Question: But we have learned a Beraisa which exempts an Onein from Teki'as Shofar. Can that too, be referring to Chol ha'Mo'ed and not to Yom-Tov?

Answer: And, citing Rebbi Chanina, the Yerushalmi answers 'that since he is forced to prepare the Aron and the shrouds, as we have learned in the Mishnah in Shabbos (151.) "One may wait at the T'chum to bring a coffin and shrouds", it is as if he was busy with the Mitzvah'.

Conclusion: So we see from that he is not permitted to recite a B'rachah even on Shabbos and Yom-Tov, since he is busy waiting at the border to bring a coffin and shrouds?

Question: Leaving us with a Kashya from the Seifa, which states that 'On Shabbos one may recite a B'rachah on his behalf and Bensch Mezuman together with him'?

Proof from Yerushalmi: And so we learned in a Beraisa in the Yerushalmi - 'When does speak (that he is Patur), on a weekday, but on a Shabbos he is permitted to eat and recline and to recite a B'rachah, and to answer after him 'Amen'.

Answer #1: The Ri therefore explains that, according to the Yerushalmi, the Reisha and the Seifa argue.

Answer #2: Rabeinu Nesanel used to say that it is possible to reconcile them - in that, to be sure, if he intends to wait at the T'chum, then we can consider him 'busy with the Mitzvah' and he is forbidden to recite a B'rachah (even on Shabbos); whereas the Seifa speaks where he does not intend to wait at the T'chum.

Qualification: This distinction will not apply if the reason is because of Kavod ha'Meis.

Conclusion: From the Yerushalmi, which explains that the P'tur from taking the Lulav pertains to Chol ha'Mo'ed since he is busy with the Mitzvah, we learn that Aninus applies on Chol ha'Mo'ed.

Clarification: And so it is the other way round; Someone whose deceased is lying before him, and the onus of burial does not lie on him, is not subject to Aninus.

Proof: As is implied by the Yerushalmi, which states that 'If a Meis is handed over to the community for burial, one may eat meat and drink wine; and that once it is handed over to the pall-bearers, it is as if it has been handed over to the community.

Clarification: And 'handed over to the community must be speaking even in the presence of the deceased, because it is not, then in any event, he would be Patur from Animus, since the Dinim of mourning would take effect the moment the deceased is taken out of the house.

Clarification (cont.): And since that is the case, someone who is unable to bury his deceased, for example there where the latter died in jail, and the ruler does not grant his relative permission to bury him.

Clarification (cont.): Since the onus of burial does not lie on him, seeing as he is unable to redeem the body and to take it out and bury it.

Proof: As we learned in the second Perek of Maseches S'machos 'Once the owner has despaired of burying him, he becomes subject to Aveilus, and Aninus no longer applies.

Qualification: But there where the ruler siezed the body - he is not subject to Aveilus either, as it is not comparable to where he despaired from burying him, where he (knows that he will not b allowed to bury him) ...

Qualification (cont.): Whereas in the latter case, he still hopes to arrive at some sort of compromise, as a result of which the ruler will allow him to bury him (at which point, the Dinim of Aveilus will take effect).

Proof: Similarly, by the story of Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon in Bava Metzi'a (84:) the Mitzvah of Aninus came to an end (See Tosfos ha'Rosh).

Precedent: And when Rabeinu Tam's sister died on Shabbos, and they informed him in another town, he ate meat and drank wine, and said that since she had a husband who was obligated to see to her burial, he was not forbidden to eat meat and drink wine.

Conclusion: In all likelihood, he would have been lenient, even if he had been in the same town as the deceased.

Clarification: It is also forbidden to recite Torah by heart (in front of a deceased person).

Clarification: But if he slings it behind him on to the donkey, that is in order.

Ruling #1: And even if you want to forbid this with regard to a Seifer-Torah, with regard to a Nevi'im or Kesuvim it is in order.

Ruling #2: It would appear however, that it is in order even with regard to a Seifer Torah ...

Source: Seeing as the Tana mentions a Seifer-Torah.

Refuted Disproof: Nor does is it seem correct to say it mentions Seifer Torah because of the concession of Nochrim and robbers ...

