1) “PIGUL” IN HALF OF THE “MATIR”

(a) (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, there is Kares (for eating the Shirayim);
(b) Chachamim say, there is no Kares unless he was Mefagel in (Avodah of) the entire Matir.
(c) Chachamim agree with R. Meir that if one was Mefagel in the Kometz of Minchas Chotei or Minchas Kena’os, it is Pigul, there is Kares, for the Kometz is the Matir.
(d) 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, there is Kares;
(e) Chachamim say, there is no Kares unless he was Mefagel in the entire Matir.
(f) If he slaughtered one of the lambs with intent to eat it tomorrow, it is Pigul, the other lamb is Kosher;
1. If he slaughtered it with intent to eat a k’Zayis of the other lamb tomorrow, both are Kesherim.
(g) (Gemara – Rav): The argument is when he offered the Kometz properly and (*then*) was Mefagel in the Levonah;
1. If he was Mefagel in the Kometz and (*then*) offered the Levonah properly, all agree that it is Pigul, for all subsequent Avodos are (assumed to be) with the same intent as the first.
(h) (Shmuel): They argue also in this case.
(i) Question (against Rav – Rav Acha bar Rav Huna – Beraisa): Intent in (only) the Kometz can Mefagel if this is during Kemitzah, Nesinah or Holachah;
1. R. Meir says, regarding Haktarah, if he was Maktir the Kometz properly and the Levonah (with intent) Chutz li’Zmano, or the Kometz Chutz li’Zmano and the Levonah properly, it is Pigul, there is Kares;
2. Chachamim say, Kares does not apply unless he was Mefagel in all the Matirim.
3. Summation of question: They argue (even) when he offered the Kometz Chutz li’Zmano and the Levonah properly!
(j) Answer: It means, he offered the Kometz Chutz li’Zmano *after having* offered the Levonah properly.
(k) Objection #1: If so, this is essentially the first clause (the Kometz properly and then the Levonah Chutz li’Zmano) – why must both be taught?
(l) Objection #2: A different Beraisa explicitly says that they argue when he was Maktir the Kometz Chutz li’Zmano *and then* the Levonah properly!
(m) Answer (to both questions – Rav Chanina): It was a case of two people (two different people offered the Kometz and Levonah – clearly, we do not say that the second offers with the intent of the first.)
2) “PIGUL” IN INNER “KORBANOS”
(a) Question (against Rav – Beraisa – R. Meir): One Matanah can make Pigul in outer Korbanos (i.e. on the outer Mizbe’ach);
1. 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, there is Kares;
2. Chachamim say, Kares does not apply unless he was Mefagel in all the Matirim (Matanos).
3. 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!
4. Suggestion: Perhaps it was a case of two people (like we answered above.)
5. 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);
i. 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?
(b) Answer #1 (Rava): The case is, he was explicitly Mefagel in the first and third (our text; Tzon Kodoshim – second) sets, he was silent during the other set;
1. (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!
(c) Objection (Rav Ashi): The Beraisa does not say that he was silent during the second (T.K. – third) set!
(d) 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, 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.)
(e) 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)
1. (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!
16b—————————————16b

(f) Objection: But it says ‘*Whether* he was Mefagel in the first, second *or* third’!
(g) This is left difficult.
(h) (Beraisa – R. Meir): (Whether he was Mefagel in the first, second or third set) the Korban is Pigul, there is Kares.
(i) Question: Pigul does not apply unless all the Matirim were offered (without any Pesul other than Chutz li’Zmano)!
1. 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).
2. 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!
(j) 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.
(k) Answer #2 (Rava): It is possible even if only one Par and one Sa’ir are brought;
1. 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 slaughter is Mefagel, even though Zerikah will not Machshir the Korban.)
(l) Contradiction: This Beraisa says that there are 43 Matanos – another Beraisa says that there are 47 Matanos!
(m) Answer: The Tana that 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 that 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.)
(n) Contradiction (Beraisa): There are 48 Matanos.
(o) Answer: That Tana holds that (the bloods are offered separately on the Keranos, and) the Shirayim are Me’akev (therefore, they are counted).
