Explanation: Pasul blood is not Batel in a majority, like is proven below (79b) in the Sugya of "we make a decree in the Mikdash."

Implied question: Below, it says "v'Hevi'um la'Shem" - it must be entirely inside [the Mikdash]!

Answer: That is l'Chatchilah.

Explanation #1 (Rashi): A consequence is that one is Chayav Kares for eating [blood absorbed in limbs].

Rejection: One cannot say so. We hold in Kerisus (21b) that a Lav forbids blood of limbs!

Suggestion: Here we discuss to be liable for it due to blood before it separated from the limb.

Rejection: Obviously one may eat it, like we explained in Chulin (14a) from several proofs!

Explanation #2: Here we discuss to be disqualified through Yotzei;

Even according to the opinion that Yotzei does not apply to meat of Kodshim Kalim [before Zerikah], that is because it is destined to leave [the Azarah. Blood is not destined to leave. Chomas Esh asks that Tosfos said one may eat blood that never separated. If so, it is destined to leave with the limb! He answers that after all Dam ha'Nefesh left, what remains is Batel to the limb. Here we discuss after Shechitah, before all Dam ha'Nefesh left.]

Explanation #3: [It is considered blood] so that Me'ilah does not apply to it, and one is not liable for it for Pigul, or regarding Dam Chatas that splashed on a garment. (It must be laundered in the Azarah.)

Question: In any case, we should resolve that Eimurei Kodshim Kalim that left before Zerikah are Pasul. Below (89b, the Gemara) wanted to say that they are Kosher!

Answer: There is no proof from here. Perhaps he holds like R. Eliezer, who disqualifies Yotzei there;

Citation (89b - R. Eliezer): Eimurei Kodshim Kalim that left before Zerikah are Pasul due to Yotzei, and one is not liable for them for Pigul...

However, according to R. Akiva he is liable for Pigul, Nosar and Tamei, because it was not disqualified through Yotzei!

Question: It is difficult for Rav Papa, who said there that when one brought them inside at the time of Zerikah, they do not argue. I.e. they are not Pasul. Here it says that it is Pasul!

Implied suggestion: Here we discuss when it returned after Zerikah.

Rejection: We discuss similar to above, that it is Kosher, which is when it returned before Zerikah!

Answer: [Rav Papa] means as follows. If one brought them inside, they do not argue. I.e. surely one is liable for them for Pigul, for Zerikah helps to obligate for Pigul in such a case of Yotzei before Zerikah, that it was inside at the time of Zerikah;

However, in any case it is disqualified due to Yotzei according to everyone, like it says in our Sugya.

They argue about when one brought them inside after Zerikah. Is one liable for them for Pigul, since he brought them in, or not?

Explanation #1: He refers to [blood] that should be put above that was put below, or that should be put below and it was put above;

However, he does not discuss what was put on the ramp. About this, all agree that not in its place is not like in its place.

Implied question: Below (87a, the Gemara) includes the ramp like the Mizbe'ach regarding Kidush, and Im Alah Lo Yered;

Strengthening of question: In Menachos (57b, we include the ramp like the Mizbe'ach) regarding Haktarah. One who brings any of them on the ramp is liable according to R. Yochanan.

Answer: Regarding blood, we do not find anywhere that the ramp is like the Mizbe'ach.

Source: Below (64b), regarding Olah and Chatas, we exclude [the ramp] since it says "Kir ha'Mizbe'ach", and not the wall of the ramp.

Support: You are forced to say that Shmuel does not refer to our entire Mishnah, for [blood] that should be put inside that was put outside, or what should be put outside that was put inside, all agree that it is not like in its place;

This is proven below (35b). R. Yehudah said that if one intended to leave over the blood until tomorrow, it is Pasul. He holds that intent is like action;

[The Gemara] asks (36a) that he should argue about [blood] that should be put below, and he intended to put it above, that it is Pasul, and answers that R. Yehudah holds that not in its place is like in its place. It asks further that he should argue about [blood] that should be put inside that he [intended to] put outside.

Summation of support: Why did it ask further that R. Yehudah should argue about what should be put inside that [he intended] to put outside, or what should be put outside that [he intended] to put inside? This implies that these, all agree that this is considered not in its place!

Rebuttal (of Support): Below (36a), Rashi explained that we ask only from what should be put outside that he intended to put inside, for there, surely if he put [blood] of an outer Chatas inside, it is Pasul, for it says "v'Chol Chatas Asher Yuva..."

However, he does not ask from what should be put inside [that he intended to put] outside. (R. Yehudah could hold that not in its place is like in its place.)

Support: This is proven from the answer "R. Yehudah holds that we require a place in which three things are put - blood, meat and Eimurim";

Explanation: Regarding intent Chutz li'Mkomo, it is written "Shelishi", and we expound that Chutz li'Mkomo (where he intended to offer or eat) is the place of three things - blood, meat and Eimurim", i.e. truly outside the Azarah;

At the time when Bamos were permitted, all three applied, and were permitted there;

This excludes inside [the Heichal], which was never permitted to bring all three in. Dam Chatas is forbidden, for it says "v'Chol Chatas Asher Yuva mi'Damah." Also Eimurim may not be brought there, for it says "v'Olah Lo Ya'alu Alav."

