Explanation: In Bava Kama (73b), we say that there are two [Shi'urim] of Toch Kedei Dibur. One is the time for a Rebbi to greet a Talmid, which is smaller (the time to say two words, i.e. Shalom Alecha), and one is the time for a Talmid to greet his Rebbi, which is bigger (the time to say Shalom Alecha Rebbi u'Mori);

R. Yosi agrees that his word helps [to retract or clarify what he said] Toch Kedei Dibur. He means as follows. If he said Temuras Shelamim within a small Toch Kedei Dibur of Temuras Olah, now it looks like he intended for this from the beginning;

Even if he screams that he did not intend, since it is impossible to say two names at once, his words are fulfilled.

"Reconsidered" is called [even] within a big Toch Kedei Dibur, when he said it after a small Toch Kedei Dibur, for it seems like he retracted. Even if he says that he intended for this from the beginning, his words have no effect.

Question: We say in Kidushin (50b) and in Eruvin (50a) and in Nedarim (69b) that whenever two matters cannot take affect one after the other, even if one did both at once, neither takes effect!

Answer #1: [It takes affect here] because we find them half-way one after the other, e.g. he said "half is for Demei Olah, and half is for Demei Shelamim";

We find this even regarding Kedushas ha'Guf, e.g. the animal of two partners.

Answer #2: "Anything that is not one after the other" discusses a matter that you cannot fulfill, because they contradict each other, e.g. one who is Mekadesh a woman and her daughter. Which will you exclude? (Why should you say that one is Mekudeshes, and the other is not?!)

Similarly, when one said [to his wife or daughter (a Na'arah)] "your vow is affirmed and annulled", and four Amos in Eruvin (49b - if one said that his Shevisah is under a tree, his Shevisah cannot include the four Amos on this side and the four Amos on the other side). However, here we fulfill both of them.

Support: Similarly in Gitin (42a), one who writes all his property to his two slaves, they acquired, and they free each other, and we do not say that whatever cannot take effect one after the other, if one did both at once, neither takes effect!

This is because there, we cannot fulfill both of them when it is one after the other, for the first acquired himself and acquired his fellow [slave], and the other does not acquire at all;

However, at once, we can fulfill both of them, and we say that they acquired, and they free each other.

Implied question: We say in Kidushin (7b) that if one said "half of you [is Mekudeshes to me] with half a Perutah, and [the other] half of you with [another] half a Perutah, she is not Mekudeshes, and ask "[if he said both halves of you for a Perutah, what is the law?"

We should resolve this from Rabah, who taught that whatever cannot take effect one after the other, even at once, neither takes effect!

Answer: "Whatever cannot take effect one after the other" discusses when the latter cannot take effect because the first took affect first, e.g. [being Mekadesh] two sisters, or taking two Terumos or two Ma'aseros. Therefore, [if one did both] at once, neither takes effect, for "which will you exclude?";

However, regarding Kidushin [half at a time], one after the other, neither takes effect, but at once, both of them take effect.

Implied question: It says in Menachos (11a) "what is the case of too much oil? He separated for it two Lugim", and the Sugya connotes somewhat that they have Kedushas ha'Guf;

Also when the Levonah is lacking, it infers there (11b) "if there was too much, it is Kosher. A Beraisa teaches that if there was too much, it is Pasul!", and [Rami bar Chama] explains there that he separated for it two Kamatzim. He explains [when too much is] Kosher, like I explained there.

Now, why are [both Kamatzim] Kadosh? We say that anything that is not one after the other, at once, neither takes effect!

Answer: The case is, he said "one Kometz among the two Kamatzim should be Kodesh', like it says in Menachos (78b) and in Kidushin (51a) regarding a Todah slaughtered for 80 loaves. All agree that when he said "40 should become Kadosh", that they become Kadosh.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): He said "this animal is l'Chatzos Olah and Shelamim."

This is unlike half-Olah and half-Shelamim, about which they explicitly argue in Temurah (26a).

Explanation #2: However, in Pesachim (83a), Rashi was not meticulous. He explained "l'Chatzos", e.g. he said half is Temuras Olah, and half is Temuras Shelamim.

Explanation #3 (R. Chananel): "L'Chatzos" means that he said that at midday, it will be an Olah and Shelamim", or "it will be an Olah and Shelamim at midday."

Explanation: [Rava] asks that Shechitah is like "l'Chatzos", for since Shechitah is only at end, he said both utterances before the end of Shechitah. It is as if he said "at the end of Shechitah, a k'Zayis will be Chutz li'Zmano, and a k'Zayis Chutz li'Mkomo."

