Zevachim 42B

והא ״בין בין״ קתני! קשיא.

The Talmud raises a difficulty: How can Rav Ashi explain the baraita as referring to a case where the High Priest had an improper intention during the first, second, and third sets of sprinklings? But doesn’t the baraita teach: If the priest had an intention that can render the offering piggul, whether during the first set of presentations, whether during the second set, or whether during the third set? This indicates that he did not have improper intent during all the sprinklings but only in part of them. The Talmud comments: Indeed, this is difficult, as the wording of the baraita does not suit this interpretation.

אמר מר, רבי מאיר אומר: פיגול, וחייבין עליו כרת. מכדי כרת לא מיחייב עד שיקרבו כל מתיריו ⁠– דאמר מר: כהרצאת כשר כך הרצאת פסול; מה הרצאת כשר ⁠– עד שיקרבו כל מתיריו, אף הרצאת פסול ⁠– עד שיקרבו כל מתיריו.

§ The Talmud returns to discuss the baraita that addresses the blood presented inside the Sanctuary. The Master said that if the High Priest had an improper intention in one of the sets of presentations, e.g., inside the Holy of Holies, R' Meir says: The offering is piggul and one is liable to receive karet for its consumption, despite the fact that he performed the rest of the rite silently. The Talmud asks: Now consider, one is not liable to receive karet unless all the permitting factors of the offering have been sacrificed, i.e., if the whole service is completed, including the presentation of the blood. As the Master said: As is the acceptance of a valid offering, so is the lack of acceptance of a disqualified offering: Just as there is no acceptance of a valid offering unless all its permitting factors have been sacrificed, so too, there is no lack of acceptance of a disqualified offering, i.e., it is not rendered piggul, unless all its permitting factors have been sacrificed. That is to say, in the absence of one of its permitting factors it does not become piggul.