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.
This week’s learning is sponsored by Helen Danczak. “My dear uncle Phil passed on August 27 with family at hand. He was the kind of uncle that the kids (of all ages) gravitated to. I am not alone in saying he was my favorite uncle. He is missed. May his neshama have an aliyah.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
This week’s learning is sponsored by Helen Danczak. “My dear uncle Phil passed on August 27 with family at hand. He was the kind of uncle that the kids (of all ages) gravitated to. I am not alone in saying he was my favorite uncle. He is missed. May his neshama have an aliyah.”
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.
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Yoma 80-88 + Siyum – Daf Yomi: One Week at a Time
When Things Don’t Go Exactly as Planned (Yoma 64)
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.
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
Mamaroneck, 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 never thought I’d be able to do Daf Yomi till I saw the video of Hadran’s Siyum HaShas. Now, 2 years later, I’m about to participate in Siyum Seder Mo’ed with my Hadran community. It has been an incredible privilege to learn with Rabbanit Michelle and to get to know so many caring, talented and knowledgeable women. I look forward with great anticipation and excitement to learning Seder Nashim.
Karmiel, Israel
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
I began learning the daf in January 2022. I initially “flew under the radar,” sharing my journey with my husband and a few close friends. I was apprehensive – who, me? Gemara? Now, 2 years in, I feel changed. The rigor of a daily commitment frames my days. The intellectual engagement enhances my knowledge. And the virtual community of learners has become a new family, weaving a glorious tapestry.
Far Rockaway, United States
Minneapolis, MN, United States
I had dreamed of doing daf yomi since I had my first serious Talmud class 18 years ago at Pardes with Rahel Berkovitz, and then a couple of summers with Leah Rosenthal. There is no way I would be able to do it without another wonderful teacher, Michelle, and the Hadran organization. I wake up and am excited to start each day with the next daf.
Irvine, 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
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I started at the beginning of this cycle. No 1 reason, but here’s 5.
In 2019 I read about the upcoming siyum hashas.
There was a sermon at shul about how anyone can learn Talmud.
Talmud references come up when I am studying. I wanted to know more.
Yentl was on telly. Not a great movie but it’s about studying Talmud.
I went to the Hadran website: A new cycle is starting. I’m gonna do this
Cambridge, United Kingdom
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I started learning Daf in Jan 2020 with Brachot b/c I had never seen the Jewish people united around something so positive, and I wanted to be a part of it. Also, I wanted to broaden my background in Torah Shebal Peh- Maayanot gave me a great gemara education, but I knew that I could hold a conversation in most parts of tanach but almost no TSB. I’m so thankful for Daf and have gained immensely.
NJ, United States
I started to listen to Michelle’s podcasts four years ago. The minute I started I was hooked. I’m so excited to learn the entire Talmud, and think I will continue always. I chose the quote “while a woman is engaged in conversation she also holds the spindle”. (Megillah 14b). It reminds me of all of the amazing women I learn with every day who multi-task, think ahead and accomplish so much.
Zichron Yakov, Israel
I started my Daf Yomi journey at the beginning of the COVID19 pandemic.
Los Angeles, 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
Minnesota, United States
Ive been learning Gmara since 5th grade and always loved it. Have always wanted to do Daf Yomi and now with Michelle Farber’s online classes it made it much easier to do! Really enjoying the experience thank you!!
Neve Daniel, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of this Daf Yomi cycle because I heard a lot about the previous cycle coming to an end and thought it would be a good thing to start doing. My husband had already bought several of the Koren Talmud Bavli books and they were just sitting on the shelf, not being used, so here was an opportunity to start using them and find out exactly what was in them. Loving it!
Borehamwood, United Kingdom
I began Daf Yomi with the last cycle. I was inspired by the Hadran Siyum in Yerushalayim to continue with this cycle. I have learned Daf Yomi with Rabanit Michelle in over 25 countries on 6 continents ( missing Australia)
Silver Spring, MD, 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.
