8

In Hilchos Kriyas Shema, the SA (OC 71:1) says

מִי שֶׁמֵּת לוֹ מֵת שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לְהִתְאַבֵּל עָלָיו, אֲפִלּוּ אֵינוֹ מֻטָּל עָלָיו לְקָבְרוֹ, פָּטוּר מִקְּרִיאַת שְׁמַע וּמִתְּפִלָּה.

Someone whose relative died, one who they must mourn for, even if the body isn't their responsibility to bury, they are exempt from reciting the Shema and praying.

They're exempt from other mitzvos as well (Mishnah Berurah s.k. 4).

‏ (ד) ומתפלה - וכן מכל הברכות אפילו ברכת הנהנין ומכל מצות האמורות בתורה

From prayer - and also all other blessings, even blessings on items of pleasure, and from all mitzvos in the Torah.

The Mishnah Berurah s.k. 3 adds an important detail:

‏ (ג) פטור וכו' - ואם קרא אינו יוצא וצריך לחזור ולקרות אחר הקבורה. [חידושי רע"א]:

And if you recited shema, you haven't fulfilled your mitzvah and you have to recite it again after the burial

We see from here that someone who is exempt from a mitzvah, doing the act isn't considered doing the mitzvah, so they haven't fulfilled the obligation (meaning if they become obligated later they can't rely on what they did earlier).

However, in Hilchos Pesach the SA (OC 475:5) says

אָכַל כַּזַּיִת מַצָּה וְהוּא נִכְפֶּה, בְּעֵת שְׁטוּתוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְרַפֵּא, חַיָּב לֶאֱכֹל אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְרַפֵּא, לְפִי שֶׁאוֹתָהּ אֲכִילָה הָיְתָה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה פָּטוּר מִכָּל הַמִּצְוֹת.

Someone who was in a state of insanity and ate matzah and later became better, they have to eat matzah again. This is because when they ate the matzah the first time, they were exempt from all mitzvos.

The Shaar HaTziyun s.k. 39 adds a case:

‏לאפוקי שומר אבדה או משמר המת, אף דהוא גם-כן פטור אז מכל המצות [ואפילו יכול לקיים שניהם, אם צריך לטרוח אחר זה]...אם אכל אז מצה יצא ידי חובתו, דהוא איש, אלא שאז לא חייבתו התורה מפני שהוא עוסק במצוה אחרת.

Unlike someone guarding a lost object or a dead body, even though they are also exempt from all mitzvos (even if they could fulfill both, in the case that they have to add exertion to fulfill the second mitzvah)...if they ate matzah at that point, they have fulfilled their obligation. This is because they are a normal person (unlike someone deranged), just the Torah exempted them because they're doing a different mitzvah.

I see a glaring contradiction here. Someone exempt from a mitzvah who does it anyways, did they fulfill it or not? You could argue one is a case of אונן and one עוסק במצוה, but I don't see the distinction. Besides, I believe an onen is exempt because they have the status of one who is עוסק במצוה, (I found the Magen Avraham says this, although Rashi in Berachos says onen is equivalent to a chasan on his wedding night, טרוד במצוה which is related to עוסק במצוה).

  • 3
    Perhaps the אונן is presumed unable to have כוונה which is required for קריאת שמע and this is the reason he is not יוצא בדיעבד, not because of עוסק במצוה. – Dov F Mar 29 '18 at 17:46
  • @Dov-F see my edit. The question is is s.k. 3 only shema or all mitzvos as in s.k. 4 – robev Mar 29 '18 at 18:08
  • 1
    When a person is an Onen, Shotah, or whatever, they themselves (the person) is Patur from all mitzvos, so when they do it, they cannot fulfill the Chiyuv that they have as a regular person. However, when a person who is technically Chayav in the mitzvah simply cannot do it right now, if he does it, his mitzvah was good enough to be Motzi himself. כנלע"ד. – רבות מחשבות Mar 29 '18 at 18:12
  • מה שהקשה בספר טורי אבן להגאון שאגת אריה בראש השנה כח עמוד א בהא דמבואר שם: כפאו ואכל מצה יצא, דכפאו מאן, אילימא כפאו שד, והתניא וכו' כשהוא שוטה הרי הוא כשוטה לכל דבריו וכו', ומבואר שם דעל כן לא יצא ידי חובה באכילת מצה כשהוא שוטה כיון דאז פטור מן המצוות, ואינו נפטר בזמן החיוב במה שעשה בזמן הפטור. Minchas Chinuch 1 – רבות מחשבות Mar 29 '18 at 18:15
  • עוסק במצוה פטור מן במצוה...if he was oseik the whole morning he doesn't have to daven twice since he was never chayiv to daven, unlike a shogeg/ones who has to daven twice in the afternoon. – robev Mar 29 '18 at 18:17
0