Reason: Since it is obvious that this is permitted, because why should it be forbidden (See also Tosfos ha'Rosh).

Proof: Furthermore, the Yerushalmi specifically permits slinging a sack-full of Sefarim or of bones of a deceased person, behind him and then to ride on the donkey.

Conclusion: And when it concludes 'Only it goes on the Seifa' ...

Conclusion (cont.): It refers to the concession to ride on them ...

Clarification: And likewise, behind one's back is permitted, even where there are no robbers (See Maharsha).

Question: We learned in Perek ha'Techeiles (Menachos 41.) that 'One attaches Tzitzis on the garments of the deceased', and there is no problem with "Lo'eg la'Rosh"?

Explanation #1: What our Gemara means is that one shames them by the fact that the living are commanded and the dead are not, and we have a principle that 'Someone who is commanded is on a higher level than someone who is not'.

Question: The Gemara in 'T'cheiles' that we just cited obligates attaching Tzitzis on the garment of a deceased person, so why do we remove them?

Answer #1: Rabeinu Tam explains that the Gemara in T'cheiles refers specifically to the people of those days, who all used to wear garments of four corners with Tzitzis, and so too, all those who dealt with the dead also used to all wear Tzitzis, in which case it would constitute "Lo'eg la'Rosh" not to bury them with Tzitzis.

Alternative: Or because the Pasuk writes (in Parshas Tzitzis) "le'Dorosam" - (from which Chazal Darshen 'le'Dor Tam' [a perfect generation).

Answer #1 (cont.): We, on the other hand, do not tend to wear Tzitzis regularly even in our lifetime. Consequently, if we were to attach Tzitzis on the garments of the deceased, it would be akin to "Lo'eg la'Rosh".

Implied Question: Why do we not then at least attach Tzitzis to the garments of those who used to wear them in their lifetime?

Answer: If we did, it would be "Lo'eg la'Rosh" with regard to the others who did not.

Answer #2 (to earlier question): Furthermore, Rabeinu Tam citing the men of Lusir - explains, that the reason that we remove the Tzitzis from the garments of the deceased is because the Gematriyah of "Tzitzis" plus the eight threads and the five knots adds up to six hundred and thirteen. Consequently, attaching Tzitzis to their garments would convey the impression that they have fulfilled the entire Torah, which falls under the category of 'Mechzi ke'Shikra' (it looks like a lie).

Refutation: This is not acceptable however, because if so, why do the ling nowadays wear Tzitzis, seeing as they too, do not observe the entire Torah?

Answer #3: One can answer however, that we rely on Maseches S'machos (Perek 12) where Aba Sha'ul instructed his children to remove the Tzitzis from his garment (when he died).

Implied Question: Even though our Gemara disagrees with that ...

Answer: There are cases where we ignore the Gemara and adopt the rulings of other S'farim ...

Example #1: Such as "Chazon Yeshayahu", like the P'sikta.

Example #2: And "Vayechal" (on a fast-day) like Maseches Sofrim (Perek 17) - whereas the Gemara in Megilah (31.) states that one should Lein the B'rachos and the K'lalos.

Another opinion: The Ritzba would not remove the Tzitzis from the garment of the deceased, but rather he would attach them and stick them into the corner ...

Reason: To avoid involving himself in a dispute - because if they are Chayav, then they have Tzitzis, but if they are not, they are covered.

Clarification: On account of David and Shlomoh, who built the Beis-ha'Mikdash and who descended from Rus ha'Mo'aviyah.

The Correct Text: In the correct texts the Gemara reads 'It is written "Chai" but read "Chayil" ...

Explanation: And the Gemara extrapolates this from the fact that it is written, not "Chayil", but "Chai".

Clarification: He Darshens from the word "ha'Ari" (which is the strongest animal), since 'Vayikra' (on which Sifra de'bei Rav is written) is the most difficult of the (five) Sefarim.

Clarification: And Vayikra is also the middle Seifer.

Explanation: Since he said 'You will be buried soon!'

Rejected Alternative: The Gemara cannot answer like it did earlier - that Domeh came and told them ...

Reason: That was specifically where the woman was going to die the next day; but so long before the predicted death he (Domeh) would not have informed them, seeing as he himself would not have known about it.