Meilah 5A

או היתר זריקה שנינו, או היתר אכילה שנינו? חזקיה אמר: היתר שחיטה שנינו, רבי יוחנן אמר: היתר אכילה שנינו.

Or was it fitness of sprinkling of the blood that we learned, i.e., once the blood is ready to be sprinkled, even if it was not sprinkled yet, the offering is no longer subject to the halakhot of misuse? Or was it fitness of consuming the meat of the offering that we learned? In other words, is it only after the blood was actually sprinkled properly, and the meat of the offering is permitted to be consumed by the priests, that the offering is no longer subject to the halakhot of misuse? The Talmud cites the different opinions with regard to this matter: Ḥizkiyya says: It was fitness of slaughtering that we learned, whereas R' Yoḥanan says: It was fitness of consuming the meat of the offering that we learned.

אמר רבי זירא: לא דייקא מתניתין דלא כחזקיה ודלא כרבי יוחנן.

The Talmud further discusses this matter. R' Zeira says: The Mishnah is not precisely in accordance with the opinion of Ḥizkiyya nor precisely in accordance with the opinion of R' Yoḥanan, i.e., a close reading of the Mishnah does not conform to either of their interpretations of the phrase: A period of fitness.

תנן: שלנה, ושנטמאת, ושיצאת. לאו דלן דם, וקתני: אין מועלין בו,

R' Zeira elaborates: We learned in the Mishnah, in its list of examples of offerings that were disqualified after a period of fitness: A sacrificial animal that remained overnight after its blood was sacrificed on the altar and was therefore disqualified as notar, and one that was disqualified when it became ritually impure, and one that left the Temple courtyard and was thereby disqualified. Isn’t the case of remaining overnight referring to a situation where the blood remained overnight and was not sprinkled after it was collected in a cup? And yet the Mishnah teaches: One is not liable for misusing it, as there was a period of fitness.