Daf Ditty: Pesachim 102: Bundles

Buxtorfi De Abbreviaturis Hebraicis Liber novus et ...1

Johann Buxtorf · 1629

1 A Short Introduction to the Hebrew Tongve, Being a Translation of the Learned John Buxtorfius' Epitome of His Hebrew Grammar. That Those which are Ignorant of the Latine Tongue; May Attaine by this English Introduction to the Knowledge and Apprehension

1

The Gemara returns to the subject of interrupting one’s meal to recite Kiddush. The Sages taught: With regard to members of a group who were reclining and eating a meal, and the day of Shabbat was sanctified, they bring one of the diners a cup of wine and he recites over it the sanctification of the day, i.e., kiddush, and a second cup over which he recites Grace after Meals; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: One may continue eating the rest of his meal, even until dark.

Rabbi Yosei maintains that once they have finished their meal, they bring out two cups; over the first cup one recites the Grace after Meals, and over the second cup he recites the sanctification of the day. The Gemara asks: Why do they need two cups? And let them say both of them, Grace after Meals and kiddush, over one cup.

2

Rav Huna said that Rav Sheshet said: One does not recite two sanctifications, i.e., for two mitzvot such as Grace after Meals and kiddush, over one cup. What is the reason for this halakha? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Because one does not perform mitzvot in bundles. If someone performs multiple mitzvot all in one go, he gives the impression that they are a burdensome obligation that he wants to complete as fast as possible.

Mitzvot are not bundled up." It is wrong to perform two mitzvot at" – ןיֵא ןיִשׂוֹע תוֹוצִמ תוֹליִבֲח תוֹליִבֲח תוֹליִבֲח תוֹוצִמ ןיִשׂוֹע ןיֵא once (“killing two birds with one stone”). Each mitzvah deserves individual attention. For instance, we do not use the same cup of wine for both Birkat Hamazon (the blessing made after meals) and for Sheva Berachot (special blessings made when celebrating a marriage).

Steinzaltz

And does one not perform multiple mitzvot together? But wasn’t it taught in a baraita: One who enters his home at the conclusion of Shabbat recites the blessing over the wine, and then over the light, and then over the spices, and thereafter he recites havdala over the cup of wine. And if he has only one cup of wine, he leaves it for after he eats his food, and uses it for Grace after Meals, and arranges all of the other blessings together thereafter. This baraita indicates that one may use the same cup both for Grace after Meals and havdala. The Gemara answers: We cannot prove anything from here, as a case where one does not have an

3 additional cup is different. One who has two cups of wine is required to recite Grace after Meals over one of the cups and havdala over the other one.

Tosafos

'סות ה"ד ו נ ירמי והנ ורתל י והי דח'א אסכ דח'א והי י ורתל והנ ירמי נ ו ה"ד 'סות

Tosfos explains why this goes according to Rebbi Yossi exclusively

רל ' י ו ס י רפ י ך - יכ ו ן ורתד י והי תדועס'א תבש ותאק , תישירפדכ ליעל 'ד( ,).ק ךהד הדועס הלוע ול תדועסל תבש תדועסל ול הלוע הדועס ךהד ,).ק 'ד( ליעל תישירפדכ , ותאק תבש תדועס'א והי י ורתד ן ו יכ

The Gemara is querying Rebbi Yossi - because, seeing as both (Birchas ha'Mazon and Kidush) come for the Shabbos meal, as Tosfos explained earlier (on Daf 100.).

הוה היל רמימל ורת ו י והי דח'א .אסכ דח'א והי י ו ורת רמימל היל הוה

One ought to have recited them both over one cup,

לבא 'רל הדוהי אל ךירפ - יכ ו ן תכרבד וזמה ן תדועס'א לוח שודיקו לע הדועס ,האבה יא ן רמול םהינש לע סוכ .דחא סוכ לע םהינש רמול ן יא ,האבה הדועס לע שודיקו לוח תדועס'א ן וזמה תכרבד ן ו יכ

The Gemara does not query Rebbi Yehudah however, - because, since Birchas ha'Mazon, according to him, goes on a weekday meal, and Kidush, on the forthcoming (Shabbos) meal, one cannot recite them both on the same cup.

Rashbam explains the reason why we do not do mitzvos “as bundles” is that by combining the performance of several mitzvos together, it appears that the person considers the mitzvos as a burden, and he wishes to dismiss himself of the inconvenience as quickly as possible.2

:explains ( פל י ה ד ,Tosafos in Moed Kattan (8b

תופסות ה"ד יפל יאש ן יברעמ ן החמש החמשב החמש ן יברעמ ן יאש יפל ה"ד תופסות

- תריזג בותכה שירדדכ ןמקל ארקמ המלשד ארקמ ןמקל שירדדכ בותכה תריזג

This is a Gezeiras ha'Kasuv, like we expound below (9a) from the verse about [Chanukas Beis ha'Mikdash through] Shlomo.

