Question: How can one Shecht using a shard of cane, seeing as Shechitah (of Kodshim) requires a 'K'li' ...

Source: ... as is evident at the end of Perek ha'Todah (Menachos 82:), and at the end of Perek Dam Chatas (Zevachim 97:), where the Gemara Darshens from the Pasuk "Vayikach es ha'Ma'acheles Lish'chot es B'no", that an Olah requires a K'li, and we learn all (Kodshim) from Olah?

Answer: It speaks where the Shochet fashioned the shard of cane into a sort of K'li.

Implied Question: Even though we rule like Rebbi, who says in Perek ha'Chalil (Succah 50:) that 'One cannot make a K'li Shareis out of wood (disagreeing with Rebbi Yossi b'Rebbi Yehudah, who permits it [so how one permit even a K'li made of bamboo)?

Answer: The Shechitah of Kodshim does not require a K'li Shareis ...

Source #1: ... since in Perek ha'Todah (Menachos 78:), the Gemara states that a knife (of Chulin) sanctifies (a Korban) just like a K'li Shareis.

Source #2 (Part 1): And so it is implied in the Tosefta, which states 'Kemitzah has a Chumra over Shechitah in that Kemitzah requires a K'li whereas Shechitah does not' - and even a shard of cane will do.

Source #2 (Part 2): The Gemara cannot possibly mean that it does not require a K'li at all ...

Proof #1: ... seeing as we learn from Olah that it does (as we explained earlier). So it can only mean that it does not require a K'li Shareis.

Refutation (of proof) Part 1: It is possible however, to refute this proof, and what the Gemara means is that it does not even require a proper K'li, that we not disqualify a shard of cane because of the Pasuk in Mal'achi "Bring it to your prince ... !"

Precedent: ... as the Gemara asks in Sotah (14:) with regard to using a wickerwork basket ...

Reason #1: ... because there it is talking about a gift (the Kometz of a Korban Minchah), which is normally brought in a nice vessel, but regarding Shechitah, this does not bother us.

Reason #2: Alternatively, because a wickerwork basket is more ugly than the shard of a cane,

Proof #2: Rabeinu Efrayim proves (that Shechitah does not require a K'li Shareis) from the Mishnah in 'Eizehu Mekoman' (Zevachim 47a) - 'Their Shechitah takes place in the north, and their blood is received in a K'li Shareis in the north' - and the Tana does not mention K'li Shareis regarding the Shechitah as it does by Kabalas ha'Dam.

Refutation: This is no proof however, since by Kabalah too, the Tana only mentions it to teach us that the K'li (like the animal) must be on the north side of the Mizbe'ach; to preclude there where the K'li, into which the blood flows, is in the south.

Proof (Part 1): Proof for this lies in the fact that with regard to Kodshim Kalim, which do not require Tzafon, the Tana does not bother to mention that the Kabalah requires a K'li Shareis.

Implied Question: In that case, why does the Mishnah in Perek Kol ha'Zevachim (Ibid. 26.) 'Kodshim Kalim Shechitasan bi'Fenim ve'Kibul Daman bi'Cheli Shareis bi'Fenim mention 'K'li Shareis; even though it is talking about Kodshim Kalim?

Answer: Because there too, the Tana is coming to teach us that the vessel needs to be inside; to preclude where the majority of it is outside and only the minority inside, and where the Kohen receives the blood into the minority which is inside, even though it is not Pasul because of 'Yotzei'.

Explanation #1 (Part 1): This is not coming to answer according to Abaye, since also Abaye does not permit Bedi'eved without cutting a k'Zayis of meat (and giving it to him).

Explanation #1 (Part 2): In fact, it comes to query Rava, who extrapolates from here that it is permitted even Lechatchilah.

Explanation #2: Alternatively (according to Abaye) as long as one can clarify the issue by cutting a k'Zayis of meat and giving it to the Kuti, one does; but if he is not there, then it is permitted anyway.

Clarification (Part 1): The Gemara is not trying to say that it means Di'eved and not Lechatchilah ...

Proof: ... since we conclude that it is permitted Lechatchilah.

Clarification (Part 2): What it means is that it also implies Di'eved.