Explanation: This is only [if he said] one Siman, which is something specific, and one is Mefagel in half a Matir;

However, if he said that the first Mashehu is Chutz li'Zmano, and the second Mashehu is Chutz li'Mkomo, it is not Pigul, even though one can be Mefagel in half a Matir;

Since it is not something specific, it is unlike steps.

Question: It connotes here that Rava holds that Shechitah is only at the end. This is like Reish Lakish in Chulin (29b);

We know that Rava holds in Yevamos (36a) that in the entire Gemara, the Halachah follows R. Yochanan against Reish Lakish, except for three laws (and this is not one of them)!

Answer: Here is different, for Reish Lakish said so in the name of Levi the elder. (Rava does not count places in which Reish Lakish holds like others.)

Question: Rava challenged Abaye, and thought that [Abaye] holds that Shechitah is only at the end. He should challenge him from our Mishnah, that if he put [intent for] Mulim before Arelim, it is Kosher. If he put Arelim before Mulim, it is Pasul (Pesachim 62b);

Inference: The first utterance takes effect at the end of Shechitah, and the second does not. If they both took effect, we hold that partial [intent for] Arelim does not disqualify (below, 65b)!

Question: Why didn't he ask from Melikah of Chatas ha'Of, about which they argue? Chatas ha'Of requires only one Siman. There are not two Matirin!

Answer: We can say that there are two Matirin - the neckbone and one Siman (foodpipe or windpipe).

Explanation: Both of them (R. Meir and R. Yosi) do not hold that we follow the first thing said, like it explains below. Therefore, R. Meir of Temurah, regarding Shechitah he does not hold like R. Yehudah.

Question: What was Rava's challenge to Abaye above (30a) "Shechitah is like l'Chatzos, and they argue!"? R. Yehudah surely holds that we follow the first thing said, but R. Meir does not!

Source: Abaye does not hold that R. Meir holds like R. Yehudah! Rather, since he said "Temuras Olah Temuras Shelamim" (R. Meir holds that he tried to retract).

Note: Shitah Mekubetzes and others say that the following is a new Dibur.

Citation: This shows that he retracted.

Explanation: Even if he says that from the beginning he intended to say both of them, we do not believe him.

Correction: Based on this, R. Tam corrected texts in Shevuos (38a) that say [that if one swore falsely "I do not owe] "not to you, not to you", he is liable only once, for it is a Klal (one Shevu'ah), whereas "not to you, and not to you", he is liable for each one, since it is Perata (individual oaths);

Here it connotes oppositely, that k'Zayis uk'Zayis is more mixed intents than k'Zayis k'Zayis!

Support: It connotes like this in the Yerushalmi there. It compares She'elas Shalom in a Get (between the text and the signatures) to "not to you, and not to you", and regarding She'elas Shalom, we say in Gitin (87a) that if it says "greet [Ploni]", it is Pasul (it is an independent matter. Perhaps the witnesses signed only on the greeting, and do not testify about the Get), but if it says "and greet [Ploni]", it is Kosher (it is together with the Get. Surely the witnesses did not sign only on the greeting!) This is from R. Baruch.

Note: Tzon Kodoshim says that the following begins a new Dibur.

Citation: It is mixed intents.

Question #1: Rebbi said that R. Yehudah agrees that "a k'Zayis tomorrow outside" is mixed intents. This is like l'Chatzos;

Above (30a), Rava said that they argue about l'Chatzos, and brought a proof against Abaye from R. Yehudah's opinion about Shechitah. What is the proof? R. Yehudah agrees!

Question #2: Rava holds that Shechitah is only at the end. Since the intent takes effect only on the last Mashehu (that completes the majority of the Siman), "a k'Zayis tomorrow a k'Zayis outside" is the same as "a k'Zayis tomorrow outside", and according to Rava they argue! (Tzon Kodoshim - this answers Question #1. Rava holds that R. Yehudah argues about both of these. It is not difficult that Rava argues with Rebbi; Rav Papa (Chulin 36a) says that Rebbi holds that Shechitah is from the beginning to the end, and R. Chiya argues. Rava holds like R. Chiya! - PF)

Question #3: According to Rava, they argue about "Temuras Olah u'Shelamim"! (Since he did not repeat "Temuras", this is like "a k'Zayis tomorrow outside", in which he did not repeat "k'Zayis", and Rava holds that they argue, unlike Rebbi - Yad Binyamin.) This is from R. Baruch.

Explanation: He should not have abandoned [asking about] k'Zayis uk'Zayis, and rather ask from a k'Zayis tomorrow outside. Since he abandoned this, this connotes that it is obvious to him that it is Perata.