Zevachim 77
והתניא דמים הטעונין יסוד טעונין כיבוס ומחשבה מועלת בהן והמעלה מהן בחוץ חייב
<br> and [so] it was taught: The bloods which require the base necessitate washing, and an [illegitimate] intention in connection with same is effective, and one who presents thereof without [the Temple
ודמים הנשפכין לאמה אין טעונין כיבוס ואין מחשבה מועלת בהן והמעלה מהן בחוץ פטור
court] is liable. The blood, however, which is poured out into the duct does not necessitate washing, and an [illegitimate] intention in connection with same is not effective, and one who presents thereof without is exempt [from punishment]. Now, whom do you know to rule that one who presents thereof without is liable? R. Nehemiah: and he [also] rules [that] it necessitates washing and [that] an [illegitimate] intention in connection with the same is effective. But it was taught: [The pouring out of] the residue and the burning of the limbs [on the altar], which are not indispensable for atonement, are excepted, in that an [illegitimate] intention in connection with same is of no effect? - That was taught in reference to the [last] three applications of a sin-offering. If so, [why does it say] 'which requires the base?' [Surely] it is sprinkled on the horn [of the altar]? - Say, which is required for the base. But then, what of 'And an [illegitimate] intention in connection with same is effective'? Surely you said, 'It does not permit [the flesh], it does not render [it] piggul, and does not enter within, as the last blood'? - Rather that [Baraitha] was taught in respect of the blood of the inner [sacrifices]. But in the case of the blood of outer [sacrifices] what [will you say]? he is exempt? Then instead of teaching [about] the blood which is poured out into the duct, let [the Tanna] teach a distinction in that very case. [Thus:] This is said only of the blood of inner [sacrifices], but in the case of the outer sacrifices, he is exempt? - This is in accordance with R. Nehemiah, who maintained [that] one who presents the residue of the blood without is liable, and so he [the Tanna] could not enumerate three instances of exemption corresponding to three instances of liability. <br>
מאן שמעת ליה דאמר מעלה מהן בחוץ חייב רבי נחמיה היא וקאמר טעון כיבוס
Rabina said, 'From the horn' is meant literally, but 'from the base' means, from that which is fit for the base. Said R. Tahlifa b. Gaza to Rabina: perhaps both mean [the blood] that is fit [etc.]? - How is that possible: Seeing that you say that [even the blood] fit for the horn [does] not [necessitate washing], need one speak about the blood fit for the base? Hence 'from the horn' is meant literally, while 'from the base' means from that which is fit for the base.
ומחשבה מועלת בהן והתניא יצאו שירים והקטרת אימורין שאין מעכבין את הכפרה שאין מחשבה מועלת בהן
ALL [BLOOD] WHICH IS SPRINKLED ON THE INNER ALTAR etc. Our Rabbis taught: Thus shall he do [with the bullock]; as he did [with the bullock of the sin-offering, so shall he do with this]: Why is this stated? As a repetition of the [law of sprinkling], to teach that if [the priest] omitted one of the applications, he has done nothing. I know this only of the seven applications, which are indispensable in all cases; whence do we know [it] of the four applications? From the text, 'So shall he do with this'. 'With the bullock' means the bullock of the Day of Atonement