the offering is piggul, and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of the remainder of that meal offering.

This is the principle: In the case of anyone who removes the handful, or places the handful in the vessel, or who conveys the vessel with the handful to the altar, or who burns the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of an item whose typical manner is such that one partakes of it, e.g., the remainder, or to burn an item whose typical manner is such that one burns it on the altar, e.g., the handful or the frankincense, outside its designated area, the meal offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet. If his intent was to do so beyond its designated time, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet on account of it, provided that the permitting factor, i.e., the handful, was sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva. If the permitting factor was not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva, although the meal offering is unfit, the prohibition of piggul does not apply to it.

How is the permitting factor considered to have been sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva? If one removed the handful in silence, i.e., with no specific intent, and placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder beyond its designated time; or if one removed the handful with the intent to partake of the or burn the handful or frankincense beyond its designated time, and placed it in the vessel, and conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar in silence, with no specific intent; or if one removed the handful and placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder beyond its designated time, that is the case of an offering whose permitting factor was sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva, and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of it due to piggul.

How is the permitting factor not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva? If one removed the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder or burn the handful or frankincense outside its designated area, or placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder beyond its designated time; or if one removed the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder or burn the handful or frankincense beyond its designated time, and placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder outside its designated area; or if one removed the handful and placed it in the vessel, and conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder outside its designated area, that is the case of an offering whose permitting factor was not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva.

The meal offering of a sinner and the meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota that one removed their handful not for their sake and placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, with the intent to partake of the remainder or burn the handful beyond its designated time; or that one removed the handful with the intent to partake of the remainder or burn the handful beyond its designated time or placed it in the vessel, conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, not for their sake; or that one removed the handful, and placed it in the vessel, and conveyed it, and burned the handful on the altar, not for their sake, that is the case of an offering whose permitting factor was not sacrificed in accordance with its mitzva.

If one performed one of these rites with the intent to partake of an olive-bulk outside its designated area and an olive-bulk the next day, or an olive-bulk the next day and an olive-bulk outside its designated area, or half an olive-bulk outside its designated area and half an olive-bulk the next day, or half an olive-bulk the next day and half an olive-bulk outside its designated area, the offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet.

Rabbi Yehuda says that this is the principle: If the intent with regard to the time preceded the intent with regard to the area, the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet on account of it. If the intent with regard to the area preceded the intent with regard to the time, the offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet. And the Rabbis say: In both this case, where the intent with regard to time was first, and that case, where the intent with regard to area came first, the offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet.

GEMARA: A dilemma was raised before the Sages: According to the statement of the one who says that if the remainder of a meal offering became lacking between the removal of the handful and the burning of the handful on the altar the priest nevertheless burns the handful on account of such a meal offering, and as we maintain that despite the fact that the handful is burned on account of it that remainder is prohibited for consumption, what is the halakha with regard to piggul? Should the burning of the handful be effective in establishing such a remainder as piggul when the handful was burned with the intent to partake of the remainder the next day?

And similarly, is the burning of the handful effective in removing such a remainder from being subject to misuse of consecrated property, just as a complete remainder is removed being subject to this prohibition after the burning of the handful, when it becomes permitted to the priests for consumption?

Rav Huna said: Even according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who says that the sprinkling of the blood of an offering, which renders its meat permitted for consumption and removes it from being subject to misuse of consecrated property, is effective in removing the meat of an offering that left the Temple courtyard from being subject to misuse of consecrated property despite the fact that such meat is prohibited for consumption, that statement applies only when the meat was disqualified by means of leaving.

Rav Huna explains: The reason is that the meat remains as is, and the disqualification of the meat by means of leaving is on account of something else, i.e., a factor external to the meat itself. But in the case of a lack in the measure of the remainder of a meal offering, which is a disqualification on account of itself, the burning of the handful is not effective in removing the remainder from being subject to misuse of consecrated property, nor to establish it as piggul.

Rava said to Rav Huna: On the contrary; even according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, who says that sprinkling is not effective in removing the meat that left the Temple courtyard from being subject to misuse of consecrated property, that statement applies only when the meat was disqualified by means of leaving, as the meat is not inside the Temple courtyard where the sprinkling could be effective for it. But with regard to a lack in the measure of the remainder of a meal offering that is inside the Temple courtyard, the burning of the handful is effective in removing the remainder from being subject to misuse of consecrated property as well as in establishing it as piggul.

Rava said: From where do I say that even remainders that lack a full measure can be rendered piggul? This can be inferred from that which we learned in the mishna: With regard to one who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to partake of its remainder outside the Temple courtyard or to partake of an olive-bulk of its remainder outside the Temple courtyard, the meal offering is unfit but there is no liability for karet, and if he removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to partake of its remainder beyond the designated time or to partake of an olive-bulk of its remainder beyond the designated time the offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for partaking of the remainder of that meal offering. And Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches in his version of the mishna: One who removes a handful from the meal offering with the intent to partake of its remainder, and he does not teach: Or an olive-bulk of its remainder.

Rava continues: What is the reason that Rabbi Ḥiyya diverged from the standard text of the mishna and did not teach: Or an olive-bulk? Is it not because his mishna is discussing a case where the remainder later became lacking and its measure stood at an olive-bulk? And therefore Rabbi Ḥiyya did not include the clause: Or an olive-bulk, since later in the mishna, with regard to the placement of the handful in a vessel, and with regard to the conveyance of the vessel to the altar, and with regard to the burning of the handful, he could not teach the phrase: