1

The Talmud lays down the principle:

אֵין עוֹשִׂין מִצְוֹת חֲבִילוֹת חֲבִילוֹת -- One does not perform mitzvot in bundles. [Sotah 8a, also Pesachim 102b, Berakhot 49a]

Another Talmudic quote is intended to make this easy: One who is engaged in a commandment is exempt from performing another commandment. [Sukkah 25a]

Why not? Is this halacha? Is this fleshed out anywhere? We are taught in many other places that we are supposed to maximize the performance of mitzvot. So why not do several at the same time if it is feasible? Why assume it would just be rushing to get them out of the way? (You could argue that even with a single mitzvah.) The Talmudic principle "En mearvin simchah b'simcha -- Do not mix rejoicing and rejoicing" [Moed Katan 8b] is not relevant because we are not talking about joyous occasions.

Improve this question
9
  • There are certainly opinions that hold עוסק במצוה פטור מן המצוה only applies where one cannot perform both commandments properly
    – Joel K
    Nov 7, 2021 at 15:27
  • "We are taught in many other places that we are supposed to maximize the performance of mitzvot." Where? Do those sources say we supposed to maximize the sheer number of individual mitzvot performed or some balance of quantity and quality?
    – Double AA ♦
    Nov 7, 2021 at 17:24
  • @DoubleAA -- The Talmud says that we thank God in the morning for not making us slaves, women or gentiles because these groups have fewer commandments to observe.
    – Maurice Mizrahi
    Nov 7, 2021 at 17:54
  • 1
    The Talmud says that we thank God in the morning for not making us slaves, women or gentiles because these groups have fewer commandments to observe it doesn't give this reason. This is how some later commentaries explain the blessings and their progression. In any event being obligated in more mitzvos doesn't say anything about performing many at the same time.
    – robev
    Nov 7, 2021 at 18:11
  • 1
    I meant put them in the question to substantiate your interpretation
    – robev
    Nov 7, 2021 at 18:30

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
2

The cases that the Gemara used when discussing the Halacha of bundles, are all situations of doing the same Mitzvah multiple times at once, or similar mitzvohs using one cup of wine. In these instances, it looks like the reason he’s doing it is to save time or money.

In fact, the Magen Avraham 147:11 explains that this is only relevant to mitzvohs chiyuvim in which case he’s going to have to do them anyway, and this is just making it go quicker: (he also explains a machlokes Rambam and Tosfos, as to what exactly is the problem in these cases)

ובסוטה דף ח' אמרינן אין משקין ב' סוטות כאחד ואין מטהרין ב' מצורעים ואין רוצעים ב' עבדים ואין עורפין ב' עגלות כא' שאין עושין מצות חבילות חבילות וכתבו התו' שאסור להעמיד שתיהן בעזרה בבת א' אף על פי שאין שותות כא', ותימה וכי היה אוסר בכה"ג להעמיד ב' זבחים כא' בעזרה ולשחוט א' ואח"כ השני וכו' ע"ש, ומסיק בגמרא בכהן א' אין משקין ובב' כהנים משקין וצ"ע על הרמב"ם שפסק סתם ולא חילק, לכן נ"ל שהוא מפרש איפכא דכהן א' ע"כ משקה אות' זאח"ז לכן אף על פי שמעמידין בבת א' בעזרה ש"ד אבל בב' כהנים שמשקין בבת אחת זה אחת זה אחת אסור, ובזה מתורץ קושית התוס' שהקשו משני מצורעים ע"ש, והנה להרמב"ם מותר להביא שני תינוקות בבת אחת ולמול זה ואח"כ זה אבל לעולם בבת א' בשני מוהלים אסור ולהתוספות אסור להביאם בבת א' למולם זאח"ז אבל למולם בבת א' בשני מוהלים שרי וא"כ בשני ס"ת נוהגים כהרמב"ם דלא קפדינן על ההבאה ולהתו' בב"ה של נישואין לא יביאו שני הכוסות לפניו בבת אחת אלא לאחר ב"ה יקח כוס אחד ויברך ז' ברכות, וכ"מ בטור ובש"ע בא"ע סי' ס"ב, ומה שהקשו התוס' משני זבחים י"ל דוקא בב' מצות של חובה הוי חבילות וה"ה בשני קרבנות של חובה אסור להעמיד' כאחד וכ"מ ביומא פרק ה' דתנן הביאו לו השעיר משמע דאין מביאין פר ושעיר כאחד ע"ש:

Improve this answer
2
  • If it applies only in these marginal, restricted situations, why make it a general principle?
    – Maurice Mizrahi
    Nov 9, 2021 at 13:57
  • 1
    Who made it a general principle? The Gemara uses it only in specific cases. Even osek bmitzvah patur min ha mitzvohs is not said in every case. Every rule or principle is subject to mitigating factors. Some more than others
    – Chatzkel
    Nov 9, 2021 at 14:40
0

Why not? Is this halacha? Is this fleshed out anywhere?

Tosfos in Moed Kotton 8B say the reason is because by doing mitvahs in a bundle you detract from the individual focus on both of them.

Tosfos says that it is similar to Ain M'arvin Simcha B'Simcha (we don't don't bundle up making two simchas in one time) which is learned from

(1)Yaakov waited a week after marrying Rochel to marry Leah

and

(2)Shlomo Hamelech finished building the Beis Hamkdush a week before Sukkos. Rather than celebrating Sukkos when everyone was in Yerushalyim anyhow, he had everyone come a week earlier to celebrate.

Improve this answer
-1

[Megillah 7b] conceives a 2-in-1 Chavilah Mitsvot is possible since רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא Rabbi Oshaya established two instructions in [Esther 9:22] were performed in one action by רַבִּי יְהוּדָה נְשִׂיאָה Rabbi Yehuda Nesia.

We notice words added to (קִיַּימְתָּ בָּנוּ רַבֵּינוּ וּמִשְׁלוֹחַ מָנוֹת אִישׁ לְרֵעֵהוּ וּמַתָּנוֹת לָאֶבְיוֹנִים) in the English translation of [Megillah 7b] which claims the 2-in-1 Bundle relates to Mitzvot : קִיַּימְתָּ You-have-fulfilled [two mitzvot] בָּנוּ through-us , רַבֵּינוּ our-teacher: [The mitzva of] וּמִשְׁלֹ֤חַ מָנוֹת֙ אִ֣ישׁ לְרֵעֵ֔הוּ “And sending portions one to another,” [and the mitzva of] וּמַתָּנ֖וֹת לָֽאֶבְיֹנִֽים “And gifts to the poor,” [as Rabbi Oshaya was poor and this was a substantial gift.]

  • [1] Rabbi Oshaya is claiming the כָּתַ֥ב מָרְדֳּכַ֖י are Mitzvot.

  • [2] Rabbi Oshaya is claiming a simple Vav bundles two actions into one, when interpreting [Esther 9:22] : "and sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor (וּמִשְׁלֹ֤חַ מָנוֹת֙ אִ֣ישׁ לְרֵעֵ֔הוּ וּמַתָּנ֖וֹת לָֽאֶבְיֹנִֽים)" as Mitzvot Chavilot in [Megillah 7b.1].

  • If [Megillah 7b] is an example of Chavilah Mitsvot, then the same rules would apply to actual Mitsvot in Torah.

[Megillah 7b] could establish another 3-in-1 Chavilah in [Vayikra 23:40] based on Rabbi Oshaya's vav method of Bundling.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .