OPINIONS: The Gemara concludes that performing Kisuy ha'Dam between two acts of Shechitah is not considered an interruption, because it is possible to perform Shechitah and Kisuy ha'Dam simultaneously (doing one act with each hand). Therefore, the blessing that one recites for the first Shechitah covers the second Shechitah as well. (See Insights to Chulin 86:3.)

Does any act that cannot be done simultaneously with another act constitute an interruption?

(a) TOSFOS (DH Mishta) quotes RABEINU YOM TOV who infers from the Gemara here that when two acts cannot be done simultaneously, one is an interruption for the other. Consequently, when a person leaves his meal in order to pray, his Tefilah is considered an interruption in his meal (since he cannot pray and eat at the same time). He may not continue eating when he returns. Rather, he must recite Birkas ha'Mazon for what he already ate and then recite a new Berachah Rishonah in order to eat more.

(b) Tosfos here and in Pesachim (102a, DH v'Akru) disagrees with this ruling. Tosfos maintains that leaving one's meal in order to pray does not constitute an interruption, because it does not express any intent to conclude the meal. Only saying, "Let us bless [Birkas ha'Mazon]," constitutes an interruption, because those words indicate that the meal has ended. Even though Kisuy ha'Dam is the end of the act of Shechitah and thus would constitute an interruption between two acts of Shechitah, it is not considered an interruption because Kisuy and Shechitah can be done simultaneously.

An act that does not indicate the end of an previous act is not considered an interruption, even when both acts cannot be done at the same time. For example, one who recites a blessing upon hearing thunder during a meal does not need to recite Birkas ha'Mazon and a new Berachah Rishonah for the food that he is eating. (Z. Wainstein)

OPINIONS: The Gemara concludes that performing Kisuy ha'Dam between two acts of Shechitah is not considered an interruption, because it is possible to perform Shechitah and Kisuy ha'Dam simultaneously (doing one act with each hand). Therefore, the blessing that one recites for the first Shechitah covers the second Shechitah as well. (See Insights to Chulin 86:3.)

Does this mean that talking between two Shechitos is not considered an interruption (such that one who talks does not need to recite a new blessing)? Is it like talking during a meal, which is not considered an interruption that requires a new Berachah Rishonah, or is it like talking between putting on the Tefilin Shel Yad and the Tefilin Shel Rosh, which is considered an interruption? (TOSFOS DH u'Michsi)

The ROSH (6:6) records a number of different approaches.

(a) The Rosh initially proposes that talking is not considered an interruption. Only when one talks between donning the Tefilin Shel Yad and the Tefilin Shel Rosh -- which are two parts of a single Mitzvah -- must he repeat the blessing. In contrast, in the case of Shechitah, each Shechitah is a separate Mitzvah. If he decides to stop slaughtering animals, he may do so at any time. Once he has finished the Mitzvah for which he recited the blessing, he may talk before he performs the Mitzvah a second time, and he does not need to recite a second blessing.

(b) The Rosh, however, retracts this suggestion. He quotes RABEINU TAM who gives the opposite approach. Since one finishes a whole Mitzvah at the end of the first Shechitah, the first blessing applies to the second Shechitah only if he does not talk between the two Shechitos. Only when he has not yet finished the Mitzvah may he talk without forfeiting the validity of his blessing. (For example, when one talks in the middle of reciting Hallel or reading the Megilah, he does not need to recite a new blessing, even though he is not permitted to interrupt by talking.)

QUESTION: The Gemara relates an incident in which a person slaughtered a bird, but before he was able to perform the Mitzvah of Kisuy ha'Dam someone else came and covered the blood with earth. Raban Gamliel obligated the person to pay the Shochet ten gold coins for depriving him of the reward for the Mitzvah.

The Gemara asks whether this money is compensation for taking away the Mitzvah or for taking away the blessing that is recited for the Mitzvah. The difference is in a case in which a person deprives someone else of reciting Birkas ha'Mazon, which is one Mitzvah but which is comprised of four blessings. If the compensation is for the Mitzvah, then the perpetrator needs to pay only ten Zehuvim. If the compensation is for the blessings, then he must pay forty Zehuvim (ten for each of the four blessings). The Gemara concludes that the compensation is given for depriving the other person of the blessing.

Why should the perpetrator not have to pay for both the blessing and the Mitzvah? Since he deprived the other person of both a Mitzvah and its blessing, he should have to pay for both! (DIVREI CHAMUDOS 6:25; CHASAM SOFER)

ANSWER: The answer is that when the guilty party pays ten Zehuvim for the blessing, he indeed is paying for the Mitzvah as well. Since every Mitzvah includes a blessing, the blessing is merely part of the Mitzvah and is included in the "price" of the Mitzvah.

