Opinion: Based on our Gemara, Rabeinu Yom Tov that if a person stopped eating and went to Daven, when he comes back he must first recite Birkas ha'Mazon, wash Netilas Yadayim, and recite ha'Motzi (if he wants to continue eating). This is because it is not possible to eat and Daven at the same time.

Question: This does not seem correct, as the two cases are incomparable. In our Gemara, saying "allow us and let us bless" is a sign that one is finished eating and is therefore considered an interruption. The same would apply to Kisuy, if not for the fact that it is possible to do both at the same time.

Question (cont.): However, Davening is not considered the end of the meal. According to this logic, if someone would recite the blessing on thunder or even on wine, he should have to wash Netilas Yadayim and recite ha'Motzi again because he cannot eat and bless at the same time!

Question (cont.): We explicitly state in Pesachim (102a) that if some people were left at the table and the others went to Daven, when they come back they do not need to recite Birkas ha'Mazon nor recite a Berachah Rishonah, even though they Davened during the meal!

Question: It is unclear whether one must recite a new blessing if he talked between the performance of one Shechitah and another Shechitah.

Question (cont.): This could be like Tefilin. Someone who talks in between putting on his Tefilin Shel Yad and Tefilin Shel Rosh recites two blessing according to Rashi, namely "l'Haniach" on his Shel Yad and "Al Mitzvas" on his Shel Rosh. According to Rabeinu Tam, he recites two blessings on his Shel Rosh.

Question (cont.): Alternatively, perhaps he does not have to make another blessing just as someone who is in the middle of a meal does not have to make another blessing of ha'Motzi just because he talked during his meal.

Observation: If he said something that was relative to slaughtering, for example "bring a chicken/knife to be used for slaughter" it is obvious that he does not have to recite a new blessing. This is similar to saying, "Take from the piece upon which the blessing was recited" or "feed the oxen" (regarding which the Gemara in Berachos 40a states that they are not considered interruptions).

Observation: If one does need to recite another blessing if he talks as is the law regarding Tefilin, it would be forbidden to talk between one slaughtering and the next slaughtering just as it is forbidden to talk in between putting on one's Tefilin. This is as the Gemara states in Menachos (36a) that it is a sin for a person to talk in between putting on his Tefilin, and he does not go to war due to this sin.

Observation: Tefilin is not a proof to our question, as Tefilin is one Mitzvah and therefore he should not interrupt while performing it. Slaughtering, on the other hand, is optional. If he wants he can continue to slaughter, and if he wants he can stop slaughtering.

Observation: However, it seems that there is a prohibition against a person bringing himself to say another blessing.

Proof: This is apparent from the Mishnah in Sotah (4ob) that says that the Kohen Gadol would take the Sefer Torah and read Acharei Mos and Ach be'Esor. The Parshah of be'Esor in Bamidbar he would read by heart.

Proof (cont.): The Gemara in Sotah (41a) asks, why don't we bring another Sefer Torah in order to read the Parshah of be'Esor? The Gemara answers that this would be an unnecessary blessing.

Opinion: It appears that if he does have to make another blessing, for example if he thought he would stop slaughtering, he must cover whatever he already slaughtered.

Proof: This is apparent from Rebbi Yehudah's position that one must cover all blood when switching from slaughtering undomesticated animals to slaughtering birds, even though one does not have to recite another blessing on Shechitah. (Tosfos ha'Rosh: Certainly, then, if one does have to recite another blessing on Shechitah he must cover what he previously slaughtered.)

Implied Question: He could not have gotten out of paying the ten gold pieces by giving him another bird to slaughter. (Why not?)

Answer: Covering the blood of this bird would be a different Mitzvah. The first Mitzvah is gone, and it therefore is a "crooked thing that cannot be fixed."

Observation: However, nowadays we do not judge cases where we would obligate paying ten gold pieces, as we do not consider ourselves the messengers of the Rabbis (with Semichah) regarding cases where one party did not lose any money, as stated in Bava Kama (84b).

Opinion: A person who would take someone else's Aliyah to the Torah would be exempt from paying ten pieces even without this fact (c), and even if the victim would seize the ten gold pieces from him we would take them away, being that everyone is obligated to read the Torah. This was also explained by the Riva.

Opinion (cont.): This is even if a Yisrael took the Aliyah of the Kohen. This is because the derivation in Nedarim (62a) from the Pasuk, "And you will make him holy" teaching that we should sanctify a Kohen in all things, including having him start first and bless first (i.e. receive the first Aliyah), is an Asmachta.

Explanation: Drinking the cup has nothing to do with the reward one receives for making the blessing. However, Rebbi wanted to stop him from reciting the Birkas ha'Mazon with them, as he was a Tzeduki.

