Rav Ada son of Rav Yitzchak brings a different suggestion for how to resolve the contradiction between the mishna in Middot and the mishna in Tamid – the chamber of the sheep must have been able to be perceived as both in the North and in the South, depending on one’s perspective. But in which was it actually situated? The gemara concludes that it must on been in the Southeast side as they infer from another contradiction between the mishnayot regarding the location of the showbread. Rav Huna has resolved it by saying that each mishna describes the order of the chambers in a different manner – one goes clockwise (left) and the other counter clockwise (right). In order for the location to match up based on Rav Huna’s answer, one can only explain it if the chamber of the lambs was in the Southwest side. How can one mishna’s order go to the left (clockwise) if we learned that all turns in the Temple were to the right? The gemara explains in more detail the mishna’s ruling that the Kohen Gadol can do whatever rituals they wanted and could take whatever portions they wanted. How much could they take? The rabbis and Rebbi disagree.
Yoma 17
Share this shiur:
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Yoma 17
אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב הִיא. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Rather, must one not conclude from it that that the mishnayot in tractate Middot are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.
רַב אַדָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יִצְחָק אָמַר: הַאי לִשְׁכָּה אַקְצוֹיֵי מַקְצְיָא, וּדְאָתֵי מִצָּפוֹן מִתְחַזְיָא לֵיהּ בְּדָרוֹם, וּדְאָתֵי מִדָּרוֹם מִתְחַזְיָא לֵיהּ בְּצָפוֹן.
§ In an additional attempt to resolve the contradiction with regard to the Chamber of the Lambs, Rav Adda, son of Rav Yitzḥak, said: This chamber was removed from the corner, as it was not actually in the corner of the Hall of the Hearth but was located along the middle of the western side of the hall. And therefore, for one who comes from the north, the chamber appears to him to be in the south of the hall; and for one who comes from the south, the chamber appears to him to be in the north of the hall.
וּמִסְתַּבְּרָא דִּבְמַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית הֲוַאי. מִמַּאי — מִדְּרָמֵינַן לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים אַלֶּחֶם הַפָּנִים,
The Gemara comments: In any event, it is reasonable to say that this chamber was closer to the southwest corner than it was to the northwest corner. From where does one arrive at that conclusion? From the fact that we raise a contradiction between the mishna in tractate Tamid, where we learned that the chamber in which the shewbread was prepared stood in the northeast corner, and the mishna in tractate Middot, where we learned that the chamber in which the shewbread was prepared stood in the southeast corner.
וּמְשַׁנֵּינַן, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מָר קָא חָשֵׁיב דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין, וּמָר קָא חָשֵׁיב דֶּרֶךְ שְׂמֹאל.
And we resolve the contradiction based on what Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The Master in tractate Middot envisions the chambers as one coming via the right, from the south to the east, then to the north and then to the west. And the Master in tractate Tamid envisions the chambers as one coming via the left, from the south to the west, then to the north and then to the east. Both agree with regard to the location of the chamber in which the shewbread was prepared; they merely describe that location from different perspectives.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּמַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית הֲוַאי, הַיְינוּ דִּמְתָרֵץ לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים אַלֶּחֶם הַפָּנִים. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ צְפוֹנִית מַעֲרָבִית הֲוַאי, סוֹף סוֹף מַאי תֵּירוּצָא דְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, בְּמַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית הֲוַאי. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Granted, if you say that the Chamber of the Lambs was actually closer to the southwest corner, that is how Rav Huna resolves the contradiction between one mishna discussing the shewbread and the other mishna discussing the shewbread. However, if you say that the Chamber of the Lambs was in the northwest corner, ultimately, what is the resolution with regard to the shewbread? Even if you envision the path from the other direction, the Chamber of the Seals interposes between the Chamber of the Lambs and the chamber where the shewbread is prepared. Rather, must one not conclude from it that the Chamber of the Lambs was indeed in the southwest? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.
וְהָאָמַר מָר: כׇּל פִּינּוֹת שֶׁאַתָּה פּוֹנֶה לֹא יִהְיוּ אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין לַמִּזְרָח? הָנֵי מִילֵּי בַּעֲבוֹדָה. אֲבָל הָכָא — חוּשְׁבָּנָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.
