(Mishnah - R. Eliezer): If blood was brought in (to the Heichal) Lechaper (to atone), it is Pasul, even if it was not thrown;

R. Shimon says, it is not Pasul until it is thrown (Lechaper);

R. Yehudah says, if it was entered b'Shogeg, it is Kosher.

82b (Beraisa): (Blood that is brought) "Penimah" (to the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim) is Pasul. "El ha'Kodesh" disqualifies if it was brought into the Heichal.

Question: It would suffice to teach that blood brought into the Heichal is Pasul!

Answer (Rava): Intent to bring blood into the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim disqualifies only when it gets to the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim. Therefore, he Torah must teach that the Kodesh ha'Kodoshim disqualifies.

83a (Beraisa - R. Eliezer): It says here "Lechaper ba'Kodesh", and it says that no one else may be in the Ohel Mo'ed on Yom Kipur when the Kohen Gadol enters "Lechaper ba'Kodesh." Just like there, the Isur begins once the Kohen Gadol enters, even before Kaparah, also here the blood is Pasul once it enters, even before Kaparah;

R. Shimon says, it says here "Lechaper ba'Kodesh", and it says to burn the Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kipur whose blood was brought in "Lechaper ba'Kodesh." Just like there, this refers to after Kaparah, also here.

(Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If it was entered b'Shogeg, it is Kosher.

Inference: If the blood was entered b'Mezid, it is Pasul.

Question: Is this when he was Mechaper, or when he was not Mechaper?

Answer (R. Yirmeyah - Beraisa): It says Chatas twice ("v'Es Par ha'Chatas v'Es Se'ir ha'Chatas...") to teach that all Chata'os that should be burned (i.e. inner Chata'os) are Metamei Begadim (of those who burn them).

Objection (R. Meir): We already know that from "Lechaper"!

Question: Why doesn't R. Yehudah learn like R. Meir?

Answer (and summation of R. Yirmeyah's answer): R. Yehudah uses "Lechaper" for the Gezerah Shavah (of R. Shimon).

36a (Beraisa - R. Yehudah): "(Mum Kol) Davar Ra" teaches that if blood of a Chatas entered the Heichal (really, it was slaughtered with intent to enter its blood), it is Pasul.

Contradiction (Mishnah - R. Yehudah): If the blood was brought into the Heichal b'Shogeg, it is Kosher;

This implies that if he brought it in b'Mezid, it is Pasul. We established that this is only when 'Kiper' (he threw it inside). In the Beraisa he disqualifies for mere intent to bring it in!

Answer: Tana'im argue about R. Yehudah's opinion.

26a (Mishnah): If blood that must be put on top of the Mizbe'ach was put on the bottom, or vice-versa, or blood that must be put on the inner Mizbe'ach was put on the outer Mizbe'ach, or vice-versa, the Korban is Pasul, but there is no Kares.

(Shmuel): The meat is Pasul (forbidden), but the owner was Yotzei.

He holds that (putting blood in) the wrong place is like (putting it in) the right place.

Since the Korban already atoned, another Zerikah would not permit the meat.

92b - Question (R. Avin): If blood inside the neck of Chatas ha'Of entered the Heichal after Melikah, what is the law? If its neck is like a Kli Shares, this is like Dam Chatas Behemah that entered the Heichal in a Kali, so it is Pasul. Or, perhaps "mi'Damah" applies only when Dam enters by itself, but not when it enters inside the flesh!

Rambam (Hilchos Pesulei ha'Mudashim 2:15): If blood of a Chatas entered inside, and it did not atone, rather, it was brought out without any Haza'ah, if it was brought in b'Shogeg it is Kosher, and we throw it outside, for it did not atone in the Kodesh. If it was brought in b'Mezid, it is Pasul.