The Mishna Berura answers this question by saying that he's not technically Patur when he is an Osek Bamitzvah, but rather, it's just a matter of priorities:

משנה ברורה סימן ע ס"ק יח: " (יח) לא יפסיק - ואם יכול להפסיק לק"ש ואח"כ לחזור ולגמור צרכי צבור בלא טורח יפסיק. כתב הפמ"ג דאע"ג דהעוסק בצרכי רבים פטור מק"ש מ"מ אם פסק וקרא שפיר יצא ידי חובה דלא פטור ממש מק"ש אלא שהוא אז עוסק במצוה אחרת:‏

If follows that when one is an Onen or Shotah, they are actually Patur from Mitzvos, as we see in the Shulchan Aruch you quoted:

אָכַל כַּזַּיִת מַצָּה וְהוּא נִכְפֶּה, בְּעֵת שְׁטוּתוֹ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִתְרַפֵּא, חַיָּב לֶאֱכֹל אַחַר שֶׁנִּתְרַפֵּא, לְפִי שֶׁאוֹתָהּ אֲכִילָה הָיְתָה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה פָּטוּר מִכָּל הַמִּצְוֹת.‏

| improve this answer | |
  • 2
    You failed to differentiate between an onen and osek bemitzvah, which was my question. Although you do point out the din seems to be different between the two of them. If an onen is considered osek bemitzvah I don't know why that would be. – robev Mar 29 '18 at 22:03
0

A person needs to be in a certain mental state to be able to Daven or read Krias Shema. The Gemara says that the Chassidim Rishonim would wait 1 hour before davening.

Krias Shema is Kabbalas Ol Malchus Shomayim and needs to be done with proper intent (and needs Kavanah, see Brachos 13a).

However, eating Matzah is not so! The Gemara in Rosh Hashana 28a says that

שלחו ליה לאבוה דשמואל כפאו ואכל מצה יצא כפאו מאן אילימא כפאו שד והתניא עתים חלים עתים שוטה כשהוא חלים הרי הוא כפקח לכל דבריו כשהוא שוטה הרי הוא כשוטה לכל דבריו

It is related that the following ruling was sent from Eretz Yisrael to Shmuel’s father: If one was forcibly compelled to eat matza on Passover, he has fulfilled his obligation. The Gemara clarifies the matter: Who compelled him to eat the matza? If we say that a demon forced him, i.e., that he ate it in a moment of insanity, this is difficult. Isn’t it taught in a baraita: With regard to someone who is at times sane and at times insane, at the times when he is sane, he is considered halakhically competent for all purposes and is obligated in all the mitzvot. And when he is insane, he is considered insane for all purposes, and is therefore exempt from the mitzvot. If so, someone who was compelled by a demon to eat matza is not considered obligated to perform the mitzvot at all.

You can even be forced to eat Matzah and be Yotzei.

Many Acharonim point out this is similar to the Halacha that מתעסק בחלבים ועריות חייב שכן נהנה.

Therefore, we can differentiate between the Mitzvos being talked about.

This is the first way to differentiate. The second way is that Tosfos, multiple times in Brachos say that Onen is Assur to do a Mitzvah, not that they are not Chayav. Therefore we do not relate to their action as a Mitzvah, unlike an Osek Bemitzvah. I think this is the most simple way to differentiate. Tosfos in Brachos 17b explicitly say this.

So if someone is assur to do something, then we don't count it as a Mitzvah.

If they are Patur, then we do.

(and the case of insanity is not relevant as it is not viewed as your action)

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    btw rashi himself there compares it vz"l מהו דתימא התם אכול מצה קאמר רחמנא והא אכל באכילתו הלכך לאו מתעסק הוא שהרי אף לענין חיוב חטאת אמרינן (כריתות דף יט:) המתעסק בחלבים ובעריות חייב שכן נהנה: – H. Eugene Walters Aug 16 at 18:01
  • In your first way to differentiate, how do you know the Mishnah Berurah in s.k. 3 is only referring to Shema, which as you said needs intent, when in s.k. 4 he says that the Shulchan Aruch is referring to all mitzvos? That was the crux of my question. In your second way to differentiate, note the Ritva says it's assur to do the second mitzvah if someone is osek in another...so you don't know if this contradiction is resolved by that distinction. – robev Aug 16 at 20:24
  • R. Akiva Eiger quotes the Magen Avraham who is discussing Megillah, and says that it depends on whether an onen is allowed to be machmir and perform the mitzvah even though he is patur. It does not have to do with kavanah – wfb Aug 17 at 16:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .