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.

(a) Our Mishnah validates almost anybody's Shechitah.
What are the three exceptions? Why is their Shechitah Pasul?

(b) What does the Tana say about anyone who Shechts, if his Shechitah is overseen by others?

(c) We query the Lashon of the Mishnah, in that 'ha'Kol Shochtin' implies Lechatchilah, whereas 'u'Shechitasan Kesheirah' implies Bedieved.
Why can they both not be part of one statement, permitting their Shechitah Lechatchilah?

(d) The problem is based on the assumption that 'ha'Kol' implies Lechatchilah.
How does Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava query this from the Mishnah in Temurah 'ha'Kol Memirin, Echad Anashim ve'Echad Nashim'?

(a) If, on the other hand, 'ha'Kol' in this case means Bedi'eved, how will we explain the double Lashon in our Mishnah?

(b) How did Rav Ashi explain the Mishnah in Temurah, to answer Rav Acha b'rei de'Rava's Kashya?

(c) Why does the Tana there not then simply say 'ha'Kol she'Heimiru, Temurasan Kesheirah' (instead of using a Lashon Lechatchilah, and then having to amend it)?

(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'.
If 'ha'Kol Ma'arichin' comes to include a 'Mufla ha'Samuch le'Ish' (a precocious twelve-year old boy), what does 've'Ne'erachin' come to include?

(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.
Why does the Tana need to teach us that? Why might we have thought otherwise?

(c) What does 'ha'Kol Nodrin come to include?

(d) What is the problem with interpreting the Mishnah 'ha'Kol ... Nodrin ve'Nidrin' to mean Lechatchilah?

(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'.
How does Rebbi Meir interpret the Pasuk?

(b) How does Rebbi Yehudah interpret it?

(c) How do we qualify Rebbi Yehudah's statement, to establish the prohibition of declaring a Neder even according to him?

(d) What makes a Nedavah better than a Neder in this regard?

5)

(a) What is now the Kashya on 'ha'Kol Shochtin' from the Mishnah in Erchin?

(b) We counter this however, from another Mishnah there.
What does 'ha'Kol Chayavin be'Sukah' and 'ha'Kol Chayavin be Tzitzis' imply?

(c) On what grounds do we reject this proof?

(a) We learned in the Mishnah in Menachos 'ha'Kol Somchin, Echad Anashim ve'Echad Nashim'.
What does 'ha'Kol Somchin come to include?

(b) How do we know that the Tana must mean Lechatchilah?

(c) What conclusion does this Mishnah force us to draw?

(a) On what grounds did Rav Ashi assume that 'ha'Kol Shochtin' means Lechatchilah, prompting him to ask the opening contradiction between it and 'u'Shechitasan Kesheirah'?

(b) What could the Tana have written instead (besides just 'ha'Kol Shochtin')?

(c) If the problem is why the Tana would need to write 'u'Shechitasan Kesheirah' to teach us that 'ha'Kol Shochtin' is Bedi'eved, why can we not ask the same Kashya on the Mishnah in Temurah 'ha'Kol Mamirin ... Lo she'ha'Adam Rashai Lehamir'?

(d) To answer the initial Kashya, we establish 'ha'Kol Shochtin' by Tamei be'Chulin.
What is wrong with that as it stands?

(a) We establish 'Tamei be'Chulin' by 'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh' (which has a connection with Isur).
What is 'Chulin she'Na'asu al Taharas ha'Kodesh'?

(b) How must he Shecht it?

(c) Then what does 'u'Shechitasan Kesheirah' refer to?

(a) The Chachamim forbade a Tamei to Shecht Kodshim, even using a long knife.
What was the purpose of the long knife?

(b) Why did the Chachamim then forbid it?

(c) And how does 'Chutz mi'Chashu' speak?

(d) Why is their Shechitah Pasul?

(a) What is the problem with the final statement in the Mishnah 've'Chulan she'Shachtu ... Kesheirah'? Why can it not pertain to ...

1. ... 'Chashu' (with reference to the previous statement)?
2. ... 'Tamei be'Chulin'?
3. ... 'Tamei be'Mukdashin'?

(b) Nevertheless, we establish it by Tamei be'Mukdashin.
Why can we not rely on his assurance that he did not touch the Shechted animal?

(a) The Mishnah in Zevachim validates Kodshim that have been Shechted by Zarim, Nashim and Avadim (who in fact, may even Shecht Lechatchilah).
What does the Tana say about Kodshei Kodshim that were Shechted by Temei'im?

(b) What problem does that Mishnah create?

(c) Perhaps, we reply, our Mishnah is really the main source for the Halachah, and the Tana only repeats it in Zevachim on account of the other cases that it discusses.
How else might we answer the Kashya?

(a) What do we learn from the Pasuk in Chukas (in connection with Tamei Meis) "be'Chalal Cherev"?

(b) Why does that pose a Kashya on the Mishnah, which permits a Tamei to Shecht Kodshim using a long knife?

(c) Why in fact, would this Kashya apply even without the D'rashah of "be'Chalal Cherev"?

(d) Then why do we cite it?

(a) How do we answer the basic Kashya? What sort of Tamei must the Tana be talking about?

(b) So what? Why will he not render the knife Tamei?

(c) How can we establish the Mishnah even with regard to a Tamei Meis, and yet avoid the problem?

(d) How do we know that such a knife is Kasher to Shecht with?

Next daf