2 https://dafdigest.org/masechtos/Pesachim%20102.pdf

4 ו ימלשוריב שירד ביתכדמ אלמ עובש תאז עב ל יכמשר ילוי

The Yerushalmi expounds from "Malei Shavu'a Zos" (Lavan told Yakov to marry Rachel only after the seven days of feasting over his Nisu'in to Leah).

םעטו הארנ תצק ומכד יאש ן ישוע ן תוצמ תוליבח יעבד נ ן אהיש ובל נפ ו י הוצמל תחא אלו הנפי ומצע הנמיה ומצע הנפי אלו תחא הוצמל י ו נפ ובל אהיש ן נ יעבד

It seems that the reason is like "we do not do Mitzvos in bundles".

We require that his heart be free (totally dedicated) to one Mitzvah [at a time], and he not divert himself from it;

ןכו החמש החמשב היהי ובל ונפ י .החמשב י ונפ ובל היהי החמשב החמש ןכו

Likewise, we do not mix Simchos, so his heart will be free to one Simchah [at a time].

Above, that the reason is that a person’s heart and mind should be focused upon a mitzvah opportunity that comes his way, and when a person attends to two mitzvos at once, he cannot focus upon either one adequately. It is important to note that the case featured in Moed Kattan is that it is prohibited to get married on Chol HaMoed.

You shall rejoice in the— גחב ך תחמשו “ The Gemara says this is prohibited is based upon the verse מש ח ה “ festival,” and not to be distracted with celebrating with your new wife. We invoke the rule .”we may not mix one celebration with another— ברעמ י ן א י ן החמשב ןיא ןיבע

writes that the reason we may not do mitzvos “in bundles” is only due” ( אהו ה ד Tosafos (Sota 8a to a rabbinic restriction. Mitzpeh Eisan (ibid.) explains that we look upon this rule as being only rabbinic if the reason is as Rashbam explains, in order to avoid the appearance of the mitzvos being as a burden. But, according to the reason given by Tosafos, that we want each mitzvah to have one’s full and complete attention, we should realize that this is based upon the verse to rejoice properly on the festival, as mentioned in the discussion in Moed Kattan.

Therefore, we would say that the consideration to not perform more than one mitzvah at a time is mentions that the reason not to do mitzvos “as ( אה ו רצ ב י )#ת a Torah mandated rule. Sefer 84 . רוטפ הוצמב קסוע הוצממ bundles” is due to the rule

As long as a person is involved in one mitzvah, he is technically exempt from subsequent mitzvah צמ ו ו ה obligations. If he does more, nonetheless, the second mitzvah is performed with his being an This would mean that he either will have no credit for it, or at best, a low-level fulfillment as . יאו . יאו השועו צמ ו ו ה an

notes that this explanation does not fit into our sugya, where the mitzvos of birkas מש ו א ל רבד The .is invoked בח י ל ו ת hamazon and Kiddush are not done simultaneously, yet the rule of

5

Bundling of Mitzvot

Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

As we have already learned (see Pesahim 100), Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yose differ on how to deal with a situation where a Friday afternoon meal continues into Shabbat. According to Rabbi Yehuda you must end your meal in order to stop and welcome Shabbat; Rabbi Yose rules that you can continue your meal.

The discussion on our daf relates to the cups of wine that must be drunk to close the meal and to welcome the Shabbat. According to the baraita we will need two separate cups of wine, a ruling explained by Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak as stemming from the principle ein osin mitzvot havilot havilot – that we do not perform mitzvot “in bundles.” The idea is that every mitzva deserves its own focus, and if we try to perform several mitzvot with the same cup of wine it will be impossible to focus on each mitzva separately. A similar idea is ein me’arvin simha be-simha – that we do not combine two joyous occasions (e.g. to have a wedding during Pesah or Sukkot), because each one deserves its own focus.

The Gemara distinguishes between a case where we want to combine Kiddush together with birkat ha-Mazon (Grace after meals), when this rule would apply, and a case where we need to combine Kiddush and havdala (the separation service after Shabbat or Yom Tov), like when one of the holidays (Pesah, Shavu’ot or Sukkot) falls out on Saturday night and we need to make havdala to commemorate the end of Shabbat and Kiddush to usher in the holiday. In such a case, the Gemara rules that it would be appropriate to use one cup for both ceremonies, since Kiddush ve-havdala hada milta he – the ceremonies of Kiddush and havdala are one and the same, while Kiddush and birkat ha-Mazon are two different things.

In explanation of this statement, some rishonim argue that Kiddush and havdala are similar in that they introduce a meal, while birkat ha-Mazon ends the meal. Others point out that havdala contains an aspect of Kiddush in that it serves to emphasize the uniqueness of Shabbat in distinguishing between Shabbat and the weekday. Another suggestion that is raised is that, in this case, Kiddush and havdala are actually dependent on one another, since the holiday cannot begin until Shabbat ends. When we announce that Shabbat is over, we effectively welcome the holiday; when we welcome the holiday we are calling for an end to Shabbat. Birkat ha-mazon has no such relationship with Kiddush at all.