3) “PIGUL” IN HALF AN “AVODAH”
(a) Question: If he was Mefagel during Holachah (of the Kometz), what is the law?
(b) Answer #1 (R. Yochanan): Holachah is like Kemitzah (all agree that it is Pigul, for this is the full Avodah);
(c) Answer #2 (Reish Lakish): Holachah is like Haktarah (R. Meir and Chachamim argue if one was Mefagel in one of the Matirim (the Kometz or the Levonah).
(d) Question: We understand Reish Lakish, for Holachah also applies to Levonah;
1. What is R. Yochanan’s reason?
(e) Answer (Rava): He holds that (Chachamim agree that) any Avodah that does not permit (Rashi – is not Me’akev) is an important Avodah, it can Mefagel by itself. Rashba – anything called Avodah can Mefagel, even if it does not permit.)
(f) Question (Abaye): Slaughter of *one* of the Kivsei Atzeres is an Avodah that does not permit, yet they argue whether or not it is Mefagel!
1. (Mishnah – R. Meir): 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, there is Kares;
2. Chachamim say, there is no Kares unless he was Mefagel in the entire Matir.
(g) Answer (Rava): You think that the oven is Mekadesh the loaves – this is wrong, slaughter of the lambs is Mekadesh them, something that is Mekadesh is like something that permits.
(h) 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):
1. If the intent for Mulim preceded the intent for Arelim, it is Kosher;
2. If the intent for Arelim preceded the intent for Mulim, it is Pasul.
3. We know that the argument (of Others and the Mishnah (Pesachim 61A, which is Machshir in both cases)) is when each intent was during the slaughter of one Siman.
(i) Answer (Rava): You think that the blood is already Kadosh in the animal’s neck – this is wrong, slaughter is Mekadesh it, something that is Mekadesh is like something that permits.
(j) Question (against Reish Lakish – Beraisa): Intent in (only) the Kometz can Mefagel if this is during Kemitzah, Nesinah, or Holachah (and R. Meir says, even during Haktarah.)
1. Suggestion: The Beraisa refers to Holachah towards (the Mizbe’ach, for) Haktarah – all agree that this makes Pigul, even though this is not the entire Avodah (Holachah also applies to Levonah!)
(k) 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.
(l) Question: If so, why does the Beraisa say ‘…During Kemitzah, Nesinah, or Holachah’ – Holachah should be listed before Nesinah!
(m) Answer: Indeed, the text should list Holachah before Nesinah.
(n) Question: Why does the Beraisa continue ‘R. Meir says, regarding Haktarah…’ – if they argue about Holachah towards Haktarah, the Beraisa should teach this!
(o) Answer: Since the Holachah is a need of Haktarah, the Tana calls it Haktarah.
(p) Question (Beraisa – R. Meir): If he Nosan (Hiktir) the Kometz properly…
1. (Here, the Beraisa spells out Haktarah – if Holachah is included and they argue about it), the Beraisa should say, if he Holich…!
(q) This is left difficult.
4) PIECEMEAL “PIGUL”
(a) 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)
1. Rav Chisda, Rav Hamnuna and Rav Sheshes argued – one said that it is Pigul, one said that it is Pasul, one said that it is Kosher.
(b) Suggestion: These opinions (Pigul, Pasul, Kosher) are, respectively, like R. Meir, Chachamim and Rebbi.
(c) Rejection: Perhaps none of these are correct!
1. 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);
2. 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;
3. 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.
(d) Rather, each opinion is according to all Tana’im:
1. The opinion that says 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);
2. The opinion that says Pasul holds that [piecemeal eating is considered eating] piecemeal Haktarah is not considered Haktarah (neither to make Pigul nor Lehachshir the Korban. Seemingly, it does not matter what he holds about eating – it seems that Rashi omits the bracketed words (according to Tzon Kodoshim). Some include the words (Shitah Mekubetzes) – presumably, this is for parallel structure with the other cases, or for emphasis (*even* if he holds that piecemeal eating is considered eating, it is not Pigul);)
3. The opinion that says Kosher holds that piecemeal eating is not considered eating, piecemeal Haktarah is considered Haktarah (therefore, it is a Kosher Haktarah.)