They raised the following objection: A lay Israelite, an onen, one inebriate or one with a blemish are invalidated for the receiving, the carrying, and the sprinkling of the blood, and so is one seated, and the left hand. This is a refutation. — But R. Shesheth himself has asked this question in refutation! For R. Shesheth said to the Amora of R. Hisda who asked of R. Hisda: May the blood be carried by a lay Israelite? He answered: It is proper and a scriptural verse supports me: And they killed the passover lamb, and the priests dashed of their hand, and the Levites flayed them. And R. Shesheth raised this question: A lay Israelite, a mourner, an inebriate, or one blemished are invalidated for the receiving, the carrying, or the sprinkling of the blood, and so is one seated and the left hand! -After having heard it, he raised it in objection [against R. Hisda]. But R. Hisda had cited a scriptural passage [in support]? — They served only the purpose of a portico. R. Papa asked: If another [priest] took his hands full and put it into his [the high priest's] hands — how then? Is what we require that it be ‘his hands full’ which we have here, or is it required that he both ‘take [his hands full] and bring it in’, which was not the case here? — The question remains unsolved. R. Joshua b. Levi asked: If he had taken his hands full and then died, what about someone else entering [within the Holy of Holies] with his [the first one's] handfuls? — Said R. Hanina: This is a question of the older generation! Shall we say that R. Joshua b. Levi was older? But R. Joshua b. Levi had said: R. Hanina permitted me to drink a cress-dish on the Sabbath? [You say] to drink? That is self-evident, for we have learnt: One may eat all kinds of food for a remedy, and one may drink every kind of drink as a medicine? — Rather to grind and to drink cress-dish on the Sabbath. What case do you mean? If it be a case of danger, surely it is allowed; and if the case be without danger, it surely is forbidden? -In truth the case referred to is one dangerous and this is how the question ran: Does it cure so that one may for this purpose desecrate the Sabbath, or does it not effect a cure so that one may not desecrate the Sabbath in connection with it? And why was it R. Hanina? — Because he was familiar with medicine, for R. Hanina said: Never did a man consult me concerning a wound inflicted by a white mule and recover. But we see that people recover?-Say: And it was cured. -But we see them cured?-The reference here is to red mules, the end of whose feet is white. — At any rate we learn from here that R. Hanina was the older one? -Rather, this is what he said: Our question is like one of the former generation. But did R. Hanina express such a view? Did not R. Hanina say: With a bullock, i.e., but not with the blood of a bullock; and, furthermore, was it not R. Hanina who said: If he took the hands full of the incense before the slaying of the of the bullock, he has done nothing? — This is what he [R. Hanina] said: Since he asks the question, the inference is justified that he holds ‘With a bullock’ includes also ‘with the bullock's blood’; now, according to [this] his view, his question is like the question of an older generation. — What about that? — R. Papa said: If [we say that] he takes the handful first and then must take it again, then his fellow may enter with his hafinah, because the hafinah is still the same; but if [we say] that he takes the handfuls once but does not take them again, then your question arises. Said R. Huna son of R. Joshua to R. Papa: On the contrary! If [we say that he] performs the hafinah twice, none else should enter with his hafinah, because it is impossible that the second take not either a bit less [than the handfuls of the first] or a bit more; but [if we say that] he performs only one hafinah, does your question arise. For the question had been raised: Must he perform the hafinah twice?- Come and hear: AND SUCH WAS ITS MEASURE. Now does not that mean that as the measure in the outside hafinah, so was it in the hafinah within the Holy of Holies? — No, perhaps the meaning here is that if he wanted to make a measure he could do so, or, that he must not take either more or less in the one case than in the other. Come and hear:ᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘᵛʷˣʸᶻᵃᵃᵃᵇᵃᶜᵃᵈ