כיצד הוא עושה אוחז את הבזך בראש אצבעותיו ויש אומרים בשיניו ומעלה בגודלו עד שמגעת לבין אצילי ידיו וחוזר ומחזירה לתוך חפניו וצוברה כדי שיהא עשנה שוהה לבוא ויש אומרים מפזרה כדי שיהא עשנה ממהרת לבוא
How should the High Priest act in the Holy of Holies, when he needs to place the incense on the coals by taking a handful from the spoon and placing it in his hands? After he places the coal pan on the ground, he holds the front of the ladle, i.e., the spoon of incense, with his fingertips, and some say he holds it with his teeth. At this stage the handle of the spoon rests between his arms. And he pushes it and raises it up slowly with his thumb toward his body until it reaches between his elbows, which he then uses to turn it over. He then returns the incense into his palms, after which he pours it from his hands into the coal pan. And he heaps the incense into a pile on the coals so that its smoke rises slowly. And some say he does the opposite, that he scatters it so that its smoke rises quickly.
וזו היא עבודה קשה שבמקדש זו היא ותו לא והא איכא מליקה והא איכא קמיצה אלא זו היא עבודה קשה מעבודות קשות שבמקדש שמע מינה חופן וחוזר וחופן שמע מינה
And this taking of a handful of incense is the most difficult sacrificial rite in the Temple. The Gemara asks: This one is the hardest rite, and no other? But there is pinching, which is also considered extremely difficult; and there is taking a handful of a meal-offering, another complex rite. Rather, this taking of a handful of incense is one of the most difficult rites in the Temple, rather than the single most difficult one. In any event, you can learn from this that the High Priest scoops a handful and again scoops. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, learn from this that it is so.
איבעיא להו שחט ומת מה הוא שיכנס אחר בדמו מי אמרינן בפר ואפילו בדמו של פר או דילמא בפר ולא בדמו של פר
§ A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If a High Priest slaughtered the bull and died, what is the halakha with regard to whether another High Priest may enter the Holy of Holies with the blood of the bull that his predecessor slaughtered? Do we say that the verse: “With this Aaron shall come into the sacred place, with a bull” (Leviticus 16:3) teaches that the priest must enter with the blood of a bull, but it need not necessarily be the blood of the bull he himself slaughtered, and in that case he may enter even with the blood of a bull slaughtered by someone else? Or perhaps the verse should be interpreted precisely: “With a bull,” and not with the blood of a bull slaughtered by another?
רבי חנינא אומר בפר ולא בדמו של פר וריש לקיש אמר בפר ואפילו בדמו של פר רבי אמי אמר בפר ולא בדמו של פר רבי יצחק אמר בפר ואפילו בדמו של פר
The Sages disputed this matter. Rabbi Ḥanina says: “With a bull,” and not with the blood of a bull, which means that the newly appointed High Priest must slaughter another bull, as he can enter only with the blood of a bull he himself slaughtered. And Reish Lakish said: “With a bull,” and even with the blood of a bull. Likewise, Rabbi Ami said: “With a bull” and not with the blood of a bull; Rabbi Yitzḥak said: “With a bull,” and even with the blood of a bull.
איתיביה רבי אמי לרבי יצחק נפחא נמנין ומושכין ידיהן ממנו עד שישחט ואם איתא עד שיזרוק מיבעי ליה
Rabbi Ami raised an objection to Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, the smith: To join a group of people who arranged to partake together of a single Paschal offering, individuals may register as part of a group and they may withdraw from it and join another group until the offering is slaughtered. And if it is so, that the blood of an animal is considered part of the offering, this tanna who authored this statement should have said that they may withdraw until the blood is sprinkled. If, as you maintain, the blood of an offering is part of the offering itself, why can’t a person register to or withdraw from a group of a Paschal offering until its blood is sprinkled?
שני התם דכתיב (שמות יב, ד) מהיות משה מחיותה דשה
He answered him: It is different there, as it is written: “And if the household is too small for a lamb [mehiyot miseh], he and his neighbor who is next to his house” (Exodus 12:4). The phrase “mehiyot miseh” is read as meiḥiyutei deseh, from the life of a lamb. In other words, one can withdraw from a group only as long as the lamb is alive. If so, its blood is not considered part of the Paschal lamb by a special decree of the Torah, which does not apply to Yom Kippur.
מתיב מר זוטרא אין פודין לא בעגל ולא בחיה ולא בשחוטה ולא בטריפה ולא בכלאים ולא בכוי אלא בשה שאני התם דיליף שה שה מפסח
Mar Zutra raised an objection: And one may not redeem a male firstborn donkey with a calf, nor with an undomesticated animal, nor with a slaughtered lamb, nor with an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months [tereifa], nor with the product of the prohibited crossbreeding of a lamb and a goat, nor with a koy, a kosher animal with characteristics of both a domesticated animal and a non-domesticated animal, but with a lamb. This proves that a slaughtered animal is not considered a lamb. The Gemara rejects this claim: It is different there, as that tanna derives a verbal analogy of “lamb” (Exodus 13:13) and “lamb” (Exodus 12:4) from the Paschal offering: Just as a slaughtered lamb cannot be used for a Paschal offering, the same applies to the case of a firstborn donkey.
אי מה להלן זכר תם ובן שנה אף כאן זכר תם ובן שנה ת"ל (שמות יג, יג) תפדה תפדה ריבה
The Gemara asks: If so, just as there, the Paschal offering must be male, unblemished, and a year old, so too here, for the redemption of a firstborn donkey, one should be obligated to use a male that is unblemished and a year old. Therefore the verse states: “And every firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb; and if you shall not redeem it, then you shall break its neck” (Exodus 13:13). The repetition of: “You shall redeem,” “you shall not redeem,” serves to amplify the definition of the offering and include other animals as acceptable for this redemption, not merely those fit for the Paschal offering.
אי תפדה תפדה ריבה אפילו כולהו נמי אם כן שה מאי אהני ליה
The Gemara asks: If the phrases “You shall redeem” “you shall redeem” serve to amplify, even all animals should also be fit for the redemption of a firstborn donkey, including a calf, undomesticated beast, a slaughtered animal, and the other exceptions listed above. The Gemara answers: If so, what purpose does the verbal analogy of “lamb” serve? Rather, it is evident that certain animals are included while others are excluded. In any case, it is clear that the halakha of the blood of the bull on Yom Kippur cannot be derived from here.