Question: But later on Daf 27a [in connection with someone who Shechts with a hand-scythe, and someone who Shechts one Siman of a bird]), the Gemara extrapolates 'Di'eved, In!'?

Answer: The Gemara Kashya there is really based on 'Shechitasan Kesheirah' that is mentioned there, and that implies Bedi'eved.

Question: There is however, a Kashya from the Mishnah in Perek ha'Mekane le'Ishto (Sotah 2a) and in Perek Chavis (Shabbos 147a [in connection with someone who bathes [ha'Rochetz] in the water of a cave]), where the Gemara asks "ha'Rochetz", 'Di'eved In, Lechatchilah, Lo?' (See Tosfos Sotah 2. DH 'ha'Mekane Di'eved')

Clarificaction: This is the correct text, not 'mi'Seifa ...

Reason: Since 'ha'Meni'ach' is in the last (fifth) Perek of 'Avodah-Zarah (69a), whereas the case of 'ha'Shomer' is in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (the fourth Perek [Ibid. 61a]).

Explanation #1: This implies that 'Ein Tzarich means Lechatchilah.

Question (Part 1): At the beginning of Gitin (4b) however, after querying Rabah, who says 'Because they are not experts in (writing a Get) li'Shemah', from the Mishnah which rules that someone who brings a Get from one province to another overseas needs (Tzarich) to declare 'be'Famai Nichtav u'be'Fanei Nechtam!', implying that in the same province it is not necessary?

Question (Part 2): The Gemara answers 'Do not extrapolate - "But in the same province it is not necessary', but "from one province to another in Eretz Yisrael, it is not necessary" '. The Gemara then asks that the Tana has already learned this case 'ha'Meivi Get be'Eretz Yisrael Ein Tzarich ... ?, and it answers that from there alone, we would have thought that only Bedi'eved is it permitted.

Question (Part 3): But how can the Gemara say that, seeing as 'Ein Tzarich' means Lechatchilah, as is implied here?

Answer: Rashi therefore explains there that when the Gemara asks that 'the Tana has already learned this case 'ha'Meivi ... ', what it really means is - since we have already extrapolated that from the Reisha, why does it need to state it again in the Seifa? And on that it answers that, from the Reisha, we would have thought that Davka Bedi'eved ... ` that is why we need the Seifa, to teach us that it is even permitted Lechatchilah.

Refutation: However, the Lashon 'If from there', does not seem to mean that?

Answer #1: Since there it is possible to rectify the matter Bedi'eved, as the Gemara explains there in the same Perek (5b) 'to take the Get back from the woman and give it to her again in front of two witnesses, and to declare "be'Fanai Nichtav ... ", it is appropriate to state 'Ein Tzarich', meaning that it is not necessary to take it back from her.

Answer #2 (Part 1): Alternatively, specifically there we would have thought that it is Bedi'eved, since Lechatchilah the witness is obligated to see the Get being written and signed. And if he did not, we would have thought that it is not necessary to re-write the Get, but to give it to her as it is (despite the fact that he did not see it).

Answer #2 (Part 2): So it comes to teach us that even Lechatchilah, it is not necessary to witness the writing and the signing either.

Answer #3: The reason that we extrapolate here is because it is referring to the Reisha of the Mishnah in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (Avodah-Zarah 61:) 'In a city most of whose inhabitants are Nochrim, it is forbidden (to leave Nochri wine that has been manufactured by a Yisrael) unless there is a Shomer', and then it says 'Ein ha'Shomer Tzarich ... ', implying that 'Yotzei ve'Nichnas' (popping in from time to time) is considered like a proper Shomer - which is like the Shomer of the Reisha.

Question: Since Rava compares Shechitah to Yayin Nesech, why is 'Ba u'Matz'o' not permitted even without cutting off a k'Zayis and giving it to him (the Kuti) ...

Precedent: Like it is by Yayin Nesech, which the Mishnah in Perek Rebbi Yishmael (Avodah-Zarah 60:) permits in the case of a Nochri whom one finds beside a wine-pit, assuming that he does not owe him (the Nochri) anything.

Answer: Since it is easily possible to clarify the matter by giving him a k'Zayis of meat, that is what we do, as Tosfos already explained earlier.

