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 month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
This month’s learning is sponsored by Adam, Carolyn, Michal, Josh, Benny, Izzy, Gali, Shim, Zoe, Zachy and Yehuda in loving memory of Judith Rosenfeld Hochstadter, Gittel bat Kreindel v’Binyamin BenZion on her second yahrzeit. “Her curiosity, humor, intellect and devout nature continues to inspire and hold us accountable. We miss her and think of her in all our pursuits, especially in our Hadran learning, where she would be glad to know that she didn’t have to boil more than 1 egg at a time!!”
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 learning daf yomi at the beginning of this cycle. As the pandemic evolved, it’s been so helpful to me to have this discipline every morning to listen to the daf podcast after I’ve read the daf; learning about the relationships between the rabbis and the ways they were constructing our Jewish religion after the destruction of the Temple. I’m grateful to be on this journey!
Teaneck NJ, 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
Phoenix, Arizona, United States
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
Oceanside NY, United States
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
I’ve been wanting to do Daf Yomi for years, but always wanted to start at the beginning and not in the middle of things. When the opportunity came in 2020, I decided: “this is now the time!” I’ve been posting my journey daily on social media, tracking my progress (#DafYomi); now it’s fully integrated into my daily routines. I’ve also inspired my partner to join, too!
Teaneck, United States
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
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
In January 2020 on a Shabbaton to Baltimore I heard about the new cycle of Daf Yomi after the siyum celebration in NYC stadium. I started to read “ a daily dose of Talmud “ and really enjoyed it . It led me to google “ do Orthodox women study Talmud? “ and found HADRAN! Since then I listen to the podcast every morning, participate in classes and siyum. I love to learn, this is amazing! Thank you
Atlanta, United States
After being so inspired by the siyum shas two years ago, I began tentatively learning daf yomi, like Rabbanut Michelle kept saying – taking one daf at a time. I’m still taking it one daf at a time, one masechet at a time, but I’m loving it and am still so inspired by Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran community, and yes – I am proud to be finishing Seder Mo’ed.
Bet Shemesh, Israel
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
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
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
Phoenix, AZ, United States
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
Years ago, I attended the local Siyum HaShas with my high school class. It was inspiring! Through that cycle and the next one, I studied masekhtot on my own and then did “daf yomi practice.” The amazing Hadran Siyum HaShas event firmed my resolve to “really do” Daf Yomi this time. It has become a family goal. We’ve supported each other through challenges, and now we’re at the Siyum of Seder Moed!
Jerusalem, Israel
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, 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.
