Zevachim 83
אבל דמים הניתנין על המזבח הפנימי כגון ארבעים ושלש של יום הכיפורים ואחד עשר של פר כהן משיח ואחד עשר של פר העלם דבר של ציבור פיגל בין בראשונה ובין בשניה ובין בשלישית רבי מאיר אומר פיגול וחייבין עליו כרת וחכמים אומרים אין בו כרת עד שיפגל בכל המתיר
<br> But in the case of blood presented on the inner altar, e.g., the forty three [applications] of the Day of Atonement, the eleven of the anointed priest's bullock, and the eleven of the community's bullock of unwitting transgression, if he [the priest] declared a piggul intention whether at the first, the second, or the third, R. Meir maintains [that] it is piggul and involves kareth; while the Sages say: It does not involve kareth unless [the priest] declares a piggul intention at the whole mattir. Incidentally he teaches, 'if [the priest] declared a piggul intention whether at the first, at the second, or the third,' and yet [R. Meir] disagrees? - Said R. Isaac b. Abin: The circumstances here are e.g. that he declared a piggul intention at the shechitah, this being one mattir. If so, what is the reason of the Rabbis? - Said Raba: Who are the Sages [in this passage]? R. Eleazar. For we learnt: [With regard to] the fistful [of flour], the frankincense, the incense, the priest's meal-offering, the anointed priest's meal-offering, and the meal-offering of the libations, if [the priest] presented as much as an olive of one of these without [the Temple court], he is liable. But R. Eleazar exempts [him] unless he offers the whole [without]. But surely Raba said: Yet R. Eleazar admits in the case of blood, for we learnt: R. Eleazar and R. Simeon maintain: From where he left off there he recommences! - Rather said Raba: It [the Baraitha] means e.g. where he declared a piggul intention at the first [applications], was silent at the second, and again declared a piggul intention at the third. Now we might argue, If you claim that he acts with his original intention, why should he repeat his piggul intention at the third [applications]? Therefore he informs us [that we do not argue so].
קתני מיהא פיגל בין בראשונה בין בשניה בין בשלישית ופליג
To this R. Ashi demurred: Does he then teach [that] he was silent? Rather said R. Ashi: The circumstances here are e.g., that he declared a piggul intention at the first, second, and third. You might argue, If you think that whatever one does, one does with the first intention, why must he repeat his piggul declaration at each one? Therefore he informs us [that we do not argue so].