Please note that unless otherwise indicated, we follow the explanation of Rashi. Consequently, our notes and comments do not necessarily have any bearing on the practical Halachah.

1)

(a) Our Mishnah validates almost anybody's Shechitah. The three exceptions are - a Cheresh, Shoteh ve'Katan (a deaf-mute, an imbecile and a minor), whose Shechitah is Pasul - because of the likelihood that they rendered the Shechitah invalid.

(b) The Tana rules that if anyone Shechts, and his Shechitah is overseen by others - it is Kasher.

(c) We query the Lashon of the Mishnah, in that 'ha'Kol Shochtin' implies Lechatchilah, whereas 'u'Shechitasan Kesheirah' implies Bedieved. They cannot both be part of one statement, permitting their Shechitah Lechatchilah - because having said 'ha'Kol Shochtin', it follows that their Shechitah is Kasher, and it would warrant mention.

(d) The problem is based on the assumption that 'ha'Kol' implies Lechatchilah. Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava queries this however, from the Mishnah in Temurah 'ha'Kol Memirin, Echad Anashim ve'Echad Nashim' - which cannot mean Lechatchilah, because of the Pasuk in Bechukosai "Lo Yachlifenu ve'Lo Yamir Oso", which teaches us the prohibition of declaring a Temurah.

(a) If, on the other hand, 'ha'Kol' in this case means Bedi'eved, the double Lashon in our Mishnah will mean - that the law of Shechitah applies to everyone, and if they Shechted, their Shechitah is Kasher.

(b) In answer to Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava's Kashya, Rav Ashi explains - that is precisely why the Mishnah in Temurah adds 'not that one is allowed to declare a Temurah, but that if one did, the Temurah is effective (to clarify that in spite of the Lashon, it is only Kasher Bedi'eved).

(c) Nevertheless, the Tana there prefers to use a Lashon of Lechatchilah and then to amend (rather than to say 'ha'Kol she'Heimiru, Temurasan Kesheirah') - because it is a manner of expression that is more commonly used by the Tana'im.

(a) We then query the above assumption from the Mishnah in Erchin, 'ha'Kol Ma'arichin, ve'Ne'erachin, Nodrin ('Dami Alai' or 'D'mei P'loni Alai') ve'Nidrin'. 'ha'Kol Ma'arichin' comes to include a 'Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish' (a precocious twelve-year old boy), 've'Ne'erachin' - a Mukeh Sh'chin (a leper), who has an Erech, in spite of the fact that he has no intrinsic value (i.e. he would be worth nothing on the slave market).

(b) 'ha'Kol Nidrin' (if someone declares about him 'D'mei P'loni Alai') comes to include a baby of less than one month old, which we might otherwise have thought cannot be Nidar - because he has no Erech.

(c) And the Tana only inserts 'ha'Kol Nodrin - to balance 've'Nidrin' (but not to teach us anything).

(d) The problem with interpreting the Mishnah 'ha'Kol ... Nodrin ve'Nidrin' to mean Lechatchilah - is the fact that making a Neder is prohibited, as we learn from the Pasuk in Ki Seitzei "ve'Chi Sechdal Lindor Lo Yih'yeh Becha Chet", and in Koheles "Tov Asher Lo Tidor, mi'she'Tidor ve'Lo Seshalem" (as we will now explain).

(a) Based on the previous Pasuk 'Eis Asher Tidor Shaleim", Rebbi Meir in a Beraisa, comments 'Tov mi'Zeh u'mi'Zeh she'Eino Noder Kol Ikar'. He interprets the Pasuk to mean - that even though it is good to make and Neder and to keep it, it is better still not to make a Neder in the first place, because of the likelihood that one will not.

(b) Rebbi Yehudah interprets it to mean - that although it is preferable not to make a Neder than to make one and not keep it, it is better still to make it and to keep it.

(c) We qualify Rebbi Yehudah's statement however - by confining it to someone who says 'Harei Zu' (a Nedavah), but with regard to a Neder, he agrees in principle with Rebbi Meir (that 'Nodrin' means Bedi'eved).

(d) A Nedavah is better than a Neder in this regard, because a. he is no longer held responsible should it get lost or die, and b. because, having immediately designated the animal, one is less likely to be lax in bringing it.

5)

(a) In any event, we see from the Mishnah in Erchin that 'ha'Kol ... ' implies Bedi'eved - so back comes the Kashya, if 'ha'Kol Shochtin' is speaking Bedi'eved, then why do we need two Leshonos of Bedi'eved?

(b) We counter this however, from another Mishnah there - 'ha'Kol Chayavin be'Sukah' and 'ha'Kol Chayavin be Tzitzis' which imply Lechatchilah.

(c) We reject this proof - since even if 'ha'Kol Chayavin ... ' obviously implies Lechatchilah, it doesn't follow that 'ha'Kol' on its own does?

(a) We learned in the Mishnah in Menachos 'ha'Kol Somchin, Echad Anashim ve'Echad Nashim'. 'ha'Kol Somchin comes to include - an heir who brings the Korbanos of his deceased father.

(b) We know that the Tana must mean Lechatchilah - since it is a Mitzvah on the part of the heir to do so.

(c) This Mishnah forces us to draw the conclusion - that 'ha'Kol' sometimes means Lechatchilah, and sometimes Bedi'eved.

