In the following cases it is Pasul, and there is no Kares:

He intended to eat a k'Zayis (of the meat) Chutz li'Mkomo and a k'Zayis Chutz li'Zmano, or (first he intended for) a k'Zayis Chutz li'Zmano and a k'Zayis Chutz li'Mkomo, or half a k'Zayis Chutz li'Mkomo and a half a k'Zayis Chutz li'Zmano, in either order.

R. Yehudah (argues and) says, the general rule is, if the first intent was Chutz li'Zmano, it is Pigul, and there is Kares. I f the first intent was Chutz li'Mkomo, it is Pasul, and there is no Kares;

Chachamim say, in both cases it is Pasul, and there is no Kares.

If he intended to eat half a k'Zayis (Chutz li'Zmano or Chutz li'Mkomo), and Lehaktir half a k'Zayis (with such intent), it is Kosher, for intent for eating and Haktarah do not join.

(Gemara - Beraisa) Suggestion: Perhaps one who brings birds must bring at least two, for it says "v'Hikriv Min ha'Torim Oh Min Bnei ha'Yonah" (the plural forms are used)!

Rejection: "V'Hikrivo" - he can bring even one.

"Ha'Kohen" teaches that a Kohen must do Melikah.

A Kal va'Chomer would have permitted a Zar! Shechitah of animals (of Kodshei Kodoshim) must be in the north, yet a Zar may slaughter. Melikah of birds need not be in the north, all the more a Zar should be Kosher for Melikah!

"Ha'Kohen" mandates a Kohen.

Suggestion: A Kal va'Chomer should teach that a Kli is used for Melikah! A Kohen is not required for Shechitah, yet a Kli (e.g. knife) is required. A Kohen is required for Melikah, all the more so a Kli should be required!

Rejection: It says "ha'Kohen... u'Malak";

R. Akiva says, we know that a Zar may not ascend the Mizbe'ach for Melikah, therefore "ha'Kohen" is extra, to teach that Melikah is done with (the fingernail of) the Kohen himself.

Suggestion: Perhaps Melikah may be done above or below!

Rejection: "U'Malak...v'Hiktir" - just like Haktarah is on top of the Mizbe'ach, also Melikah.

"U'Malak" - Mul the Oref.

Suggestion: Perhaps it is from the (front of the) neck!

Answer: It says "u'Malak", like it says about Chatas ha'Of. Just like there it is Mul the Oref, also here.

Suggestion: We should say that just like he is not Mavdil in Chatas ha'Of, also in Olas ha'Of!

Rejection: "U'Malak...v'Hiktir" - just like the head and body are separate during Haktarah, they are separate due to Melikah.

Question: What is the source that the head and body are burned separately?

Answer: "V'Hiktir Oso" refers to burning the body, so "v'Hiktir ha'Mizbechah" refers to burning the head.

"V'Nimtza Damo" connotes all of its blood. "El Kir ha'Mizbe'ach" refers to the wall of the Mizbe'ach, but not on the wall of the ramp or Heichal;

Mitzuy is above (on the top half of the wall).

Question: A Kal va'Chomer teaches that it should be below!

(Blood of) Chatas Behemah is offered above, and Olas Behemah.is offered below. Chatas haOf is offered below, all the more so Olas ha'Of should be offered below!

Answer: "U'Malak... v'Hiktir... v'Nimtza Damo";

Question: Surely, he does not squeeze out the blood after Haktarah!

Answer: Rather, this teaches that just like Haktarah is on top of the Mizbe'ach, also Mitzuy;

He ascends the ramp, turns to the Sovev, and comes to the southeast corner. He is Molek Mul the Oref, is Mavdil, and does Mitzuy against the wall of the Mizbe'ach.

