Meilah 5B

הכי נמי, לאו דוקא. אמר רב אסי: אם כן, למה לי למיתני תרתי?

If so, one can say that so too the Mishnah here is not exact, and therefore one cannot infer from it that the halakhot of misuse apply only when those who were unfit for Temple service collected the blood. Rather, the halakhot of misuse are in effect even if those who collected the blood were fit and those who sprinkled it were unfit, which means that the phrase: A period of fitness, can be referring to fitness of consuming the meat of the offering. Rav Asi said: If so, that the Mishnah is not exact, why do I need the tanna to teach two mishnayot in an inexact manner? It must be that at least one of them is taught in a precise fashion, and for that reason the same style was preserved in the other Mishnah.

אלא לעולם דמעילה דוקא,

Rather, one must say that only one Mishnah is imprecise, i.e., the one in Zevaḥim with regard to the blood of a sin offering, and actually the Mishnah here with regard to misuse of consecrated property is precise, and therefore one can infer that the meaning of the phrase: A period of fitness, is fitness to sprinkle the blood.

והא קא משמע לן: דפסול עושה שיריים,

And as for the Mishnah in Zevaḥim, which speaks of those who are unfit for collecting the blood despite the fact that the same halakha applies if those who are fit collected it, this is what it teaches us: That if those who are unfit for Temple service collected some of the blood, it renders the blood, including that which he did not collect, as leftovers. The blood has the same status as the remainder of the blood of a fit offering after some of its blood was sprinkled on the altar.