Pesachim

One taught in reference to piggul, while the other taught in reference to nothar. He who taught in reference to piggul [gave the reason as being] on account of the suspected priests. While he who taught in reference to nothar [gave the reason as being] on account of the lazy priests. One said: As much as an olive [defiles]; while the other said: [At least] as much as an egg. He who maintained, as much as an olive, [accepts the standard] as its prohibition; while he who rules, as much as an egg, [holds that the standard is the same as its uncleanness. 1 MISHNAH. IF HE RECITED THE BLESSING FOR THE PASSOVER-OFFERING, HE THEREBY EXEMPTS THE [FESTIVAL] SACRIFICE; [BUT] IF HE RECITED THE BLESSING FOR THE SACRIFICE, HE DOES NOT EXEMPT THE PASSOVER-OFFERING: THIS IS THE VIEW OF R. ISHMAEL. R. AKIBA SAID: THE FORMER DOES NOT EXEMPT THE LATTER, NOR DOES THE LATTER EXEMPT THE FORMER.2 GEMARA. When you examine the matter, [you must conclude] that in R. Ishmael's opinion sprinkling [zerikah] is included in pouring [shefikah], but pouring is not included in sprinkling. Whereas in R. Akiba's opinion pouring is not included in Sprinkling, nor is sprinkling included in pouring.3 [ each. priest must stand quite close to the altar and gently pour the blood on to its base. But the blood of the hagigah requires sprinkling, i.e., from a distance and with some force’. Now R. Ishmael holds that if the blood of the hagigah is poured out instead of sprinkled, the obligation of sprinkling has nevertheless been discharged. Consequently, the blessing for the Passover-offering includes that of the hagigah, since in both the blood may be poured on to the base of the altar. But if the blood of the Passover-offering is sprinkled, the obligation has not been discharged: consequently the blessing for the hagigah, whose blood is normally sprinkled, does not exempt the Passover-offering. By the same reasoning we infer that in R. Akiba's view neither includes the other.