Zevachim 82B

מקום שיהא משולש בדם, בבשר, באימורים.

This verse teaches that the place where improper intent disqualifies the offering must be triply functional: For the presenting of the blood, for the eating of the meat, and for the burning of the sacrificial portions of the offering that are consumed on the altar. In other words, it must be outside its designated place with regard to all 3 of these issues. Consequently, intent to present the blood in the Sanctuary does not disqualify the blood.

ולא תהא מחשבה פוסלת בחוץ מקל וחומר: ומה מקום שפסל דם שבפנים את שבחוץ ⁠– אין מחשבה פוסלת בפנים, מקום שלא פסל דם שבחוץ את שבפנים ⁠– אינו דין שלא יהא פוסל מחשבה בחוץ?

The Talmud suggests the opposite: And if so, let intent to present the blood outside the Sanctuary not disqualify the offering based on an a fortiori inference: And just as in a place where the part of the blood that went inside the Sanctuary disqualifies the rest of the blood that is outside in the courtyard, and yet intent to present the blood inside the Sanctuary does not disqualify the offering, so too, in a place where the part of the blood that went outside the courtyard does not disqualify the rest of the blood that is inside the courtyard, is it not logical that intent to present the blood outside the courtyard does not disqualify the offering?

תלמוד לומר: ״שלישי״⁠ – חוץ לזמנו, ״פגול״⁠ – חוץ למקומו.

The Talmud answers that the verse states: “And if it be eaten at all on the 3rd day, it is piggul; it should not be accepted,” and the rabbis interpreted this verse as follows: “On the 3rd day” is referring to intent to perform its rites beyond its designated time; “it is piggul” is referring to intent to perform its rites outside its designated area.