[If] one performs kemitzah on a minchahoffering [intending] to eat its remainder or to burn its kometz tomorrow — R’ Yose agrees in this case that it is piggul and that one is liable to kares over it. [If his intention was] to burn its frankincense tomorrow — R’ Yose says: It is invalid, but it carries no kares [penalty]; but the Sages say: [It is] piggul and one is liable to kares over it. They said to him: How is this different from an animal sacrifice? He said to them: Because [with] an animal sacrifice the blood, meat, and sacrificial parts are one, whereas the frankincense is not from the minchah-offering.

[If] he slaughtered [the] two lambs [intending] to eat one of the loaves tomorrow; [or] he burnt the two spoonfuls [of frankincense intending] to eat one of the arrangements tomorrow — R’ Yose says: That loaf or that arrangement about which he [expressed his] intention is piggul, and one is liable to kares over it; and the second one is invalid but carries no [penalty of] kares. But the Sages say: Both are piggul, and one is liable to kares over them. [If] one of the loaves or one of the arrangements became tamei — R’ Yehudah says: They should both go out to the place of burning, because a communal offering is not divisible; but the Sages say: The one which is tamei [remains] in its [state of] tumah, but the one which is tahor is eaten.