How Busy is Too Busy? An Ancient Jewish Question for Modern Times

(16) He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say: It is not up to you to finish the work, but you are not free to abandon it. If you studied much Torah, much reward will be given you. And faithful is your employer who shall pay you the reward for your labor. And know that the reward for the righteous will be in the time to come.

(4) ...Mitsvah messengers are exempt from [the duty of dwelling in] the sukkah; so likewise are sick people, and those who attend on them...

Mitsvah messengers - those who are on their way to do a mitsvah, such as to learn Torah or to greet their teacher or to redeem captives.

Exempt from Sukkah - even while they are resting.

From where do we know this? From what our Rabbis taught: “When you sit in your house”(Deuteronomy 6:7) excludes one who is occupied with a religious duty, “and when you walk on your way” (Deuteronomy 6:7) excludes a groom. Therefore they said: He who marries a virgin is free [from the obligation of reciting Shema’], but [he who marries] a widow is bound [by the obligation]. How is this inferred? Rav Huna said, It is compared to “the way” - just as “the way” refers to a secular way, so must every act be secular, thus excluding a person who is occupied with the performance of a religious duty. But does it not refer to where one is going on a religious errand [also]? And doesn’t the Torah nevertheless say that one should read? If so, the verse should have said, “When sitting and when walking.” Why [then does it say,] ‘When you sit and when you walk? [It must consequently mean:] When walking for your own purpose you are bound by the obligation, but when walking on a religious errand you are not. If so, shouldn’t the man who marries a widow also be exempt? When he marries a virgin his mind is preoccupied, but when he marries a widow his mind is not preoccupied. Does this mean that whenever a man's mind is preoccupied he is exempt? If so, if his ship was sunk, so that his mind is preoccupied - is he also exempt? And if you will say, It is indeed so, did not Rabbi Abba bar Zavda say in the name of Rav: A mourner is bound by all the commandments that are enumerated in the Torah, with the sole exception of that of tefillin because the word ‘beauty’ was applied to them? In the former case his preoccupation is on account of a religious duty; in the latter it is on account of a secular event. But is the law that he who is engaged on one religious duty is free from any other learned from here? Is it not deduced from elsewhere, As it has been taught: "And there were certain men who were unclean by the dead body of a man, etc." (Numbers 9:6) Who were these men? They were those who bore the

coffin of Joseph, according to Rabbi Yosi HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva said, They were Mishael and Elzafan who were occupied with [the remains of] Nadav and Avihu. Rabbi Yitzchak said, If they were those who bore the coffin of Joseph, they had time to purify themselves [before Passover,] and if they were Mishael and Elzaphan they could [also] have purified themselves [before the Passover]. But it was those who were occupied with a met mitsvah [one who died and there is no one to take care of the burial], and the seventh day [of whose purification] coincided with the eve of Passover, as it is said, "They could not keep the Passover on that day," on "that" day they could not keep the Passover, but on the following day they could? [Both texts] are necessary. For if he had only informed us of the former, I would have said [that they were free from the obligation there] because the time of the obligation of the Passover had not yet come,but not here where the time of reciting Shema had come, [therefore] it was necessary [to have the latter].And if he had informed us of the latter only, I would have said [that one is exempt here] because this does not involve karet [the punishment of excision] but not there, where it involves karet [therefore the former also was] necessary

Mitsvah messengers – people on their way to do a mitsvah, such as to study Torah or to greet their teacher, or to redeem captives, are exempt from Sukkah, and even when they are resting. This is the explanation of Rashi, and this is what emerges from the Gemara, for is says: People on their way to do a mitsvah are exempt from Sukkah, both during the day and at night, and it seems that even though they are only traveling during the day...and this is shocking! If they are able to fulfill both, why are they exempt? Because a person has tsitsit on his clothing and tefillin on his head, is he exempt from all other mitsvot?! And in...Nedarim, regarding the one who takes a vow not to get benefit from some else, and returns his lost item, even though “perutah d'Rav Yosef”* is effective, since it is not common, and if the whole time that the lost item is in one's home one is exempt from giving bread to a poor person – in the case, it would be a common occurrence! Rather, one is certainly not exempt, except during the time when one is actually involved in the mitsvah, for example, you have a lost garment and are spreading it out because it needs it, or you are feeding a (lost) animal – for it is not common that during that moment, a poor person will come and ask for something from you. So we must say that here, too, we are dealing with this type of case, and if you are preoccupied with fulfilling the mitsvah of Sukkah, you are exempt from other mitsvot.

There are those who say that mitsvot do not require intention, and there are those who say that they do require intention in order to fulfill [the obligation] by performing that mitsvah, and this is the law.

(9) And Moses spoke so unto the children of Israel; but they hearkened not unto Moses for impatience of spirit, and for cruel bondage.