3 https://steinsaltz.org/daf/pesahim102/

6 A Package Deal: Ein Osin Mitzvos Chavilos Chavilos

Meir Goodman writes:4 The Gemara in Pesachim (102a-b), amidst a lengthy discussion of the various laws of Kiddush and Berachos, quotes the following Beraisa: Our Rabbis taught, members of a group who were reclining and Shabbos began while they were still involved in their meal — Rebi Yehudah says, we bring a cup of wine and say Kiddush over it. Rebi Yosi says, the group may continue eating after dark. When they finish, they should say Birchas HaMazon on one cup of wine, and then Kedushas HaYom on another. The Gemara asks, why is it necessary to make Birchas HaMazon and Kiddush on two separate cups of wine? Let the mevareich say both on one! Rav Sheishes cryptically responds, because we do not say two kedushos on one cup. The Gemara asks, what is the reason, to which Rav Nachman responds: ein osin mitzvos chavilos chavilos — we do not make miztvos into bundles.

The Gemara in Sotah (8a) quotes a Beraisa as the source for this principle: We don’t make two Sotos drink the mei sotah at once; we don’t purify two metzora’im at once; we don’t pierce the ears of two avadim at once; nor do do we break the neck of two calves at once, since we don’t make mitzvos chavilos chavilos.

Rashi and the Rashbam in each respective Gemara explain that the problem with making mitzvos into “bundles” is that it appears as though the mitzvos are burdensome to the performer. By “killing two birds with one stone,” as it were, and making two sotos drink from the same cup of mei sotah, or reciting both Birchas HaMazon and Kiddush on one cup of wine, one makes it seem as though the performance of these mitzvos are so burdensome to him that he will not expend the extra effort to prepare a second cup of wine or mei sotah.5

4 https://thelamdan.net/2015/03/27/a-package-deal-ein-osin-mitzvos-chavilos-chavilos-by-meir-goodman/ 5 MARCH 27, 2015 / THEYULAMDAN

7 The Gemara in Pesachim continues to ask on the premise that we do not make two Kedushos on one cup of wine by quoting statements from Abaye and Rava. When Yom Tov Rishon falls out on Motzoai Shabbos, Abaye holds that the correct order of the berachos said during Kiddush HaYom is yayin, Kiddush, zman, neir, Havdalah; whereas Rava holds the correct order is yayin, Kiddush, neir, Havdalah, zman. Despite their disagreement, both Abaye and Rava agree that we recite Havdalah and Kiddush over one cup of wine. Why is this not a problem of saying two kedushos? The Gemara answers that Havdalah and Kiddush are basically one inyan — both profess to kedushas hayom, and the Havdalah itself makes mention of kedushas Yom Tov with the phrase hamavdil bein kodesh l’kodesh (see Rashi and Rashbam).

The conclusion of the Gemara in Pesachim yields an important limitation on the problem of ein osin mitzvos chavilos chavilos. Generally, two separate mitzvos cannot be performed simultaneously over one cup of wine, or any other cheftza. The Beraisa in Sotah, the source for this prohibition, teaches that ein osin mitzvos chavilos chavilos is problematic even when the two mitzvos being performed are the same mitzvah. Since they are nonetheless distinct insofar as they are two separate fulfillments of said mitzvah, whether it be making a sotah drink mei sotah or piercing the ear of an eved who wishes to stay on with his master, they cannot be “bundled” together. However, Havdalah and Kiddush, despite being separate obligations, may be recited together, as they are connected.

It is interesting that the intrinsic connection between Havdalah and Kiddush is sufficient to alleviate the issue of chavilos, whereas multiples of the same mitzvah, despite their complete similarity, does not. In light of Rashi and the Rashbam’s understand of the issue at hand, this distinction can be easily explained. Two separate performances of the same mitzvah are still two separate actions, irrespective of the fact that they are the same action, and simultaneously performing them may arouse the suspicion of onlookers who see this “bundling” as indicative that the performer considers their performance to be burdensome. Reciting Havdalah and Kiddush one

8 the same cup of wine, however, cannot be seen as burdensome, as their intrinsic connection makes it logical that they should be performed together, and thus does not incite suspicion.

Later in Arvei Pesachim, Tosafos (115a s.v. v’hadar achil chasa belo beracha) quotes an opinion which, in light of the above discussion, is significantly problematic. The Mishna (114a) teaches that at the beginning of the Seder, a vegetable is taken and dipped — what it is dipped into is the subject of a machlokes Rishonim. The Gemara (114b) states that karpas, as this step in the Seder is colloquially called, is intended to serve as ahekeirah, an anomaly that piques the interest of the children at the table and causes them to question and take heed to the events of the night. The Gemara then quotes a dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Chisda regarding when the beracha of al achilas maror should be said if one uses a vegetable suitable for maror, such as lettuce, for karpas. Rav Huna says, one should first make a borei pri hadamah on the maror being used for the hekeirah, and later say al achilas maror on the maror being used to fulfill the actual mitzvah. Rav Chisdah, on the other hand, holds that both al achilas maror and borei pri hadamah should be made on the maror for hekeirah, and no beracha should be made on the maror for the mitzvah.