Clarification (Part 1): We are not afraid that he may perform 'Shehiyah' or 'D'rasah', because he will not leave what is permitted and opt for what is forbidden' and even if he does not actually eat from it, since he is concerned about "Lifnei Iver Lo Sitein Michshol", even if nobody is watching him or even popping in.

Clarification (Part 1): A Kuti however, has a different Din. If a Yisrael is popping in from time to time, it is not necessary to examine his knife, since he is afraid (and we do not find anywhere that a Kuti needs to have his knife examined).

Clarification (Part 2): Whereas if no Yisrael is popping in ... , then even examining his knife will not help, because we are afraid that he may have performed 'Shehiyah' or 'D'rasah', since the La'av of "Lifnei Iver ... " does not concern him.

Question: Why does a Yisrael 'popping in' not help by a Mumar like it does by a Kuti (for so the Gemara will say shortly - 'If the knife is not available, what does the fact that others watched him help?)

Answer: A Yisrael Mumar is not afraid, since he assumes that they will not examine the knife after him. This is because he considers himself to be a fully-fledged Yisrael in all regards.

Refuted Question: One cannot ask why it is necessary to examine a Mumar's knife before he Shechts and to pop in by a Kuti; why will it not suffice to let them Shecht first and then to examine the formers knife and to give the latter a k'Zayis of meat ...

Refutation: Because we are afraid that one might forget and eat from the meat without checking them out first ...

Precedent: ... like Rabeinu Tam explained with regard to a Chashu, to whom one does not initially hand Chulin to Shecht.

Implied Question: Even though there is a Beraisa later (on 12a [in connection with someone who finds a Shechted chicken]) which holds that most people who Shecht are experts (why does one then need to examine the person whose expertise we do not know)?

Answer: The Gemara does cite a Machlokes Tana'im after making that statement, even though it then refutes it.

Question (Part 1): This implies that if he would be in our presence and didn't know, that his Shechitah would not be Kasher, even thought others saw that he Shechted correctly.

Question (Part 2): ... whilst later in the Perek (12.) in connection with Rav Nachman's statement that one is permitted to eat from somebody's Shechitah provided he observed his Shechitah from beginning to end; otherwise not, the Gemara asks 'If one knows that he is not an expert, then this is obvious?'

Clarification: This means that we do not know whether he is an expert or not ...

Proof: Because, if we knew that he is not an expert, then even Bedi'eved his Shechitah would be Pasul, as Rav Yehudah will state later (in 9a) 'It is forbidden to eat from the Shechitah of any butcher who is not conversant with the Dinim of Shechitah'.

Observation: The Gemara could have given this reason to explain the first Lashon, too.

Clarification: And they are therefore permitted to Shecht even Lechatchilah.

Rejection of Alternative (Part 1): But one cannot explain that it is only Bedi'eved that his Shechitah is Kasher, even though others did not observe him Shechting ...

Rejection of Alternative (Part 2): ... and one cannot establish our Mishnah like that due to the Kashya from 've'Chulan' (See Maharam) ...

Rejection of Alternative (Part 3): ... because according to Abaye and Rava and Rav Ashi too, 've'Chulan' can only refer to a Chashu (See Maharam).

Clarification: And their Shechitah is Pasul, just like that of a Nochi, from the Pasuk "ve'Zevachta", 'Whatever you Shecht you may eat' - meaning that someone who is eligible to Shecht, to preclude a Nochri and a Yisrael who eats Neveilos to anger Hash-m.

Implied Question: Even though the Gemara states at the end of the second Perek of Yevamos (24b) that both Geirei Arayos and Geirei Chalomos (who converted on account of dreams that they had, are proper Geirim ...

Answer (Part 1): ... that speaks specifically where they fully converted due to the fear of lions, though the Kutim did not do so, as we see in the Pasuk in Melachim (2:17) "They were afraid of Hash-m, but they worshipped their gods".

Implied Question: And those that hold that they are genuine Geirim ...

Answer: ... that is because they subsequently converted.

Question: But our Mishnah mentions twice 'ha'Kol Shochtin', and Rava will explain later (in 17a) that one comes to include a Kuti, and the other, a Yisrael Mumar, so we see that Rava does indeed establish one of them to conform to his opinion?

Answer: What the Gemara means to ask is that he ought to establish the first case to conform to his opinion.