Reference for Yoma 115:11
איכא דאמרי הכי פשט ליה בדם כשר בקומץ פסול
Rami B'Hama asked of R'Hisda: If he deposited bast in the bowl and he received the blood therewith, what then? Is heterogeneous matter considered an interposition<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The bast is heterogeneous to the bowl, hence should be considered an interposition. But since the blood penetrates the bast and reaches the bowl, does it cancel the interposing bast, so that, as it were, the priest had received the blood in the bowl proper, as viewed retroactively, or not?');"><sup>8</sup></span> or not? Is it not considered an interposition, since it penetrates [the blood], or is there no difference? - He replied to him: We have learnt that: He empties out the water until the sponge is reached.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Parah VI, 3: If someone was mixing the ashes (of the red heifer) in the water of a trough of stone, and there was a sponge in the trough then the water in the sponge is invalid, as a sponge is not a vessel. What should he do? The water in the trough should be poured out until the sponge is reached and the water is valid. Hence we see that a sponge is not considered interposing so as to invalidate the whole water, and similarly here, the bast should not be considered as interposing between the bowl and the blood.');"><sup>9</sup></span> - It is different with water because it is very weak. Some there are who say: This is how he answered him: In the case of the blood<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because it is thin.');"><sup>10</sup></span> it is permitted, but in the case of the fistful it is invalid.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For the fistful of the flour-offering was required to be received in the vessel after having first been taken, analogous to the receiving of the blood, hence any interposing object would render the ministration invalid.');"><sup>11</sup></span>