Ri Korkus: The Rambam rules like R. Yehudah, because R. Eliezer is Shemuti (from Beis Shamai, or he was excommunicated), and the Halachah follows R. Yehudah against R. Shimon. Also, R. Yehudah is the intermediate opinion. The Gemara asked whether R. Yehudah discusses when he was Mechaper, or when he was not. This implies that b'Shogeg, in any case it is Kosher, even if Kiper. If not (rather, b'Shogeg it is Pasul if he was Mechaper), surely he holds like R. Eliezer, for if he held like R. Shimon, R. Yehudah would equate Shogeg and Mezid! However, the Rambam is Machshir Shogeg only if he was not Mechaper. It seems that he holds that the Gemara was unsure about both of these. If R. Yehudah holds like R. Shimon regarding Mezid, he must be totally Machshir Shogeg. If he holds like R. Eliezer regarding Mezid, he must be Machshir Shogeg only if he was not Mechaper. However, this is difficult, for the Gemara concluded that he holds like R. Shimon. Why does the Rambam disqualify b'Mezid even if he was not Mechaper, and b'Shogeg it is Pasul if he was Mechaper? Perhaps the Rambam's text did not infer 'if he brought it in b'Mezid, it is Pasul', and the Gemara asked when R. Yehudah says that b'Shogeg it is Kosher. If so, the verse does not discuss Shogeg at all. Rashi connotes that the inference is not in some texts. We conclude that he expounds the Gezeirah Shavah to disqualify only when he was Mechaper, i.e. b'Shogeg, but b'Mezid it is Pasul even without Kiper, like the verse connotes. The verse teaches about Shogeg and Mezid. However, we could explain that the Beraisa discusses Mezid, but Shogeg is always Kosher! If he (R. Yirmeyah) resolves from reasoning, why did he bring the Beraisa? Perhaps he knew that we learn from the Gezeirah Shavah. If so, the verse is not only about Mezid, for the verse of Se'ir Chatas is not limited to Mezid. A Gezeirah Shavah is not only half-way. However, if the verse discusses Shogeg, and all the more so Mezid is Pasul, it is a full Gezeirah Shavah. "Lechaper" disqualifies Mezid even if he was not Mechaper. Alternatively, the Rambam explains R. Eliezer and R. Shimon oppositely to Rashi. We conclude that R. Yehudah holds like R. Eliezer. Alternatively, the Rambam does not rely on the Gemara's conclusion. Even if Lechaper is not needed for the Gezeirah Shavah, it is better to expound "Chatas-Chatas", which is extra, to include everything that is burned. The Safek was not resolved, therefore, the Rambam rules stringently. This requires investigation. My second Perush is best. On 36a, the Gemara concluded thatTana'im argue about R. Yehudah's opinion. I.e. the Tana who says that R. Yehudah disqualifies only when he was Mechaper argues with the Tana of our Mishnah. We can explain the Mishnah like that Beraisa, i.e. when he was not Mechaper. The Rambam rules like our Mishnah against the Beraisa.

Kesef Mishneh: The Rambam understands that R. Yehudah discusses R. Shimon's law. R. Shimon is Machshir when he was not Mechaper only if the blood was brought in b'Shogeg.If it was brought in b'Mezid, even if it was not Mechaper, it is Pasul. This is difficult, for the Gemara asked whether R. Yehudah discusses when he was Mechaper, or when he was not. Rashi explains, that we ask if this is when he was Mechaper, like R. Shimon, or even when he was not Mechaper, like R. Eliezer. We conclude that R. Yehudah needs "Lechaper" for the Gezeirah Shavah, i.e. like R. Shimon. On Daf 36a, we say that we established that R. Yehudah disqualifies Mezid only if he was Mechaper. Why does the Rambam disqualify b'Mezid even if he was not Mechaper? The Ri Korkus requires investigation.

Birkas ha'Zevach (36a DH veha'Tanan): The Rambam holds that Lechaper (it is Pasul only if he atoned) applies only b'Shogeg. When he was Mezid, mere intent to bring it inside disqualifies.

