The Groom, the Mourner, and the Shipowner

There is a Braisa (brought in Berachos 11a, 16a-b, Sukah 25a, etc.) which discusses certain exemptions for kerias shema. The Braisa darshens the pasuk of ????????????? ?????????? ????????????? ????????? to exclude one who is ???? ????? and to exclude a chosson. Based on this drasha the Braisa concludes that one who marries a besula is patur from shema while one who marries an almana is chayev.

The Gemara proceeds to question the difference between marrying a besula and marrying an almana. If one who marries a besula is exempt from shema because he is ???? ????? then one who marries an almana should be exempt for the same reason. The Gemara answers that marrying a besula involves ???? whereas marrying an almana does not. But the Gemara rejects this distinction because someone whose boat sunk or who is an avel also have ???? and yet they are not exempt from shema. The Gemara concludes that marrying a besula is an exemption because it involves ???? ????? as opposed to boats sinking and aveilus which involve ???? ?????.

Rashi explains that the reason why we need a separate derasha to exempt a chosson (and not simply exempt him based on the first derasha which exempts an ???? ?????) is that if we only had one derasha exempting an ???? ????? we would limit it to someone who was actually physically ???? ????? and thus a chosson who is only ???? in a machshava, but not something physical, would not be exempted.

This leads me to the following question:

Why should ???? ????? be any different from ???? ?????? They are both machshavos which prevent you from saying shema properly. Now the Gemara in Sukah concludes by saying:

??? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ????? (as opposed to the Gemara in Berachos which leaves out ?????? ????? ???? ?? ?????). This would seem to indicate that the exemption of ???? ????? falls under the category of ???? ????? whereas ???? ????? does not, and that is why the former warrants an exemption while the latter does not. The problem is that there is no mitzva for a chosson to be ????. It is simply the metzius that a chosson is nervous when marrying a besula due to the possible physiological ramifications. So it doesn’t really make sense to say that the ???? itself is considered ???? ?????. Another option is to say that it’s not that the ???? itself is considered ???? ????? but that the ???? will prevent him from saying shema properly and therefore it exempts him, but only when the ???? is the result of a mitzva. When the ???? is the result of something that is not a mitzva, such as aveilus or boat-sinking, it doesn’t exempt him. But we need a reason why this should be so. Tosafos in Sukah says:

????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ??”? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????

which would essentially mean that when the ???? stems from a non-mitzva we require him to overcome it. But why should this be so? What is the difference between a mitzva and aveilus? Both were “forced” upon him, so why should we require him to overcome the ???? of aveilus but not the ???? of marrying a besula. We can’t say that there is nothing halachically compelling the avel to have ????, because there is also nothing halachically compelling a chosson to have ????. All there is is something compelling the situation which lends itself to ????, but the same can be said for the avel. Granted, the compellor by the chosson is a mitzva whereas by the avel it is an “act of God”. But there does not seem to be any reason why that should make a difference.

In other words, what I’m asking is why is the ???? of a chosson more justified than that of an avel? If we force an avel to overcome his ???? then why don’t we force a chosson to overcome his ???? as well? And we can’t say that there is a difference between the specific ???? of a chosson vs. that of an avel, because then it would have nothing to do with ???? vs. ????.

The Rambam (Hilchos Kerias Shema 4:1) writes:

?? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ??????

The Kessef Mishneh there says:

?????? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ?”? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ??”? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ?????

He seems to be understanding the Rambam as saying that the ???? is considered ???? ?????. Now perhaps we could make a hanacha that the ???? is impossible to overcome and therefore the ???? is an automatic byproduct of the mitzva and therefore is actually considered part of the mitzva and we can say ???? ????? ???? ?? ?????. Whereas the ???? of aveilus does not stem from a mitzva and therefore cannot possibly be considered ???? ????? and the avel would therefore be obligated in shema despite not being able to overcome his ????. However, this would not help for Tosafos who clearly says that we force someone to overcome a ???? ?????. And furthermore, the Beit Yosef (Orach Chaim 70) says:

????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?????

So he is clearly saying that the ???? itself is not considered ???? ?????.

The Levush (70:3) writes:

??? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ????… ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ????? ????… ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ???????

The words ???? ??? ????? ????? imply that the ???? itself is not ???? ?????, but that we consider it like ???? ?????. He then distinguishes this from ???? ????? by which we say that financial ????? are not an excuse to be docheh a mitzva – get some bitachon and overcome it. In 106:1 he writes:

?? ??????? ?????? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ?????? ???? which portrays ???? ????? and ???? ????? as two separate exemptions.

While his chiluk between a chosson and a shipowner would explain the halachic difference, the sevara by a shipowner would not seem to apply to an avel since an avel’s ???? has nothing to do with ???? ?????? ???????. So why would we tell an avel to overcome his ???? more than a chosson?

The Aruch Hashulchan (70:5) similarly writes:

??? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ??”? ????? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????? ????

Again, the idea is that if the ????? stems from a mitzva then he doesn’t have to overcome it, but if it stems from a reshus he does have to overcome it. Why?