Chullin Daf 2 צולין דַף 2

The first Mishnah states: הכל שוחטין – everyone may shecht, ושחיטתן כשרה – and their shechitah is valid, except for a חרש, שוטה, and a קטן, שמא יקלקלו את שחיטתן – lest they ruin their shechitah (with one of the invalidating errors, e.g., שהייה – pausing). וכולן ששחטו ואחרים רואין אותן – But if any of them shechted and others were watching them, their shechitah is valid. The Gemara objects that the opening phrase "הכל שוחטין" implies that “all” may shecht even לכתחלה – in the first place, but the next phrase "ושחיטתן כשירה" implies it is only valid בדיעבד – after the fact, but they may not shecht לכתחילה!? The Gemara proceeds to discuss at length whether the expression "הכל..." always implies a permit לכתחלה, and eventually concludes that it is used both ways. Rav Ashi clarifies the difficulty with the Mishnah: since it says "שחיטתן כשירה", the first phrase "הכל שוחטין" must mean they may shecht even לכתחלה, because two statements that their shechitah is valid are not necessary. Since the first phrase means they may shecht לכתחלה, it contradicts the second phrase!? Amoraim will offer six interpretations of the Mishnah to answer this question.

In discussing the implication of the expression "הכל...", a Mishnah is quoted: הכל מעריכין ונערכין – all can vow ערך-value (a specific value fixed by age), or can be the subject of another’s ערך vow, נודרין ונידרין – can vow to donate someone’s value, or be the subject of another’s vow to donate his value. Such a נדר should not be made, as the passuk says: וכי תחדל לנדור לא יהיה בך חטא – if you refrain from vowing, there will be no sin in you. Another passuk says: טוב אשר לא תדור משתדור ולא תשלם- better that you do not vow, than vow and not pay. R’ Meir says: טוב מזה ומזה שאינו נודר כל עיקר – better than [vowing and not paying] and [vowing and paying] is one who does not vow at all. R’ Yehudah says: טוב מזה ומזה נודר ומשלם – better than both this one and that one is one who vows and pays. Even Rebbe Yehudah, who considers one who vows and pays meritorious, only says so for one who said "הרי זו" – “This is hereby [hekdesh],” where he is not responsible if the item is lost. However, saying "הרי עלי" – “It is hereby upon me” (which includes ערך-vows) is not commendable, since he remains responsible even if the item is lost.

Rabba bar Ulla explains the first phrase of the Mishnah: הכל שוחטין ואפילו טמא בחולין – all may shecht (לכתחלה); even someone tamei [may shecht] chullin animals. This seems obvious, and  the Gemara explains that we are discussing חולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש – chullin which was prepared with the standards of taharah required for kodashim, i.e., he accepted to eat all his chullin according to the strict standards required for kodashim, and this Tanna holds חולין שנעשו על טהרת הקדש is כקדש – treated like kodashim, and must be kept tahor. Nonetheless, a tamei is permitted to shecht such chullin, provided he uses a long knife to avoid touching the meat after shechitah (when it becomes susceptible to tumah). He explains the next phrase of the Mishnah (“and the shechitah is valid [בדיעבד]”): a tamei person may not shecht kodashim (even with a long knife), שמא יגע בבשר – lest he touch the meat and make it tamei (which is Biblically prohibited). Still, if he did shecht kodashim, and says "ברי לי שלא נגעתי" – I am certain I did not touch it, his shechitah is valid.