Zevachim Daf 30 זבחים דַף 30

A Mishnah teaches that if one says: הרי זו תמורת עולה תמורת שלמים – this [animal] is hereby designated as a substitute for an עולה, a substitute for a שלמים, Rebbe Meir says it is fully an עולה, following his first phrase. Rebbe Yose says that since it is impossible to say both simultaneously, if he originally intended to say both, דבריו קיימין – his words stand, and both תמורות take effect. The Gemara asks if he says it should be "תמורת עולה ושלמים", without saying "תמורת" separately for שלמים, would Rebbe Meir agree that both תמורות take effect? If he would argue even in this case, what if he said "לחצות" – it should be halved between being a תמורת עולה and a תמורת שלמים? Since it is a single statement, does Rebbe Meir agree that both תמורות take effect, or does he hold, even in this case, that the תמורת עולה, which was mentioned first, takes effect first and its kedushah spreads through the entire animal? Abaye says Rebbe Meir agrees in this case they both take effect, but Rava says Rebbe Meir argues even in this case.

Rava challenged Abaye from our Mishnah, where one had two intents during shechitah (חוץ לזמנו and חוץ למקומו), which parallels a case of "לחצות", since the intents can be applied to different כזיתים and do not indicate a retraction. Still, Rebbe Yehudah holds that we follow only his first מחשבה and it is full פיגול, and not considered mixed with the מחשבה of חוץ למקומו!? Abaye responded: do you think אינה לשחיטה אלא לבסוף – shechitah is only [considered shechitah] at the end of the act, in which case both מחשבות would take effect simultaneously? It is not; rather, ישנה לשחיטה מתחילה ועד סוף – shechitah is [considered shechitah] from the beginning until the end. Our Mishnah’s case is where he said he is cutting the first סימן with an intent of חוץ לזמנו, and the second סימן for חוץ למקומו. Because the two מחשבות take effect separately, Rebbe Yehudah holds we follow the first מחשבה. Abaye explains a parallel machlokes about dual מחשבות by מנחות to be where he burned the קומץ with an intent of חוץ לזמנו, and burned the לבונה – frankincense with an intent of חוץ למקומו.

Rav Dimi said that Rebbe Meir, who ruled that where one says "הרי זו תמורת עולה תמורת שלמים", the animal is only a תמורת עולה, follows Rebbe Yehudah’s opinion in our Mishnah, that תפוס לשון ראשון – give primacy to the first statement (so if the חוץ לזמנו intent preceded the חוץ למקומו intent, it is full פיגול). Abaye asked Rav Dimi: but Rabbah bar bar Channah said in Rebbe Yochanan’s name that it is possible to limit Rebbe Meir and Rebbe Yose’s argument: If one said תחול זו ואחר כך תחול זו – “This [תמורת עולה] should take effect, and afterwards this [תמורת שלמים] should take effect, everyone agrees that only the תמורת עולה takes effect. If he said, לא תחול זו אלא א"כ חלה זו – “This should not take effect unless this one also take effect, all agree they both take effect. Specifically where he said תמורת עולה תמורת שלמים, Rebbe Meir reasons that had he intended to say both, he would have said "תמורת עולה ושלמים"; since he said "תמורת" again, it indicates a retraction. Rebbe Yose says that he intended to say both, but thought that saying a single "תמורת" would make it half עולה and half שלמים, so he attempted (erroneously) to make it fully עולה and שלמים by saying "תמורת" twice. Thus, Rebbe Meir does not necessarily hold תפוס לשון ראשון!? Rav Dimi replied that he disagrees with Rabbah bar bar Channah, and holds they do argue about תפוס לשון ראשון.