Chullin 76
(ויקרא כב, כז) או כשב פרט לכלאים או עז פרט לנדמה כי יולד פרט ליוצא דופן שבעת ימים פרט למחוסר זמן תחת אמו פרט ליתום
[or a sheep, or a goat, is brought forth, then it shall be seven days under the dam].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. XXII, 27.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
במה דברים אמורים ביד אבל ברגל בין פשטה ולא כפפה בין כפפה ולא פשטה כשרה
Must it then continue to live on for ever! Or, again, does it mean that the mother-beast died and immediately after the young was brought forth?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., extracted from the womb or side of the mother-beast.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
מאי קמ"ל
Now if you say that the mother-beast must show signs of life after bringing forth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And similarly in the case of slaughtering, the slaughtered animal must struggle on and show signs of life at least for one moment after the slaughtering.');"><sup>5</sup></span>
כולהו תננהי
it is therefore necessary to employ a verse in order to exclude this case [of an orphan]; but if you say that it need not show signs of life after bringing forth,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Consequently the only possible exclusion by reason of the expression 'under the dam' is the case where the young was brought forth after the mother-beast had died, i.e., extracted out of the womb.');"><sup>6</sup></span>
דקה אין גסה לא
Raba said: The law is as stated in the following Baraitha: 'If a small animal stretched out its foreleg and did not withdraw it, the slaughtering is invalid; [but if it did withdraw it, it is valid.]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is added in the tent by Shittah Mekubezeth, v. Marginal Gloss.');"><sup>7</sup></span>
<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> השוחט לעובד כוכבי' שחיטתו כשרה
Moreover all this applies to a small animal, but wi regard to a large animal the rule is that whether it was the foreleg or the hind leg, whether it stretched it ou but did not bend it or bent it but did not stretch it out, it is valid.
ק"ו הדברים ומה במקום שהמחשבה פוסלת במוקדשין אין הכל הולך אלא אחר העובד מקום שאין מחשבה פוסלת בחולין אינו דין שלא יהא הכל הולך אלא אחר השוחט:
Now it is clear that this applies to the foreleg and not to the hind leg to a small animal and not to a large animal!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And it being an anonymous Mishnah, the law is obvious as stated therein!');"><sup>9</sup></span>
אי שמעיניה דחשיב אין אי לא לא סתם מחשבת עובד כוכבים לעבודת כוכבים לא אמרינן
THE SLAUGHTERING IS VALID; R'ELIEZER DECLARES IT INVALID.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it was no doubt intended to be used by the heathen for an idolatrous purpose.');"><sup>11</sup></span>
ור"א סבר
R'ELIEZER SAID, EVEN IF ONE SLAUGHTERED A BEAST WITH THE INTENTION THAT A HEATHEN SHOULD EAT OF THE MIDRIFF<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The diaphragm, an insignificant portion of the animal not usually consumed. It is intended that the rest of the animal be consumed by a Jew.');"><sup>12</sup></span>
אע"ג דשמעיניה דחשיב זה מחשב וזה עובד לא אמרינן
FOR IF IN THE CASE OF CONSECRATED ANIMALS, WHERE A WRONGFUL INTENTION CAN RENDER INVALID, IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT EVERYTHING DEPENDS SOLELY UPON THE INTENTION OF HIM WHO PERFORMS THE SERVICE,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The wrongful intention of the owner or offerer of the sacrifice would not render the sacrifice invalid, provided the person who performed the sacrificial acts had the proper intention with regard thereto. V. Pes. 46a.');"><sup>13</sup></span>
כי אמרינן זה מחשב וזה עובד הני מילי בפנים אבל בחוץ לא חוץ מפנים
For it has been taught: R'Elieze son of R'Jose says: I am informed that the owners can render the sacrifice piggul.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the owner, on whose behalf the priest performs the sacrificial acts, can by his wrongful intent render the sacrifice invalid, i.e., render it kudp . V. Glos.');"><sup>15</sup></span> The first Tanna, however, is of the opinion that only if we heard him [the heathen] express an [idolatrous] intention [with regard to the animal] does it become invalid but not otherwise, for we do not say that the thoughts of a heathen are usually directed towards idolatry; whereas R'Eliezer is of the opinion that even if we did not hear him express an [idolatrous] intention [it is invalid], for we say that the thoughts of a heathen are usuall directed towards idolatry. And R'Jose comes to say that even if we heard him express an [idolatrous] intention [it does not become invalid], for we do not hold that one man's wrongful intention should affect another's acts.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' In other words, it is the wrongful intention only of the one who performs the service that can affect its validity.');"><sup>16</sup></span> According to another version they<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the first Tanna and R. Eliezer.');"><sup>17</sup></span> differ even in the case where we heard him [the heathen] express an [idolatrous] intention [with regard to the animal]. The first Tanna is of the opinion that the view that one man's wrongful intention may affect another's acts, applies only as regards acts performed inside [the Temple],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the acts in connection with the offering of a sacrifice.');"><sup>18</sup></span> but not outside,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the slaughtering of a beast to idolatry.');"><sup>19</sup></span> and we cannot draw any inference as to acts performed outside from acts performed inside;