Meilah 7B

נזרק דם של אחד מהם, אי אתה מודה שכשם שדמה פוטר את בשרה מן המעילה, אף יפטור בשר חבירתה מן המעילה?

And in a case where the blood of one of the sin offerings was sprinkled, do you not concede that just as the sprinkling of its blood exempts its meat from the halakhot of misuse, so too, it exempts the meat of the other animal from the halakhot of misuse?

אם הציל בשר חבירתה מן המעילה, אף על פי שהוא פסול, דין הוא שיציל את בשרה!

If so, one may infer from here by an a fortiori inference with regard to the case of sprinkling the blood of meat that left the courtyard: If the sprinkling of its blood spared the meat of the other animal from the halakhot of misuse, even though that animal is unfit, as it is a leftover sin offering, it is only right that the blood that was sprinkled should exempt its own meat, despite the fact that it left the courtyard.

אמר ריש לקיש משום רב אושעיא: תשובה גנובה השיבו רבי עקיבא לאותו תלמיד, בבת אחת ⁠– אין, בזה אחר זה ⁠– לא,

With regard to this reply by R' Akiva, Reish Lakish says in the name of Rav Oshaya: R' Akiva gave a deceptive response to that student of his, R' Shimon. Reish Lakish elaborates: Based on R' Akiva’s reply, one would think that if the two sin offerings were slaughtered at the same time, then yes, the blood of one sin offering exempts the meat of the other from the halakhot of misuse. But if they were slaughtered one after the other, it does not exempt the meat of the other offering.

דכיון דפסול הוא, מה לי בבת אחת, מה לי בזה אחר זה?!

But since in either case the other offering, whose blood was not sprinkled, is unfit, as it is a leftover sin offering, what difference does it make to me whether they were slaughtered at the same time or whether they were slaughtered one after the other? In either case, according to R' Akiva, the sprinkling of one should exempt the meat of the other from the halakhot of misuse.