The Mishna at the bottom of daf 90b lists a number of people who despite currently being unfit to eat the קרבן פסח may still be included in a group that the קרבן is slaughtered for, seeing as they will be fit to eat it in the evening.
This list includes, amongst others, one who is an אונן and a prisoner who has been promised that he will be freed by evening.
Although they may be included in a group, the קרבן may not be slaughtered for them alone, in case they do not become fit to eat it and the entire קרבן becomes invalid.
Although the term אונן is generally used to refer to someone who has lost a relative and still has not buried him, the usage of this term does seem to vary from place to place, and the reference to one over these 3 daf presents an opportunity to begin clarifying the scope, status, and laws of an אונן as opposed to an אבל and a regular person.
The term אונן/אנינות is found in the Chumash itself in the ודוי מעשרות, the declaration made in the third and sixth year before Pesach verifying that one has separated all his tithes and treated them according to halacha.
One of the phrases in this declaration is “לא אכלתי באוני ממנה” (I never ate from it while I was in my אנינות – Devarim 26/14.)
The implication is that it is forbidden to eat one’s Maaser Sheini while one is an אונן (the other tithes are not eaten by the original owner but by the Levi ,the poor, or the Kohain)
What precisely “באוני” means is not evident from the פסוק,but the Ibn Ezra sees it as synonymous with “אבלי” (my mourning) and connects it to the naming of Binyamin as “בן אוני” (Bereishis 35/18.) and “לחם אונים “ (Hoshea 9/4).
Although the actual word is not used, reference to the day one lost a relative can also be found regarding sacrifices, where Aharon explains that the reason he did not eat from the inaugural sacrifices we because he had lost his 2 sons that day (Vayikra 10/19)
The Targum Yonatan explains that Aharon made a “kal vachomer” argument to Moshe- If an אונן is not permitted to eat מעשר שני, how much more so a קרבן חטאת which has a much greater sanctity.
By making this link, the Targum seems to have made it clear that Aharon had the same status of the אונן mentioned regarding מעשר שני and that this phrase refers to the day of death, leading us to conclude that אנינות דאורייתא refers to the day of death, at least prior to the burial, and possibly also afterwards.
In truth, the Gemara (Zevachim 100b) brings a Beraisa which records a debate between Rebbe and Chachamim as to how long אנינות continues, at least on a rabbinical level/
Rebbe is of the view that it is only until the burial whereas the Chachamim hold that it is the entire day.
The Gemara discusses which day they are talking about, whether it is the day of death or the day of burial, in a case where the two do not coincide.
It argues that it is impossible that Rebbe holds that אנינות on the day of death ends after the burial even before the day is over, seeing as everyone agrees that the entire day of death is subject to the laws of אנינות based on the passuk “ואחריתה כיום מר” (after it is like a bitter day- Amos 8/10 ) and everyone also holds that the night after the day of death is rabbinically subject to the laws of אנינות.
רב ששית It then suggests that the dispute is referring to the day of burial and a long discussion ensues.
The Gemara concludes that according to Rebbe, the whole of the day of death is subject to אנינות דאורייתא and the night after, as well as the day and night after burial are subject to אנינות דרבנן.
Returning to our sugya, Rashi explains that the אונן mentioned in our Mishna who may be included in the group for a קרבן פסח seeing as he will be fit to eat it as night, is referring to one who has not yet buried his death, bringing support from the Gemara in Zevachim.
The Gemara (Pesachim 92b) explains that seeing as אנינות at night (even on the day of death) is only דרבנן, Chazal did not apply their own restrictions in a way that would cause the אונן to miss out on a מצות עשה whose neglect incurs the penalty of כרת.
In contrast, other קרבנות may not be eaten at night during אנינות דרבנן as Chazal upheld their restrictions even in cases where the אונן would miss out on a regular מצות עשה , so long as its neglect does not incur the penalty of כרת .
This requires further explanation- After all, the Gemara (Moed Katan 14b) rules that אבלות does not apply on Chol haMoed seeing as the עשה דרבים (public positive mitzva) of שמחת יום טוב pushes aside the עשה דיחיד of אבלות.
