(Mishnah - R. Meir): If one was Mefagel (intended to eat the Shirayim Chutz li'Zmano) during Haktarah of the Kometz but not of the Levonah, or vice-versa, the Minchah is Pigul, and there is Kares (for eating the Shirayim);

Chachamim say, there is no Kares unless he was Mefagel in (Avodah of) the entire Matir.

Chachamim agree with R. Meir that if one was Mefagel in the Kometz of Minchas Chotei or Minchas Kena'os, it is Pigul, and there is Kares, for the Kometz is the Matir.

R. Meir says, if one slaughtered one of the lambs with intent to eat both loaves tomorrow, or Hiktir one Bezech with intent to eat both Sedarim tomorrow, the bread is Pigul, and there is Kares;

Chachamim say, there is no Kares unless he was Mefagel in the entire Matir.

If he slaughtered one of the lambs with intent to eat it tomorrow, it is Pigul, the other lamb is Kosher;

If he slaughtered it with intent to eat a k'Zayis of the other lamb tomorrow, both are Kesherim.

(Gemara - Rav): The argument is when he offered the Kometz in silence, and (then) he was Mefagel in the Levonah;

If he was Mefagel in the Kometz and (then) offered the Levonah silently, all agree that it is Pigul, for all subsequent Avodos are (assumed to be) with the same intent as the first.

(Shmuel): They argue also in this case.

Question (against Rav - Rav Acha bar Rav Huna - Beraisa): Intent in (only) the Kometz can be Mefagel if this is during Kemitzah, Nesinah or Holachah;

R. Meir says, when he comes to do Haktarah, if he was Nosen (Maktir) the Kometz silently and the Levonah (with intent) Chutz li'Zmano, or the Kometz Chutz li'Zmano and the Levonah silently, it is Pigul, and there is Kares;

Chachamim say, Kares does not apply unless he was Mefagel in all the Matirim.

Summation of question: They argue (even) when he offered the Kometz Chutz li'Zmano and the Levonah silently!

Answer #1: It means, he offered the Kometz Chutz li'Zmano after he offered the Levonah silently.

Objection #1: If so, this is essentially the Reisha (the Kometz silently and then the Levonah Chutz li'Zmano). Why must both be taught?

Objection #2: A different Beraisa explicitly says that they argue when he was Maktir the Kometz Chutz li'Zmano and then the Levonah silently!

Answer #2 (Rav Chanina): Two different people offered the Kometz and Levonah. (Clearly, we do not say that the second offers with the intent of the first.)

Question (against Rav - Beraisa - R. Meir): One Matanah can make Pigul in outer Korbanos (i.e. on the outer Mizbe'ach);

Regarding inner Korbanos, i.e. the Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kipur, which require a total of 43 Matanos (eight from each between the staves of the Aron, and on the Paroches, and 11 (from their bloods mixed together) on the inner Mizbe'ach,) or Par Mashu'ach or Par He'elam Davar (which require 11 Matanos on the inner Mizbe'ach), whether he was Mefagel in the first, second or third (set of Matanos), the Korban is Pigul, and there is Kares;

Chachamim say, Kares does not apply unless he was Mefagel in all the Matirim (Matanos).

Summation of question: They argue even when he was Mefagel in the first set. Chachamim do not say that all Matanos follow the initial intent!

Suggestion: Perhaps this is when different people did the Matanos (like we answered above).

Partial rejection: This is only according to the opinion that different Kohanim may do the Matanos with blood of the same Par (e.g. if the Kohen Gadol became Pasul and had to be replaced in the middle of the Avodah);

According to the opinion that a different Kohen cannot Zorek blood of the same Par (he must slaughter a new Par), how can we answer?

Answer #1 (Rava): The case is, he was explicitly Mefagel in the first and third (our text; Tzon Kodoshim - second) sets, and he was silent during the other set;

(Chachamim say,) since he saw a need to verbalize his intent in the third (Tzon Kodoshim - second) set, this shows that he does not do all Matanos like his initial intent!

