Ruling: It is written in Hilchos Eretz Yisrael that women are not permitted to Shecht, because they are not seriously minded.

Refutation: This does not seem correct however, seeing as they are even permitted to Shecht Kodshim Lechatchilah ...

Source (Part 1): ... as the Gemara states in Perek Kol ha'Pesulim (Zevachim 31:) 'All the Pesulim who Shechted! Bedi'eved yes, Lechatchilah no? And the Gemara queries this from the Beraisa which states "ve'Shachat", 'this teaches us that Shechitah is Kasher ... ? And the Gemara answers that in fact, they are even permitted to Shecht Lechatchilah, and the reason that the Tana says 'she'Shachat' (Bedi'eved) is because he wants to mention 'Tamei be'Mukdashin', who is not permitted to Shecht Lechatchilah ...

Source (Part 2): ... and the Gemara does not suggest that the Tana says 'she'Shachat' because of 'Nashim', which he mentions in the Reisha. This is surely because women are permitted to Shecht Lechatchilah - even Kodshim.

Implied Question: And the reason that our Mishnah does not say 'ha'Kol Shochtim, Echad Anashim ve'Echad Nashim, like it does in Temurah (2a) is ...

Answer: ... because whereas there the Tana needs to do so, as the Gemara explains at the beginning of Temurah 'because the entire Parshah is said in the masculine', here there is no more Chidush by a woman that be a man.

Implied Question: And in Perek Kol ha'Pesulin (31:), in connection with Kodshim, it needs to mention 'Nashim' ...

Answer: ... because Kohanos are invalidated from performing all other Avodos.

Explanation #1: The Gemara (Daf 12:) extrapolates from the fact that the Tana says 'Perhaps they will mess-up the Shechitah and not 'Perhaps they messed-up the Shechitah (already)', that one does not hand them (Chashu) Chulin to Shecht Lechatchilah. Rashi explains there that this speaks even if others supervise them whilst they Shecht.

Question: The difficulty with this is that we already know this from the Seifa, which states 'And all of them who Shechted whilst others supervised them, their Shechitah is Kasher', implying Bedi'eved.

Suggested Answer: We cannot answer that the Tana mentions Bedi'eved because of Tamei be'Mukdashin or because of Shochtim who are not experts, but that a Chashu may Shecht even Lechatchilah if somebody supervises him ...

Refutation: ... since Rava is the one who extrapolates 'Shema Kilk'lu' Lo Katani', and according to Rava 've'Chulan she'Shachtu ... ' refers specifically to a Chashu, as the Gemara explains.

Answer: Some commentaries have the text 'Rabah', but Rava is not bothered by the difference between 'Yekalk'lu' and 'Kilk'lu', just as he is not bothered by the fact that the Tana does not say 've'Im Shachtu ... '.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam explains that Lechatchilah one does not hand them Chulin to Shecht, even to feed to dogs, in case people who see how one authorizes them to Shecht, will come to validate their Shechitah completely ...

Precedent: ... just as we will later exempt their Shechitah from Kisuy ha'Dam for the same reason.

Observation: According to this, the Gemara there is in order, since it is speaking where nobody is supervising them, like the Reisha.

Explanation #1 (Part 1): Rashi explains that this comes to uproot 'ha'Kol' of the Reisha, that one should not think that it means Lechatchilah.

Refutation: But the Lashon 'ke'de'Katani Ta'ama' does not tally with his explanation.

Explanation #1 (Part 2): Also what he explains in the Gemara's conclusion 'because if it was Bedi'eved, why do we need two cases of Bedi'eved?' - 'and even though in Temurah too, the Tana first states and then explains, there it does not juxtapose the two cases, to say 'ha'Kol Memirin u'Temurasan Temurah' (like it does here), and as for 'Lo she'ha'Adam Rashai ... ', that is needed for the conclusion 've'Sofeg es ha'Arba'im', to teach us that Temurah is subject to Malkos, even though no action is involved ...

Refutation #1: ... That is not correct, because for 've'Sofeg es ha'Arba'im' alone the Tana ought not to have mentioned two Bedie'veds, since it could just as well have said 'ha'Kol Mamirin, ve'ha'Meimir Sofeg es ha'Arba'im?

Refutation #2 (Part 1): And furthermore, at the beginning of Temurah (2a) the Gemara asks 'ha'Kol Mamirin' implies Lechatchilah, whereas 've'Lo sha'ha'Adam Rashai Lehamir' implies Bedi'eved. And Rav Yehudah answers that what the Mishnah means is that everyone can be Matfis a Temurah, both men and women.

Refutation #2 (Part 2): ... Why did the Gemara not answer that the Tana mentions it because of 've'Sofeg es ha'Arba'im', like Rashi explains here?

