אמר רבינא אמר לי רב משרשיא בריה דרב נתן הכי אמר הלל משמיה דגמרא לא ניכרוך איניש מצה ומרור בהדי הדדי וניכול משום דסבירא לן מצה בזמן הזה דאורייתא ומרור דרבנן ואתי מרור דרבנן ומבטיל ליה למצה דאורייתא ואפילו למאן דאמר מצות אין מבטלות זו את זו הני מילי דאורייתא בדאורייתא או דרבנן בדרבנן אבל דאורייתא ודרבנן אתי דרבנן ומבטיל ליה לדאורייתא מאן תנא דשמעת ליה מצות אין מבטלות זו את זו הלל היא דתניא אמרו עליו על הלל שהיה כורכן בבת אחת ואוכלן שנאמר על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו אמר רבי יוחנן חולקין עליו חביריו על הלל דתניא יכול יהא כורכן בבת אחת ואוכלן כדרך שהלל אוכלן תלמוד לומר על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו אפילו זה בפני עצמו וזה בפני עצמו מתקיף לה רב אשי אי הכי מאי אפילו אלא אמר רב אשי האי תנא הכי קתני יכול לא יצא בהו ידי חובתו אלא אם כן כורכן בבת אחת ואוכלן כדרך שהלל אוכלן תלמוד לומר על מצות ומרורים יאכלוהו אפילו זה בפני עצמו וזה בפני עצמו השתא דלא איתמר הלכתא לא כהלל ולא כרבנן מברך על אכילת מצה ואכיל והדר מברך על אכילת מרור ואכיל והדר אכיל מצה וחסא בהדי הדדי בלא ברכה זכר למקדש כהלל
Ravina said: Rav Mesharshiya, son of Rav Natan, said to me that Hillel said as follows, citing tradition: A person should not wrap matza and bitter herbs together and eat them. He ruled in this manner because he maintains that today, after the destruction of the Temple, the obligation to eat matza applies by Torah law, and the obligation to eat bitter herbs without the Paschal lamb applies by rabbinic law. And if one were to wrap them together, the bitter herbs, whose obligation applies by rabbinic law, would come and nullify the matza, whose obligation applies by Torah law. And even according to the one who says that mitzvot do not nullify each other, that principle applies only to a mixture of one food whose obligation applies by Torah law with another food whose obligation applies by Torah law, or to a mixture of one food whose obligation applies by rabbinic law with another food whose obligation applies by rabbinic law. However, in a case of a mixture of one food whose obligation applies by Torah law with another food whose obligation applies by rabbinic law, the food whose obligation applies by rabbinic law comes and nullifies the food whose obligation applies by Torah law. The Gemara asks: Who is the tanna that you heard say that mitzvot do not nullify each other? It is Hillel, as it was taught in a baraita: They said about Hillel that he would wrap matza and bitter herbs together and eat them, as it is stated: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs” (Numbers 9:11), which indicates that these two foods should be consumed together. Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Hillel’s colleagues disagree with him, as it was taught in another baraita: I might have thought that one should wrap matzot and bitter herbs together and eat them in the manner that Hillel eats them; therefore the verse states: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs,” meaning that one may eat even this, the matza, by itself, and that, the bitter herbs, by themselves. Rav Ashi strongly objects to this proof: If so, if the Sages disagree with Hillel and maintain that mitzvot nullify each other, what is the meaning of the word even in this baraita? This wording indicates that Hillel’s opinion is not rejected entirely, but that one fulfills his obligation even if he eats the items without combining them. Rather, Rav Ashi said: This is what this tanna is teaching: I might have thought that one fulfills his obligation with them only if he wraps matzot and bitter herbs together and eats them in the manner that Hillel eats them. Therefore, the verse states: “They shall eat it with matzot and bitter herbs,” i.e., one fulfills his obligation even if he eats the matza by itself and the bitter herbs by themselves. The Gemara comments: Now that the halakha was stated neither in accordance with the opinion of Hillel nor in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, one recites the blessing: Commanded us over eating matza, and eats matza to fulfill his obligation. And then he recites the blessing: Commanded us over eating bitter herbs, and eats the lettuce as bitter herbs. And then he eats matza and lettuce together without a blessing in remembrance of the Temple, in the manner of Hillel in the days of the Temple, who ate matza and bitter herbs together with the Paschal lamb.
גמרו כוס ראשון מברך עליו ברכת המזון והשני אומר עליו קדושת היום אמאי ונימרינהו לתרוייהו אחדא כסא אמר רב הונא אמר רב ששת אין אומרים שתי קדושות על כוס אחד מאי טעמא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק לפי שאין עושין מצות חבילות חבילות
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. 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.
(כא) וְאֵרַשְׂתִּ֥יךְ לִ֖י לְעוֹלָ֑ם וְאֵרַשְׂתִּ֥יךְ לִי֙ בְּצֶ֣דֶק וּבְמִשְׁפָּ֔ט וּבְחֶ֖סֶד וּֽבְרַחֲמִֽים׃ (כב) וְאֵרַשְׂתִּ֥יךְ לִ֖י בֶּאֱמוּנָ֑ה וְיָדַ֖עַתְּ אֶת־ה'׃ (ס)
(21) And I will espouse you forever: I will espouse you with righteousness and justice, And with goodness and mercy, (22) And I will espouse you with faithfulness; Then you shall be devoted to the LORD.