Question: Shouldn't Rebbi have said "fifty gold pieces," as there is also the blessing of Borei Pri ha'Gafen that is recited after Birkas ha'Mazon?

Answer: Rebbi holds like the opinion in Pesachim (103b, see Tosfos there DH "Lav") that one does not have to recite Borei Pri ha'Gafen on the cup after Birkas ha'Mazon if he already recited the blessing on the first cup (of the four cups drunk on Pesach night, and so too if he already recited it during a regular meal).

Explanation: The Gemara in Zevachim (78b) states that this does not mean that we view the blood of Kodshim in a certain way, but rather that we view the wine or blood of a regular domesticated or undomesticated animal as if it is water. This is the explanation of Rashi.

Question: Rabeinu Shmuel from Vardun asked that in Menachos (22a) the Gemara explains that the reasoning of the Rabbanan and Rebbi Yehudah is based on the Pasuk, "And he will take from the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat."

Question (cont.): It is known that the blood of the bull is more than the blood of the goat. This teaches that Korbanos do not nullify each other. Rebbi Yehudah says that we see from here that when two similar items are mixed together, they do not become nullified.

Question (cont.): How is this valid proof? Even if Korbanos did nullify each other and similar items mixed together did nullify each other, the blood of these Korbanos should not be considered nullified! Even if the blood of the bull would be water, the redness of the blood of the goat would still be apparent!

Answer: If the blood of the bull was water, the blood of the goat would not look completely like blood, but rather it would appear much lighter and it would therefore be considered nullified.

Answer (cont.): This is as the Gemara states in Zevachim (ibid.) that if a bucket had white wine and milk in it (and it was dipped in a Mikvah), Rebbi Yehudah says that we look at the wine and milk as if they are red wine. If their color would appear much lighter due to the water of the Mikvah mixing with them, the Tevilah of the bucket would be valid.

Observation: If blood goes into water, each first drop becomes nullified.

Proof #1: We similarly say in Avodah Zarah (73a) that when Rav Dimi arrived he said in the name of Rebbi Yochanan that if someone pours Yayin Nesech from a barrel into a pit (of kosher wine), even if he does so all day each drop that falls in becomes nullified amongst the kosher wine.

Proof #2: In Nidah (71b), regarding blood coming out of a mortally wounded person (in a case where a Revi'is came out when he was alive and more came out after he was already dead), that does not drip without stopping to drip first (as opposed to blood that constantly flows), we say that each drop is nullified. (The Chachamim there say that since the original blood flowed when the person was still alive, the blood that drips when he is already dead is nullified because it drips into the blood that came out when he was alive.)

Question: This is difficult. The Gemara in Bechoros (22a) says that someone who buys fish brine from an Am ha'Aretz can have it touch the water of a Mikvah and make it pure. If most of it is really water, it becomes pure when touching the waters of the Mikvah. If most of it is in fact brine, brine does not become impure (it is considered mere "sweat"). The small amount of water that is in the brine is considered nullified by the majority of the brine.

Question (cont.): Rav Dimi says in the name of Reish Lakish that this is only true regarding dipping one's bread in such brine. However, if he wants to use it for cooking, it becomes remixed. (The water in the pot combines with the water in the brine to cause the entire mixture to become impure.) This indicates that even a pure item (water in the pot) can stir up an impure item (water in the brine) to cause impurity (to a mixture). Certainly impurity can stir up impurity!

Question (cont.): Even according to Abaye who asks, "it is possible that impurity that was nullified can come back to be remixed?" this is only because he does not agree it can be remixed due to something that is pure (i.e. the water in the pot). However, everyone agrees that impurity can stir up impurity.

Question (cont.): This is certainly so regarding a prohibited item stirring up another prohibited item, as stated earlier (86b), "Just because they said a doubtful impurity is pure etc. (does not mean they will say a doubtful prohibition is permitted!)."

Question (cont.): The Gemara in Yevamos (82b) also says that if someone put in a Sa'ah (of regular water) and took a Sa'ah (of water from the Mikvah), the Mikvah is kosher until most of the water is replaced. This indicates that if more than the majority of the amount of the original water of the Mikvah was replaced, we do not say that each amount that is poured into the Mikvah is nullified, even though the water poured in was not poured in at once. (If an amount of water more than the majority was poured in at once, everyone would agree we do not say that the first drops are nullified.)

Answer: We always say that what is poured in is considered remixed, even when it is poured in a little at a time.

Answer (cont.): When we differentiate regarding blood coming out of a mortally wounded person (see d2 above), this is because the Chachamim were lenient regarding this law which is only Rabbinic in nature.

Answer (cont.): Specifically regarding Kodshim we say that each first drop is nullified. Since it has already been pushed aside from fulfilling its role as Kodshim, it is no longer fit (to be remixed and thereby regain its identity).

