הָכִי נָמֵי לָאו דַּוְקָא אָמַר רַב אַסִּי אִם כֵּן לְמָה לִי לְמִיתְנֵי תַּרְתֵּי If so, one can say that so too the mishna here is not exact, and therefore one cannot infer from it that the halakhot of misuse apply only when those who were unfit for Temple service collected the blood. Rather, the halakhot of misuse are in effect even if those who collected the blood were fit and those who sprinkled it were unfit, which means that the phrase: A period of fitness, can be referring to fitness of consuming the meat of the offering. Rav Asi said: If so, that the mishna is not exact, why do I need the tanna to teach two mishnayot in an inexact manner? It must be that at least one of them is taught in a precise fashion, and for that reason the same style was preserved in the other mishna.
אֶלָּא לְעוֹלָם דִּמְעִילָה דַּוְקָא Rather, one must say that only one mishna is imprecise, i.e., the one in Zevaḥim with regard to the blood of a sin offering, and actually the mishna here with regard to misuse of consecrated property is precise, and therefore one can infer that the meaning of the phrase: A period of fitness, is fitness to sprinkle the blood.
וְהָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן דְּפָסוּל עוֹשֶׂה שִׁירַיִים And as for the mishna in Zevaḥim, which speaks of those who are unfit for collecting the blood despite the fact that the same halakha applies if those who are fit collected it, this is what it teaches us: That if those who are unfit for Temple service collected some of the blood, it renders the blood, including that which he did not collect, as leftovers. The blood has the same status as the remainder of the blood of a fit offering after some of its blood was sprinkled on the altar.
אַף עַל גַּב דְּקִיבֵּל פָּסוּל וְזָרַק וְקִיבֵּל כָּשֵׁר וְזָרַק לָאו כְּלוּם הִיא מַאי טַעְמָא דְּשִׁירַיִים נִינְהוּ And consequently, it teaches with regard to a case where the blood was collected in two vessels, that even though the priest who was unfit collected the blood and sprinkled it, and a priest who was fit subsequently collected the blood and sprinkled it, the sprinkling of the fit priest is considered as though he did not do anything. What is the reason for this? The reason is that the blood is considered leftovers.
וְהָא בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן פָּסוּל מַהוּ שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה שִׁירַיִים The Gemara objects: But didn’t Reish Lakish ask Rabbi Yoḥanan: In the case of an individual unfit for Temple service who sprinkled the blood, what is the halakha with regard to the remaining blood? Does the fact that he sprinkled some of the blood render the remaining blood leftovers?
וַאֲמַר לֵיהּ אֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁיַּעֲשֶׂה שִׁירַיִים אֶלָּא חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ הוֹאִיל וּמְרַצִּין לְפִיגּוּלָן And Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him in response: You do not have a matter of an invalid sprinkling that renders the remaining blood leftovers except for a case where he sprinkled the blood with the intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time or outside its designated area. In these instances it is considered a significant sprinkling, since this sprinkling with improper intent effects acceptance, i.e., it is considered a valid sprinkling with regard to rendering the meat of the offering piggul.
מַאי לָאו בַּר מִפָּסוּל לָא אֲפִילּוּ פָּסוּל The Gemara analyzes Rabbi Yoḥanan’s statement: What, is it not the case that when he said that only piggul intent renders the blood leftovers, this is to the exclusion of a sprinkling performed by an unfit priest? If so, this would mean that an unfit priest does not render the remainder of the blood leftovers, which contradicts the opinion of Rav Asi. The Gemara rejects this inference: No, even an unfit priest renders the blood leftovers.
וְהָא אֵין לְךָ קָתָנֵי The Gemara objects: But Rabbi Yoḥanan taught in a broad manner: You do not have a matter of an invalid sprinkling that renders the remaining blood leftovers except for a case where he sprinkled the blood with the intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time or outside its designated area. Evidently, Rabbi Yoḥanan maintains that the blood is rendered leftovers only in those cases.
הָכִי קָתָנֵי אֵין לְךָ דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְרַצֶּה בְּצִיבּוּר וְעוֹשֶׂה שִׁירַיִים אֶלָּא חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ אֲבָל טָמֵא דְּאִיתֵיהּ בְּצִיבּוּר מְשַׁוֵּי שִׁירַיִים The Gemara explains that this is what Rabbi Yoḥanan is teaching: You do not have a matter of an invalid sprinkling that does not effect acceptance in the case of offerings of the community, and yet which renders the remaining blood leftovers, except for a case where he sprinkled the blood with the intent to consume the offering beyond its designated time or outside its designated area. Although these offerings are not sacrificed, nevertheless the sprinklings render the blood leftovers. But Rabbi Yoḥanan was not referring to a ritually impure priest, who is fit to effect acceptance for offerings of the community in a case where the majority of the community is impure, as he does render the remainder of the blood leftovers.
שְׁאָר פְּסוּלִין דְּלָא אִיתַנּוּן בְּצִיבּוּר לָא מְשַׁוִּין שִׁירַיִים By contrast, with regard to all other invalid sprinklings, which are not fit to effect acceptance in the case of offerings of the community, e.g., a blemished priest, they do not render the blood leftovers. Accordingly, Rav Asi’s comment, that the mishna in Zevaḥim teaches that if those who are unfit for Temple service collect some of the blood they thereby render the blood leftovers, is referring only to an impure priest.
תָּא שְׁמַע הַפִּיגּוּל לְעוֹלָם מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ The Gemara further analyzes Rabbi Yehoshua’s phrase: That had a period of fitness to the priests. Come and hear a baraita: With regard to an offering of the most sacred order that is piggul, one who derives benefit from it is always liable for misuse of consecrated property.
לָאו דְּלֹא זָרַק וּשְׁמַע מִינַּהּ הֶיתֵּר זְרִיקָה שָׁנִינוּ The Gemara analyzes this statement: Is this not referring to a case where the priest collected the blood but did not yet sprinkle it? If so, this would mean that it is specifically the collection of the blood after the intent of piggul that does not remove the offering from the halakhot of misuse. One can infer from here that if the blood was collected with the proper intent, i.e., when the offering is not piggul, and is ready to be sprinkled, it does remove the offering from the halakhot of misuse. Accordingly, conclude from the baraita that it is fitness of sprinkling of the blood that we learned in the mishna.
לָא זַרְקֵהּ The Gemara rejects this inference: No, one cannot cite a proof from here, as it is possible that the baraita is referring to a case where the priest already sprinkled the blood. If so, the reason that one is liable for misuse is because the sprinkling of piggul does not remove it from the halakhot of misuse. It can therefore be inferred from the baraita that if the offering was not piggul, then the sprinkling would remove it from misuse. This interpretation is in accordance with the opinion that when Rabbi Yehoshua referred to a period of fitness, he meant fitness of consuming the meat of the offering, i.e., only when the blood was sprinkled properly.
וּמַאי לְעוֹלָם הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן כִּדְרַב גִּידֵּל דְּאָמַר רַב גִּידֵּל אָמַר רַב זְרִיקַת פִּיגּוּל אֵינוֹ מוֹצִיא מִידֵי מְעִילָה וְאֵינוֹ מֵבִיא לִידֵי מְעִילָה And if so, what does the baraita mean when it states that one who derives benefit from an offering that is piggul always remains subject to the halakhot of misuse? This is what the baraita teaches us by this phrase, that the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Giddel, as Rav Giddel said that Rav said: Sprinkling the blood of an offering with piggul intent does not remove the offering from the status of being subject to the halakhot of misuse, in the case of offerings of the most sacred order. And similarly, such a sprinkling does not bring the sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity into the status of being subject to the halakhot of misuse.