לו כי אמרינן זה מחשב וזה עובד הני מילי בפנים אבל בחוץ לא חוץ מפנים
36 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;