Clarification (Part 1): Rebbi Yehudah says until he Shechts the large blood vessels (the jugular vein): This is confined specifically to a bird, seeing as one tends to roast it whole, as the Gemara will explain.

Halachah: We rule like Rebbi Yehudah, as the Gemara states in the first Perek of B'rachos (8b) 'Be careful with the 'Varidin' (to Shecht them) like Rebbi Yehudah.

Clarification (Part 2): And it seems that Rebbi Yehudah's ruling is Lechatchilah only; but if one went ahead and roasted it Bedi'eved without cutting the Varidin, it is nevertheless permitted ...

Source (Part 1): ... as is evident in the Gemara, from the fact that Rav Papa establishes the Reisha by Chulin from here, since Rebbi Yehudah says 'until one Shechts the Varidin and the Rabbanan disagree ...

Source (Part 2): ... and if it is talking about Kodshim, why do the Rabbanan argue with Rebbi Yehudah, seeing as he needs the blood (of the Varidin) ...

Proof: ... Now if Rebbi Yehudah forbids even Bedi'eved, perhaps the Rabbanan agree with him Lechatchilah, but argue with him Bedi'eved.

Conclusion: We must therefore say that it is obvious to him (Rav Papa) that Rebbi Yehudah is only speaking Lechatchilah ...

Question: ... and when the Tosefta says that 'Rebbi Yehudah renders Pasul by a bird until one Shechts the Varidin' ...

Answer: ... La'av Davka Pasul Bedi'eved, but forbidden (Lechatchilah).

Clarification (Part 1): The same will apply if he Shechts a half of each Si'man ...

Clarification (Part 2): ... and it only mentions 'Chatzi Echad', to balance with Rov Echad' (which is not Kasher).

Implied Question: We can learn already from the Reisha that we need the majority of the Si'man ...

Answer: ... and it only mentions it (in the Seifa) because it wants to state that 'One and a half' by an animal is Pasul, even though it is more than half of two Simanim in total.

Implied Question: We cannot answer 'because of the Varidin' ...

Answer: ... because even Rebbi Yehudah concedes that by an animal, it is not necessary (to Shecht the Varidin), seeing as one tends to cut it into pieces, as the Gemara will explain later (Daf 28b).

Text #1: All the texts read 've'li'Ta'amech' ('And according to you ... ') ...

Text #2: Rashi however, changes it to 've'Su' ('And furthermore').

Question #1 (Part 1): The problem with this explanation is that, if the Gemara is saying it, and the Gemara concludes that we need the Pasuk o teach us that one should not make it a 'Gist'ra' ...

Question #1 (Part 2): ... and then again a little later, it explains that the Pasuk "Vezavachta" comes to teach us that one may not make the animal a Gist'ra ...

Question #1 (Part 3): ... why do we need two Pesukim to teach us the same thing?

Question #2: Moreover, Rashi explains 'not to make it a Gist'ra' to mean that one may not cut the neck together with the Simanim` How does the Gemara learn that from "ve'Shachat"?

Question #3: Furthermore, why should one think that one ought to cut the neck-bone after Shechting the Simanim?

Conclusion: That is why the text 've'li'Ta'amech' is the correct one, and it is Rav Kahana who says it.

Clarification (Part 1): And not from its ear or from its nostrils.

Clarification (Part 2): Though we still don't know from where to start, whether from the nape of the neck (like by Melikah) or from the side of the throat (with the Simanim) ...

Clarification (Part 3): ... which is why the Torah adds "ve'Shachat", to teach us 'from the place where it bends (when it feeds).

Conclusion: And the words of Rav Kahana, who said 'From where do we know that Shechitah is performed on the neck' have now been proven to mean - from the throat, like the Mishnah above (on Daf 19b) which states that the entire neck is eligible for Shechitah, and the entire nape is eligible for Melikah'.

Implication: This implies that it (the head) is not included in the Din of "ve'Nitach Osah li'Nesachehah" (cutting it up into pieces).

Question: But did we not learn in the first Perek (on Daf 11a) from the head of the Olah, since the Torah writes "Osah" - "Osah" 'li'Nesachehah. ve'Lo Nesachehah li'Nesachehah' (It into pieces, and not its pieces into pieces')?

Answer: That is because the Torah re-connects the head with the body, when it writes "And the sons of Aharon shall arrange the pieces and the head".

Observation: This Tana only comes to preclude the tail, but we still don't know whether one begins from the front of the neck or from the nape.

Question (Part 1): They ask why the Torah cannot write once "Rosh" and twice "Pader"; from the former we will learn that the head is included in the Arichah (arranging it on the Mizbe'ach) ...

Question (Part 2): And from the first "Pader", from which we learn that one covers the location of the Shechitah with it, we automatically know the head (together with the Pader) precedes the other limbs?

Answer (Part 1): It would seem that if the Torah had written only one "Rosh", we would not have Darshened that it has already been severed; only that one covers the location of the Shechitah, from which we would also have learned that it precedes all the other limbs.

Answer (Part 2): But now we learn from the second (superfluous) "Rosh" that Shechitah must be performed from the neck.

Observation: In Perek Chatas ha'Of (Zevachim 69b) we learn from here that 'Just as by an animal, the thing that renders it fit to eat removes the Tum'ah from a T'reifah, so too by a bird ... '.

Clarification: As it is written "u'Malak" - 've'Lo Yavdil' (He performs Melikah, but does not sever the head).

Observation: According to him, the Torah needs to write "Zos" for some D'rashah (of which we are unaware).

Question: Why do we need a Pasuk to teach us this, seeing as we have a Pasuk which specifically writes "Let the water swarm with living creatures and birds ... ".

Answer: The Gemara's proof lies in the fact that the signs of water creatures are visible on them, it is therefore befitting to compare them to fish as regards Shechitah.

Explanation #1: This means that Kuntrikon the general asked Raban Yochanan ben Zakai ...

Refutation of Explanation #2: And not like Rashi, who explains that he asked Raban Gamliel.

Clarification (Part 1): In fact, wherever one finds ths Lashon 'And furthermore he asked him', 'him' always refers to Raban Yochanan ben Zakai ...

Clarification (Part 2): ... even where his (Raban Yochanan ben Zakai) name is not mentioned ...

Precedent: ... like "On that day" throughout Shas - which refers to the day on which they appointed Rebbi Elazar ben Azaryah prince, as we learned in Perek Tefilas ha'Shachar (B'rachos 28a)

Implied Question (Part 1): Even according to Rebbi Meir, who learns later in Perek Kisuy ha'Dam (Da 85a) that a Shechitah that is not fit (to eat from it) is nevertheless considered a Shechitah ...

Implied Question (Part 2): ... which he learns from the Gezeirah-Shavah "Shefichah" "Shefichah" (implying that a bird requires Shechitah min ha'Torah) ...

Answer: ... nevertheless, we apply the principle that 'A Pasuk always retains its simple explanation'.