In what manner is the part which makes it permissible not [considered to have been] offered as required? [If] he performed kemitzah [with intent for] outside its area, but he placed [the kometz] in a vessel, conveyed [it], or burnt [it on the Altar for] beyond its time; or he performed kemitzah [for] beyond its time, but he placed [the kometz] in a vessel, conveyed [it], and burnt [it] outside its place; or he performed kemitzah, placed [the kometz] in a vessel, conveyed [it], or burnt [it for] outside its area; [or] the sinner’s minchah-offering or jealousy minchah-offering whose kemitzah he performed for a designation other than its own, and placed [the kometz] in a vessel, conveyed [it], and burnt [it on the Altar for] beyond its time; [or] he performed kemitzah [for] beyond its time, and placed [the kometz] in a vessel, conveyed [it], and burnt [it on the Altar] for a designation other than its own; or he performed kemitzah, placed [the kometz] in a vessel, conveyed [it], and burnt [it on the Altar] for a designation other than its own; these are [cases in which] the part which makes it permissible was not offered as required. [If he intended] to eat an olive’s volume outside and an olive’s volume tomorrow; [or] an olive’s volume tomorrow and an olive’s volume outside; [or] half an olive’s volume outside and half an olive’s volume tomorrow; [or] half an olive’s volume tomorrow and half an olive’s volume outside — it is invalid, but it carries no kares [penalty]. Said R’ Yehudah: This is the rule: If the intent of time preceded the intent of place, [it is] piggul and one is liable to kares over it; but if the intent of the place preceded the intent of time, it is invalid, but carries no kares [penalty]. However, the Sages say: In either case it is invalid, but it carries no kares [penalty]. [If he intended] to eat half an olive’s volume and to burn half an olive’s volume [on the Altar], it is valid — because eating and Altar-burning cannot be combined.