מְחַשְּׁבִין עַל הָאָבוּד וְעַל הַשָּׂרוּף one renders an offering piggul by having an intention at the time of sprinkling to later sacrifice its sacrificial portions after the proper time, even with regard to sacrificial portions that were already lost and with regard to sacrificial portions that were already burned.
וְהָא אָבוּד וְשָׂרוּף לָא אִיתִינּוּן בָּעוֹלָם וַאֲפִילּוּ הָכִי קָתָנֵי מְחַשְּׁבִין The Gemara analyzes this statement: But sacrificial portions that are lost or burned are not present in the world, i.e., they are not available, and even so it is taught that one renders an offering piggul by an intention to consume it after its appointed time. It can be derived from here that if the entire offering left the courtyard, which is comparable to a case where it was lost, the sprinkling is effective with regard to the halakhot of misuse according to Rabbi Akiva. This apparently contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥanan.
וּמִי אָמַר רַב אַסִּי הָכִי הָא בְּעָא מִינֵּיהּ רַב אַסִּי מֵרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן חִישֵּׁב לַנִּשְׁפָּכִין לְמָחָר מַהוּ The Gemara asks: But did Rav Asi actually say this? Does he maintain that even if all of the meat and the sacrificial portions left the courtyard, the sprinkling is effective according to Rabbi Akiva? Didn’t Rav Asi raise the following dilemma before Rabbi Yoḥanan: What is the halakha in a case where the priest intended during the sacrificial rites that the remnant of the blood, which is meant to be poured on the base of the altar immediately after the sprinkling, will be poured improperly tomorrow? Does the offering thereby become piggul, as this is similar to intending to sprinkle the blood after the proper time; or does such intent apply only to the blood that is actually sprinkled on the altar?
אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי זֵירָא כְּבָר שָׁנִיתָ לָנוּ אָלָל אַלְמָא הַאי אָלָל כֵּיוָן דְּלֵית בֵּיהּ מְשָׁשָׁא לֹא קִיבֵּל טוּמְאָה And Rabbi Zeira said to Rav Asi in response to this dilemma: You already taught us in tractate Ḥullin, with regard to the ritual impurity of food and animal carcasses, that items that are not themselves edible but are attached to meat combine with the meat to constitute the requisite measure of an egg-bulk to transmit the impurity of foods. One instance of this principle is the meat residue attached to the hide after flaying, which combines with the meat to transmit the impurity of foods, despite the fact that it is not considered food and does not transmit impurity of foods on its own. Evidently this meat residue, since it has no substance and significance in and of itself, it is not susceptible to impurity.
הָנֵי נִשְׁפָּכִין נָמֵי כֵּיוָן דִּלְאִיבּוּד אָזְלִי בְּהוּ מַחְשָׁבָה לָא מַהְנְיָא The Gemara explains the contradiction: It follows that according to Rav Asi, in the case of this blood, which is meant to be poured on the base of the altar, since it is going to be lost and therefore is also insignificant, intent with regard to it is not effective to render the offering piggul. The blood that is to be poured on the base of the altar is similar to an offering that left the courtyard in its entirety, as they are both considered as though they are not present. Consequently, according to Rav Asi, in a case where the entire offering left the courtyard and is meant to be burned and thereby destroyed, it cannot be rendered piggul by means of intent during the sprinkling. This follows Rabbi Yoḥanan’s interpretation of the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, that he is referring only to a case where the offering left partially, not where the entire offering left.
אֶלָּא דְּקָתָנֵי עַל הָאָבוּד וְעַל הַשָּׂרוּף קַשְׁיָא אָמַר רָבָא אֵימָא עַל הָעוֹמֵד לְאִיבּוּד וְעַל הָעוֹמֵד לִישָּׂרֵף The Gemara objects: But Rav Asi cited that which the baraita teaches: One can render an offering piggul by means of one’s intent, even with regard to sacrificial portions that were already lost and with regard to sacrificial portions that were already burned. This baraita itself poses a difficulty, as it indicates that intent is effective even for that which has been destroyed. Rava said in response: Emend the wording of the baraita and say instead: One can render an offering piggul by means of one’s intent, even with regard to sacrificial portions that stand to be lost or with regard to sacrificial portions that stand to be burned, but were not yet destroyed. Since they are currently present, such intent is effective to render the offering piggul. But in a case where the offering left the courtyard, as it is not present, intent is ineffective with regard to it.
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא לָא אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא אֶלָּא שֶׁיָּצָא בָּשָׂר אֲבָל דָּם אֵין זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא § With regard to Rabbi Akiva’s opinion in the mishna, Rav Pappa says that Rabbi Akiva says his ruling, that sprinkling is effective for the meat of offerings that left the courtyard before sprinkling, with regard to piggul and the halakhot of misuse, only in a case where the meat left while the blood remained inside and was sprinkled. But if the blood itself left, then even if it was returned to the courtyard and was sprinkled, in such a case the sprinkling of blood that left the courtyard is not effective to remove the meat from the halakhot of misuse.
