Pesachim 121a — the Talmud in English

And the Gemara explains: Rav Huna and Rav Hisda did not disagree with one another concerning the essence of the law of impurity. Rather, each one is speaking about a different subject in our Mishna.

One teaches piggul,

explaining the reason for the impurity of piggul.

And one teaches notar,

explaining the reason for the impurity that they decreed concerning notar.

The one who teaches piggul

explains that the reason is

because of the suspicions concerning the priesthood.

For the priests are suspected of intentionally making the offering piggul in order to cause the owners a loss, and to say: We were unwitting. Therefore, they decreed that piggul should render the hands impure, so that the priest would have to trouble himself and immerse his hands before touching sacred things [Rashi above 85a]

The one who teaches notar

explains that the reason is

because of the laziness of the priesthood,

so that the priests would not be lazy in eating the sacred offerings, resulting in notar. And thus they decreed impurity upon notar, in order to trouble the priests with regard to it.

However, concerning the measure of its impurity, Rav Huna and Rav Hisda indeed disagreed.

One said

that both piggul and notar have their measure at

an olive-bulk.

And one said

that the measure of both of them is

an egg-bulk.

And the reason for their dispute is:

The one who says

that it is

an olive-bulk, according to its prohibition.

Just as the measure of the prohibition against eating piggul and notar—for one is liable for karet and lashes for an olive-bulk of either of them—so too is the measure of its impurity.

And the one who says

that it is

an egg-bulk, according to its impurity.

Just as its measure of impurity according to Torah law is that only an egg-bulk of food becomes impure or renders other food impure, so is its measure according to rabbinic law for rendering the hands impure.

Mishna:

As was explained earlier in this tractate, together with the Passover offering they would bring a festival offering called “the festival offering of the fourteenth,” so that the Passover offering would be eaten when one was satiated. And for eating the Passover offering they would recite the blessing “Who sanctified us with His commandments and commanded us concerning the eating of Passover offerings,” and over the festival offering they would recite “concerning the eating of offerings of peace.”

If he recited a blessing

over the Passover offering

the blessing of the Passover offering, he exempted

with this blessing

that of the sacrifice,

the festival offering of the fourteenth, for he need not recite a blessing over it, because the blessing of the Passover offering also exempts the sacrifice.

But if he preceded and

recited a blessing

first over

that of the sacrifice, he did not exempt that of the Passover offering

with his blessing; rather, he must return and recite a blessing over the Passover offering,

the words of Rabbi Ishmael.

Rabbi Akiva says: This one does not exempt

the

other.

And this one does not exempt

the

other.

Gemara:

In tractate Zevahim [37a] it is explained that a Passover offering differs from the other offerings in that with the other offerings the placing of their blood upon the altar is done by throwing: the priest stands at a distance and throws the blood from the bowl onto the wall of the altar, whereas with a Passover offering the placing of the blood is through pouring: the priest stands close to the altar and pours the blood calmly onto the wall of the altar [at a place beneath which there is a base].

And now that we have learned in our Mishna the dispute between Rabbi Ishmael and Rabbi Akiva concerning the blessings of the Passover offering and the sacrifice,

when you come to say

[say from now on], that this is what they dispute:

According to Rabbi Ishmael, throwing is included within pouring.

The offerings concerning which the law of throwing from a distance is stated: ideally, if one did not throw but poured the blood from close by, he has fulfilled his obligation after the fact. Therefore, the placing of the blood of the festival offering, which is an offering of peace, whose blood is through throwing, is included within the placing of the blood of the Passover offering, whose law is through pouring.

And for this reason, when he recited a blessing over the Passover offering, he exempted that of the sacrifice, because the sacrifice is included within the Passover offering, just as we found concerning the law of placing the blood.

But pouring is not included within throwing.

For if he threw the blood of the Passover offering from a distance, he has not fulfilled his obligation even after the fact.

Therefore, if he recited a blessing over the sacrifice, he did not exempt the Passover offering, for the Passover offering is not included within offerings of peace.

Whereas

according to Rabbi Akiva, pouring is not included within throwing, and throwing is not included within pouring.

For even in the case of offerings of peace, if he performed pouring instead of throwing, he has not fulfilled his obligation. Therefore, the blessing over one of them does not exempt the blessing over the other, for they are entirely distinct with regard to the placing of their blood.