הַקּוֹמֵץ אֶת הַמִּנְחָה לֶאֱכֹל שְׁיָרֶיהָ אוֹ לְהַקְטִיר קֻמְצָהּ לְמָחָר, מוֹדֶה רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בָּזֶה, שֶׁהוּא פִגּוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. לְהַקְטִיר לְבוֹנָתָהּ לְמָחָר, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת, וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, פִּגוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מַה שָּׁנָה זוֹ מִן הַזָּבַח. אָמַר לָהֶם, שֶׁהַזֶּבַח דָּמוֹ וּבְשָׂרוֹ וְאֵמוּרָיו אֶחָד, וּלְבוֹנָה אֵינָהּ מִן הַמִּנְחָה:
If he took the handful [intending] to eat the remainder or to burn the handful the next day, Rabbi Yose concedes that the offering is piggul and he is obligated for extirpation. [If he intended] to burn its frankincense the next day: Rabbi Yose says: it is invalid but he is not liable for extirpation. But the sages say: it is rejected due to piggul and he is liable for extirpation. They said to him: how does this differ from an animal-offering? He said to them: with the animal-offering the blood, the flesh and the sacrificial portions are all one; but the frankincense is not part of the grain offering.
שָׁחַט שְׁנֵי כְבָשִׂים לֶאֱכֹל אַחַת מִן הַחַלּוֹת לְמָחָר, הִקְטִיר שְׁנֵי בְזִיכִין לֶאֱכֹל אַחַד מִן הַסְּדָרִים לְמָחָר, רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אוֹתָהּ הַחַלָּה וְאוֹתוֹ הַסֵּדֶר שֶׁחִשַּׁב עָלָיו, פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, וְהַשֵּׁנִי פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, זֶה וָזֶה פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. נִטְמֵאת אַחַת מִן הַחַלּוֹת אוֹ אַחַד מִן הַסְּדָרִים, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שְׁנֵיהֶם יֵצְאוּ לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵפָה, שֶׁאֵין קָרְבַּן צִבּוּר חָלוּק. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, הַטָּמֵא בְטֻמְאָתוֹ, וְהַטָּהוֹר יֵאָכֵל:
If he slaughtered the two lambs [intending] to eat one of the [two] loaves the next day, or if he burned the two dishes [of the frankincense intending] to eat one of the [two] rows of the showbread the next day: Rabbi Yose says: that loaf or that row about which he expressed the intention is rejected due to piggul and he is liable for extirpation for it, while the other is invalid but he is not liable for extirpation for it. But the sages say, both are rejected due to piggul and he is liable for extirpation for both of them. If one of the [two] loaves or one of the [two] rows [of the shewbread] became unclean: Rabbi Judah says: both must be taken out to the place of burning, for the offering of the congregation may not be divided. But the sages say, the unclean [is treated] as unclean, but the clean may be eaten.
הַתּוֹדָה מְפַגֶּלֶת אֶת הַלֶּחֶם, וְהַלֶּחֶם אֵינוֹ מְפַגֵּל אֶת הַתּוֹדָה. כֵּיצַד. הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַתּוֹדָה לֶאֱכֹל מִמֶּנָּה לְמָחָר, הִיא וְהַלֶּחֶם מְפֻגָּלִין. לֶאֱכֹל מִן הַלֶּחֶם לְמָחָר, הַלֶּחֶם מְפֻגָּל וְהַתּוֹדָה אֵינָהּ מְפֻגָּלֶת. הַכְּבָשִׂים מְפַגְּלִין אֶת הַלֶּחֶם, וְהַלֶּחֶם אֵינוֹ מְפַגֵּל אֶת הַכְּבָשִׂים. כֵּיצַד. הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַכְּבָשִׂים לֶאֱכֹל מֵהֶם לְמָחָר, הֵם וְהַלֶּחֶם מְפֻגָּלִים. לֶאֱכֹל מִן הַלֶּחֶם לְמָחָר, הַלֶּחֶם מְפֻגָּל, וְהַכְּבָשִׂים אֵינָן מְפֻגָּלִין:
The thanksgiving offering can render the bread rejected due to piggul but the bread does not render the thanksgiving offering rejected due to piggul. How so? If he slaughtered the thanksgiving offering intending to eat part of it on the next day, both it and the bread are rejected due to piggul; if he intended to eat part of the bread the next day, the bread is rejected due to piggul but the thanksgiving offering is not rejected due to piggul. 2) The lambs can render the bread rejected due to piggul but the bread cannot render the lambs rejected due to piggul. a) How so? If he slaughtered the lambs intending to eat part of them the next day, both they and the bread are rejected due to piggul; if he intended to eat part of the bread the next day, the bread is rejected due to piggul but the lambs are not.