Both Rav Chisdah and Rav Huna indicate that no additional borei pri hadamah needs to be said over the maror shel mitzvah. Tosafos explains that this is because the maror is considered to be amongst the food items that are ba’im besoch haseudah and whose berachos are exempted by hamotzi. Thus, the hamotzi made on the matzah prior to the eating of the maror exempts the recitation of a borei pri hadamah.

Tosafos quotes a dissenting opinion from Rav Yosef Tuv Elem, who implies that the hamotzi does not exempt the maror. Rav Yosef Tuv Elem says, “Why do other vegetables come at the beginning of the seudah? In order to exempt the chazeres (maror) from its appropriate beracha.” Rav Yosef Tuv Elem seems to be saying the Chazal instituted karpas in order to make a borei pri hadamah for the maror. This claim is highly problematic; if the maror’s beracha is not exempted by

9 the hamotzi, why can’t the borei pri hadamah be said on the maror itself? Why necessitate another achilah earlier on in the Seder? Further, Tosafos himself asks, how could Rav Yosef Tuv Elem say that the purpose of karpas is to exempt the maror when the Gemara clearly says that it exists to serve as a hekeirah?

Tosafos’ next two questions shed considerable light on Rav Yosef Tuv Elem’s intent. Tosafos first asks, “and further, ein osin mitzvos chavilos chavilos does not apply here.” Tosafos’ sudden introduction of the concept ein osin mitzvos chavilos chavilos suggests that Rav Yosef Tuv Elem thinks that it is necessary to make a separate borei pri hadamah on the karpas precisely because chavilos prevents making both a borei pri hadamah and an al achilas maror on one piece of vegetable. To this Tosafos asks, what does this have to do with chavilos? These two berachos are not separate mitzvos; in order to eat the maror, one needs to make the appropriate birchas hanehenin. They are intrinsically linked, and surely would not incite an onlooker to suspect that the performer feels that these mitzvos are burdensome in any way! To buttress his claim that birchos hanehenin do not pose an issue of chavilos, Tosafos points to Rav Chisda himself, who clearly permits making both berachos on the first achilah!

Tosafos in Berachos (39b s.v. hakol modim) uses the same sevara as Rav Yosef Tuv Elem to justify another practice at the Seder. The Gemara says that one of the pieces of matzah needs to be perusah in order to fulfill the implication of lechem ani — poor man’s bread. Tosafos writes that the broken piece of matzah should be placed under the complete piece, and the mevareich should make hamotzi on the complete piece and al achilas matzah on the broken piece. One should not, however, make both berachos on the broken matzah as the would be a problem of ein osin mitzvos chavilos chavilos. Tosafos interjects and says that this doesn’t make sense: birchos hanehenin do not pose an issue of chavilos. Tosafos brings proof from Kiddush, where birchas Kiddush and borei pri hagafen are said simultaneously on one cup!

10 The totality of Tosafos’ questions on both Rav Yosef Tuv Elem and the opinion cited in Tosafos in Berachos clearly point in one direction. Normally, birchos hanehenin do not pose a problem of chavilos, as evidenced by Rav Chisdah and Kiddush. However, a small diyuk in Tosafos in Berachos reveals that sometimes the issue applies outside of the norm. Tosafos writes that one should not make two berachos on the broken matzah because it is “like making mitzvos chavilos.” Tosafos’ language suggests that the issue here is not precisely an issue of chavilos, but runs close to it. (This phraseology stands in contrast to other cases where the Gemara and Rishonim simply state that the situation is osin mitzvos chavilos, and do not add the modifier “like.”) I think the intent of Rav Yosef Tuv Elem and Tosafos in Berachos is as follows: While it is true that chavilos does not necessarily pose an issue when it comes to birchos hanehenin, nonetheless, in situations when it is convenient to arrange the mitzvos in a fashion where even a semblance of chavilos is abrogated, it is preferable. Thus, when you have two matzos in front of you, since it is possible to separate the two berachos on each piece of matzah, one should. Likewise, since Chazal already instituted karpas to serve as an hekeirah, we might as well use its borei pri hadamah to exempt the maror. The general principle that emerges is that while these situations are not real issues of chavilos, since they are like making mitzvos chavilos, it is preferable to separate the two berachos when convenient.

It is hard to imagine, however, that our current conception of the reason behind the issue of ein osin mitzvos chavilos chavilos works alongside Rav Yosef Tuv Elem and Tosafos in Berachos. If the problem is that “killing two birds with one stone” looks as if one finds the mitzvos to be burdensome, birchos hanehenin certainly do not create such an issue. It is clear to any onlooker that the beracha is being said in order to facilitate the performance of the mitzvah of achilas matzah or achilas maror. How could be say that semblance of chavilos warrants a separation of the berachos when convenient if there is simply no semblance of the issue in the first place?

