אבל לאכילה הוא דלא מרצה
But as for permitting it for eating, in this regard even Rabbi Akiva concedes that the sprinkling of the blood does not effect acceptance.
הדרן עלך קדשי קדשים
מתני׳ חטאת העוף מועלין בה משהוקדשה נמלקה הוכשרה להפסל בטבול יום ובמחוסר כפורים ובלינה
MISHNA: One who derives benefit from a bird sin offering is liable for misuse of consecrated property from the moment that it was consecrated. Once the nape of its neck was pinched, it was rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who was ritually impure who immersed in a ritual bath that day and is waiting for nightfall for the purification process to be completed, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering to complete his purification process, e.g., a zav and a leper, who are not yet permitted to partake of sacrificial meat; and through its blood being left overnight, i.e., if its blood was not sprinkled before sunset.
הוזה דמה חייבין עליו משום פיגול נותר וטמא ואין בה מעילה
Once its blood was sprinkled, one is liable to receive karet for eating it due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, and the prohibition of notar, and the prohibition of partaking of sacrificial meat while ritually impure. But there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property, because after the blood is sprinkled it is permitted for priests to partake of its meat and it is no longer consecrated exclusively to God.
גמ׳ קתני הוכשרה ליפסל בטבול יום ובמחוסר כפורים ובלינה ליפסל אין אבל לטמויי לא
GEMARA: The mishna teaches: From the time the nape of its neck was pinched, the bird sin offering was rendered susceptible to disqualification for sacrifice through contact with one who immersed that day, and through contact with one who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and through its blood being left overnight. It can be inferred from here that yes, it is susceptible to disqualification, but it is not fit to render other items ritually impure.
מתניתין מני רבנן היא דתניא אבא שאול אומר טבול יום
In light of the above inference, the Gemara asks: Whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? The Gemara answers: It is the opinion of the Rabbis, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Teharot 1:4) that Abba Shaul says: With regard to one who immersed that day,