Zevachim 82
אבל יותרת ושתי כליות דלא כתיבן בגופיה אימא לא קא משמע לן:
<br> but [as for the burning of] the lobe and the two kidneys, which are not prescribed in that passage, I would say [that it is] not [intimated]. Therefore the text informs us [that it is not so].
אמר ליה רב הונא בריה דרב נתן לרב פפא והא תנא פר יוה"כ לכל מה שאמר בענין קאמר תנאי היא תנא דבי רב מרבי הכי תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל לא מרבי הכי
R. Huna the son of R. Nathan said to R. Papa: But surely the Tanna states, '"with the bullock" includes the bullock of the Day of Atonement in respect of everything which is prescribed in the text'? - It is a controversy of Tannaim. The Tanna of the Academy includes it in this way, while the Tanna of the School of R. Ishmael includes it in that way.
תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל מפני מה נאמרו יותרת ושתי כליות בפר כהן משיח ולא נאמרו בפר העלם דבר של צבור משל למלך בשר ודם שזעם על אוהבו ומיעט בסרחונו מפני חיבתו
The School of R. Ishmael taught: Why are the lobe and the two kidneys mentioned in connection with the anointed priest's bullock, but not in connection with the community's bullock for unwitting transgression? It may be compared to a king of flesh and blood who was angry with his friend, but spoke little of his offence, out of his love for him. <br>
ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל מפני מה נאמרה (ויקרא ד, ו) פרוכת הקדש בפר כהן משיח ולא נאמר בפר העלם דבר של צבור משל למלך בשר ודם שסרחה עליו מדינה אם מיעוטה סרחה פמליא שלו מתקיימת אם רובה סרחה אין פמליא שלו מתקיימת:
The School of R. Ishmael also taught: Why is the 'veil of the sanctuary' mentioned in connection with the anointed priest's bullock, but not in connection with the community's bullock of unwitting transgression? It may be compared to a king of flesh and blood against whom a province sinned - If a minority offended, his retainers remain [with them], but if the majority offend, his retainers do not remain [with them]. <br>
לפיכך אם נתן כולן כתיקנן כו': תנן התם פיגל בקומץ ולא בלבונה בלבונה ולא בקומץ רבי מאיר אומר פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת
THEREFORE, IF HE APPLIED ALL CORRECTLY, AND ONE INCORRECTLY, IT [THE SACRIFICE] IS INVALID, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. We learnt elsewhere: If [the priest] made a piggul intention at the [burning of the] fistful [of flour] but not at [the burning of the] incense, [or] at the frankincense but not at the fistful, R. Meir says that it is piggul, and one is liable to kareth on its account; but the Sages maintain: It does not involve kareth unless [the priest] makes a piggul intention for the whole mattir. R. Simeon b. Lakish commented: Do not say that R. Meir's reason is because he holds that you can make a [sacrifice] piggul in half a mattir. Rather the circumstances here are that [the priest] presented the fistful [on the altar] with a [piggul] intention, and the frankincense in silence. He [R. Meir] holds [that] when one does [a thing], he does it with his first intention. How do you know it? - Because [the Tanna] teaches: THEREFORE IF HE APPLIED ALL CORRECTLY, AND ONE INCORRECTLY, IT [THE SACRIFICE] IS INVALID, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. Hence [if he applies] one correctly and all [the others] incorrectly, it is piggul. With whom does this agree? If with the Rabbis? Surely the Rabbis say [that] you cannot make piggul at half a mattir? Hence it must be R. Meir; now if R. Meir's reason is that you can make piggul at half a mattir, then even in the conditions which he teaches it is still piggul. Hence it must surely be because he holds that when one does [a thing], he does it with his first intention. Said R. Samuel b. Isaac: In truth it agrees with the Rabbis, and what is meant by CORRECTLY? In the proper manner for piggul. But since [the Tanna] teaches: THEREFORE, IF HE APPLIED ALL CORRECTLY, AND ONE INCORRECTLY, IT [THE SACRIFICE] IS UNFIT, BUT DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH, it follows that INCORRECTLY means [in a manner] to make it fit? - Said Raba: What does INCORRECTLY mean? - [With an intention of eating it] without bounds. R. Ashi said: [It means] under a different designation. Hence it follows that if [the priest] did not do it [with an intention of consuming it] without bounds or under a different designation, one is liable? - Because the first clause teaches, IT IS PIGGUL, AND ONE IS LIABLE TO KARETH ON ITS ACCOUNT, the second clause too teaches, IT IS UNFIT, AND DOES NOT INVOLVE KARETH. <br>