Zevachim 161
וכי תימא ה"נ בנתערב באחת אי הכי אמר לו רבי יהושע הרי הוא עובר על בל תוסיף הכא בל תוסיף מהיכא
<br> And should you answer: Here too it means that [the quantity for] four [applications] was mixed with [the quantity for] one [application], - if so: LO HE TRANSGRESSES THE INJUNCTION NOT TO ADD THERETO, R. JOSHUA COUNTERED: Whence have you here the injunction not to add thereto? - Rather said Raba: Where [the blood is] mixed together, they do not disagree; they disagree in respect of the goblets. R. Eliezer holds [the view that] 'we regard' [etc.], while the Rabbis reject [the view that] 'we regard' [etc.]. <br>
אלא אמר רבא בבלול לא פליגי כי פליגי בכוסות לר"א אית ליה רואין לרבנן לית להו רואין
Now, do they not disagree where [the blood itself] is mingled? Surely it was taught: R. Judah said: R. Eliezer and the Sages did not dispute about the blood of a sin-offering which was mixed with the blood of a burnt-offering, [both agreeing] that it must be offered [sprinkled]; [if it was mixed] with the blood of a roba' or a nirba', [they agree that] it must not be offered. About what do they disagree? About the blood of an unblemished [animal] which was mixed with the blood of a blemished [animal]; there R. Eliezer maintains that it must be offered, whether [the blood itself is] mingled or whether the goblets [are mixed]; while the Sages say that it must not be offered! - R. Judah when teaching R. Eliezer's view relates it to both mixing [of the blood itself] and [to that of] the goblets; but the Rabbis hold that they disagree about goblets [only].
ובבלול לא פליגי והתניא א"ר יהודה לא נחלקו ר"א וחכמים על דם חטאת שנתערב בדם עולה שיקרב ברובע ונרבע שלא יקרב על מה נחלקו על דם תמימה שנתערב בדם בעלת מום שר"א אומר יקרב בין בבלול בין בכוסות וחכ"א לא יקרב
Abaye said: They learnt this only of the beginning of the sin-offering and the burnt-offering; but as to the end of the sin-offering and the beginning of the burnt-offering, all agree that the place of the burnt-offering is the place of the residue. Said R. Joseph to him: Thus did R. Judah say: The residue requires the projection. And thus said Resh Lakish: They learnt this only of the beginning of the sin-offering and the burnt-offering; but as to the end of the sin-offering and the beginning of the burnt-offering, all agree that the place of the burnt-offering is the place of the residue. Whereas R. Johanan-others say, R. Eleazar-said: There is still the controversy. <br>
רבי יהודה אליבא דר"א מתני בין בבלול בין בכוסות ורבנן בכוסות פליגי
R. Huna b. Judah raised an objection: They are holy: [this teaches] that if it [the blood of a firstling] was mixed with the blood of other sacrifices, it must be offered [sprinkled]. Surely it speaks of the end of a burnt-offering and [the beginning of] a firstling; and this proves that the place of the burnt-offering is the place of the residue? - No: it speaks of the beginning of the burnt-offering and that of the firstling. What then does it inform us? that sacrifices do not nullify one another! [Surely] that is deduced from [the text]. And he shall take of the blood of the bullock and of the blood of the goat? - It is a controversy of Tannaim: one deduces it from this text, and another deduces it from the other text.