Lechem Mishneh: The Kesef Mishneh brought from Ri Korkus that one Tana holds that R. Yehudah disqualified only if he was Mechaper, and the Rambam rules like the Tana who holds that he disqualifies even if he was not Mechaper. In any case this is difficult! Whether he learns R. Eliezer's Gezeirah Shavah that we discuss when he was Mechaper, or R. Shimon's Gezeirah Shavah that we discuss when he was not Mechaper, what is the source to disqualify Shogeg when he was Mechaper? If he holds that R. Shimon discusses when he was Mechaper, what is the source to obligate for Mezid without Kiper? If the Gezeirah Shavah is only for Shogeg, what is the source to distinguish? Also, why did we need to say that Tana'im argue about R. Yehudah's opinion? The only source is that "Lechaper" is extra for him to expound. We can say that it is for the Gezeirah Shavah! Since even the opposing opinion learns the Gezeirah Shavah to teach that Shogeg disqualifies only if Kiper, we can say that also R. Yehudah learns only this! What is the source to say Tana'im argue about his opinion? We can answer that the Tana must hold that R. Yehudah holds like R. Eliezer. R. Shimon requires Kiper even for Mezid, for the verse primarily discusses Mezid. The Tana of 36a learns the Gezeirah Shavah regarding Kiper, and the Tana of the Mishnah learns it regarding Lo Kiper. Even without the Gezeirah Shavah we would say that the verse discusses Kiper, like the connotation of "Lechaper". The Gezeirah Shavah teaches unlike this, that it discusses Lo Kiper. R. Yehudah established the verse simply (b'Mezid), and also learns (b'Shogeg) from the Gezeirah Shavah.

R. Chaim ha'Levi: The Rambam distinguished Shogeg from Mezid only when it was entered in order to be Mechaper, but if he was Mechaper, in any case it is Pasul. This is difficult, for (only) R. Yehudah is the Tana who ia Machshir Shogeg, and he holds that entering (even b'Mezid) with intent for Kaparah disqualifies only if Kiper! If so, we must say that b'Shogeg it is Kosher even if Kiper. On 36a we say that the distinction is when he was Mechaper. Why does the Rambam disqualify even Shogeg when he was Mechaper? It would seem that the Rambam is Machshir Shogeg even if Kiper. He did not say 'for he was not Mechaper' to teach why Shogeg is Kosher. Rather, it refers to what he said above, 'and we throw it outside.' If already he was Mechaper, we hold (26b) that if outer blood was thrown inside, the owner got atonement, for not in the place is like in the place. Therefore, he does not throw again outside. If he (did not yet atone, and) would throw outside, also the meat would be Kosher. If he was Yotzei through Zerikah inside, the meat is Pasul, like it says on 26b. Tosfos (26b DH Amar) says that 'not in the place is like in the place' does not apply to Zerikah of outer Korbanos inside. The Rambam (Halachah 10) explicitly disagrees. However, the Rambam's words 'because he was not Mechaper in the Kodesh' connotes that he discusses the law of the verse (that if the blood was brought in, it is Pasul). According to what I said, it does not depend on being brought into the Kodesh.

R. Chaim ha'Levi: Rather, the Rambam distinguishes Shogeg from Mezid because merely bringing in disqualifies only with intent Lechaper. Therefore, when he was Shogeg it is as if he did not intend Lechaper, for he erred. When he was Shogeg we ignore his intent only if it was not fulfilled. His intent was Batel. If he was Mechaper, the Rambam disqualifies even Shogeg, for his intent to be Mechaper was fulfilled, so it is not Batel. Kaparah in the Heichal disqualifies, whether on the Mizbe'ach, on the Paroches or Bein ha'Badim (between the staves of the Aron). However, only Zerikah on the Mizbe'ach uproots the law of Shogeg, for even though he erred, he truly atoned. There is no source that Zerikah on the Paroches or Bein ha'Badim atones. Therefore, since he was Shogeg, even if Kiper (i.e. he did Zerikah) it is not considered intent Lechaper (since it did not atone). R. Yehudah requires Mezid (to disqualify) only regarding Zerikah on the Paroches or Bein ha'Badim, for then he did not atone. Therefore, he said that when he was not Mechaper, it is Pasul only if he was Mezid. This excludes Zerikah on the inner Mizbe'ach, for then he was Mechaper.

Likutei Halachos (Zevachim 82a): The Mishnah opposes the Beraisa (36a) only because we explained it based on the Beraisa on 83a. Why does the Rambam rule like 83a, against 36a? The Gemara said 'we hold that R. Yehudah disqualifies only if Kiper'! It is because Rava and the Sugya on 92a hold that entering (b'Mezid) disqualifies even without Kiper.