The Gemara questions the assertion that one tanna envisions the chambers as one coming via the left. But didn’t the Master say: All turns that you turn should be only to the right, which in certain cases is to the east? Here the turns are to the left. The Gemara answers: This restriction applies only in the course of performing the Temple service; however, here, it is a mere reckoning, and no priest actually proceeded that way from one chamber to the other.
שֶׁכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מַקְרִיב חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ וְנוֹטֵל חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיצַד מַקְרִיב חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ? אוֹמֵר: עוֹלָה זוֹ אֲנִי מַקְרִיב, מִנְחָה זוֹ אֲנִי מַקְרִיב.
§ It was taught in the mishna: As the High Priest sacrifices any portion that he chooses first and takes any portion that he chooses first. The Sages taught in a baraita: How does the High Priest sacrifice any portion that he chooses first? If the High Priest so desires, he says: This burnt-offering, I am sacrificing, or: This meal-offering, I am sacrificing. That is sufficient, and the High Priest does not participate in a lottery.
כֵּיצַד נוֹטֵל חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ? אוֹמֵר: חַטָּאת זוֹ אֲנִי אוֹכֵל, אָשָׁם זֶה אֲנִי אוֹכֵל. וְנוֹטֵל חַלָּה מִשְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת, אַרְבַּע אוֹ חָמֵשׁ מִמַּעֲשֵׂה לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם חָמֵשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיְתָה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו״ — מֶחֱצָה לְאַהֲרֹן וּמֶחֱצָה לְבָנָיו.
How does the High Priest take any portion that he chooses first? The High Priest says: This sin-offering, I am eating, or: This guilt-offering, I am eating. And he may even take one loaf of the two loaves offered on the festival of Shavuot. He may take four or five of the twelve shewbread loaves that are distributed to the priests every Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The High Priest always takes five of the twelve shewbread loaves, as it is stated: “It shall be for Aaron and his sons and they shall eat it in a sacred place” (Leviticus 24:9). From the fact that Aaron and his sons are listed separately, it is derived that half of the loaves were given to Aaron, or the High Priests who succeeded him, and half were given to his sons. Since, as explained below, only ten of the loaves were actually distributed, the High Priest received five.
הָא גּוּפַהּ קַשְׁיָא: אָמְרַתְּ נוֹטֵל חַלָּה אַחַת מִשְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת, מַנִּי — רַבִּי הִיא, דְּאָמַר פַּלְגָא שָׁקֵיל. אֵימָא מְצִיעֲתָא: אַרְבַּע אוֹ חָמֵשׁ מִמַּעֲשֵׂה לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, אֲתָאן לְרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: לָא שָׁקֵיל פַּלְגָא. אֵימָא סֵיפָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם חָמֵשׁ. רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי, וּמְצִיעֲתָא רַבָּנַן?
This baraita is itself difficult, as it is self-contradictory. First you said: He takes one loaf of the two loaves offered on the festival of Shavuot. Whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that the High Priest takes half. Say the middle clause of the baraita as follows: The High Priest takes four or five of the twelve shewbread loaves; we have come to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the High Priest does not take half but takes less than half. Say the last clause of the baraita as follows: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the High Priest always takes five. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the first clause and the last clause of the baraita are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the middle clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? That conclusion is difficult.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רֵישָׁא וּמְצִיעֲתָא רַבָּנַן — וּמוֹדוּ רַבָּנַן בִּפְרוּסָה, דְּלָאו אוֹרַח אַרְעָא לְמִיתְּבַהּ לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל.
Abaye said: The first clause and the middle clause of the baraita are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and in the case of the two loaves, the Rabbis concede with regard to a piece of a loaf that it is inappropriate to give it to the High Priest. According to the Rabbis, the High Priest should actually receive less than one loaf, as in their opinion he is entitled to less than half; however, since it is inappropriate to give him a piece of the loaf, he takes an entire loaf as his portion.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
In early 2020, I began the process of a stem cell transplant. The required extreme isolation forced me to leave work and normal life but gave me time to delve into Jewish text study. I did not feel isolated. I began Daf Yomi at the start of this cycle, with family members joining me online from my hospital room. I’ve used my newly granted time to to engage, grow and connect through this learning.
