Halakhah for Zevachim 59:15
דתנן אמר רבי יהודה זה הכלל אם מחשבת הזמן קדמה את מחשבת המקום פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת
[No:] Shechitah counts from the beginning until the end , and our Mishnah means that he declared [that he cut] one organ [intending to eat the flesh] after time and the second organ [intending to eat it] without bounds.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Shechitah consists of cutting across the two organs of the throat, viz., the windpipe and the gullet. Here R. Judah disagrees, because he regards them as two separate statements; but in a statement of 'halves' R. Judah (and R. Meir) would agree that the whole counts as one statement and that both parts are regarded. V. also Pes. (Sonc. ed.) p. 315, n. 3.');"><sup>5</sup></span> Yet surely kemizah<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos.');"><sup>6</sup></span> is analogous to halves, yet they disagree?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the priest takes the fistful of the meal-offering for burning on the altar while expressing the intention of eating as much as an olive after time and as much as an olive without bounds. There is the same controversy in Men. ');"><sup>7</sup></span> - There too it means that he burnt a fistful of the meal-offering [with the intention of eating] after time and a fistful of the frankincense [intend to eat] without bounds. Yet they disagree in respect of the fistful of a sinner's meal-offering, where there is no frankincense? - They do not disagree there. R'Ashi said: If you should say that they do disagree, they disagree in the steps.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As the priest took one step while carrying the fistful to the altar he declared his intention of partaking of the offering without bounds, and as he took another step, his intention of partaking thereof after time. Hence here also we have two separate statements.');"><sup>8</sup></span> R'Shimi B'Ashi recited [the passage] as Abaye; R'Huna B'Nathan recited [it] as Raba. When R'Dimi came,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From Palestine to Babylon.');"><sup>9</sup></span> he said: R'Meir stated [his ruling] in accordance with the thesis of R'Judah, who maintained: Regard the first expression. For we learnt: R'JUDAH SAID, THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: IF THE INTENTION OF TIME PRECEDED THE INTENTION OF PLACE, IT IS PIGGUL, AND INVOLVES KARETH.