Question: What Rashi asks on those who establish it by Telushim, that the Gemara would not ask 'Tanina' from a Beraisa, only from a Mishnah ...

Refutation: ... is not really a Kashya, since we do actually learn it from the Mishnah in Zevachim (Perek Chatas ha'Of 68a), which states that if one performed Melikah with a knife, it renders Tamei the clothes of whoever eats it when it reaches his throat'; so we see that Melikah by Talush is Pasul.

Question: The other question that Rashi asks however - that the Gemara should rather have said 'Lim'utei Talush', incorporating all Talush, is a good Kashya?

Question: According to Rashi, who establishes it by Mechubar, how can Melikah using a tooth be Kasher, seeing as Melikah requires the right hand, as we have learned in the Mishnah in Perek Chatas ha'Of (Ibid.) 'Malak bi'Semol Pasul'?

Answer #1: The Gemara mentions 'Shein' (not because it is Kasher to perform Melikah, but) because it is not Pasul as far as Mechubar is concerned, as it is by Shechitah.

Answer #2: Alternatively, the left hand is worse than a tooth, like we find by Chalitzah, which a woman without hands performs with her teeth, even though the Yerushalmi implies that it must be performed with the right hand, as we learned there 'How does she do it? She unties his shoelace with her right hand, then holds it with her left hand and pulls it off with her right, so that both the removal and the untying of the shoe she does with her right hand.

Refutation: There is no real proof from there however, since it may well be that using the right hand by Chalitzah is not crucial to the Mitzvah, and is only necessary Lechatchilah, and even if she were to do it with the left-hand, it would also be valid (whereas Melikah is not).

Implied Question: Why does the Gemara not answer that it comes to preclude 'Doreis' (where he presses on the Simanim)?

Answer (Part 1): Because we have learned specifically in the Mishnah in the second Perek (Daf 30b) that this is Pasul - 'If he severed its head in one go, it [the Shechitah] is Pasul' ...

Answer (Part 2): ... and if it was coming to teach us that severing the head by Melikah is Kasher, then it ought to have inverted the statement and said 'Pasul bi'Shechitah, Kasher bi'Melikah', implying that the Din by Shechitah is obvious.'

Explanation #1: According to Rashi, who holds that Ikur Simanim is a T'reifah ...

Question #1 (Part 1): ... why is it necessary to teach us that, just as Ikur is Pasul by Shechitah, so too, is it Pasul by Melikah? On what grounds would we have validated it by Melikah more than by Shechitah?

Question #1 (Part 2): ... seeing as a bird that is found after Melikah to be T'reifah is unanimously considered Pasul (and they only argue in Zevachim in Perek Chatas ha'Of (69a) whether Melikah renders a bird Tahor from the Tum'ah of Nivlas Of Tahor or not?

Question #2: And similarly, one can ask on Rava bar Kisi, who maintains that Rami bar Chama confines Ikur Simanim to Melikah and not to Shechitah - Why does he mention Ikur more than any other kind of T'reifus?

Question #3 (Part 1): The Gemara will say shortly that we only say that there is no Ikur Simanim by a bird according to the opinion that holds that the Shechitah of a bird is not min ha'Torah, but according to those that it is, Ikur does apply. What has one got to do with the other, seeing as it is forbidden because it is T'reifah? What is this the difference between this T'reifus and any other T'reifus?

Question #3 (Part 2): ... because, seeing as the bird has become T'reifah, Nechirah will no longer help either, other than to take it out of the realm of Neveilah, according to the opinion that holds 'Ein Shechitah la'Of min ha'Torah, as is evident at the beginning of ha'Shochet (Daf 28a)?

Explanation #2 (Part 1): According to the opinion of the Halachos Gedolos however, who holds that Ikur does not render the bird a T'reifah, the entire Sugya is crystal-clear. That is why the Gemara says 'If you say that it comes to preclude Ikur Simanim" - then, just as there is a Halachah le'Moshe mi'Sinai that the Shechitah is not effective there, even though it does not become a T'reifah through that, so too, by Melikah, it is no longer subject to Melikah, even though it is not a T'reifah ...

Explanation #2 (Part 2): ... 'But did Rami bar Yechezkel not quote a Beraisa ... '? And he argues with the ruling of 'Nishm'tah ha'Gargeres ... ', as Rashi explains.

Explanation #2 (Part 3): Though he does not argue with the Beraisa quoted by Levi 'Kol T'reifos she'Manu Chachamim bi'Veheimah Kenegdo be'Of ' , seeing as Ikur does not render even an animal a T'reifah.

Explanation #1: ... whereas according to Rashi, he will argue with Levi's Beraisa, too.

Explanation #2 (Part 4): According to the Halachos Gedolos, Rava bar Kisi and the entire Sugya fits together nicely.

Refutation of Question (Part 1): One cannot ask according to him, how it is possible to find a case of Nivlas Of Tahor that renders Tamei the clothes of the one who eats it' ...

Refutation of Question (Part 2): ... since, although a bird does not require Shechitah, it does however, require Nechirah on the Simanim ...

Source: ... as is evident later, at the beginning of the second Perek (28a) where it asks 'Malak be'Sakin, Metamei Begadim a'Beis ha'Beli'ah' - and if we would hold that a bird is not subject to Shechitah min ha'Torah, granted that, since he has broken the Spinal cord and the nape, it is a T'reifah, nevertheless, let the knife now render it Tahor from Neveilah?

Conclusion: So we see that it requires specifically the Simanim to render it Tahor, whereas the spine and the nape, render it a T'reifah.

Implied Question: Why does the Gemara in 'ha'Techeiles (Manachos 45a), regarding the Pasuk "Neveilah u'Tereifah Lo Yochlu ha'Kohanim", state that it is necessary, because we would otherwise have thought that, since Melikah is permitted by the Kohanim, Neveilah is permitted too?

Answer: It does mean Davka 'Neveilah', but T'reifah, as is evident later from Perek ha'Shochet (28.), which Tosfos cited earlier (in the previous DH), and it mentions Neveilah on account of T'reifah.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that after the sections of the bone have parted, the Shochet sticks the knife underneath the bone; this is because the bone, does not part in opposite directions when it is cut (in the way that flesh does), but tends to remain as it is - and when the knife subsequently cuts underneath the bone, that is Chaladah.

Semi-Question: According to Rashi's explanation, the Gemara is not talking about a broad knife.

Explanation #2: It would seem however, that it is considered Chaladah when he cuts the Simanim in an upward direction (instead of downwards), even using a broad knife.

Explanation #3: In Perek Chatas ha'Of (Zevachim 68.) Rashi defines 'Machlid' as where he presses the top of the knife downwards, to avoid cutting the majority of the flesh before the Simanim ...

Refutation: It is impossible to explain the Gemara here like that however, seeing as it calls it Machlid, even though we initially think that he cuts the majority of the flesh as well.

Clarification: The Gemara is asking both according to the Rabbanan and according to Rebbi Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon, as Rashi explains.