Zevachim 85B

ואנן ניקו נעביד להו לכהנים מילתא דאתו בה לידי תקלה?! אפילו הכי עדיפא, שלא יהו קדשי שמים מוטלים כנבילה.

The Talmud asks: And should we stand and do something for the priests through which they should come to encounter a stumbling block? Were these innards to remain unwashed, no priest would mistakenly sacrifice them upon the altar. The Talmud answers: Even so, rinsing disqualified innards is preferable, so that the sanctified offerings of Heaven should not be lying as a carcass.

אמר רבי חייא בר אבא, בעי רבי יוחנן: אימורי קדשים קלים שהעלן לפני זריקת דמן, ירדו או לא ירדו?

With regard to the matter discussed by Ulla (85a), R' Ḥiyya bar Abba said that R' Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: In the case of sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that one offered up before the sprinkling of their blood, which is the act which sanctifies such portions for the altar, should they descend or should they not descend?

אמר ליה רבי אמי: ותיבעי לך מעילה! אמר ליה: מעילה לא קמיבעיא לי ⁠– דזריקה הוא דקבעה להו במעילה; כי קמיבעיא ליה ⁠– ירידה. ופשיט: לא ירדו, ואין בהן מעילה.

R' Ami said to R' Yoḥanan: Instead of raising the dilemma of whether or not such portions should descend, you should raise the dilemma of whether their ascension upon the altar sanctifies them with regard to the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property. R' Yoḥanan said to him: With regard to the misuse of consecrated property I do not raise the dilemma, as certainly the rite of sprinkling and not their ascension to the altar determines their status with regard to the misuse of consecrated property. When R' Yoḥanan raised the dilemma it was with regard to their descent from the altar. And R' Yoḥanan resolved his dilemma and ruled: If they ascended they should not descend, and they are not subject to the prohibition of misuse of consecrated property.