Study Menachot folio 47B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
As we learned in a Mishnah (Me’ila 6b): In the case of sacrificial portions of offerings of lesser sanctity that left the Temple courtyard before the sprinkling of the blood, R' Eliezer says: The sprinkling of the blood is completely ineffective with regard to these portions, and therefore one is n
R' Akiva says: The sprinkling is effective and therefore, one is liable for misusing them. And if one eats them he is liable due to the prohibitions of piggul, notar, or of partaking of sacrificial meat while one is ritually impure.
The Talmud now concludes the dilemma that R' Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak raised before R' Ḥiyya bar Abba: According to the opinion of R' Akiva, what is the halakha with regard to eating the loaves when the sheep were slaughtered for their own sake, but their blood was sprinkled not for their sake?
The Talmud clarifies the two sides of the dilemma: Should one say that from the fact that sprinkling the blood of the sheep in a manner that renders it piggul renders the loaves piggul, like the meat of the offering, despite the fact that the loaves were disqualified by leaving the courtyard of the
Rav Pappa objects to this understanding of the dispute between R' Akiva and R' Eliezer. From where do we know that they disagree in a case where the loaves are outside the courtyard at the time of the sprinkling?