[If] he intended piggul with the kometz but not with the frankincense; [or] with the frankincense but not with the kometz — R’ Meir says: It is piggul and one is liable to kares over it; but the Sages say: There is no kares for it unless he intends piggul with all that renders it permissible. The Sages concur with R’ Meir concerning the sinner’s minchah-offering and the jealousy minchahoffering, that if he intended piggul with the kometz, it is piggul and one is liable to kares over it, since the kometz is that which renders it permissible. [If] he slaughtered one of the lambs [intending] to eat [the] two loaves tomorrow, [or] he burnt one of the spoonfuls [of frankincense intending] to eat [the] two arrangements tomorrow — R’ Meir says: It is piggul and one is liable to kares over it; but the Sages say: There is no piggul unless he intends piggul with all that renders it permissible. [If] he slaughtered one of the lambs [intending] to eat from it tomorrow, it is piggul but its companion is valid. [However, if he intended] to eat from its companion tomorrow, they are both valid.

[If] one performs kemitzah on a minchahoffering [intending] to eat something which is not meant to be eaten, [or] to burn [upon the Altar] something which is not meant to be burnt — it is valid. R’ Eliezer invalidates [it]. [If his intent was] to eat something which is meant to be eaten, [or] to burn [upon the Altar] something which is meant to be burnt — but less than an olive’s volume — it is valid. [If his intent was] to eat something half an olive’s volume and to burn half an olive’s volume — it is valid, for eating and Altar-burning are not combined.