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that the answer here is the same as the answer in Temurah, and this is what the Gemara means 'There, like the reason that it gives' - that the Tana says 'ha'Kol Mamirin', implying Lechatchilah, is to teach us that even if one declared a Temurah be'Meizid, which is Lechatchilah, his Temurah is valid

Question: But at the end of the first Perek of Temurah (13.), the Gemara implies that Temurah ought to be effective be'Meizid more than be'Shogeg, since it says there "Yih'yeh", 'to include Shogeg like Meizid'.

Answer #1: Nevertheless, when it comes to an animal being Kasher to go on the Mizbe'ach, we consider Shogeg more obvious than Meizid.

Answer #2: Alternatively, that Gemara is speaking with regard to Meizid where no warning was given, which is not subject to Malkos, and that Meizid is more obvious than Shogeg.

Question: Why did the Mishnah not say 've'Sofeg Shemonim', since one transgresses two La'avin "Lo Yachlifenu" and "Lo Yamir Oso"?

Answer: One of the La'avin refers to one's own animal and the other to that of one's friend, as the Gemara explains in Temurah (9a) ...

Clarification: ... in a case where his friend announced that whoever wishes may declare his animal a Temurah, since there is no other way that one could declare someone else's animal a Temurah.

Clarification: First the Gemara cites the Torah source and then the one from Divrei Kabalah (from T'nach).

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that just before that, the Pasuk writes "Es asher Tidor Shalem!", and nevertheless "Tov asher Lo Tidor", 'in case you vow and fail to pay'.

Question: But, asks Rabeinu Tam, the Gemara does not quote the earlier Pasuk at all?

Explanation #2 (Part 1): It therefore seems to Rabeinu Tam that the entire D'rashah is based on the latter Pasuk; since it should have written "Tov asher Lo Tidor mi'she'Tidor" (and stopped), and we would know that it is referring to where he vows and fails to keep it ...

Explanation #2 (Part 2): ... and the reason that it adds "ve'Lo Teshalem" is to reveal that "mi'she'Tidor" means the way of people who declare a vow, who generally vow and pay.

Precedent: ... like we find by "Sachir ve'Toshav", where the one reveals how to learn the other, as the Gemara explains at the beginning of Kidushin.

Clarification: This Sugya holds like the latter Lashon in the last Perek of Nedarim (10a), which maintains that they are arguing about 'Nodev', whereas according to the first Lashon there, they are arguing about Noder, but by Nodev, Rebbi Meir concedes that it is permitted.

Question (Part 1): Since the Pasuk is speaking about Neder, from where does Rebbi Meir learn that Nodev is not better than Noder u'Meshalem?

Question (Part 2): And according to Rebbi Yehudah as well, why, if one says 'Harei Alai, should one not' ...

Question (Part 3): ... since wherever the Torah writes 'Neder', it means specifically Neder, and wherever it writes 'Nedavah', it means specifically Nedavah, as is evident from the Gemaros at the beginning of Menachos (2a) and in Zevachim (2a), where, in connection with the Pasuk "Ka'asher Nadarta la'Hashem Elokecha Nedavah" - the Gemara asks 'This Nedavah is a Neder?'

Answer #1: Some commentaries explain that the Gemara only asks there because the Pasuk changed its expression.

Answer #2 (Part 1): Because he (R. Meir) holds that, since the Torah is concerned about Takalah by Neder, it stands to reason that it is also worried by Nedavah, since the Takalah that even if one brings the animal to the Azarah and declares it Hekdesh, one is likely to benefit from it and transgress the Dinim of Me'ilah on it in many different ways. Not everybody, after all is an expert like Hillel who says in Pesachim (66:) that 'A person will never be guilty of Me'ilah (with regard to a Nedavah)'.

Answer #1 (Part 2): And according to Rebbi Yehudah too, the Pasuk is speaking about a Nedavah (despite the fact that it mentions 'Neder'), since by Neder it is impossible to say that Noder u'Meshalem is good.

Proof: This is because the Pasuk writes "And when you stop making Nedarim, you will not sin, implying that as long as you make Nedarim, you will sin.

Answer #1 (Part 3): Whereas according to the first Lashon in Nedarim (which establishes the Machlokes by Neder), we will explain the Pasuk to mean that 'But if you do make a Neder, you might come to sin if you don't pay'.

Question: According to Rebbi Meir, who holds that it is not a good thing to be Nodev under any circumstances, even if one brings one's lamb to the Azarah (according to the second Lashon in Nedarim, as the Gemara explains in Nedarim, how did Yisrael bring Shelamim in the desert?

Answer: Since Basar Ta'avah (Chulin meat) was forbidden to them, it was as if Hash-m had commanded them to eat meat by means of bringing Shelamim.

Question: But does the Torah not write in Vayeitzei (28) "And Ya'akov made a Neder"?, and the Pasuk in Yonah (2) ... "That what I vowed I will keep!"?

Answer: In time of trouble it is permitted, as the Bereishis Rabah, commenting on the Pasuk "And Ya'akov made a Neder saying" explains "To say to generations that they should make Nedarim in times of trouble.

Inference: This implies that it is Rav Ashi who asked the Kashya, even though it appears (anonymously) as part of the Sugya ...