If he did Mitzuy below his feet (i.e. below the Sovev), even an Amah below, it is Kosher (for this is above Chut ha'Sikra);

R. Nechemyah and R. Eliezer ben Yakov say, it must be done on top of the Mizbe'ach.

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer (Abaye and Rava): The first Tana permits making a Ma'arachah on the Sovev (to burn Olas ha'Of, therefore, Mitzuy may be just below this). R. Nechemyah and R. Eliezer forbid this.

(Mishnah): He takes the body...

(Beraisa): "V'Hesir Es Mur'aso b'Notzasah" refers to the crop.

Suggestion: Perhaps he cuts with a knife and removes it (so extra skin will not come with it)!

Rejection: "B'Notzasah" - he takes the (surrounding skin with) feathers with it.

Aba Yosi ben Chanan says, he takes it and the gizzard with it.

(Beraisa - Tana d'Vei R. Yishmael): "B'Notzasah" - he takes only its (surrounding skin and) feathers, he cuts with a knife (so extra skin will not come with it).

(Mishnah): He tears the wings, but does not tear them off the body.

(Beraisa): "V'Shisa" refers to tearing with his hand;

Support: "Vay'Shas'ehu k'Shasa ha'Gedi" (Shimshon tore the lion with his hands).

(Mishnah): If he did not remove the crop...(if he was Mavdil in Chatas ha'Of, it is Pasul).

Our Mishnah is unlike R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon.

(Beraisa - R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon): I heard that the Kohen [may be] Mavdil in Melikah of Chatas ha'Of.

Question: What do they argue about?

Answer #1 (Rav Chisda): They argue about whether Mitzuy of Chatas ha'Of is Me'akev (all agree that Chatas ha'Of offered like Olas ha'Of is Pasul):

Our Tana holds that it is Me'akev. Therefore, if he is Mavdil Chatas ha'Of, this is like Avodas Olas ha'Of (Rashi - since also Mitzuy must be done, like Olas ha'Of; Tosfos - since Mitzuy is Me'akev, everything done before it is part of the Avodah);

R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon holds that Mitzuy is not Me'akev, so Havdalah is nothing more than cutting meat. (Rashi - he will not do Mitzuy, so this is unlike Olas ha'Of; Tosfos - the Hakravah ends with Haza'ah, so Havdalah afterwards is meaningless. However, R. Elazar agrees that Havdalah before Haza'ah disqualifies).

Answer #2 (Rava): They argue about whether a pause in between cutting the two Simanim of Olas ha'Of disqualifies:

Our Tana holds that it is not Me'akev. Therefore, Havdalah in Chatas ha'Of is like Avodas Olas ha'Of (even though he must pause in between to cut the majority of the flesh (of the neck));

R. Elazar holds that it is Me'akev. Therefore, Havdalah in Chatas ha'Of is unlike Avodas Olas ha'Of (in which the Simanim must be cut without pausing in between).

Answer #3 (Abaye): (All agree that a pause in between the Simanim of Olas ha'Of disqualifies.) They argue about whether cutting the majority of the flesh in Chatas ha'Of is Me'akev, as R. Zeira and Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchak argued:

Our Tana says that it is not Me'akev. Therefore, Havdalah (without pausing in between) is like Olas ha'Of;

R. Elazar says that it is Me'akev. Therefore, since he must pause in between the Simanim to cut the flesh, it is unlike Olas ha'Of.

Suggestion: They argue about whether it is Me'akev, but all agree that l'Chatchilah one must cut the majority of the flesh in Chatas ha'Of!

Affirmation: Yes!

(Beraisa): In Melikah of a Chatas, one cuts the spine and neckbone without cutting most of the flesh. When he reaches the Kaneh or Veshet, he cuts one Siman or its majority, and most of the flesh with it;

In an Olah, he cuts both Simanim or the majority of both.

R. Yirmeyah heard the above discussion.

Objection (R. Yirmeyah): R. Shimon ben Elyakim said that R. Elazar b'Rebbi Shimon heard that we may be Mavdil in Chatas ha'Of (even before Haza'ah). "Lo Yavdil" means that he need not be Mavdil!