What is this Pasuk coming to teach us?
Rashi, Ramban #1, Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonasan: It teaches us that if a Kohen takes blood of a Chatas Chitzonah 1 into the Heichal 2 (with the intention of attaining atonement there ? Ramban) the Korban is Pasul and may no longer be eaten. 3
Zevachim, 83a: After the Kohen has already performed the Haza'ah ? based on a Gezeirah Shavah "Lechaper ba'Kodesh" "Lechaper ba'Kodesh" from the Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kipur, in Acharei-Mos, 16:27. See also Torah Temimah, note 133.
Likewise, if he takes the blood of a Chatas Penimi into the Kodesh Kodshim it becomes Pasul (Ramban).
Rashi (in Pesachim, 23b): It is not referring to a Chatas Penimi, whose blood is sprinkled in the Heichal and which is not eaten ? since the Torah already taught us that above in connection with the Par Kohen Mashi'ach ? in Vayikra, 4:12. and the Par He'elam Davar - Ibid. Pasuk 21.
The Par Kohen Mashi'ach, the Par He'elam shel Tzibur, the Par and Sa'ir of Yom Kipur and the Se'irei Avodah Zarah, which are all burned outside the camp (Rashbam).
See Rashi, Pesachim, 23b DH 'Kol Chatas ...'.
Why does the Torah add the word "ve'Chol Chatas"?
Rashi (according to R. Akiva in the Sifra 4:8:1): To teach us that the same applies to the blood of all Kodshim.
R. Yossi ha'Gelili (in the Sifra): To incorporate the blood of all Chata'os, both of individuals and of the Tzibur, both male and female animals.
R. Eliezer (in the Sifra): To incorporate the blood of an Asham in the current ruling.
Why does the Torah add the 'Mem' in "mi'Damah"?
Ramban (citing Zevachim, 82a): To teach us that even if the Kohen receives the blood in two bowls and takes only one of them into the Azarah, the Korban is Pasul.
Zevachim, 82b: In order to extrapolate "mi''Damah", 've'Lo mi'Besarah'. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 131.
Why does the Torah insert "ba'Kodesh" after "Lechaper", placing it closer to "ba'Eish Tisaref" (See Torah Temimah, note 134)?
Pesachim, 24a: In order to Darshen "Kol ba'Kodesh ba'Eish Tisaref', to include all Pesulei Kodshei Kodshim and Eimurei Kodshim Kalim (even Nesachim, which require an independent woodpile on which to burn them ? Zevachim, 92a). 1
See Torah Temimah, note 134, as to why they are not all burnt in the Beis ha'Deshen in the Azarah.
What are the conotations of "Lechaper ba'Kodesh"?
Moshav Zekenim (8:31, citing the Sifra): It 1 incorporates [the Mikdash in] Shiloh and the Beis ha'Mikdash.
If we use "Lechaper" to teach us about intention or sprinkling inside (Refer to 6:23:151:1,2), we can say that here we expound "ba'Kodesh. (PF)
Why is it that, here (refer to 6:23:152:1) and in some other places where the Torah writes "Ohel Mo'ed", we need a Drashah to include Shilo and the Beis ha'Mikdash, whilst in other places, they are automatically included?
Moshav Zekenim (8:31): For anything due [solely 1 ] to Kedushah of the Mikdash, they are automaticlly included, whereas concerning other issues, they require a Drashah to equate them.
It seems that this is what the Moshav Zekenim means, even though this word is not in the text. Surely, Dam Chatas brought inside depends at least partially on Kedushas Ohel Mo'ed! (PF)
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes that if a Kohen takes blood of a Chatas Chitzonah into the Heichal, the Korban is Pasul. But the Pasuk writes "Lechaper", and the blood does not atone there?
Ramban #1 and Moshav Zekenim #1: It means that if he entered the blood with intention of atoning there, it is Pasul.
Ramban #2 and Moshav Zekenim #2: R. Shimon (Zevachim 82a) disqualifies only if he sprinkled the blood inside.