תַּנְיָא נָמֵי הָכִי שָׁחַט בִּשְׁתִיקָה וְיָצָא דָּם אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחָזַר וּזְרָקוֹ לֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא כְלוּם בְּקׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ בְּקָדָשִׁים קַלִּים אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בּוֹ The Gemara notes that this opinion of Rav Pappa is also taught in a baraita: If one slaughtered the animal in silence, i.e., with no improper intent, and the blood subsequently left the courtyard, even though it was returned to the courtyard and the priest later sprinkled it, he has done nothing, i.e., it is ineffective. Therefore, in the case of offerings of the most sacred order, one who derives benefit from it is still liable for misuse of consecrated property, as the sprinkling did not render the meat permitted. Likewise, in the case of offerings of lesser sanctity, the sprinkling does not render the sacrificial portions subject to the halakhot of misuse, and therefore one who derives benefit from it is not liable for misuse, as is the case before the sprinkling.
אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא הָא זֶה לְמָה דּוֹמֶה The Gemara continues to analyze the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Akiva said, in support of his opinion: To what is this case, where the meat left before the blood was sprinkled, comparable? To the case of one who designated an animal as his sin offering and it was lost, and he designated another animal in its stead, and thereafter the first sin offering was found and both of them stand fit for sacrifice. From the fact that the second, unfit offering is exempted by means of the sprinkling of the blood of the first, fit offering, it may be inferred that the meat of an offering is exempted from the halakhot of misuse by the sprinkling of its own blood, despite the fact that the meat left the courtyard.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר כִּי אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְּבַת אַחַת אֲבָל בְּזֶה אַחַר זֶה לֹא אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא Rabbi Elazar says: When Rabbi Akiva says his opinion, that the sprinkling of the blood of one of the offerings exempts the other from the halakhot of misuse, that applies specifically in a situation where the two offerings were slaughtered at the same time, i.e., by two priests simultaneously, as in such a case they are considered like a single body. But in a case where the two offerings were slaughtered one after the other, Rabbi Akiva did not say that the sprinkling of one exempts the other from the halakhot of misuse. This is because when the first offering was slaughtered, the other became unfit as a leftover sin offering. Since there was no point at which its meat was permitted to be consumed by the priests, it was not exempted from the halakhot of misuse.
תַּנְיָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן כְּשֶׁהָלַכְתִּי לִכְפַר פָּאנִי מְצָאַנִי זָקֵן אֶחָד וְאָמַר לִי אוֹמֵר הָיָה רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא זְרִיקָה מוֹעֶלֶת לַיּוֹצֵא אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ הֵן וּכְשֶׁבָּאתִי וְהִרְצֵיתִי דְּבָרִים לִפְנֵי חֲבֵירַי שֶׁבַּגָּלִיל אָמְרוּ לִי הֲלֹא פָּסוּל הוּא הֵיאַךְ מְרַצֶּה עַל הַפָּסוּל The Gemara cites a relevant baraita: It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Shimon said: When I went to the village of Pani, a certain old man found me and said to me: Is it so that Rabbi Akiva would say that sprinkling is effective for the meat of offerings that left the courtyard and were thereby rendered unfit, with regard to the halakhot of misuse? I said to him: Yes. And when I came and presented this matter that the old man said before my colleagues in Galilee, they said, agreeing with his skepticism: How could Rabbi Akiva have said that? Since the meat that left the courtyard is unfit, how can the sprinkling effect acceptance for that which is unfit?
וּכְשֶׁיָּצָאתִי וְהִרְצֵיתִי דְּבָרִים לִפְנֵי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אָמַר לִי בְּנִי אִי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר כֵּן וַהֲרֵי הַמַּפְרִישׁ חַטָּאתוֹ וְאָבְדָה וְהִפְרִישׁ אַחֶרֶת תַּחְתֶּיהָ וְאַחַר כָּךְ נִמְצֵאת הָרִאשׁוֹנָה וַהֲרֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן עוֹמְדוֹת מוֹעֲלִין בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן שְׁחָטָן וַהֲרֵי דָּמָן מוּנָּח בְּכוֹסוֹת מוֹעֲלִין בִּשְׁתֵּיהֶן But when I left their presence and presented this matter before Rabbi Akiva, he said: And you, my son, do you not say so, that sprinkling is effective even with regard to that which is unfit? But in the case of one who designated an animal as his sin offering and it was lost and he designated another animal in its stead, and thereafter the first sin offering was found and both of them stand fit for sacrifice, he may sacrifice either animal, thereby rendering the other unfit, and yet both are subject to the halakhot of misuse. This is due to the fact that these offerings remain consecrated to God, and therefore one who derives benefit from them is liable for misuse. Likewise, if one slaughtered them both, and their blood is placed in cups and the blood of one of them will be sprinkled on the altar, both of them are subject to the halakhot of misuse.