We are faced with a complex passage of the Yerushalmi and a three way debate of the Medieval commentators regarding how to understand the exemption of the onen – exempt but permitted (פטור ומותר – Rashi & Rambam), exempt and prohibited (פטור ואסור – Tosafot, Ra”ah, Rosh, Rabbeinu Yona, based on the Yerushalmi) or it depends on the situation (R. Yitzchak, Rosh). Let’s see if we can make sense of two seifim of the Shulchan Aruch – one in the laws of mourning and one in the laws of Shema. 

Here is how Rabbi Yosef Karo codifies this law in the context of the laws of mourning:

Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh Deah, Hil. Aveilut 351:1 [A] And the [onen] is exempt from all the [positive] Mitzvot of the Torah.  [B] And even if he does not need to be involved with the needs of the one who passed because there are others who will take care of those needs [he is exempt].  [C] And some people say that even if the onen wanted to be stringent on him or herself and make blessings or answer amen after the blessings of another, he is not permitted. [D] (and see Orach Chayyim siman 71).

שולחן ערוך יורה דעה הלכות אבילות סימן שמא סעיף א [א] ופטור מכל מצות האמורות בתורה.  [ב] ואפילו אם אינו צריך לעסוק בצרכי המת, כגון שיש לו אחרים שעוסקים בשבילו.  [ג] וי”א שאפילו אם ירצה להחמיר על עצמו לברך או לענות אמן אחר המברכין, אינו רשאי  [ד] (ועיין בא”ח סי’ ע”א).

In section [C], Rav Yosef Karo clearly refers to the position that the onen is exempt and forbidden from positive Mitzvot (Tosafot). When we read section [B] in light of section [C], it appears that the first anonymous position is that of Rashi and Rambam: that the onen is exempt and also permitted to fulfill positive commandments. This approach understands exemption and permission to apply whether or not the onen is required to be physically involved with the needs of one who has passed. To be clear, the implication of this reading is that even if the onen has no one to assist with the needs of the one who has passed, they are still permitted to fulfill Mitzvot if they are interested in doing so.

However, when Rav Yosef Karo codifies these laws in the context of Kriyat Shema, he seems to quote the position of R. Yitzchak cited in the Rosh that distinguishes between different times for the onen:

Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayyim, Hil. Kriyat Shema 71:1 [A] One who loses a loved one for whom they are obligated to mourn, even if the one who has passed is not physically with him, is exempt from reading the Shema and Tefila.  [B] And even if he or she wants to be stringent on themselves and read, they are not permitted. [C] And if he has someone to work for him and take care of the burial needs, and he wants to be stringent on himself and read the Shema, we do not stop him. [D] (See Yoreh Deah siman 341)

שולחן ערוך אורח חיים הלכות קריאת שמע סימן עא סעיף א [א] מי שמת לו מת שהוא חייב להתאבל עליו, אפילו אינו מוטל עליו לקברו, פטור מק”ש  ומתפלה.  [ב] ואפילו אם רוצה להחמיר על עצמו ולקרות, אינו רשאי.  [ג] ואם יש לו מי שישתדל בשבילו בצרכי קבורה, ורצה להחמיר על עצמו ולקרות, אין מוחין בידו  [ד] ( עיין בי”ד סי’ שמ”א).

Section [C] quotes the position of R. Yitzchak cited in the Rosh that, when someone else is taking care of the physical needs of the burial, the onen remains exempt but is now permitted to perform Mitzvot. Sections [A-B] assert that the onen may not be stringent on themselves and read the Shema when they are obligated to take care of the needs of the one who has passed.

It turns out that the three positions from the rishonim ALL find their way into the Shulchan Aruch.

1) In Yoreh Deah we first encounter the Rashi / Rambam approach that the onen is exempt but permitted. 

2) Then he quotes the Tosafot / Yerushalmi opinion that the onen is exempt and prohibited. 

3) In Orach Chayyim Rav Yosef Karo brings R. Yitzchak from the Rosh, who distinguished based on the level of support available to the onen.

Next time I will share the approach of some of the key acharonim to reading Rav Yosef Karo on this apparent contradiction.