It seems, then, that these two approaches argue in the very reason why ein osin mitzvos chavilos chavilos. If Tosafos understands like Rashi and the Rashbam cited above, we can understand the

11 full thrust of his difficulties. There is simply no sevara within such a framework that would justify extra hakpadah for chavilos outside the normative situations discussed by the Gemara. On the other hand, Tosafos in Moed Katan (8b s.v.lefi she’ein) suggests a different explanation. Tosafos contends that the principle ein marvin simcha b’simcha is similar to the reason why we don’t make mitzvos chavilos: it is necessary for the performer of the mitzvah to focus his full attention on it. Whereas Rashi and the Rashbam see the issue as one of appearances, Tosafos sees it as a basic tool to ensure that each mitzvah is accorded proper concentration. Simultaneous performance of two mitzvos confuses the performer and makes it more difficult to focus on each separate obligation. By bifurcating their performances and demanding, for example, two cups of wine for Kiddush and Havdalah, the individual is able to focus better on each action.

If Rav Yosef Tuv Elem and Tosafos in Berachos subscribe to this approach, and ein osin mitzvos chavilos chavilos is primarily an issue of kavanah, then we can understand how even birchos hanehenin can pose an issue. Despite the fact that birchos hanehenin are necessary in order to perform the actual obligation, separating the two berachos and relegating each to a different cheftza helps the performer focus more fully on each duty: that of achilas maror or matzah, and that of reciting a birchas hanehenin. It is not a real issue of ein osin mitzvos chavilos chavilos because the two berachos are not inherently distinct. Nonetheless, if convenient, Rav Yosef Tuv Elem and Tosafos in Berachos suggest hakpadah for chavilos can benefit the mevareich’s overall concentration and intent.

Multitasking: The gold standard in efficiency or a fast track to utter distraction? Today, the rabbis weigh in.

Rabbi Joshua Mikutis writes:6

In today’s daf, the rabbis are again considering what happens when an ordinary Friday afternoon meal extends into sundown and becomes a Shabbat meal. As we learned back on page 100, Rabbi

6 Myjewishlearning.com

12 Yehuda holds that you simply say Kiddush and continue with your meal — eventually completing the meal with Birkat Hamazon (the Grace After Meals).

Rabbi Yosei, however, requires that you say Birkat Hamazon to end the Friday afternoon meal and then make Kiddush in order to start a new meal for Shabbat. Two days ago, this led to a rather uncomfortable situation when both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei found themselves at a Friday afternoon meal that extended into the evening.

On today’s page, the Gemara returns to that debate but with a new question: can you use the same cup for Kiddush and Birkat Hamazon? (Today, most Jews don’t make Birkat Hamazon over a cup of wine, but the rabbis did.) In other words, can you make that cup of wine multitask?

At first, the Gemara apparently makes the case for efficiency: Since we have two blessings that are back-to-back and require wine, why not just make it one glass of wine for both?

Not so fast:

Rav Huna said that Rav Sheshet said: One does not recite two sanctifications over one cup. What is the reason? Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: Because one does not perform mitzvot havilot havilot — in bundles.

Rav Sheshet and Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak waltz in to dismantle our dreams of efficiency. Their reasoning is powerful and instructive. Though our inclination might be to combine obligations, we are not permitted to do so. There is a sympathetic psychological reading here: that generally when trying to go from place A to place B, we take the quickest possible route — or, if we are doing work, we calculate the most economical way to achieve our ends. The mindset for performing mitzvot, these rabbis remind us, should be different, and we must recalibrate. Only in taking each mitzvah individually are we able to develop a better sense of its place, meaning and relevance.

Kiddush and Birkat Hamazon are functionally distinct, as the Gemara will go on to explain. Kiddush comes at a specific time each week and connects to themes of creation and freedom. Birkat Hamazon is recited whenever specific types of meals are eaten and offers thanks for the food, land, Jerusalem and God’s goodness. The rabbis want us to honor each of these with the intentionality — and the cup — it deserves.

Multitasking might accomplish more at once, but it can cause us to miss the uniqueness of individual moments. When we pause and focus on individual mitzvot, we can learn to see the world in a sharper way — one full of experiences, scents, individuals and more that we can cherish for what makes them unique.

Ve-Nimrinhu le-Travaihu a-Chada Kasa

13 Rav Avi Baumol writes:7

If one is partaking of a meal on erev Shabbat, and in the interim the sun sets, according to R. Yossi he may continue the meal. However, upon completion, he should recite birkat ha-mazon over one cup of wine, and use a second cup to recite kiddush. The gemara queries why it is not possible to use only ONE cup instead of TWO. The answer is that "we do not recite two kedushot over one cup of wine." R. Nachman bar Yitzchak explains the rationale behind this halakha: "because one should not bundle mitzvot together" (ein osin mitzvot CHAVILOT CHAVILOT).

What is the nature of this prohibition? Why can one not combine mitzvot, or recite two kedushot over one cup of wine? The Rishonim offer two possibilities for this halakha:

1. The Rashbam (s.v. "chavilot") explains that by doing two or more mitzvot at the same time one gives the APPEARANCE that their performance is a burden to him. It seems that he wishes to dispense of his obligations and go through the formalities as quickly as possible. Although, in reality, he may do both mitzvot properly, outwardly it appears that he is not doing so.

