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:
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
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.
Raanana, Israel
I started learning Jan 2020 when I heard the new cycle was starting. I had tried during the last cycle and didn’t make it past a few weeks. Learning online from old men didn’t speak to my soul and I knew Talmud had to be a soul journey for me. Enter Hadran! Talmud from Rabbanit Michelle Farber from a woman’s perspective, a mother’s perspective and a modern perspective. Motivated to continue!
Brentwood, California, United States
Ontario, Canada
I had no formal learning in Talmud until I began my studies in the Joint Program where in 1976 I was one of the few, if not the only, woman talmud major. It was superior training for law school and enabled me to approach my legal studies with a foundation . In 2018, I began daf yomi listening to Rabbanit MIchelle’s pod cast and my daily talmud studies are one of the highlights of my life.
Minneapolis, United States
Blacksburg, United States
I tried Daf Yomi in the middle of the last cycle after realizing I could listen to Michelle’s shiurim online. It lasted all of 2 days! Then the new cycle started just days before my father’s first yahrzeit and my youngest daughter’s bat mitzvah. It seemed the right time for a new beginning. My family, friends, colleagues are immensely supportive!
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
In January 2020, my chevruta suggested that we “up our game. Let’s do Daf Yomi” – and she sent me the Hadran link. I lost my job (and went freelance), there was a pandemic, and I am still opening the podcast with my breakfast coffee, or after Shabbat with popcorn. My Aramaic is improving. I will need a new bookcase, though.
Atlanta, Georgia, United States
Hadran entered my life after the last Siyum Hashaas, January 2020. I was inspired and challenged simultaneously, having never thought of learning Gemara. With my family’s encouragement, I googled “daf yomi for women”. A perfecr fit!
I especially enjoy when Rabbanit Michelle connects the daf to contemporary issues to share at the shabbat table e.g: looking at the Kohen during duchaning. Toda rabba
Jerusalem, Israel
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
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
I was exposed to Talmud in high school, but I was truly inspired after my daughter and I decided to attend the Women’s Siyum Shas in 2020. We knew that this was a historic moment. We were blown away, overcome with emotion at the euphoria of the revolution. Right then, I knew I would continue. My commitment deepened with the every-morning Virtual Beit Midrash on Zoom with R. Michelle.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
I read Ilana Kurshan’s “If All the Seas Were Ink” which inspired me. Then the Women’s Siyum in Jerusalem in 2020 convinced me, I knew I had to join! I have loved it- it’s been a constant in my life daily, many of the sugiyot connect to our lives. My family and friends all are so supportive. It’s incredible being part of this community and love how diverse it is! I am so excited to learn more!
Jerusalem, Israel
After reading the book, “ If All The Seas Were Ink “ by Ileana Kurshan I started studying Talmud. I searched and studied with several teachers until I found Michelle Farber. I have been studying with her for two years. I look forward every day to learn from her.
Virginia, United States
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
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
Blacksburg, United States
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
Studying has changed my life view on הלכה and יהדות and time. It has taught me bonudaries of the human nature and honesty of our sages in their discourse to try and build a nation of caring people .
Kfar Saba, Israel
Geri Goldstein got me started learning daf yomi when I was in Israel 2 years ago. It’s been a challenge and I’ve learned a lot though I’m sure I miss a lot. I quilt as I listen and I want to share what I’ve been working on.
Ottawa, Canada
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.
