Zevachim 30A

אין; רישא ⁠– בשתי עבודות, סיפא ⁠– בין בעבודה אחת בין בשתי עבודות.

The Talmud responds: Yes, it can be explained that the first clause is referring to two sacrificial rites, while the latter clause, i.e., the disagreement between R' Yehuda and the Rabbis, applies to both one rite and two rites.

תנן: אמר רבי יהודה, זה הכלל: אם מחשבת הזמן קדמה למחשבת המקום ⁠– פיגול, וחייבין עליו כרת. בשלמא לרבי יוחנן ⁠– היינו דקתני ״זה הכלל״. אלא לאילפא ⁠– מאי ״זה הכלל״? קשיא.

The Talmud suggests a proof: We learned in the Mishnah: R' 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 for burning or partaking of it. Granted, according to R' Yoḥanan, who says that the disagreement applies even to one rite, this is the reason that the tanna teaches: This is the principle, indicating that the principle is broad. But according to Ilfa, what is added by the phrase: This is the principle? The Talmud responds: This indeed poses a difficulty to the opinion of Ilfa.

תנן התם: ״הרי זו תמורת עולה תמורת שלמים״⁠ – הרי זו תמורת עולה. דברי רבי מאיר.

§ We learned in a Mishnah elsewhere (Temura 25b): If one had two animals standing before him, one a burnt offering and one a peace offering, and he said with regard to another non-sacred animal of his: This animal is hereby the substitute of the burnt offering, the substitute of the peace offering, then that animal is the substitute of the burnt offering; this is the statement of R' Meir.

אמר רבי יוסי: אם לכך נתכוון תחילה, הואיל ואי אפשר להוציא שתי שמות כאחת ⁠– דבריו קיימין; ואם משאמר ״הרי זו תמורת עולה״, ונמלך ואמר ״הרי זו תמורת שלמים״⁠ – הרי זו עולה.

R' Yosei said: If that was his intent from the outset, i.e., his intent was that this animal be the substitute of both a burnt offering and a peace offering, since it is impossible to produce two designations simultaneously and one designation must precede the other, his statement is effective, and the animal is the substitute of both a burnt offering and a peace offering. But if it was only after he said: This animal is hereby the substitute of the burnt offering, that he reconsidered and said: This animal is hereby the substitute of the peace offering, then that animal is the substitute of a burnt offering alone.