(a) Rav Ashi assumed that 'ha'Kol Shochtin' must mean Lechatchilah (prompting him to ask the opening contradiction between it and 'u'Shechitasan Kesheirah' - because if it would mean Bedi'eved, why would the Tana find it necessary to use a double-Lashon of Bedi'eved (as we explained earlier).

(b) Besides just 'ha'Kol Shochtin', the Tana could have written - 'Shechitas ha'Kol Kesheirah, Chutz ... ', instead.

(c) The problem is indeed why the Tana would need to write 'u'Shechitasan Kesheirah' to indicate that 'ha'Kol Shochtin' speaks Bedi'eved, yet cannot ask the same Kashya on the Mishnah in Temurah 'ha'Kol Memirin ... Lo she'ha'Adam Rashai Lehamir' - since there, the Tana needs to continue 'Lo she'Adam Rashai ... Ela', to teach us that Temurah is subject to Malkos (and not to indicate that 'ha'Kol Mamirin' speaks Bedieved).

(d) To answer the initial Kashya, we establish 'ha'Kol Shochtin' by 'Tamei be'Chulin' - which cannot be understood literally, because there is nothing remotely wrong with a Tamei person eating Chulin.

(a) So we establish 'Tamei be'Chulin' - by a Tamei person Shechting 'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh', which means where the owner undertakes to eat his Chulin be'Taharah as if it was Hekdesh (which the Tana sconsiders Kodshim).

(b) And he Shechts it - with a long knife, so as to ensure that he does not touch it.

(c) 'u'Shechitasan Kesheirah' refers to - real Kodshim, which the Chachamim forbade Lechatchilah.

(a) The Chachamim forbade a Tamei to Shecht Kodshim even using a long knife - which would enable him to stand outside the Azarah and Shecht the Hekdesh animal that is standing inside).

(b) The Chachamim nevertheless forbade it - in case he touches the animal (after it has been Shechted).

(c) 'Chutz mi'Chashu' speaks - even by an ordinary animal of Chulin.

(d) Their Shechitah is Pasul - because of the probability that they invalidated it through either 'Shehiyah' (pausing in the middle of the Shechithah), 'D'risah' (pressing on the the knife) or 'Chaladah'(Shechting the pipe from underneath in a way that it cannot be seen during the Shechitah).

(a) The problem with the final statement in the Mishnah 've'Chulan she'Shachtu ... Kesheirah' is to whom it pertains. It cannot pertain to ...

1. ... 'Chashu' (with reference to the previous statement) - because then the Tana ought to have said 've'Im Shachtu' (and not 've'Chulan ... ').
2. ... 'Tamei be'Chulin' - since a Tamei is permitted to Shecht Chulin even Lechatchilah (without someone watching him).
3. ... 'Tamei be'Mukdashin' - who is believed to say that he did not touch the animal.

(b) Nevertheless, we establish it by Tamei be'Mukdashin - and the Tana is now speaking in a case where he is no longer there to be asked.

(a) The Mishnah in Zevachim validates Kodshim that have been Shechted by Zarim, Nashim, Avadim (who in fact, may even Shecht Lechatchilah) - and Teme'im (even if they Shechted Kodshei Kodshim), provided they do not touch the flesh of the animal (once it has been Shechted).

(b) The problem that Mishnah creates is - why we then need our Mishnah to teach us the same thing.

(c) Perhaps, we reply, our Mishnah is really the Ikar (the main source) for the Halachah, and the Tana only repeats it in Zevachim on account of the other cases that it discusses there. Alternatively - the main source is the Mishnah in Zevachim, and the Torah only inserts it here because it is similar to the Din of Tamei be'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh.

(a) We learn from the Pasuk (in connection with Tamei Meis) "be'Chalal Cherev" - that a (metal) sword that has slain someone adopts the same degree of Tum'ah as the Meis (i.e. an Avi Avos ha'Tum'ah), and renders whoever touches it an Av.

(b) The Kashya this poses on the Mishnah is - that since metal adopts the same degree of Tum'ah as the Meis (or as the person who touched one) what will it help, if the Tamei Shechts Kodshim using a long knife - seeing as he himself, who is an Av ha'Tum'ah, renders the metal knife an Av ha'Tum'ah, which in turn, renders the flesh of the Kodshim animal a Rishon?

(c) In fact, this Kashya would apply even without the D'rashah of "be'Chalal Cherev" - even if the Tamei rendered the knife a Rishon, which would then render the flesh a Sheini.

(d) We nevertheless cite it - to strengthen the Kashya (since not only does the flesh become a Sheini, but it even becomes a Rishon).

(a) We answer the basic Kashya - by establishing the Tamei as a Tamei Sheretz (and not a Tamei Meis, as we thought until now) ...

(b) ... and a Tamei Sheretz does not have the power to be Metamei a K'li (something which, min ha'Torah, only an Av can do).

(c) Alternatively, we establish the Mishnah even with regard to a Tamei Meis, and still avoid the problem - by establishing the knife (not as a metal one but) as a strip of cane which falls under the category of 'P'shutei K'lei Eitz' (flat wooden vessels), which are not subject to Tum'ah.

(d) We know that such a knife is Kasher to Shecht with - from a Beraisa, which permits Shechting with a rock, a piece of glass and a strip of cane.