The usage of the term עשה indicates that this is referring to אבלות דאורייתא, in other words, אנינות on the first day.
If a public positive mitzva of rejoicing on chol hamoed pushes aside אבילות דאורייתא , why shouldn’t the mitzva of eating any קרבן, particularly public ones, push aside אנינות דרבנן?
Furthermore, surely the rule of עשה דוחה לא תעשה should allow the mitzva of eating a korban to push aside even a biblical prohibition of אנינות ?
The solution to the later question seems rather straight-forward:
When one action consists of 2 independent results, one a mitzva and one an aveira, the above rule might tell us that the action is defined as a mitzva and not an aveira.
However in the case of the prohibition of eating מעשר שני or קדשים during אנינות, the very essence of the prohibition forbids performing the עשה.
From the fact that the Torah forbids eating קדשים during אנינות , it is clear that the rule of עשה דוחה לא תעשה cannot apply here anymore than it would apply to any of the other prohibitions regarding eating them, such as doing so when impure.
It could follow that when Chazal extend such prohibitions, they do so under the same parameters as the original biblical prohibition and unless they specifically say otherwise, the fact that their decree is stopping the fulfillment of an עשה דאורייתא is irrelevant- that is the essence of the גזירה , just like it is with גזירה דרבה which stops us from fulfilling the מצוות עשה of shofar and lulav and the מצוה מדברי סופרים of קריאת המגילה on shabbos, by way of Chazal’s authority to require one to be שב ואל תעשה (passive) rather than perform a מצוה עשה under circumstances that concern them.
In contrast, when it comes to the laws of אבילות other than those relating to מעשר שני and קדשים, there is no specific עשה or גזירה דרבנן to mourn on Yom-Tov.
The requirement is to mourn during the specified mourning period, and it conflicts with another requirement to rejoice on the festivals – as such, the public requirement to rejoice on the festivals overrides the private requirement to mourn.
Similarly, there is no specific prohibition to eat the קרבן פסח while one is an אונן- the prohibition only follows from the general prohibition of eating קדשים, and whereas on the day of death when this prohibition is דאורייתא , the fact that eating it is an עשה שיש בו כרת might not be sufficient to override the prohibition, it is enough for Chazal to choose not to extend this prohibition if it will stop one performing such a serious mitzva.
We should also note that the 2 sources in the Torah for the laws of אנינות are limited not only to the day of death, but also to a prohibition against eating מעשר שני and קדשים.
A different area of the laws of אנינות relates to exemption from performing מצות, but other than not wearing Tefillin which might be a law of mourning itself, this seems to be dependant on whether one is in fact busy with the burial arrangements, and the main sugya on this can be found at the beginning of the third chapter of Brachos (18a.)
A third area relates to the various laws practiced as an expression of mourning, at least on the day of death. These might be an extension of the prohibition of eating מעשר שני or קדשים , either on a biblical or rabbinical level, but might also be completely non-related, on either level.
This could have major ramifications for whether the law of אבלות , particularly on the day of death, apply on Purim or not.
If we follow the ruling of the Rambam )Aveil 1/1) who holds that the requirement to keep certain signs of mourning on the day of death is indeed part of the law of אנינות דאורייתא, then it is unlikely that מצוה מדברי סופרים such as rejoicing on Purim, will override this .
On the other hand, if we follow other Rishonim who hold that the laws of aveilus are only rabbinical in status, it is more likely that the higher status of Simchas Purim as a מצוה מדי סופרים AND a מצוה דרבים will override them.
The resolution of this question is way beyond the scope of this post, but it is indeed a matter of debate between the Mechaber and the Rema in Orach Chaim whether public mourning applies on Purim or not! (O.C. 696/4 but compare Y.D. 401/7 where the Mechaber seems to agree with the Rema that it does not.)- Perhaps the law of הלכה כדברי המיקל בערוב should apply?!
These posts are intended to raise issues and stimulate further research and discussion on contemporary topics related to the daf. They are not intended as psak halacha.