Chullin 39a — the Talmud in English

And Rabbi Eliezer came to say: We derive outside from inside,

for the Torah obligates one who serves idolatry and performs services that are fit for the Place, even when this is not the manner of serving idolatry; therefore, also with regard to thought, one who serves idolatry is to be derived from the service inside.

And Rabbi Yose came to say: Even inside as well, we do not say: this one thinks and that one performs.

It was stated: One who slaughters the animal

and did not intend that this slaughter be a service for idolatry, but slaughtered it for himself with the intention

of sprinkling its blood for idolatry, and burning [

or burning ]

its fat for idolatry.

Rabbi Yohanan said: It is disqualified

and the animal is forbidden for benefit, even if in the end the blood was not sprinkled and the fat was not burned for idolatry.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It is permitted 376 .

And we explain the dispute

Rabbi Yohanan said: We consider from one service

one

service

that is to be for another service, which is to be for idolatry, and this is like there having been a thought of idolatry during the slaughter.

And

the source of the matter is that

we derive

the slaughter of non-sacred animals

outside

for idolatry

from

the slaughter of sacrificial offerings

inside 378 ,

where the thought of disqualification is from one service to another: one who slaughters with the intention of sprinkling the blood tomorrow or burning the sacrificial portions tomorrow—that is pigul.

Resh Lakish said: It is permitted; we do not consider from one service to another, and we do not derive outside from inside 379 .

And we say:

And they followed their own positions [

Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish followed their own positions] in the dispute in which they disputed concerning the disqualification of the thought of not for its sake in offerings, in which the thought for the sake of another offering disqualifies them.

For it was stated:

A sin-offering that

he slaughtered for its sake

with the intention

of sprinkling its blood not for its sake.

Rabbi Yohanan said: It is disqualified.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It is valid.

Rabbi Yohanan said: It is disqualified; we consider from one service to another, and we derive

the disqualifying thought of not for its sake

from the thought of pigul.

Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said: It is valid; we do not consider

the thought of not for its sake

from one service to another, and we do not derive from the thought of pigul,

because all the thought of pigul is only that one thinks, while performing one service, about another service that will be performed not at its proper time; and one cannot derive from there to a place where the thought disqualifies the service itself.

And we say:

And it is necessary

to state both disputes, because there is room to distinguish between them.

For if it was stated in this matter

of one who slaughters with the intention of sprinkling for idolatry, I would have said that specifically

in this matter Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said so, because we do not derive outside from inside; but

with regard to one who slaughters with the intention of sprinkling not for its sake, from which one can derive

inside from inside, say that he agrees with Rabbi Yohanan

in this.

And if it was stated in that matter

of one who slaughters with the intention of sprinkling not for its sake, I would have said that specifically

in that matter Rabbi Yohanan said so,

since one can derive the service inside from the service inside,

but in this matter

of idolatry,

say that he agrees with Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish

that one cannot derive the service outside from the service inside.

It is necessary.

Rav Sheshet raised an objection

from our Mishna against Rabbi Yohanan and Resh Lakish:

We learned in our Mishna:

Rabbi Yose said: The matter follows by a kal va-chomer: If in a place where thought disqualifies consecrated offerings, everything follows only after the one performing the service, then in a place where thought does not disqualify non-sacred animals, is it not logical that everything should follow only after the slaughterer?

And Rav Sheshet examined it:

What is “thought does not disqualify non-sacred animals”? If you say that it does not disqualify at all,

the thought of an idolatrous service,

then how do you find slaughter for idolatry that becomes forbidden 382 .

After all, there is no doubt that the sacrifices of the dead are forbidden for benefit by Torah law!

And Rav Sheshet said:

Rather, it is obvious

that the difference between non-sacred animals and consecrated offerings is in thought

from one service to another, and this is what he said

Rabbi Yose:

If in a place where thought disqualifies consecrated offerings from one service to another,

and one who thinks at the time of slaughter that the blood will be sprinkled tomorrow or that it will be sprinkled not for its sake disqualifies the offering, there is a leniency there that

everything follows only after the one performing the service

and the owners do not disqualify it,

then in a place where thought does not disqualify non-sacred animals from one service to another,

and the thought of idolatry does not disqualify

except in that same service, is it not logical that everything should follow only after the slaughterer?

And Rav Sheshet raises a difficulty: That Rabbi Yose disqualified from one service to another in the service

inside is difficult for Resh Lakish.

But that Rabbi Yose validated from one service to another

outside is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan!

And we say:

Granted, inside is not difficult for Resh Lakish,

for one can say that

this

that Resh Lakish validated was based on his own reasoning

before he heard it [

before he heard] our Mishna

from Rabbi Yohanan

his teacher,

but after he heard it from Rabbi Yohanan

the Mishna, he then retracted his position,

but outside is difficult for Rabbi Yohanan!

He [

Rav Sheshet]

raises it as an objection and resolves it:

Rabbi Yose was not speaking about thought from one service to another at all, and there is no difficulty either for Rabbi Yohanan or for Resh Lakish; the stringency found inside is that thought disqualifies

at

the time of performing one of

the four services

which are slaughter, receiving the blood, conveying it, and sprinkling it, whereas one who receives the blood and conveys it for idolatry does not render the meat forbidden.

And this is what he said

Rabbi Yose:

If in a place where thought disqualifies consecrated offerings through the four services, everything follows only after the one performing the service,