotzie blessing from that we learn that if he wants to make the blessing he has permission. This does not seem to be the implication in the conversation of this idea which teaches that even outside the area of four amot is also prohibited because there is a general rule that one may not bless. And there are those who say that from the conversation we learn the prohibition to bless is only at a time when one is engaged in the needs of the dead person but if one has already completed the persons needs or there are others to take care of the dead person's needs - then he may bless. And in the Yerushalmi that implication does not seem to be accepted because we explain there/translate "doesn't eat" as he doesn't eat meat and he doesn't drink wine and he doesn't make a blessing. And if he blesses others do not answer him, amen. And if others bless they are not answered with amen. And in the answering of amen, one does not invalidate the needs of the dead even though here it is technically prohibited to say amen. And further we say above in our chapter on page 19 "if the dead person isn't in front of you - you can sit and read Shema and he sits silently while they stand and pray the Amidah and he stands and justifies the law and he isn't involved in the needs of the dead ______________ and he can focus on the first pasuk of Shema. Therefore we see its prohibited to pray while one is in front of you who is in Aveliut.

ONE WHOSE DECEASED [RELATIVE] IS LAID OUT [UNBURIED] BEFORE HIM. In Rashi’s text this perek mee shemaso, appears after the 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 reason for 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 prayer¹This 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. and from t’filin.

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

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 and wear t’filin they are obligated. And the beginning of the Mishna that says an 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 pallbearers who 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 אבל a 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 stringent and recite a b’rochoh, we do not listen to him and 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”.¹This is a euphemism for one who will take care of the needs of the deceased. 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 that the exemption we are speaking of is on Yom Tov, and on Yom Tov the 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?
And Yerushalmee answers: it should be construed that the Braiso that speaks of an exemption for picking up a lulov is discussing a weekday. The explanation: the intermediate weekdays of the holiday when 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 you possibly say that this is also 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.
And Yerushalmee answers: Rav Chanino said that even 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 at the edge of the Shabos boundary²On 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. 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 that even 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 the edge of the Shabos boundary beyond 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 him toward the special zimun recited before the b’rochoh after the meal. And so too, we learned in a Braiso in Yerushalmee about the status of an onain. When are these things prohibiting 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 reconcile the 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 the Shabos boundary, we should then say that he is occupied with waiting for darkness at 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 darkness at 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 the other reason mentioned in the Yerushalmee for prohibiting an onain from performing mitzvos because of the honor of 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, that the 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”,¹This is a euphemism for one who will take care of the needs of the deceased. we can learn that on the intermediate 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 is the deceased is laying before him and 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 Yerushalmee which says that when the bier is handed over to the multitude,³This expression is used when the deceased is going to be buried in a distant place. 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,⁴This expression is used when the burial will take place locally. 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 that the period of onain ends even though the 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 that the 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 effect when 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 to the 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, here when 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 of being 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 said in 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 itself where 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.

"Like the Nazarene" is omitted in the later editions through fear of the Censor. "Spoiled (or, cooked) food in public" means, laid himself open to suspicion of heresy by his public declarations. See Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, pp. 60 f.

By the "stout-hearted" is here understood the pious who are "far from righteousness" in the sense that they cannot rely upon it for their sustenance, but have to labour with their arm.

"From Mount Horeb" should probably be omitted, being a reminiscence of Abot vi. 2 (Singer, p. 205). Cf. Bacher, A.B.A. p. 11 n. 58.

I.e. Hannina b. Dosa who was renowned as an ascetic and thaumaturgist. See fol. 33 a, 34 b, pp. 219, 230, 232.

The carob-tree or locust was the food of the poorest and of ascetics (cf. Matt. iii. 4), and despised by the people. The Midrash declares: When the Children of Israel are obliged to eat carobs, they become repentant; Levit. Rab. xxxv. 6.

The inhabitants of Gobia in Babylon. A tradition identities them with the Netinim of the Bible, the descendants of the Gibeonites (hence, Gobeans) who were made hewers of wood and drawers of water in the days of Joshua. See Kiddushin 70 b.

M. : Abbai.

A town in Babylon. It possessed a famous School of which Rab Ashe was Principal, and twice a year — before the Passover and New Year — crowds came there to hear the Torah expounded.

Ab is the fifth month of the year. On the 9th of this month, both Temples were destroyed and the day is observed as a solemn fast.

In this matter and cease work. Consequently Rabban Simeon b. Gamaliel's teaching here contradicts his teaching in our Mishnah.

To remove the contradiction, B. Johanan suggests that in the quoted Mishnah, it is the Rabbis, not Rabban Simeon, who say "Everyone should regard himself as a disciple of the wise."

Consequently it would not be presumptuous for one who was not a disciple to abstain from work.

Waiting to relieve the bearers.

Having already borne the coffin.

See p. 106. The reference in the next sentence is to a row two-deep.

Edd. print here Mishnah III (p. 131) unnecessarily, since it is treated separately.

A meal was taken reclining on the left elbow on a couch as a mark of comfort and ease. Cf. Oesterley and Box, p. 391 n. 1.