Meilah 10A

וסיפא רבנן?! אמר רב גביהא דבי כתיל לרב אשי, הכי אמר אביי: רישא רבי שמעון וסיפא רבנן.

And the latter clause of the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who maintain that a sin offering that became lost is left to die only if it was found after its replacement had already been sacrificed. Rav Geviha of Bei Katil likewise said to Rav Ashi that this is what Abaye said: The first clause of that baraita is in accordance with the opinion of R' Shimon and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.

אמר רבא: הכל מודים שאם נהנה מבשר קדשי קדשים שנטמא קודם זריקה, ומאימורי קדשים קלין לאחר שהעלן, דפטור.

§ Rava says: With regard to the dispute between Rav and R' Yoḥanan, everyone concedes that if one derived benefit from meat of an offering of the most sacred order that had become ritually impure before the sprinkling of the blood on the altar, or from the sacrificial portions, such as the fats of offerings of lesser sanctity, after they have been brought up to the altar, that he is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, and is exempt from repayment or bringing an offering. The reason is that although in both cases the meat must be burned, this burning is not considered part of the Temple service.

פשיטא, מאי קא מפסיד?

The Talmud asks: Isn’t this ruling obvious? What loss did the one who derived benefit cause to Temple property? The impure meat of an offering of the most sacred order is unfit for the altar and may not be eaten by the priests, and once the portions of offerings of lesser sanctity have been placed on the altar no further service is performed with them.