(121a:1)The Gemara explains that there is no dispute between Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda concerning the reason for the prohibition. One of these two Sages teaches his explanation with regard to the case of piggul, mentioned in the mishna; and the other one teaches it with regard to notar.
(121a:2)מאן דתני אפיגול משום חשדי כהונה מאן דתני אנותר משום עצלי כהונה
(121a:2)The Gemara elaborates: The one who teaches it with regard to piggul maintains that the reason is due to suspected priests. As a result of enmity, a priest might cause the offerings to become piggul. To dissuade priests from doing so, the Sages instituted that one who touches piggul is rendered ritually impure, which ensures that the offending priest also suffers from his actions. He who teaches this explanation with regard to notar claims that the reason is due to lazy priests, to prevent sloth among the priests. The Sages decreed that notar causes ritual impurity, to ensure that the priests ate the sacrificial meat within the allotted time.
(121a:3)חד אמר כזית וחד אמר כביצה מאן דאמר כזית כאיסורו ומאן דאמר כביצה כטומאתו:
(121a:3)It was stated above that Rav Huna and Rav Ḥisda disagree with regard to the size of the meat that confers ritual impurity. One of them said that an olive-bulk of meat contracts ritual impurity, and one of them said that only an egg-bulk contracts ritual impurity. The Gemara explains the reasoning behind this debate. The one who said that an olive-bulk contracts ritual impurity maintains that the ritual impurity of notar and piggul is similar to its prohibition. Since notar and piggul are prohibited when they are an olive-bulk, the same applies to their ritual impurity. And the one who said that sacrificial meat becomes ritually impure when it is an egg-bulk maintains that it is similar to its ritual impurity. In other words, just as the minimum size of ritual impurity for other types of meat is an egg-bulk, the same applies to piggul and notar.
(121a:4)מתני׳ בירך ברכת הפסח פטר את של זבח בירך את של זבח לא פטר את של פסח דברי רבי ישמעאל רבי עקיבא אומר לא זו פוטרת זו ולא זו פוטרת זו:
(121a:4)MISHNA: If one recited the blessing over the Paschal lamb, which is: Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to eat the Paschal lamb, he has also exempted himself from reciting a blessing over the Festival offering. The blessing for the Festival peace-offering of the fourteenth of Nisan is: Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us to eat the offering. However, if he recited the blessing over the Festival offering, he has not exempted himself from reciting a blessing over the Paschal lamb. This is the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva says: This blessing does not exempt one from reciting a blessing over this one, and that blessing does not exempt that one, as there is a separate blessing for each offering.
(121a:5)גמ׳ כשתמצא לומר לדברי רבי ישמעאל זריקה בכלל שפיכה ולא שפיכה בכלל זריקה
(121a:5)GEMARA: The Gemara explains the opinions of the tanna’im in the mishna. When you analyze the matter you will find that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, sprinkling of the blood on the altar is included in the more general category of pouring. In other words, the blessing over the Paschal lamb, whose blood is poured, includes the Festival peace-offering, whose blood is sprinkled, as sprinkling is included within the general category of pouring. But conversely, pouring is not included in sprinkling. Consequently, when one recites the blessing over the Festival peace-offering, he has not exempted himself from reciting a blessing over the Paschal lamb.
(121a:6)לדברי רבי עקיבא לא שפיכה בכלל זריקה ולא זריקה בכלל שפיכה:
(121a:6)By contrast, according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, these are two separate mitzvot: Pouring is not included in sprinkling, and sprinkling is not included in pouring. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva maintains that each offering requires its own blessing.
(121b:1)רבי שמלאי איקלע לפדיון הבן בעו מיניה פשיטא על פדיון הבן אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על פדיון הבן אבי הבן מברך ברוך שהחיינו וקיימנו והגיענו לזמן הזה כהן מברך או אבי הבן מברך
(121b:1)The Gemara discusses another case concerning the order of the blessings: Rabbi Simlai attended a redemption of the firstborn son. The celebrants raised a dilemma before him with regard to the blessings. First they noted that it is obvious that the blessing over the redemption of a firstborn son, which is: Who sanctified us with His mitzvot and commanded us over the redemption of the firstborn son, is certainly recited by the father of the son, as he is the one obligated to redeem his son. However, with regard to the second blessing: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who has given us life [sheheḥeyanu], sustained us, and brought us to this time, does the priest recite this blessing, or does the father of the son recite it?
(121b:2)כהן מברך דקמטי הנאה לידיה או אבי הבן מברך דקא עביד מצוה לא הוה בידיה אתא שאיל ביה מדרשא אמרו ליה אבי הבן מברך שתים והילכתא אבי הבן מברך שתים:
(121b:2)The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma. It can be suggested that the priest recites the blessing, as he benefits from the five sela he receives when the boy is redeemed. The blessing of sheheḥiyanu is generally recited by the one who receives the benefit. Or, perhaps the father of the son recites sheheḥeyanu, as he is the one who performs the mitzva. Rabbi Simlai did not have an answer readily available, and he went to ask this question in the study hall. The scholars said to him that the father of the son recites the two blessings: Over the redemption of the son and sheheḥeyanu. The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is that the father of the son recites two blessings.
