Midrash for Zevachim 71:18

וסבר ר' יהודה חטאת ששחטה בדרום

[As for the intention] to mingle its blood with the blood of invalid [sacrifices], R'Judah is consistent with his view, for he maintains that blood does not nullif [other] blood.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra 35a. Hence even if he did it, it would not invalidate the sacrifice.');">²¹</span> [As for the intention] to apply below what should be applied above, and above [what should be applied] below, - R'Judah is consistent with his view, for he maintains: Even what is not its place is also called its place.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 27a.');">²²</span> Then let him disagree where he applied without what should be applied within, or within, what should be applied without? - R'Judah holds: We require a place which has a threefold function, [Viz. ,] in respect of the blood, the flesh, and the emurim.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 29a.');">²³</span> Does then R'Judah accept that view? Surely it was taught: R'Judah said: [Scripture states, Thou shalt not sacrifice unto the Lord thy God an ox, or a sheep, wherein is a blemish, even any] evil thing:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Deut. XVII, 1.');">²⁴</span> here [Scripture] extends the law to a sin-offering which one slaughtered on the south [side of the Temple court], or a sin-offering whose blood entered within [the inner sanctum], [teaching that] it is invalid?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though this carrying without bounds is not in respect of a place that has that threefold function.');">²⁵</span> - But does then R'Judah not accept [this interpretation of] 'third'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra 29a.');">²³</span> Surely we learnt: R'Judah said: If one carried [the blood] within in ignorance, it is valid;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. infra 82a.');">²⁶</span> hence if [one did this] deliberately, it is invalid, and we have explained this as meaning where he made atonement.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The mere carrying of the blood into the inner sanctum, even deliberately, does not invalidate the sacrifice, but only its actual sprinkling');">²⁷</span> Now if in that case, where he has actually carried it within, if he made atonement [therewith] it does [invalidate the sacrifice], but if he did not make atonement, it does not: how much the more so here, where he has merely intended?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The intention alone certainly does not disqualify it, and the reason must be because R. Judah accepts the interpretation of 'third' given supra 29a.');">²⁸</span> - There is a controversy of two Tannaim as to R'Judah's view. Now, does R'Judah hold that when one slaughters a sin-offering in the south

Sifrei Devarim