This answer does not apply to [blood that should be put] inside that was put outside.

Rebuttal (of Support (g)): However, we can say that we require also intent in a place where all three apply (only there it disqualifies. Therefore, we asked also from blood that should be put inside that he intended to put outside.)

Proof: If not, the opinion that not in its place is not like in its place, what would he answer for [intent for blood that should be put] inside to [put it] outside (why is R. Yehudah Machshir)?

Retraction: However, R. Yehudah holds that it is like in its place.

And R. Yochanan, who says below that not in its place is not like in its place, this is only according to Rabanan, but according to R. Yehudah, he holds that it is like in its place, even according to R. Yochanan;

This is like [the Gemara] answers below (36a) about blood that should be put above [and he intended to put it] below, or vice-versa. (R. Yehudah holds that this is like putting in its place.) Likewise, he holds so about blood that should be put inside that was put outside;

And there, we ask only from what should be put outside that was put inside, like Rashi explained, because it was disqualified when it was brought into the Heichal;

Consequence: If so, Shmuel can refer to all [cases in our Mishnah]!

Limitation: However, he cannot say that it is like in its place regarding what should be put outside that was put inside, for it was disqualified when it was entered into the Heichal, before it was put on the golden Mizbe'ach.

Comment - Explanation #2: We are forced to say that also the ramp is like in its place, since we do not ask below "R. Yehudah should argue about when he intended to put it on the ramp!"

Suggestion: This is because he will gather it, and there is no concern for Pasul intent, for he is like one who intends to spill from the Kli on the ground, that all agree that he gathers it. (Really, it is like not in its place!)

Rejection: Below (27b), we say that according to R. Yehudah, he may not gather it when the Mizbe'ach absorbed it. If so, for this reason he may not gather it from the ramp, for the ramp is Mekadesh Pesulim, like the Mizbe'ach (86a)!

Rebuttal (of Rejection): However, since I explained above that regarding blood, the ramp is not like the Mizbe'ach, it did not absorb it, and he gathers it.

Conclusion: However, we are forced to say that Shmuel refers also to the ramp, for below in our Sugya (27a) it asks "if R. Yochanan holds that not in its place is not like in its place, if so his Zerikah is nothing. It should be as if [the blood] spilled from the Kli on the floor, and he gathers it";

Inference: For Shmuel and Reish Lakish, who say that not in its place is like in its place, it is fine.

Question: What is the reason? We can challenge also them from our Mishnah "on the ramp", and our Mishnah "blood that should be put inside that was put outside!"

However, "what should be put outside that was put inside", all agree that it is like not in its place. We cannot ask "why is it Pasul? We should say that he will gather it!"

This is because even without putting it on the gold Mizbe'ach it is Pasul through entering the Heichal, and even if it spilled there, it is not Kosher to gather it. Until here is a comment.

Observation: Elsewhere, we expound "I (the Torah) gave it for Kaparah, and not for Me'ilah."

Question: Below (79b), a Mishnah says that what should be put below that became mixed with what should be put above, R. Eliezer says that he puts above, and I view what should be put below as if it is water. He returns and puts below;

The Gemara infers that R. Eliezer holds that Yesh Bilah (we say that they mix uniformly).

Why does he return to put below? He already atoned!

Answer: Since he holds that we view [the wrong blood] as if it is water, it is not as if he atoned. He did not put for the sake of Kaparah for [what should be put] below.

Question: This is difficult for Rabanan, who do not hold "we view"! It connotes there that according to Rabanan, he returns and puts below, for it taught "if he put above and did not consult [both agree that he returns and puts below." This is a Beraisa (80b). Rashi explains that he did not consult initially, but asks now.] (Olas Shlomo - the Gemara there says that he puts l'Shem Shirayim! Tosfos asks according to the opinion that the place of Olah is not the place of Shirayim.)

Question: If so, even if he put it in its place, also (if Dam ha'Nefesh remains, a Kosher Kohen does Kabalah and Zerikah)!

Answer: This Pasul is a Tamei, which we discussed above, who is Meratzeh a Korban Tzibur. Therefore, if he put it in its place, all agree that there is Dichuy on all the blood, and a Kosher Kohen does not return to do Kabalah;

This is like it says in Me'ilah (5b) that no one makes [the remaining blood get the law of] Shirayim, and he is Pasul, except for a Tamei, since he is Meratzeh for a Korban Tzibur, and Chutz li'Zmano and Chutz li'Mkomo, since they are Meratzeh for (enable a Korban to get the law of) Pigul. (We require Zerikah with no other Pesul in order to have Kares for Chutz li'Zmano. Sefas Emes there explains that Chutz li'Mkomo is equated to Chutz li'Zmano, to teach that also its Zerikah makes Shirayim.)