Answer (cont.): Rebbi Yochanan explains in the Gemara in Avodah Zarah (73a) that each first drop is nullified and it (i.e. the wine in the pit) does not become forbidden until there is a taste of the Yayin Nesech in it, just like the law regarding other prohibitions (that they are only prohibited when there is a taste of the prohibited item present).

Answer (cont.): Rebbi Yochanan's statement is regarding the Mishnah that says, "These prohibit, and they prohibit with even a small amount: Yayin Nesech etc." Rav Dimi explains (in the name of Rebbi Yochanan) that this Halachah (that even a small amount of Yayin Nesech causes a mixture to be forbidden) is specifically regarding a permitted item that falls into a forbidden item, as he states afterwards. However, if a prohibited item falls into a permitted item, it does not prohibit the mixture. Each drop becomes nullified, as long as there are sixty times more of the permitted item than the forbidden item.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara (in Avodah Zarah ibid.) asks, the Mishnah itself states, "These prohibit and they prohibit even with a small amount: Yayin Nesech etc." This must be in a case where the prohibited item fell into the permitted item. The Gemara answers that this is incorrect. Rather, it refers to a case where the permitted item fell into the prohibited item.

Implied Question: The Gemara then asks that the Mishnah states that wine mixed with water prohibits the mixture if it gives it taste. This must mean that the prohibited wine fell into permitted water. However, this itself cannot be a question, as Rebbi Yochanan himself admits that once a prohibited item adds taste to a mixture, it remixes and can become prohibited. (What is the Gemara asking on Rebbi Yochanan?)

Proof: This is obviously correct, as the concept, "taste is like the item itself" when there is a mixture of two different items is a Torah law. This is as stated in the Gemara in Zevachim (78b), Pesachim (44b), and Nazir (37a).

Answer (cont.): Rather, this is what the Gemara means to ask. Since the second part of the Mishnah (wine and water) is a case where a forbidden item fell into a permitted item, the first case of wine mixing with wine being forbidden with a small amount should also be where the forbidden item fell into the prohibited item (yet we stated above that in such a case it will be Batel b'Shishim!).

Answer (cont.): The Gemara answers that the case is where permitted wine fell into prohibited water.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara asks, since the first part of the Mishnah is referring to forbidden water, the second part must also be discussing forbidden water when it says that when water mixes with wine it is forbidden when there is a taste of the prohibited item.

Answer (cont.): This means that just as the second part of the Mishnah is discussing a forbidden item falling into a permitted item, so too the first part of the Mishnah regarding wine mixing with wine being forbidden with a small amount is referring to a forbidden item falling into a permitted item. The Gemara answers that the entire Mishnah is discussing a case where a permitted item fell into a prohibited item.

Answer (cont.): When it says it is forbidden if it is gives a taste, implying that if it does not give a taste it is permitted, this is when a lot of the permitted item fell at once into the forbidden item causing the forbidden item to be nullified at once.

Question: Why does Rav Dimi say that the wine was poured from the barrel into the pit because each drop is nullified? Even if this was not the case the mixture would end up being permitted as there is sixty times more permitted wine than prohibited wine!

Answer: Rav Dimi specifically said that the wine is poured from the barrel into the pit because the stream of wine is not a large stream, even though it is bigger than that of a pitcher. However, if the vessel being used to pour created a large stream the wine would not be nullified, even if there was sixty times more permitted wine than forbidden wine.

Observation: The Gemara also could have answered that the blood became mixed with fruit juice that does not cause something to become able to become impure.

Explanation: This refers to the water around the blood (when blood hardens, this is the liquid that is around the blood that still has an appearance of blood), as Rashi explains.

Explanation (cont.): This teaches that even though it is all blood, he is liable to receive Kares only if there is a Kzayis of actual blood. Similarly, it only causes Tumas Ohel if there is a Revi'is of actual blood. If this would be referring to blood mixed with rainwater, it would be obvious that one would require a Kzayis or Revi'is of actual blood.

Question: This is difficult. If this is a Mishnah, why did the Gemara earlier quote "it is Metamei b'Ohel" regarding which we said, "as long as there is a Rev'is" from a Beraisa? It should have quoted this Mishnah!

Answer: It appears that this is a Beraisa.

Answer (cont.): We also find in Yevamos (36b) that the Gemara says, "The Mishnah" states that Raban Shimon ben Gamliel says that any (baby) who remained alive for thirty days etc. This is not a Mishnah.

Answer (cont.): The Gemara in Shabos (135b) also quotes this statement of Raban Gamliel. The text in all of the Sefarim in Shabos (ibid.) is "The Beraisa."

Explanation: They did not decree that they are impure as they did regarding the fluids of a Zav, as the Gemara explains in its conclusion that people do not stay away from the fluids of a Zav (but they do stay away from the fluids of a dead person).