2. Tosafot (Mo'ed Katan 8b s.v. "Lefi") compare this prohibition to the maxim that "one should not combine one simcha with another." Just as one can only concentrate on one simcha at a time, so too, one must leave his heart open for only one mitzva and not introduce additional elements which may divert his attention from its performance. It is not feasible to concentrate fully on two mitzvot at once; and therefore they should be performed separately. It seems that according to Tosafot, the issur is more inherent and relates to the quality of the performance of the mitzva itself - not only to external appearances.

According to the Rashbam, since the problem is the appearance that performing mitzvot is a burden, we might apply this even in a situation where the mitzvot are not simultaneous. Using one

7 https://www.etzion.org.il/en/arvei-pesachim-7-102b

14 cup for both birkat ha-mazon and kiddush appears to be a method for disposing of burdensome mitzvot with as little expense and effort as possible.

The explanation of Tosafot, however, is understandable only regarding the standard cases of "chavilot chavilot" where one performs two SEPARATE mitzvot SIMULTANEOUSLY (e.g. concurrently piercing the ears of two slaves who have decided to remain with their master after their mandatory six years of bondage have expired). Under these circumstances, it is not feasible to give one's full attention to both mitzvot. It is difficult, though, to apply this interpretation to our gemara, since kiddush and birkat ha-mazon are each recited CONSECUTIVELY, albeit over the same cup of wine. Consequently, the quality of the performance of each is not actually compromised at all, as one can pay full attention to each mitzva at the time of its performance without being distracted by other thoughts.

We can solve our difficulty, if we assume that the case of our gemara is similar but not identical to the "chavilot chavilot" of Tosafot. It is interesting to note that the Rambam (Hilkhot Shabbat 29:13) does not mention the phrase "chavilot chavilot" when referring to our gemara. He formulates our case as follows: "He should not bless (birkat ha-mazon) and make kiddush on one cup since you cannot do two mitzvot on one cup, as the mitzva of kiddush and the mitzva of birkat ha-mazon are both mitzvot from the Torah."

Rav Soloveitchik zt"l explains that the Rambam is referring to an independent problem with regard to kiddush and birkat ha-mazon. The problem is not that one is performing two actions AT THE SAME TIME. Rather, the prohibition results from the fact that one is performing two mitzvot on one specific object ("cheftza") of mitzva. Kiddush and birkat ha-mazon, both separate mitzvot, cannot 'share' one object upon which the mitzva is recited. For this reason, the Rambam specifically refrains from using the language of chavilot chavilot and mentions instead the problem of "two mitzvot on one object." [We will expand on this point later.]

15 According to this approach, the gemara COMPARES our case with the prohibition of "chavilot chavilot". Nevertheless, it does not IDENTIFY the two. This explanation can also be suggested as a solution of the difficulty we raised in Tosafot.

Havdala Ve-Kiddush Chada Milta

The gemara states outright that kiddush and havdala constitute one category (and may be recited over the same cup of wine) while kiddush and birkat ha-mazon do not. What about havdala and birkat ha-mazon? Is it possible to recite both of them on one cup of wine?

At first glance we would assume that since kiddush and havdala are similar, the status of havdala would be parallel to that of kiddush and one would not be permitted to recite both havdala and birkat ha-mazon on one cup.

Once again, the Rambam deviates from the standard assumption and distinguishes between kiddush and havdala. In Hilkhot Shabbat (29:12) he describes the process of finishing a meal as Shabbat ebbs away: "He should say birkat ha-mazon on a cup and afterwards he should make havdala ON IT." In the very next halakha, he proscribes the making of kiddush and reciting of birkat ha-mazon over the same cup of wine: "... and he should not bless (birkat ha-mazon) and make kiddush on one cup since you cannot perform two mitzvot on one cup, as the mitzva of kiddush and the mitzva of birkat ha-mazon are both mitzvot from the Torah." The Ramach and the Ra'avad both disagree with the Rambam, arguing that there should be no difference between kiddush and havdala.

Prior to any further discussion of this issue, it is crucial to define precisely why one may combine kiddush and havdala but not kiddush and birkat ha-mazon.

16 The Rashbam (s.v. Kiddusha) explains that since both kiddush and havdala are a function of "kedushat Yamim Tovim," they are encompassed under one rubric. Birkat ha-mazon, on the other hand, is unconnected to kedushat Yamim Tovim, therefore it cannot be combined with the cup of kiddush. According to the Rashbam's reasoning, kiddush and havdala are comparable, and neither should merge with birkat ha-mazon.

The Me'iri distinguishes between different levels of obligation - while kiddush and birkat ha- mazon are Torah laws (de'oraita) in nature, havdala is rabbinic (derabanan). Thus, havdala can be combined with birkat ha-mazon, while kiddush cannot. He infers this distinction from the words of the Rambam: "Kiddush and birkat ha-mazon are both mitzvot from the Torah" (as opposed to havdala). However, in the beginning of the 29th chapter, the Rambam seems to couple kiddush with havdala indicating that BOTH are from the Torah (see ch. 29:1, and Maggid Mishneh).

