רבי יונתן אומר מזה בפני עצמו ומזה בפני עצמו אמר לו רבי יאשיה והלא כבר נאמר אחת
Rabbi Yonatan says: He presents from this one, the bull’s blood, by itself, and he presents from that one, the goat’s blood, by itself and does not mix them. Rabbi Yoshiya said to him: But wasn’t it already stated: “And Aaron shall make atonement upon its corners once a year; with the blood of the sin-offering of atonement” (Exodus 30:10), which indicates that the High Priest does not present twice?
אמר לו רבי יונתן והלא כבר נאמר מדם הפר ומדם השעיר אם כן למה נאמר אחת לומר לך אחת ולא שתים מדם הפר אחת ולא שתים מדם השעיר
Rabbi Yonatan said to him: But wasn’t it already stated: “Of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat” (Leviticus 16:18), which teaches that each set of sprinklings must be performed by itself? If so, why is “once” stated? This verse comes to tell you that he must perform the rite once and not perform two sets of sprinklings from the blood of the bull; and likewise he must perform the rite once and not perform two sets of sprinklings from the blood of the goat. From the blood of each of the animals, the High Priest presents only one set of sprinklings. This shows that Rabbi Yoshiya and Rabbi Yonatan indeed disagree with regard to this issue.
תניא אידך ולקח מדם הפר ומדם השעיר שיהיו מעורבין זה בזה אתה אומר שיהיו מעורבין זה בזה או אינו אלא מזה בפני עצמו ומזה בפני עצמו תלמוד לומר אחת וסתמא כרבי יאשיה
It was taught in another baraita: “And he shall take of the blood of the bull and of the blood of the goat” (Leviticus 16:18). This verse teaches that the blood of the bull and the goat should be mixed together. Do you say that they should be mixed together, or perhaps that is not the case; rather, he presents from this blood by itself and from that by itself? Therefore, the verse states: “Once.” The Gemara comments: And this unattributed baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yoshiya, who said the two sets of blood are mixed, as stated in the mishna.
נתן את המלא בריקן וכו' בעא מיניה רמי בר חמא מרב חסדא הניח מזרק בתוך מזרק וקבל בו את הדם מהו מין במינו חוצץ או אינו חוצץ
§ It was taught in the mishna that after the High Priest poured the bull’s blood into the goat’s blood, he placed the blood from the full bowl into the empty bowl, to mix the blood well. Rami bar Ḥama raised a dilemma before Rav Ḥisda: What is the halakha if he placed one bowl inside a second bowl and collected the blood in the inner bowl? Does one type of object mingled with another of its own type interpose, which would mean that the priest has not collected the blood himself, as the outer bowl interposed between him and the vessel? Or perhaps an object of one type does not interpose for another object of the same type, and therefore the two bowls are considered one object.
אמר ליה תניתוה נתן את המלא בריקן מאי לאו הושיב מזרק מלא לתוך מזרק ריקן
Rav Ḥisda said to him: We have already learned the answer to this question in the mishna: He placed the blood from the full bowl into the empty bowl. What, is it not correct to infer from this statement that he inserted the full bowl into the empty bowl?
לא עירה מזרק מלא לתוך מזרק ריקן הא תנא ליה רישא עירה דם הפר לתוך דם השעיר כדי לערבן יפה יפה
Rami bar Ḥama responded: No, it means that he poured the full bowl into an empty bowl. Rav Ḥisda said to him: But this statement is unnecessary, as the tanna of the mishna already taught the requirement to pour from one vessel into another in the first clause: He poured the blood of the bull into the blood of the goat. The subsequent phrase: He placed the full into the empty, must therefore refer to the placement of one vessel inside another. Rami bar Ḥama responded: No, it means that he pours the blood from the full bowl into the empty bowl a second time in order to mix them very well. To this end, he pours from one vessel into the other before again pouring the mixture back into the first vessel, thereby mixing them thoroughly.
תא שמע היה עומד על גבי כלי או על גבי רגל חבירו פסול שאני רגל דלא מצי מבטיל ליה
The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a solution to this question: If a priest performed the Temple service while he was standing on top of a vessel, or on the foot of another priest, his service is disqualified, as the priest must stand directly on the floor of the Temple. The fact that the foot of another person is considered an interposition proves that one type serves as an interposition with regard to another object of the same type. The Gemara rejects this contention: A foot is different, as he cannot nullify it. The foot of another person cannot be considered nullified with respect to the priest’s foot, but in the case of a vessel it is possible to say that one vessel is nullified in favor of another vessel.
איכא דאמרי הכי בעי מיניה דרך שירות בכך או אין דרך שירות בכך תא שמע דתנא דבי רבי ישמעאל (במדבר ד, יב) את כל כלי השרת אשר ישרתו בם בקודש שני כלים ושירות אחת
Some say that Rami bar Ḥama did not refer to the issue of interposition at all. Rather, this is the dilemma he raised before Rav Ḥisda: Is placing one vessel inside another vessel a proper manner of service; or is this not a proper manner of service, and if one does so his service is disqualified? The Gemara answers: Come and hear that which the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: “And they shall take all the service vessels, with which they serve in the Sanctuary” (Numbers 4:12). This verse is referring to two vessels and one service, which indicates that this is a proper manner of service.
בעא מיניה רמי בר חמא מרב חסדא הניח סיב בתוך המזרק וקבל בו את הדם מהו מין בשאינו מינו חוצץ או אינו חוצץ כיון דמחלחל לא חייץ או דילמא לא שנא
§ Rami bar Ḥama raised another dilemma before Rav Ḥisda along the same lines: What is the halakha if he placed bast, the material that grows around palm trees, inside the bowl, and collected the blood in the bowl through the bast, such that the blood seeps through into the bowl? Does one type of object mixed with another not of its own type interpose; or perhaps it does not interpose? Could one say that since the blood seeps through, it therefore does not interpose? Or perhaps this case is no different, and as there is a foreign object in the vessel it is considered an interposition even if the blood seeps through.
אמר ליה תנינא זולף והולך עד שמגיע לספוג שאני מיא דקלישי
Rav Ḥisda said to him in response: We already learned this matter with regard to sanctifying the purification waters, i.e., the water mixed with ashes of the red heifer. If a sponge was placed inside the container of water, the water in the sponge is disqualified and the priest may not sprinkle with it. How should he proceed? He sprinkles from the water and continues until he reaches the sponge. This shows that the presence of the sponge in the water container is not considered an interposition for the water in the container, despite the fact that it itself is unfit for the service. Rami bar Ḥama replied: This is no proof. Water is different, as it is thin and therefore it certainly seeps through the sponge and reaches the bowl; whereas the thicker blood will perhaps not seep into the fiber.
איכא דאמרי הכי פשט ליה בדם כשר בקומץ פסול
Some say that this is how Rav Ḥisda resolved the problem of placing the bast in the bowl for Rami bar Ḥama: In the case of the blood it is valid, as blood passes through, and the bast does not obstruct it. However, in the case of the handful of a meal-offering, which must be sanctified in a vessel immediately after the handful is taken, if he put bast in a vessel and placed the handful on top of it, it is disqualified. The reason is that the handful of a meal-offering consists of dough, which does not pass through the bast, and it is therefore considered a proper interposition.