Worcester, United States
3 years ago, I joined Rabbanit Michelle to organize the unprecedented Siyum HaShas event in Jerusalem for thousands of women. The whole experience was so inspiring that I decided then to start learning the daf and see how I would go…. and I’m still at it. I often listen to the Daf on my bike in mornings, surrounded by both the external & the internal beauty of Eretz Yisrael & Am Yisrael!
Raanana, Israel
I was inspired to start learning after attending the 2020 siyum in Binyanei Hauma. It has been a great experience for me. It’s amazing to see the origins of stories I’ve heard and rituals I’ve participated in my whole life. Even when I don’t understand the daf itself, I believe that the commitment to learning every day is valuable and has multiple benefits. And there will be another daf tomorrow!
Jerusalem, Israel
I was moved to tears by the Hadran Siyyum HaShas. I have learned Torah all my life, but never connected to learning Gemara on a regular basis until then. Seeing the sheer joy Talmud Torah at the siyyum, I felt compelled to be part of it, and I haven’t missed a day!
It’s not always easy, but it is so worthwhile, and it has strengthened my love of learning. It is part of my life now.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
When I began the previous cycle, I promised myself that if I stuck with it, I would reward myself with a trip to Israel. Little did I know that the trip would involve attending the first ever women’s siyum and being inspired by so many learners. I am now over 2 years into my second cycle and being part of this large, diverse, fascinating learning family has enhanced my learning exponentially.
Minnesota, United States
When we heard that R. Michelle was starting daf yomi, my 11-year-old suggested that I go. Little did she know that she would lose me every morning from then on. I remember standing at the Farbers’ door, almost too shy to enter. After that first class, I said that I would come the next day but couldn’t commit to more. A decade later, I still look forward to learning from R. Michelle every morning.
Ra’anana, Israel
When I started studying Hebrew at Brown University’s Hillel, I had no idea that almost 38 years later, I’m doing Daf Yomi. My Shabbat haburah is led by Rabbanit Leah Sarna. The women are a hoot. I’m tracking the completion of each tractate by reading Ilana Kurshan’s memoir, If All the Seas Were Ink.
Pennsylvania, United States
My husband learns Daf, my son learns Daf, my son-in-law learns Daf.
When I read about Hadran’s Siyyum HaShas 2 years ago, I thought- I can learn Daf too!
I had learned Gemara in Hillel HS in NJ, & I remembered loving it.
Rabbanit Michelle & Hadran have opened my eyes & expanding my learning so much in the past few years. We can now discuss Gemara as a family.
This was a life saver during Covid
Brooklyn, NY, United States
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
I started learning on January 5, 2020. When I complete the 7+ year cycle I will be 70 years old. I had been intimidated by those who said that I needed to study Talmud in a traditional way with a chevruta, but I decided the learning was more important to me than the method. Thankful for Daf Yomi for Women helping me catch up when I fall behind, and also being able to celebrate with each Siyum!
Bakersfield, United States
I heard about the syium in January 2020 & I was excited to start learning then the pandemic started. Learning Daf became something to focus on but also something stressful. As the world changed around me & my family I had to adjust my expectations for myself & the world. Daf Yomi & the Hadran podcast has been something I look forward to every day. It gives me a moment of centering & Judaism daily.
Denver, United States
A Gemara shiur previous to the Hadran Siyum, was the impetus to attend it.It was highly inspirational and I was smitten. The message for me was התלמוד בידינו. I had decided along with my Chahsmonaim group to to do the daf and take it one daf at time- without any expectations at all. There has been a wealth of information, insights and halachik ideas. It is truly exercise of the mind, heart & Soul
Hashmonaim, Israel
תמיד רציתי. למדתי גמרא בבית ספר בטורונטו קנדה. עליתי ארצה ולמדתי שזה לא מקובל. הופתעתי.
יצאתי לגימלאות לפני שנתיים וזה מאפשר את המחוייבות לדף יומי.
עבורי ההתמדה בלימוד מעגן אותי בקשר שלי ליהדות. אני תמיד מחפשת ותמיד. מוצאת מקור לקשר. ללימוד חדש ומחדש. קשר עם נשים לומדות מעמיק את החוויה ומשמעותית מאוד.