Perhaps we can suggest that havdala and birkat ha-mazon can be integrated, although kiddush and birkat ha-mazon cannot. This is because havdala is not only praise recited at the culmination of Shabbat, but actually signals the termination of oneg Shabbat. (We will expand on this idea in later shiurim.) Similarly, birkat ha-mazon of se'uda shlishit is a berakha which signals the close of se'udat Shabbat. (For instance, "retzei" is recited, according to many Rishonim, although Shabbat has already ended, since the birkat ha-mazon reflects the quality of the se'uda as a se'udar Shabbat.) Both berakhot share the same theme - the end of oneg shabbat.

Therefore, both the havdala and birkat ha-mazon merge and are recited over one cup, without violating the dictum of chavilot chavilot. In this regard, the relationship between havdala and birkat ha-mazon is similar to that of kiddush and havdala. However, kiddush which signals the beginning of oneg shabbat is totally incommensurate with the birkat ha-mazon of a se'udat chol (the meal from Friday which he is finishing). This might be what the Maggid Mishneh had in mind when he claimed that havdala and birkat ha-mazoare related in that they both refer to the past - Shabbat.

17 Therefore, they are considered to be one unit. Kiddush and birkat ha-mazon, however, aim in two opposite directions; birkat ha-mazon, the past, kiddush, the future.

One last approach is suggested by the Rav zt'l. Based on the Rav's understanding that the issur in our gemara is a problem with making two mitzvot on one object of mitzva, the underlying assumption is that both berakhot involve the actual USE of a cup of wine, and do not merely constitute a text recited within the context of wine. With regard to kiddush and birkat ha-mazon, the Rav says, there are two components to fulfilling the mitzva:

1. Reciting a blessing on a cup of wine, based on the halakha that shira -song - should be recited over wine. This focuses mainly on the text. 2. Establishing a meal over a "kos shel berakha", thereby transforming the cup itself into part of the meal. This aspect focuses on the wine itself. It is the latter which defines the cup as a "cheftza shel mitzva."

Therefore, kiddush and birkat ha-mazon require independent cups of wine, since each transforms their respective cup into a "cheftza shel mitzva." However, with regard to havdala, where there is no meal, the focus is only on the berakha-text, and the "kos" is not considered a "cheftza shel mitzva." Consequently, says the Rav, the Rambam rules that you can say havdala on the same cup as the one upon which you recited kiddush or birkat ha-mazon.

Rav Dovid Brovsky writes:8

The Talmud (Moed Katan 8b) prohibits performing weddings during Chol Ha-Moed. The Talmud mentions a number of reasons for this prohibition:

8 https://www.etzion.org.il/en/laws-wedding-1-setting-date-wedding

18 R. Yehuda said that Shmuel said, and R. Elazar said that R. Oshaya said, and some say that R. Elazar said that R. Chanina said: The reason that one may not get married on the intermediate days of a Festival is because one may not mix one joy with another joy (ein me’arvin simcha be-simcha). Rabba bar R. Huna said: The reason is because he forsakes the rejoicing of the Festival and occupies himself with rejoicing with his wife. Abaye said to R. Yosef: This statement of Rabba bar R. Huna is actually a statement of Rav, as R. Daniel bar Ketina said that Rav said: From where is it derived that one may not marry a woman on the intermediate days of a Festival? As it is stated: “And you shall rejoice in your Festival” (Deut 16:14). This verse emphasizes that you must rejoice in your Festival and not in your wife.

Ulla said: The reason one may not marry on the intermediate days of a Festival is due to the excessive exertion [that the wedding preparations demand, which is prohibited during the Festival].

R. Yitzchak Napcha said: The reason is due to the neglect of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. [If it were permissible to get married during the intermediate days of a Festival, people would delay getting married until then in order to save money by avoiding the necessity of preparing separate feasts for the Festival and for the wedding. In the meantime they would neglect the mitzva of procreation.]

Regarding the reason of ein me’arvin simcha be-simcha, the Talmud teaches:

With regard to the principle that one may not mix one joy with another joy, from where do we derive it? As it is written [with regard to the dedication of the Temple]: “So Solomon held the feast at that time, and all Israel with him, a great congregation, from the entrance of Chamat to the Brook of Egypt, before the Lord our God, seven days and seven days, fourteen days” (Melakhim I 8:65). And if it is so that one may in fact mix one joy with another joy, he should have waited until the

19 festival [of Sukkot], and made a feast of seven days for this and for that [i.e., for the dedication of the Temple and for the festival of Sukkot together].

The Shulchan Arukh (OC 546:1 and EH 64:6) rules accordingly.

However, one may hold a wedding on other festive days, such as Rosh Chodesh (Rema OC 573:1), Chanuka (ibid.), and Purim (Shulchan Arukh 696:8; see Magen Avraham 18), and on the day after Pesach, Shavuot, or Sukkot, known as issru chag (Mishna Berura 573:7).

Passover: The Hillel Sandwich

Chanan Morrison writes:9

9 http://ravkooktorah.org/PESACH_68.htm

20

Together or separate? The Sages disagreed on how one should eat the matzah and maror (bitter herbs) at the Passover Seder.

