The Rosh in Berachot Ch.4 # 17 brings from Rabbenu Yona in a scenario where one forgot havdalah at maariv and he doesn't have wine to say havdalah later that night but he will be able to obtain wine tomorrow then he does not repeat the maariv prayer. Rabbi Akiva Eger (on Shulchan Aruch 299:6) asks why does the Rosh say you don't repeat maariv only if you will get wine Sunday if he paskins in Pesachim that one can say havdalah through Tuesday, he should say it depends if you will be able to obtain wine through Tuesday? R.A.E. proves from this Rosh that there is a difference between saying havdalah on Sunday as opposed to the days following. Sunday is considered the proper time of havdalah, it is an extension of motzei Shabbos but the later days are makeup days. Therefore, if one will obtain wine by Sunday one doesn't repeat the prayers since he will be able to say havdalah in the proper time. However, if one will will only get wine in the makeup days then he must repeat the prayers. This contradicts the Rosh in Berachot (in the last post) that holds when was an onan motzei Shabbos he does not say havdalah on Sunday and the Minchas Chinuch explained since he is exempt on motzei Shabbos he is exempt from the makeup days as well, which means Sunday is a makeup day also?
The answer to this contraction lies in another Rosh. The Rosh in Moad Katan Ch. 3 (#96) has another machlokes with the Maharam. He discusses a case where one in a katan and their relative dies and before the conclusion of the shloshim the katan becomes a gadal. The Maharam holds then the new gadol has to observe avelut like one who hears the news of a dead relative within thirty days just like one who hears about a relative that died on the regel. Since he can't observe avelut at the time he heard about the death, he observes it later when he becomes obligated, so too the katan when he becomes a gadol will be obligated to observe the avelut. The Maharam asks on himself that there is on comparison because in the case of the regel, the person was obligated in avelut but the day blocks the obligation, when the regel is over then the person observes avelut but the katan that is completely exempt from avelut since he isn't obligated in the beginning of the avelut he should never become obligated? The Maharam answers that we do not say דיחוי when it comes to mitzvot. When a mitzvah becomes temporarily unfit we do not say it is unfit forever so even though this katan was not obligated at the beginning, now that he is a gadol he will obligated in avelut. The Rosh disagrees and holds the question of the Maharam is correct. He says that principal of אין דיחוי במצות is true when the mitzvah becomes unfit for some reason but when a person is unfit for the mitzvah then we do say דיחוי. We don't say דחוי regarding the cheftzah but we do say דחוי in the gavra. He brings a proof to this from the halacha (Chagigah 9a) that if one is lame on the first day of the regel so he is exempt from bringing the korbanot of עלייה לרגל even if he is healed on the second day on the regel he is still exempt from the korbanot if the rest of the days of the regel are a makeup for the first day and not an independent obligation. We see since the person was not obligated the first day, he does not become obligated later on.
The Rosh in Berachot cites this same Gemorah in Chagigah as a proof to his shita that since the onan was exempt from havdalah motzei Shabbos he is exempt Sunday as well. We see from the Rosh in Moad Katan that the reason for the petur is not since the person is not obligated in the main chiuv he is exempt from the makeup like the Minchas Chinuch learnt, rather the reason that one is exempt is because of the principle of דיחוי. It is possible that it is one chiuv and still if one is exempt in the beginning they are exempt from the whole mitzvah. The understanding of the M.C. would be limited to a chiuv with an extension time to make it up. That would not be applicable by the shloshim of avelut which is one long chiuv, there are no tashlumin days. From the fact that the Rosh compares that scenario to the Gemorah in Chagigah is because he understands the reason for the exemption is because of דיחוי. The machlokes Rosh and Maharam in Berachot and in Moad Katan go lishitasam if we say this principle of דחוי אצל מצות when the person was unfit for the mitzvah and subsequently becomes fit.
Obviously now there is no contradiction in the Rosh. The Rosh holds like R.A.E. proves from the Rosh in Berachot Ch.4 that Sunday is the time of the chiuv not a makeup time. The reason the Rosh holds that one who was an onan on motzei Shabbos is exempt from havdalah even on Sunday is because of דיחוי. Even in the same chiuv, if one is unfit at the beginning of the mitzvah they became נדחה from the mitzvah.
There is one more point to hammer out. It sounds like from the Rosh in one is an onan at the beginning of motzei Shabbos and then does the burial that night, in that case everyone will agree to say havdalah after the funeral. According to this understanding why, we should still say דחוי? We must say there are three levels of the havdalah obligation. On motzei Shabbos itself since that is the real time to say havdalah, even if one can't do at the beginning the rest of motzei Shabbos is the same obligation. One can't say דחוי in the same frame of chiuv. Sunday is an extension of the main chiuv but a level less than motzei Shabbos and we can say דחוי. The rest of the days are mere makeup days. This point requires some clarification. (See Teshuvot Chasam Sofer Orach Chayim siman 17, see also Steipler Berachot siman 9.)
No comments:
Post a Comment