Objection (Rav Ashi): The Beraisa does not say that he was silent during the second (T.K. - third) set!

Version #1 (our text) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): The case is, he was explicitly Mefagel in the first, second and third sets (but not the fourth, i.e. the Shirayim; Tosfos - the Tana holds that they are Me'akev. Some explain that the four Matanos on the Keranos of the inner Mizbe'ach are counted separately from the seven Matanos on Tiharo (its top or middle), therefore there are four sets.)

Version #2 (Rashi) Answer #2 (Rav Ashi): The case is, he was explicitly Mefagel in the first and second sets, but was silent during the third. (end of Version #2)

(Chachamim say,) since he saw a need to verbalize his intent in the second (our text - and third) set(s), this shows that he does not do all Matanos like his initial intent!

Objection: It says 'whether he was Mefagel in the first, second or third'!

This is left difficult.

(Beraisa - R. Meir): (Whether he was Mefagel in the first, second or third set) the Korban is Pigul, and there is Kares.

Question: Pigul does not apply unless all the Matirim were offered (without any Pesul other than Chutz li'Zmano)!

Becoming Pigul is like becoming acceptable. A Korban does not become Pigul until finishing all the Avodos needed for a Kosher Korban to bring atonement (without any other Pesul).

Once he was Mefagel inside (the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim), the rest of the blood is Nifsal. Putting it (on the Mizbe'ach) in the Heichal is like putting water!

Answer #1 (Rabah): The case is, the blood spilled after finishing each set of Matanos. A new Par and Sa'ir were slaughtered for the remaining Matanos. A total of four Parim and four Se'irim are brought.

Answer #2 (Rava): It is possible even if only one Par and one Sa'ir are brought;

When one is Mefagel in any of the 43 Matanos, we consider the subsequent Zerikos to be proper to make Pigul (just like intent in Shechitah is Mefagel, even though Zerikah will not be Machshir the Korban.)

Contradiction: This Beraisa says that there are 43 Matanos. Another Beraisa says that there are 47 Matanos!

Answer: The Tana who says 43 holds that the bloods of the Par and Sa'ir are mixed together for all the Matanos on the inner Mizbe'ach. The Tana who says 47 holds that the bloods are offered (together on Tiharo, but) separately (on the four Keranos of the inner Mizbe'ach, therefore, there are four more.)

Contradiction (Beraisa): There are 48 Matanos.

Answer: That Tana holds that (the bloods are offered separately on the Keranos, and) the Shirayim are Me'akev. (Therefore, he counts them.)

Question: If he was Mefagel during Holachah (of the Kometz), what is the law?

Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): Holachah is like Kemitzah. (All agree that Kemitzah makes Pigul, for this is the full Avodah, i.e. it does not apply to the Levonah);

Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): Holachah is like Haktarah. (R. Meir and Chachamim argue about one who was Mefagel in one of the Matirim, i.e. the Kometz or the Levonah).

Question: We understand Reish Lakish, for Holachah applies also to Levonah. (He was Mefagel only in part of the Matir);

What is R. Yochanan's reason?

Answer (Rava): He holds that (Chachamim agree that) any Avodah that does not permit (Rashi - is not Me'akev) is an important Avodah, and it can be Mefagel by itself. (Rashba - anything called Avodah can be Mefagel, even if it does not permit.)

Question (Abaye): Shechitah of one of the lambs (brought with Shtei ha'Lechem) is an Avodah that does not permit, yet they argue about whether it is Mefagel!

(Mishnah - R. Meir): If one slaughtered one of the lambs with intent to eat both loaves tomorrow, or was Maktir one Bezech with intent to eat both Sedarim (of Lechem ha'Panim) tomorrow, the bread is Pigul, and there is Kares;

Chachamim say, there is no Kares unless he was Mefagel in the entire Matir.