Question #1: When the liquids exit the dead person, they touch him and end up becoming impure! This is because the tears of his eyes, blood of his wound, and milk of a woman are considered liquids according to Torah law (which become impure when coming in contact with a dead person), as the Gemara in Nidah (55b) derives from the Pesukim.

Question #2: Additionally, the Gemara in Nidah (55b) states that impurity of liquids is only with a Revi'is. Isn't this impurity even with a small amount of liquid?

Proof #1: This is apparent from the Gemara in Pesachim (14a) that says that Kohanim never refrained from burning the meat that was made impure with a Vlad ha'Tumah together with meat that was made impure by an Av ha'Tumah, even though this causes the meat made impure by the Vlad ha'Tumah to become even more impure.

Proof #1 (cont.): The Gemara establishes that there is liquid together with the (Av ha'Tumah) meat that causes the meat (made impure by a Vlad ha'Tumah) to become more impure. One would assume that there is not a Revi'is of these liquids in the meat.

Proof #2: In that same chapter (17b), we say that this (that water in the ground is considered pure) is only referring to a Revi'is of water, as it is fit to dip needles and tubes in it (to make them pure). However, less than a Revi'is is impure.

Proof #3: The Gemara in Berachos (52a) says that we suspect that the water on the back of the cup (clearly less than a Revi'is) will become impure from his hands and they will go back and cause the cup to become impure.

Answer #1: Our Gemara is discussing a case when the liquids came out through a tube. When they are in his body they are not impure because they are not considered liquids until they exit his body. When they leave through a tube they are pure according to Torah law, being that they did not touch the dead person himself on their way out.

Answer #1 (cont.): However, the Rabbanan decreed that when these liquids exit the body of a Zav they should be considered impure if there is a Revi'is of liquid, even though they did not touch the Zav (as they went through a tube).

Answer #2: Alternatively, the Pesukim quoted by the Gemara in Nidah (55b) are only an Asmachta. According to Torah law, they (see b above) are not considered liquids. This is why the only decree that was made was regarding a Revi'is.

Question: We say in Kerisus (13a) that if a woman's milk dripped from her into the oven, the oven is impure. The Gemara asks, how is the milk able to become impure? Rebbi Yochanan answers that this is through the drop of milk on the nipple.

Question (cont.): The fact that the Gemara says that the milk requires becoming able to receive impurity implies that it is generally called food, being that it is designated for the child to eat (i.e. drink) it. If so, why does the oven become impure? Food does not cause impurity to vessels!

Question (cont.): Rather, it must be that it becomes impure due to the drop of milk that is on the nipple that mixes with the rest of the milk that dripped into the oven. This drop is indeed called liquid, and liquid causes impurity to a vessel due to a decree that it could be confused with the liquids of a Zav or Zavah, as stated in Shabos (14b). This indicates that this one drop causes the oven to become impure, even though it does not have a Revi'is!

Proof: Similarly, in Chagigah (20a) the Gemara relates that a woman came to Rebbi Yishmael and told him that she sewed this sheet when she was pure. However, while he was questioning her story, she mentioned that a thread broke and she tied it together with her mouth (i.e. with help from the spittle from her mouth, causing it to become impure). This shows that even though there was not a Revi'is of spittle in her mouth, it became impure from impure hands and caused the sheet to become impure!

Answer: Terumah and Kodshim become impure through less than a Revi'is. Only Chulin requires a Revi'is of liquid to make it impure.

Opinion: Rabeinu Tam says that the liquids that the Tevul Yom is touching in our Gemara are Terumah liquids.

Proof: If they would be Chulin liquids, they would not become impure. Even if they would be Ma'aser liquids they would be permitted, as the Gemara in Yevamos (74b) states, "If he immersed and rose up (from the Mikvah) he can eat Ma'aser."

Proof (cont.): This is also not referring to liquids that are holy, as the Mishnah states in Nidah (71b) that originally they said that someone who sits on blood that is pure (i.e. a woman eight days after giving birth to a boy, see beginning of Parshas Tazria) can pour water (that will be used to clean) for the Korban Pesach. This means she cannot touch the water, as Chulin prepared with the sanctity of Kodesh is like Kodesh.

Proof (cont.): [The Mishnah in Nidah (ibid.) continues] They retracted this statement, and returned to say that she is like contact of impurity by a dead person to Kodshim. This means that her contact specifically in regards to Kodshim, as opposed to Chulin which is unlike Kodesh, is considered like the impurity of a dead person.

Proof (cont.): This indicates that a Tevul Yom is a Rishon to Kodshim, and it is as if the Kodshim touched someone who was impure due to contact with a dead person. This is because a woman who is sitting on pure blood is like an extended Tevul Yom.