Zevachim 59
תנן אמר רבי יהודה זה הכלל אם מחשבת הזמן קדמה למחשבת המקום פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת בשלמא לרבי יוחנן היינו דקתני זה הכלל אלא לאילפא מאי זה הכלל קשיא:
We learnt: SAID R'JUDAH: THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE: IF THE INTENTION OF TIME PRECEDED THE INTENTION OF PLACE, IT IS PIGGUL, AND INVOLVES KARETH.
אמר רבי יוסי אם לכך נתכוון תחילה הואיל ואי אפשר להוציא שתי שמות כאחת דבריו קיימין ואם משאמר הרי זו תמורת עולה ונמלך ואמר הרי זו תמורת שלמים הרי זו עולה
it is well: hence he teaches, THIS IS THE GENERAL RULE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This phrase is always regarded as including something not explicitly stated; according to R. Johanan then it includes the case of both intentions being expressed at one service.');"><sup>1</sup></span>
אמר אביי בהא ודאי מודה רבי מאיר רבא אמר עדיין היא מחלוקת
We learnt elsewhere: [If one declares.] 'This [animal] be a substitute for a burnt-offering, a substitute fo peace-offerings,' it is a substitute for a burnt-offering [only]: this is R'Meir's view.
אמר ליה מי סברת אינה לשחיטה אלא לבסוף ישנה לשחיטה מתחילה ועד סוף ומשנתינו דאמר סימן ראשון חוץ לזמנו סימן שני חוץ למקומו
since it is impossible to pronounce both designations simultaneously, his declarations are valid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Lev. XXVII, 33: He shall not inquire whether it be good or bad, neither shall he change it; and if he change it at all, then both it and that for which it is changed shall be holy. This is interpreted as meaning that if an animal is dedicated for a particular sacrifice, e.g., a peace-offerings, and then a second is substituted for it, both are holy, the second having exactly the same holiness as the first. Now R. Meir rules that if he declares it a substitute for two consecrated animals in succession, only the first declaration is valid, and the second is disregarded. But R. Jose maintains that if the second statement was not added as an afterthought but was part of the original intention, the whole is valid. Consequently, the animal is put out to graze until it receives a blemish, when it must be sold, and the money expended half for a burnt-offering and half for a peace-offering.');"><sup>3</sup></span>
התם נמי שהקטיר קומץ מנחה חוץ לזמנו קומץ לבונה חוץ למקומו
It was asked: What if [one declares,] 'This [animal] be a substitute for a burnt-offering and a peace-offerings,' [or] '[This animal be a substitute for] half [a burnt-offering] and half [a peace-offering]'?
רב שימי בר אשי מתני כדאביי רב הונא בר נתן מתני כדרבא
Raba said to Abaye: According to you who maintain that here R'Meir certainly agrees, Yet lo! slaughtering is analogous to half and half, yet they disagree?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' When one slaughters the sacrifice with the intention of eating as much as an olive without bounds and as much as an olive after time, the second intention is not an afterthought cancelling the first, since both are possible; yet R. Judah regards the first statement only. This is analogous to making an animal a substitute for half a burnt-offering and half a peace-offerings, for here too both are possible. Now R. Meir who regards the first statement only in substitution agrees with R. Judah in our Mishnah, and therefore in the declaration in question too he should regard the first statement only.');"><sup>4</sup></span>
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.