ה לפיכך אם נתן כולן כתיקנן כו': תנן התם פיגל בקומץ ולא בלבונה בלבונה ולא בקומץ רבי מאיר אומר פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת
5 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>