[If] one slaughters for a gentile, his slaughtering is valid, but R’ Eliezer declares it invalid. Said R’ Eliezer: Even if he slaughtered it so that the gentile should eat from its diaphragm, it is invalid, because the unexpressed intent of a gentile is [presumed to be] for idolatry. Said R’ Yose: The matter can be proven by an a fortiori reasoning: If in the place where the intent renders it invalid, [viz.,] in the case of sacrificial animals, everything depends solely on the one who performs the service, a place where intent does not render invalid, [viz.,] in the case of nonsacrificial animals, is it not logical that all should depend solely upon the slaughterer?