When the Gemara asks about whether the compensation is being paid for the Mitzvah or for the blessing, the Gemara does not mean that perhaps the penalty is being paid for the Mitzvah and not for the blessing. Rather, it means that it is being paid for the Mitzvah with the blessing. When the Gemara suggests that the penalty is for the blessing, it means that if a Mitzvah includes more than one blessing, then it should be considered more than one Mitzvah with regard to the ten-Zehuvim penalty. Blessings are made for different sections of a Mitzvah, and payment is required for each section. (M. KORNFELD)

QUESTION: The Gemara relates an incident in which a person slaughtered a bird, but before he was able to perform the Mitzvah of Kisuy ha'Dam, someone else came and covered the blood with earth. Raban Gamliel obligated the person to pay the Shochet ten gold coins for depriving him of the reward for the Mitzvah.

The Gemara asks whether this money is compensation for taking away the Mitzvah or for taking away the blessing that is recited for the Mitzvah. The difference is in a case in which a person deprives someone else of reciting Birkas ha'Mazon, which is one Mitzvah but which is comprised of four blessings. If the compensation is for the Mitzvah, then the perpetrator needs to pay only ten Zehuvim. If the compensation is for the blessings, then he must pay forty Zehuvim (ten for each of the four blessings). (See previous Insight.)

The Gemara cites another incident to prove that the compensation is given for depriving the other person of the blessing. A Tzeduki (heretic) attempted to prove to Rebbi that different powers created the mountains and the wind, as the verse says, "The One Who forms mountains, and the One Who creates wind" (Amos 4:13). Rebbi responded that the end of the verse says, "Hash-m Tzevakos Shemo" -- it is Hash-m Who created both. The Tzeduki requested three days to respond. Rebbi fasted during those three days. When Rebbi was about to end his fast, another Tzeduki arrived and informed him that the first one killed himself. Rebbi invited the man to eat with him. At the end of the meal, Rebbi offered the Tzeduki either the cup of wine over which the blessings of Birkas ha'Mazon is said ("Kos Shel Berachah"), or forty gold pieces. The Tzeduki took the Kos Shel Berachah.

RASHI (DH Arba'im) explains that Rebbi offered the Tzeduki forty Zehuvim for the four blessings of Birkas ha'Mazon "to which he answered 'Amen.'"

The Gemara in Berachos (46a) teaches that a host should give his guest the privilege of reciting Birkas ha'Zimun with a Kos Shel Berachah. (Birkas ha'Zimun entails reciting all of Birkas ha'Mazon audibly for all of the participants, who fulfill their obligation by listening to the blessings and reciting "Amen.") It seems that Rebbi offered his guest a payment in return for depriving the guest of the privilege of reciting Birkas ha'Zimun, because he did not want a Tzeduki to recite Birkas ha'Mazon in his home.

Why, then, does Rashi mention that the forty Zehuvim were the compensation for the blessings "to which he answered 'Amen'"? What does the Tzeduki's "Amen" have to do with the forty Zehuvim? Rebbi offered the Tzeduki money for the right to recite Birkas ha'Zimun with the Kos Shel Berachah. Even if the Tzeduki would have chosen not to recite the blessings, he would still would have answered "Amen" to them! (REBBI AKIVA EIGER)

(a) The LEVUSH (CM 382) apparently understands from Rashi's words that Rebbi wanted the Tzeduki to answer Amen to Rebbi's blessings instead of reciting the Birkas ha'Zimun himself. Answering "Amen" would take the place of reciting the blessings, and since the Tzeduki would not be reciting the blessings himself, Rebbi offered him forty Zehuvim.

There are a number of problems with this approach.

First, when one responds "Amen" to a blessing, it is considered as though he has said the blessing himself (Berachos 53b). Why, then, did Rebbi offer the Tzeduki compensation for causing him to lose the blessings if, by answering "Amen," the Tzeduki did not lose the blessings? (REBBI AKIVA EIGER; SHACH CM 382:4)

Second, even if the reward for Birkas ha'Mazon is given only to the one who actually recites the blessings, why did Rebbi think that he needed to compensate the Tzeduki? Even if Rebbi recited the blessings, the Tzeduki was free to recite them himself and thereby receive the reward for the blessings. If the Tzeduki did not say the blessings himself, then he, and not Rebbi, was responsible for his own loss! (REBBI AKIVA EIGER)

(b) The SHACH (CM 382:4) understands Rashi's words differently. He suggests that Rebbi intended to deprive the Tzeduki of Birkas ha'Mazon entirely (as TOSFOS (DH O) and TOSFOS HA'ROSH (DH Kos) write), sending him out of the house before he could recite the blessings or even answer "Amen" to them! Rebbi offered to pay for the blessings to which the Tzeduki would have answered "Amen." (The RASHASH points out that according to the Shach's understanding, the Girsa in Rashi must be "she'Oneh" ("to which he answers") and not "she'Anah" ("to which he answered").) (M. KORNFELD)

QUESTION: Rav Yehudah in the name of Shmuel says that any mixture of blood that still appears red is considered blood for atonement (it is valid for Zerikah on the Mizbe'ach), for being Machshir food to become Tamei, and for Kisuy ha'Dam. While his statement regarding Zerikah and Kisuy ha'Dam are written explicitly in Mishnayos, the Gemara explains that Shmuel is teaching that such blood can be Machshir. The Gemara asks why a mixture of blood with water needs to be red in order to be Machshir, when both blood alone and water alone are Machshir!

