As we learned in a mishna (Me’ila 6b): In the case of sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that left the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, Rabbi Eliezer says: The sprinkling of the blood is completely ineffective with regard to these portions, and therefore one is not liable for misusing them. And if one eats them, he is not liable due to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or of partaking of sacrificial meat while one is ritually impure.

Rabbi Akiva says: The sprinkling is effective and therefore, one is liable for misusing them. And if one eats them he is liable due to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or of partaking of sacrificial meat while one is ritually impure.

The Gemara now concludes the dilemma that Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak raised before Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: According to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, what is the halakha with regard to eating the loaves when the sheep were slaughtered for their own sake, but their blood was sprinkled not for their sake?

The Gemara clarifies the two sides of the dilemma: Should one say that from the fact that sprinkling the blood of the sheep in a manner that renders it piggul renders the loaves piggul, like the meat of the offering, despite the fact that the loaves were disqualified by leaving the courtyard of the Temple, it can be derived that sprinkling the blood not for its own sake also permits the loaves to be eaten, just as it permits the meat of the sheep to be eaten? Or perhaps it is only to be stringent that we say that sprinkling the blood is effective with regard to loaves that have left the Temple courtyard, but we do not say this in order to be lenient, e.g., to render the loaves permitted to be eaten.

Rav Pappa objects to this understanding of the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer. From where do we know that they disagree in a case where the loaves are outside the courtyard at the time of the sprinkling?

Perhaps in a case where the loaves are still outside the courtyard everyone agrees that sprinkling the blood is not effective with regard to offerings that left the Temple courtyard, and they disagree in a case where the loaves left the courtyard and one then brought them back into the courtyard before the sprinkling. As Rabbi Eliezer holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: The slaughter of the sheep consecrates the loaves, and therefore the loaves became disqualified by leaving the courtyard after the sheep were slaughtered. Consequently, even if they were brought back into the courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood they cannot become piggul because they have already been disqualified for a different reason.

And Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who said: The slaughter of the sheep does not consecrate the loaves at all before the sprinkling of the blood. Since the loaves were not yet consecrated, they do not become disqualified by leaving the Temple courtyard.

The Gemara asks: What is this interpretation of the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Eliezer? It does not fit what they say. Granted, if you say that Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said: The slaughter of the sheep consecrates the loaves, that is what Rabbi Akiva means when he says that the loaves are consecrated by the slaughter of the sheep and then the sprinkling that was done with the intent to consume the offering after its appointed time comes and renders the loaves piggul.

But if you say that Rabbi Akiva holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who said: The slaughter of the sheep does not consecrate the loaves without the sprinkling of the blood, does sprinkling with an intent that renders the sheep piggul actually consecrate the loaves?

But doesn’t Rav Giddel say that Rav says: Sprinkling with an intent that renders an offering piggul does not cause items to become subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property, and it does not remove items from being subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property?

Rav explains: The halakha that it does not cause items to become subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property applies with regard to sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity. The prohibition against misusing consecrated property applies to: “The sacred items of the Lord” (Leviticus 5:15). Consequently, it does not apply to offerings of lesser sanctity, as the meat is the property of those who brought the offering, and the sacrificial portions are disqualified by the sprinkling performed with improper intent.

And the halakha that it does not remove items from being subject to the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property applies with regard to meat of offerings of the most sacred order, such as a sin offering, a guilt offering, or a communal peace offering. Since the sprinkling of the blood was not valid, the meat, which would have become permitted for the priests to eat, retains the status of “the sacred items of the Lord,” and the prohibition against misuse of consecrated property still applies.

The Gemara rejects this explanation: Wasn’t that which Rav Giddel says that Rav says conclusively refuted? Consequently, one cannot ask a question based on this statement.

§ The Gemara cites another dilemma concerning the sheep and loaves of Shavuot. Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Zeira: In a case of the two sheep of Shavuot that one slaughtered for their own sake, thereby establishing a bond between the sheep and the loaves, and the loaves were then lost, if the blood of the sheep would be sprinkled for their sake, the meat would not be permitted to be eaten because the loaves were lost. That said, what is the halakha with regard to whether the priest may sprinkle their blood not for their own sake but rather for the sake of a peace offering in order to permit the meat of the sheep to be eaten?

Rabbi Zeira said to Rabbi Yirmeya: Do you have anything that is not fit if the sacrificial rites are performed for its own sake, and yet it is fit if the sacrificial rites are performed not for its own sake? This is certainly not a logical option. Rabbi Yirmeya responded: And is there no precedent for this? But there is the Paschal offering before midday on the fourteenth of Nisan, which is not fit if it is slaughtered for its own sake, as it is before the proper time for the Paschal offering, and yet it is fit if it is slaughtered not for its own sake but rather for the sake of a peace offering.

Rabbi Zeira replied: This is what I was saying: Do you have anything that was fit to be sacrificed for its own sake, like these sheep of Shavuot that were slaughtered before the loaves were lost, and was then rejected from being sacrificed for its own sake, like these sheep when the loaves were lost, and is not fit if it is sacrificed for its own sake, and yet it is fit if it is sacrificed not for its own sake?

Rabbi Yirmeya responded: And is there no precedent for this? But there is the Paschal offering, which was fit to be sacrificed for its own sake during its designated time, and after its designated time, during the rest of the days of the year before midday, it is not fit to be sacrificed as a Paschal offering but it is fit to be sacrificed as a peace offering.

Rabbi Zeira replied: This is what I was saying: Do you have anything that was fit to be sacrificed for its own sake, like the two sheep of Shavuot that were slaughtered before the loaves were lost, and it was slaughtered for its own sake, and was then rejected from being sacrificed for its own sake, like the two sheep when the loaves were lost, and it is not fit if it is sacrificed for its own sake, and yet it is fit if it is sacrificed not for its own sake?

Rabbi Yirmeya responded: And is there no precedent for this? But there is the thanks offering, as the Gemara (46a) states that if the thanks offering was slaughtered and then its accompanying loaves broke into pieces and thereby became disqualified, the blood should be sprinkled for the sake of a peace offering rather than a thanks offering, and then the meat may be eaten. Yet, if the blood was sprinkled for the sake of a thanks offering, the meat would not be permitted to be eaten.

Rabbi Zeira answered: The thanks offering is different, as the Merciful One called it a peace offering (see Leviticus 7:13). Just as a peace offering is sacrificed without loaves, so too a thanks offering may sometimes be sacrificed without loaves. Therefore, the loss of the loaves does not render the thanks offering disqualified, and this case is not comparable to the case of the two sheep and two loaves of Shavuot.

§ The Gemara cites another discussion concerning the sheep and loaves of Shavuot. The Sages taught in a baraita: If one slaughtered the two sheep as required but they were accompanied by four loaves rather than the requisite two loaves, he draws two of the loaves from the four and waves them together with the sheep,