מיתר, ישראל
I’ve been learning since January 2020, and in June I started drawing a phrase from each daf. Sometimes it’s easy (e.g. plants), sometimes it’s very hard (e.g. korbanot), and sometimes it’s loads of fun (e.g. bird racing) to find something to draw. I upload my pictures from each masechet to #DafYomiArt. I am enjoying every step of the journey.
Ashdod, Israel
In July, 2012 I wrote for Tablet about the first all women’s siyum at Matan in Jerusalem, with 100 women. At the time, I thought, I would like to start with the next cycle – listening to a podcast at different times of day makes it possible. It is incredible that after 10 years, so many women are so engaged!
Pittsburgh, United States
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
Phoenix, AZ, United States
Philadelphia, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
Yoma 17
אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב הִיא. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Rather, must one not conclude from it that that the mishnayot in tractate Middot are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.
רַב אַדָּא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יִצְחָק אָמַר: הַאי לִשְׁכָּה אַקְצוֹיֵי מַקְצְיָא, וּדְאָתֵי מִצָּפוֹן מִתְחַזְיָא לֵיהּ בְּדָרוֹם, וּדְאָתֵי מִדָּרוֹם מִתְחַזְיָא לֵיהּ בְּצָפוֹן.
§ In an additional attempt to resolve the contradiction with regard to the Chamber of the Lambs, Rav Adda, son of Rav Yitzḥak, said: This chamber was removed from the corner, as it was not actually in the corner of the Hall of the Hearth but was located along the middle of the western side of the hall. And therefore, for one who comes from the north, the chamber appears to him to be in the south of the hall; and for one who comes from the south, the chamber appears to him to be in the north of the hall.
וּמִסְתַּבְּרָא דִּבְמַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית הֲוַאי. מִמַּאי — מִדְּרָמֵינַן לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים אַלֶּחֶם הַפָּנִים,
The Gemara comments: In any event, it is reasonable to say that this chamber was closer to the southwest corner than it was to the northwest corner. From where does one arrive at that conclusion? From the fact that we raise a contradiction between the mishna in tractate Tamid, where we learned that the chamber in which the shewbread was prepared stood in the northeast corner, and the mishna in tractate Middot, where we learned that the chamber in which the shewbread was prepared stood in the southeast corner.
וּמְשַׁנֵּינַן, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: מָר קָא חָשֵׁיב דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין, וּמָר קָא חָשֵׁיב דֶּרֶךְ שְׂמֹאל.
And we resolve the contradiction based on what Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: The Master in tractate Middot envisions the chambers as one coming via the right, from the south to the east, then to the north and then to the west. And the Master in tractate Tamid envisions the chambers as one coming via the left, from the south to the west, then to the north and then to the east. Both agree with regard to the location of the chamber in which the shewbread was prepared; they merely describe that location from different perspectives.
אִי אָמְרַתְּ בִּשְׁלָמָא בְּמַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית הֲוַאי, הַיְינוּ דִּמְתָרֵץ לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים אַלֶּחֶם הַפָּנִים. אֶלָּא אִי אָמְרַתְּ צְפוֹנִית מַעֲרָבִית הֲוַאי, סוֹף סוֹף מַאי תֵּירוּצָא דְּלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים! אֶלָּא לָאו שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ, בְּמַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית הֲוַאי. שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ.
Granted, if you say that the Chamber of the Lambs was actually closer to the southwest corner, that is how Rav Huna resolves the contradiction between one mishna discussing the shewbread and the other mishna discussing the shewbread. However, if you say that the Chamber of the Lambs was in the northwest corner, ultimately, what is the resolution with regard to the shewbread? Even if you envision the path from the other direction, the Chamber of the Seals interposes between the Chamber of the Lambs and the chamber where the shewbread is prepared. Rather, must one not conclude from it that the Chamber of the Lambs was indeed in the southwest? The Gemara concludes: Indeed, conclude from it that this is so.
וְהָאָמַר מָר: כׇּל פִּינּוֹת שֶׁאַתָּה פּוֹנֶה לֹא יִהְיוּ אֶלָּא דֶּרֶךְ יָמִין לַמִּזְרָח? הָנֵי מִילֵּי בַּעֲבוֹדָה. אֲבָל הָכָא — חוּשְׁבָּנָא בְּעָלְמָא הוּא.