Ramification: ... a proof that Rav Ashi arranged the Gemara.

Implied Question: Even though Abaye and Rava also come to answer the Kashya, and they preceded Rav Ashi ...

Answer: ... perhaps the Kashya was asked in their time as well.

Implied Question: Even though it is forbidden to cause Chulin in Eretz Yisrael to become Tamei ...

Answer: ... that only applies to fruit, which is subject to Terumah, but not to meat.

Implied Question: And even if there is a prohibition against being Metamei oneself with Tamei food, as we learn from the Pasuk "Vehiskasdishtem Vi'heyisem Kedoshim" - 'This is a warning that Yisrael should eat their Chulin be'Taharah' ...

Answer: ... nevertheless, it is permissible to render them Tamei and to eat them when one is Tamei.

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara will say later (on Daf 121:) that a Mefarcheses (an animal that shudders after being Shechted) is considered alive ...

Answer #1: ... we are nevertheless afraid that he will touch it after the Pirchus has terminated.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it is only with regard to the Din of Ha'amadah and Ha'arachah (being stood and assessed) that it is considered alive, but as far as Tum'ah is concerned, the moment the two (or the majority of the two) Simanim have been cut, it is subject to Tum'ah, since it is considered food ...

Source: ... like the Gemara states in Perek ha'Or ve'ha'Rotev (Ibid.) 'Someone who who Shechts a non-Kasher Mefarcheses animal for a Nochri, it is Metamei Tum'as Ochlin, but not Tum'as Neveilos'.

Implied Question: Even though the blood of Kodshim is not Machshir, 'Chibas ha'Kodesh' is; or if he passed it through a river, and it was still wet when he Shechted it, as the Gemara explains in the first Perek of Pesachim (20a).

Question: Why does the Gemara not attribute the reason for the prohibition of Shechting it to the fear that one may be drawn inside, since even a person who is completely Tahor is forbidden to Shecht using a long knife, in case he comes to be drawn inside - according to ben Zoma, who says in Yoma (Daf 30.) that 'Anyone who enters the Beis-Hamikdash requires Tevilah'?

Answer #1: There is more reason to issue a decree with regard to someone who is Tahor, who may allow himself to be drawn in, whereas a Tamei person is more careful, and will remember not to enter.

Answer #2: Alternatively, it mentions the reason of 'Shema Yiga be'Basar' here because it wants to conclude 've'Im Shachat ve'Amar "Bari li she'Lo Naga'ti, Shechitaso Kesheirah".

Question (Part 1): Rabeinu Efrayim asks how it is possible for a knife to be long enough to reach from the Har ha'Bayis to the Ezras Yisrael ...

Question (Part 2): ... seeing as the Gemara will shortly establish the 'Tamei' by a Tamei Meis, and the Mishnah in the first Perek of Keilim (Mishnah 8) rules that the Chil is more holy than the Ha ha'Bayis in that a Tamei Meis and Nochrim are not allowed there, and the Ezras Nashim is more holy than the latter in that a T'vul-Yom is not permitted to enter.

Question (Part 3): ... And even according to those who establish the 'Tamei' by a Tamei Sheretz (who is allowed to enter the Chil), the Ezras Nashim itself was a hundred and thirty-five Amos long, so how is it possible to find a knife that is that long?

Answer #1: According to Rabeinu Tam who generally holds that the Rabbanan did not decree there where one became Tamei inside, the problem is solved (See Tosfos ha'Rosh).

Answer #2: Neither is there a problem according to the Ri, who explains that the Chachamim were only strict in the Ezras Nashim which serves as the entrance and the exit (via the Sha'ar Nikanor), but in other areas a Tamei is able to enter right up to the Machaneh Shechinah (But this is not the place to elaborate).

Answer #3: Other commentaries explain that this Sugya is speaking by a Bamah, which will also help us better understand the Gemara shortly (as Tosfos will explain at the end of the Amud).

Clarification: We are not however, concerned about Hagramah and Ikur (two of the five Pesulim that invalidate Shechitah), which are easily discernable. Ikur that is caused by a defective knife, however, is not easily discernable (See Tosfos ha'Rosh).

Clarification (Part 1): This means that it refers to a Chashu exclusively ...

Clarification (Part 2): ... but it is obvious that it refers to them as well, as we see from the Gemara later, which, in connection with Chashu, asks 'Who is the Tana who does not require Kavanah for Shechitah?'

Implied Question: Even though the Azarah is considered a R'shus-ha'Rabim, as the Gemara explains in the first Perek of Pesachim (19b), in which case, we ought to have declared it Tahor mi'Safek ...

Answer #1: ... this Safek is not comparable to other cases of Safek Tum'ah in the R'shus ha'Rabim, since in the majority of cases, one is not able to avoid touching.

Answer #2: ... And if it is speaking about a Bamah (as Tosfos explained earlier), which is a R'shus ha'Yachid, the problem falls away.