Zevachim 46A

בשני חילולין הכתוב מדבר; אחד פסול נותר, ואחד פסול טומאה.

The verse is speaking here of two profanations; one is the disqualification of notar and one is the disqualification of ritual impurity. This teaches that like impurity, notar applies even to an item that does not have a permitting factor.

חוץ מן הדם כו׳. מנא הני מילי? אמר עולא, אמר קרא: ״ואני נתתיו לכם״⁠ – שלכם יהא.

§ The Mishnah teaches: Even with regard to the items for which one is not liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition of piggul, one is, nevertheless, liable for eating them due to violation of the prohibition of notar, and due to violation of the prohibition against eating consecrated food while ritually impure, except for the blood. The Talmud asks: From where are these matters derived? Before answering this question, the Talmud cites another discussion as to why the halakha of misuse of consecrated property does not apply to blood. Ulla says: The verse states with regard to blood: “For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls” (Leviticus 17:11). “To you” indicates that it should be yours; it is not the property of the Temple, so it is not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.

דבי רבי ישמעאל תנא, אמר קרא: ״לכפר״⁠ – לכפרה נתתיו, ולא למעילה.

The school of R' Yishmael similarly taught: The verse states: “To make atonement,” teaching that God is saying: I gave it for atonement, and not for the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.

רבי יוחנן אמר, אמר קרא: ״הוא״⁠ – הוא לפני כפרה כלאחר כפרה; מה אחר כפרה אין בו מעילה, אף לפני כפרה אין בו מעילה.

R' Yoḥanan says that this halakha is derived from the latter part of the verse, which states: “For it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul” (Leviticus 17:11). The term “it is” teaches that the status of the blood remains as it is, i.e., it is before atonement as it is after atonement. As the Talmud will state, there is a principle that once the mitzva involving a consecrated item has been performed, the item is no longer subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property. Accordingly, the term “it is” teaches that just as after atonement, i.e., after the blood has been presented on the altar, it is not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property, as the mitzva has already been performed, so too, before atonement, i.e., before the blood has been presented on the altar, it is not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.