Halakhah for Chullin 2:7

הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְנָכְרִי, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְשֵׁרָה. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אֲפִלּוּ שְׁחָטָהּ שֶׁיֹּאכַל הַנָּכְרִי מֵחֲצַר כָּבֵד שֶׁלָּהּ, פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁסְּתָם מַחֲשֶׁבֶת נָכְרִי לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, קַל וָחֹמֶר הַדְּבָרִים, וּמַה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהַמַּחֲשָׁבָה פוֹסֶלֶת, בְּמֻקְדָּשִׁין, אֵין הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אֶלָּא אַחַר הָעוֹבֵד, מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַחֲשָׁבָה פוֹסֶלֶת, בְּחֻלִּין, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אֶלָּא אַחַר הַשּׁוֹחֵט:

When a person had slaughtered an animal for a heathen, it is Cashér; but R. Eleazar decides it to be Pasool. R. Eleazar teaches, "That if he slaughtered it with the intention that the heathen should only eat the caul of the liver of the animal, it is Pasool, because the tacit intention of the heathen is to use it for idolatrous purposes." R. Joshua argued against this, and demonstrated his opinion by a syllogism from minor to major [‏קל וחומר‎], "If where the intention renders Pasool, as in the case of consecrated things, the matter is determined by the intention of the acting priest, does it not follow that in the present instance, which relates to non-consecrated things, and where the intention does not render them Pasool, it should be determined by the intention of him that slaughtered?"

Explore halakhah for Chullin 2:7. In-depth commentary and analysis from classical Jewish sources.