The Gemara questions the assertion that one tanna envisions the chambers as one coming via the left. But didn’t the Master say: All turns that you turn should be only to the right, which in certain cases is to the east? Here the turns are to the left. The Gemara answers: This restriction applies only in the course of performing the Temple service; however, here, it is a mere reckoning, and no priest actually proceeded that way from one chamber to the other.
שֶׁכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מַקְרִיב חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ וְנוֹטֵל חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: כֵּיצַד מַקְרִיב חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ? אוֹמֵר: עוֹלָה זוֹ אֲנִי מַקְרִיב, מִנְחָה זוֹ אֲנִי מַקְרִיב.
§ It was taught in the mishna: As the High Priest sacrifices any portion that he chooses first and takes any portion that he chooses first. The Sages taught in a baraita: How does the High Priest sacrifice any portion that he chooses first? If the High Priest so desires, he says: This burnt-offering, I am sacrificing, or: This meal-offering, I am sacrificing. That is sufficient, and the High Priest does not participate in a lottery.
כֵּיצַד נוֹטֵל חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ? אוֹמֵר: חַטָּאת זוֹ אֲנִי אוֹכֵל, אָשָׁם זֶה אֲנִי אוֹכֵל. וְנוֹטֵל חַלָּה מִשְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת, אַרְבַּע אוֹ חָמֵשׁ מִמַּעֲשֵׂה לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים. רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם חָמֵשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְהָיְתָה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו״ — מֶחֱצָה לְאַהֲרֹן וּמֶחֱצָה לְבָנָיו.
How does the High Priest take any portion that he chooses first? The High Priest says: This sin-offering, I am eating, or: This guilt-offering, I am eating. And he may even take one loaf of the two loaves offered on the festival of Shavuot. He may take four or five of the twelve shewbread loaves that are distributed to the priests every Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: The High Priest always takes five of the twelve shewbread loaves, as it is stated: “It shall be for Aaron and his sons and they shall eat it in a sacred place” (Leviticus 24:9). From the fact that Aaron and his sons are listed separately, it is derived that half of the loaves were given to Aaron, or the High Priests who succeeded him, and half were given to his sons. Since, as explained below, only ten of the loaves were actually distributed, the High Priest received five.
הָא גּוּפַהּ קַשְׁיָא: אָמְרַתְּ נוֹטֵל חַלָּה אַחַת מִשְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת, מַנִּי — רַבִּי הִיא, דְּאָמַר פַּלְגָא שָׁקֵיל. אֵימָא מְצִיעֲתָא: אַרְבַּע אוֹ חָמֵשׁ מִמַּעֲשֵׂה לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, אֲתָאן לְרַבָּנַן, דְּאָמְרִי: לָא שָׁקֵיל פַּלְגָא. אֵימָא סֵיפָא, רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: לְעוֹלָם חָמֵשׁ. רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא רַבִּי, וּמְצִיעֲתָא רַבָּנַן?
This baraita is itself difficult, as it is self-contradictory. First you said: He takes one loaf of the two loaves offered on the festival of Shavuot. Whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who said that the High Priest takes half. Say the middle clause of the baraita as follows: The High Priest takes four or five of the twelve shewbread loaves; we have come to the opinion of the Rabbis, who say that the High Priest does not take half but takes less than half. Say the last clause of the baraita as follows: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says that the High Priest always takes five. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that the first clause and the last clause of the baraita are in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and the middle clause is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis? That conclusion is difficult.
אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: רֵישָׁא וּמְצִיעֲתָא רַבָּנַן — וּמוֹדוּ רַבָּנַן בִּפְרוּסָה, דְּלָאו אוֹרַח אַרְעָא לְמִיתְּבַהּ לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל.
Abaye said: The first clause and the middle clause of the baraita are in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and in the case of the two loaves, the Rabbis concede with regard to a piece of a loaf that it is inappropriate to give it to the High Priest. According to the Rabbis, the High Priest should actually receive less than one loaf, as in their opinion he is entitled to less than half; however, since it is inappropriate to give him a piece of the loaf, he takes an entire loaf as his portion.