Rebbi Asi of Naharbil explains that Shmuel is referring to the clear fluid that remains when blood congeals. Such fluid is neither water nor blood, and it cannot be Machshir food to become Tamei, unless, as Shmuel teaches, it has a red appearance (in which case it is considered blood).

The Gemara then quotes Rebbi Yirmeyah mi'Difti who says that eating this fluid is punishable with Kares, but "only when there is at least a k'Zayis." Apparently, Rebbi Yirmeyah is referring to a k'Zayis of actual blood mixed with the clear fluid, because he cannot mean that one is Chayav when he eats a k'Zayis of the mixture (and the mixture has the status of blood), because that would be obvious; one is never Chayav for eating less than a k'Zayis.

RASHI and TOSFOS (DH v'Hu) explain that Rebbi Yirmeyah is teaching that even though all of the fluid derived from the blood of an animal, one is not Chayav Kares unless there is a k'Zayis of actual, red blood ("Dam Gamur") in the mixture.

If there is a k'Zayis of actual blood in the mixture, then it is obvious that one is Chayav Kares for drinking it. What new law is Rebbi Yirmeyah teaching?

(a) The RITVA explains that Rebbi Yirmeyah is teaching that even though the amount of blood in the mixture is less than a "k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas Pras" -- and the person will not eat a k'Zayis of blood in the time period of Kedei Achilas Pras if he eats at a normal speed, as long as there is a k'Zayis of blood in the mixture and the person ate quickly so that he managed to a eat a k'Zayis within Kedei Achilas Pras, he is Chayav. Normally, in order for a person to be Chayav for eating a mixture containing a forbidden food, there must be enough of the forbidden food such that can eat a k'Zayis of it within the time period of Kedei Achilas Pras eating in an ordinary manner. If he cannot eat a k'Zayis of the forbidden food in that amount of time, the forbidden food becomes Batel. In the case of blood mixed with its own clear fluid, it is not necessary to have this amount of actual blood, since all of the contents in the mixture originate from the same source (the blood of an animal), and thus the actual blood is not Batel in the clear fluid. ("Blood is not Mevatel blood.") However, it still is necessary to eat a k'Zayis of actual blood within Kedei Achilas Pras in order to be Chayav, and thus he must eat the mixture quickly. (This is also the Chidush of the Beraisa which the Gemara quotes next, which states that a Revi'is of blood mixed with its clear fluid is not Batel and is Metamei b'Ohel.)

(b) REBBI AKIVA EIGER answers that Rebbi Yirmeyah is teaching that one is Chayav for every k'Zayis of this mixture that he eats, even though every k'Zayis does not contain a k'Zayis of red blood. However, the amount of red blood in the mixture is a k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas Pras (unlike the Ritva explains). In order for the person who eats the mixture to be Chayav Kares, there must be a k'Zayis bi'Chedei Achilas Pras in the mixture, but he is Chayav for eating any k'Zayis of the mixture.

(c) The TORAS CHAIM explains that Rebbi Asi understands that since Shmuel is discussing the clear fluid that derives from congealed blood, it is not necessary to have the Mishnah's requirement of the appearance of blood in order for it to be Machshir. The Mishnayos which discuss Kisuy ha'Dam and Zerikah require that the mixture actually look like real blood, because they are discussing blood mixed with water. (See TOSFOS to 87a, DH Ro'in, who says that there must be "Mar'is Dam Gamur" -- "the appearance of absolute blood" -- in order for the requirement of Kisuy ha'Dam to apply.) In contrast, Shmuel is discussing a liquid which is entirely the blood of the animal. In such a case it suffices to have "Mar'eh Admumis," a reddish-appearance, in order to be Machshir, even though it does not look like real blood. Similarly, such an appearance is enough to make the person Chayav Kares for eating such a mixture.

Accordingly, the Chidush of Rebbi Yirmeyah is that one is Chayav for eating a k'Zayis of the mixture of blood with its clear fluid even when there is no absolute appearance of blood, but merely a reddish color. The "Mar'eh Admumis" causes the fluid to retain its status of absolute blood, and thus one is Chayav Kares if he eats a k'Zayis of it.

The Toras Chaim cites support for his explanation from the words of the RAMBAM (Hilchos Ma'achalos Asuros 6:3, and Hilchos Tum'as Mes 2:12). The Rambam writes that one is Chayav for eating a mixture containing blood as long as the mixture has a reddish color. This implies that one is Chayav for any part of the mixture, as long as the mixture has a reddish color; the reddish color gives the mixture the status of blood. (See TIFERES YAKOV.) (Mordechai Zvi Dicker)