The Talmud in Berachot 49a admonishes us not to perform mitzvot “bundled together” (chavilot chavilot). We do not want to give the impression that mitzvot are an unwanted burden, an obligation that we wish to discharge as quickly as possible. For this reason, the majority opinion is that the two mitzvot of eating matzah and maror should be performed separately. But Hillel’s custom was to place the pesach offering and the maror inside the matzah and eat them together like a sandwich. Why did Hillel combine these mitzvot together?

Matzah and Freedom To understand Hillel’s opinion we must first examine the significance of matzah and maror. Matzah is a symbol of freedom. But what is freedom? Freedom does not mean sitting idle and unoccupied. True freedom means the opportunity to grow and develop according to one’s inner nature and natural gifts, without interference or coercion from outside influences. This freedom is symbolized by matzah, a simple food consisting solely of flour and water, unaffected by other ingredients and chemical processes.

21 In order to form the Jewish people as a holy nation, their national character needed to be independent of all foreign influences. They left Egypt free from the spiritual baggage of Egyptian culture. Thus we find that in preparation of bringing the Passover offering, they were commanded to “draw out and take for yourselves sheep” (Ex. 12:21). What does it mean to “draw out”? The Midrash explains that they needed to remove from within themselves any affinity to Egyptian idolatry (Mechilta ad loc). With a clean slate, lacking any national character of their own, a holy character could then be imprinted on Israel’s national soul. This is part of the metaphor of matzah: it lacks any shape and taste of its own, so that the desired form and flavor may be properly imposed upon it.

The Message of Maror Maror is the opposite of matzah; its bitterness is a symbol of servitude. But even servitude may have a positive value. An individual whose life’s ambition is to become a doctor must spend many years in medical school to achieve this goal. The long years of concentrated effort require great dedication and discipline. These years are a form of servitude — but a servitude that advances one’s final goal, and thus is ultimately a true expression of freedom. This idea may also be applied to the Jewish people. Our souls are ingrained with a Divine nature, but we suffer from character imperfections that prevent us from realizing our inner nature. For this reason, we need to accept upon ourselves a pleasant form of servitude, the service of God. We acquired this ability in Egypt. This is slavery’s positive contribution — it teaches one to accept the deferment of immediate desires and short-term goals. This is the central message of maror: acceptance of life’s bitter aspects, with the knowledge that this forbearance and resolve will allow us to attain higher objectives. For this reason, we eat the maror only after eating the matzah — only after we have clarified our ultimate goals.

Discipline and Freedom Now we may better understand the disagreement between Hillel and the other sages. Freedom, as symbolized by the matzah, reveals the inherent holiness of Israel and our natural love for God and Torah. This innate character enables us to overcome desires that do not concur with our elevated goals. It is through our persistence and dedication to the overall goal that we reveal our inner resources of freedom. Both of these traits, freedom and servitude, need to be free to act without interference from one another. When a spirit of freedom and independence is appropriate, it should not be constrained by a servile attitude; and when discipline and a sense of duty are needed, they should not be disrupted by a desire for freedom. Thus, according to the majority opinion, we should eat the matzah and maror separately, indicating that each trait should be expressed to its fullest. The ultimate goal, however, is attained only when we recognize that these two forces do not contradict one another. Joined together, they present the highest freedom, whose nobility and power is fully revealed when it wears the crown of lofty servitude — the service of the Holy King, a service that is freedom in its purest state. Thus Hillel would eat the matzah and maror together. He sought to emphasize that freedom and slavery are not contradictory concepts. Generally speaking, the quality of servitude belongs more

22 to the preparatory stage; but in the overall picture, the two forces are interrelated, complementing one another to attain the final goal.10 Sod Yesharim Eight Day Pesach1:1

Mitzvos are not to be piled one upon the other; each one deserves individual focus. The Ohr HaChayim HaKadosh, zt” l, taught in the name of the Ariza” l that performing a mitzvah without proper intent and focus is of little worth—it’s like a body without a soul.

Clearly then, two mitzvos cannot be performed at the same time because it isn’t possible to concentrate on two different matters at once! Each mitzvah has infinite depths to it, but the most elemental intention in the performance of any one of them is that it is the fulfillment of Hashem’s Will. When we act sincerely, for Hashem’s sake, it is considered as though we had actually grasped much higher levels within the mitzvah. This can sometimes be difficult, but every effort can reap very great rewards!

The Chofetz Chaim, zt” l, would similarly try to encourage people who had trouble focusing on their prayers, to keep them from falling into despair. “Even if you see that you have a hard time concentrating, don’t give up! Hold strong and keep on going, focusing on the little bit that you can, so as not to lose everything.”

10 Silver from the Land of Israel. Adapted from Olat Re’iyah vol. II, pp. 287-289

23 He would offer a parable to illustrate his point. “A little girl was standing in the market selling apples at her mother’s stall, when suddenly a gentile came and began grabbing her wares and stuffing them into his pockets! The girl was shocked and terrified, and just stood there crying, completely at a loss as to how to stop him. A clever man passed by and offered her some advice: Why are you standing there bawling? You still have some more apples left. Hurry and gather them up, and run for it! If you don’t, he’ll take whatever you have left, as well!”

24