Answer (Rava): You think that the oven is Mekadesh the loaves. This is wrong. Shechitah of the lambs is Mekadesh them. Something that is Mekadesh is like something that permits.

Question (R. Simi bar Ashi - Beraisa - Others): (If one slaughtered Korban Pesach with intent that Mulim and Arelim (circumcised and uncircumcised men) eat from it):

If the intent for Mulim preceded the intent for Arelim, it is Kosher;

If the intent for Arelim preceded the intent for Mulim, it is Pasul.

(A Mishnah (Pesachim 61a) is Machshir in both cases.) We know that Others argue (with that Tana) when each intent was during the Shechitah of one Siman.

Answer (Rava): You think that the blood is already Kadosh in the animal's neck. This is wrong, Shechitah is Mekadesh it. Something that is Mekadesh is like something that permits.

Question (against Reish Lakish - Beraisa): Intent in (only) the Kometz can be Mefagel if this is during Kemitzah, Nesinah, or Holachah. (This is the Beraisa on 16a, 1:i.)

Suggestion: The Beraisa refers to Holachah towards (the Mizbe'ach, for) Haktarah. All agree that this makes Pigul, even though this is not the full Avodah! (Holachah applies also to Levonah!)

Answer: No, the Beraisa refers to Holachah towards Nesinah (which does not apply to Levonah). This is a full Avodah. All agree that it makes Pigul.

Question: If so, why does the Beraisa say '... during Kemitzah, Nesinah, or Holachah'? Holachah should be listed before Nesinah!

Answer: Indeed, the text should list Holachah before Nesinah.

Question (Seifa - R. Meir): When he comes to do Haktarah...

If they argue about Holachah, he should say 'when he comes to do Holachah'!

Answer: Since the Holachah is a need of Haktarah, the Tana calls it Haktarah.

Question (Beraisa - R. Meir): If he was Nosen (Maktir) the Kometz silently... (We cannot say that 'Nosen' means 'Molich', for Holachah is not a need of Nesinah. There is no reason for the Tana to call it Nesinah!)

This is left difficult.

If one was Maktir (the entire Kometz,) the volume of a sesame seed at a time, each time with intent to eat (Chutz li'Zmano) the volume of (another) sesame seed (in all, a k'Zayis), Rav Chisda, Rav Hamnuna and Rav Sheshes argued. One said that it is Pigul, one said that it is Pasul, and one said that it is Kosher.

Suggestion: These opinions (Pigul, Pasul, Kosher) are, respectively, like R. Meir, Chachamim and Rebbi.

Rejection: Perhaps none of these are correct!

R. Meir said that intent during a proper Shi'ur of Avodah (of one of the Matirim) makes Pigul. We have no source that he says so about intent during (Shitah Mekubetzes - much) less than a Shi'ur! (Perhaps such intents do not join.)

Chachamim said that intent during only part of the Matirim is Pasul (and not Pigul). We have no source that they say so about intent during the entire Matir;

Rebbi was Machshir only when an entire Avodah was done with intent (Chutz) for less than a Shi'ur. We have no source that he is Machshir when (altogether) there was intent for a Shi'ur.

Rather, each opinion is according to all Tana'im;

The one who says that it is Pigul holds that piecemeal eating (the volume of a sesame seed at a time) is considered eating. Piecemeal Haktarah is considered Haktarah (therefore, it is a genuine intent of Pigul);

The one who says that it is Pasul holds that piecemeal eating is (not - some texts deletes this word) considered eating, and piecemeal Haktarah is not considered Haktarah (to make Pigul or to be Machshir the Korban).

Note: It does not depend on what he holds about eating. Presumably, the Gemara mentioned this for parallel structure with the other cases, or for emphasis (even if he holds that piecemeal eating is considered eating, it is not Pigul).

The one who says that it is Kosher holds that piecemeal eating is not considered eating, but piecemeal Haktarah is considered Haktarah. (Therefore, it is a Kosher Haktarah.)