Meilah 4A

והא קתני: אם אחרים מביא לידי פיגול, הוא עצמו לא כל שכן!

With regard to Rava’s answer to Rav Ashi, the Talmud objects: But didn’t Ulla teach in justification of his opinion: If the taking of this handful brings others, i.e., the remainder of the meal offering, into a status of piggul, by means of the intent to consume it after its appointed time, with regard to the handful itself, is it not all the more so that it should be rendered piggul by this intent? If so, the same should likewise apply in the case of an offering of lesser sanctity that was slaughtered with the intent to consume it after its appointed time, i.e., it should be rendered piggul by this intent alone, regardless of intent during sprinkling.

הא נמי, איסורא דמייתי לידי פיגול.

The Talmud explains: This is not difficult, as in this instance, as well, Ulla did not mean that it is full-fledged piggul by intent with regard to the taking of the handful alone. Rather, he meant that a prohibited act was performed upon it which brings it to a status of piggul, but the full status of piggul is attained only if there is also an improper intent at the time of the sacrificing of the handful.

אמר ליה רבינא לרב אשי: והאמר אילפא: מחלוקת בשתי עבודות,

There is a dispute in a Mishnah (Zevaḥim 29b) with regard to two consecutive improper intentions. R' Yehuda maintains that if there first was intent to partake of an offering or to burn the portions consumed on the altar beyond its designated time, which renders it piggul and therefore one who consumes it would be liable to receive karet, and then there was intent to perform that act outside its designated area, which merely disqualifies the offering, it is piggul. But if the order is reversed, it is merely disqualified. The Rabbis rule that in either case it is only disqualified. With that Mishnah in mind, Ravina said to Rav Ashi: But doesn’t Ilfa say: This disagreement applies in a case where the different intentions occurred during the performance of two different sacrificial rites?