הַזֶּבַח מְפַגֵּל אֶת הַנְּסָכִין מִשֶּׁקָּדְשׁוּ בִכְלִי, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וְהַנְּסָכִין אֵינָן מְפַגְּלִין אֶת הַזָּבַח. כֵּיצַד. הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לֶאֱכֹל מִמֶּנּוּ לְמָחָר, הוּא וּנְסָכָיו מְפֻגָּלִין. לְהַקְרִיב מִן הַנְּסָכִין לְמָחָר, הַנְּסָכִין מְפֻגָּלִין, וְהַזֶּבַח אֵינוֹ מְפֻגָּל:
The animal-offering can render the libations rejected due to piggul after they have been sanctified in the vessel, the words of Rabbi Meir. But the libations cannot render the animal-offering rejected due to piggul. One who slaughters an animal-offering intending to eat part of it on the next day, both it and the libations are rejected due to piggul; if he intended to offer the libations the next day, the libations are rejected due to piggul but the animal-offering is not.
פִּגֵּל בַּקֹּמֶץ וְלֹא בַלְּבוֹנָה, בַּלְּבוֹנָה וְלֹא בַקֹּמֶץ, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת, עַד שֶׁיְּפַגֵּל אֶת כָּל הַמַּתִּיר. מוֹדִים חֲכָמִים לְרַבִּי מֵאִיר בְּמִנְחַת חוֹטֵא וּבְמִנְחַת קְנָאוֹת, שֶׁאִם פִּגֵּל בַּקֹּמֶץ, שֶׁהוּא פִגּוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, שֶׁהַקֹּמֶץ הוּא הַמַּתִּיר. שָׁחַט אַחַד מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים לֶאֱכֹל שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת לְמָחָר, הִקְטִיר אַחַד מִן הַבְּזִיכִים לֶאֱכֹל שְׁנֵי סְדָרִים לְמָחָר, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּבִים עָלָיו כָּרֵת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין פִּגּוּל, עַד שֶׁיְּפַגֵּל אֶת כָּל הַמַּתִּיר. שָׁחַט אַחַד מִן הַכְּבָשִׂים לֶאֱכֹל מִמֶּנּוּ לְמָחָר, הוּא פִגּוּל, וַחֲבֵרוֹ כָשֵׁר. לֶאֱכֹל מֵחֲבֵרוֹ לְמָחָר, שְׁנֵיהֶם כְּשֵׁרִים:
If he had an intention which causes something to be rejected because of piggul [with regard to the remainder of the grain-offering] during the [burning of the] handful and not during the [burning of the] frankincense, or during the [burning of the] frankincense and not during the [burning of the] incense: Rabbi Meir says: it is rejected due to piggul and he is liable for extirpation for it; But the sages say: there is no extirpation unless he had an intention which causes something to be rejected due to piggul during the service of the whole of the thing that causes it to be permitted. The sages agree with Rabbi Meir with regard to a sinner’s grain offering or a grain offering of jealousy, that if he had an intention which renders something rejected due to piggul during the [burning of the] handful, [the remainder] is rejected due to piggul and he is liable for extirpation for it, since the handful is the entire thing that causes it to be permitted. If he slaughtered one of the lambs intending to eat the two loaves the next day, or if he burned one of the dishes of frankincense intending to eat the two rows [of the shewbread] on the next day: Rabbi Meir says: it is rejected due to piggul and he is liable for extirpation for it; But the sages say: it is not rejected due to piggul, unless he had an intention that renders something rejected due to piggul during the service of the whole of the thing that causes it to be permitted. If he slaughtered one of the lambs intending to eat part of it the next day, that [lamb] is rejected due to piggul but the other [lamb] is valid. If he intended to eat the other [lamb] the next day, both are valid.