רבי אליעזר אומר יכול דחקו זבין ומצורעין ונכנסו לעזרה בפסח הבא בטומאה יכול יהו חייבין תלמוד לומר (במדבר ה, ב) וישלחו מן המחנה כל צרוע וכל זב וכל טמא לנפש בשעה שטמאי מתים משתלחין זבין ומצורעין משתלחין
Rabbi Eliezer says: One might have thought that if zavim and lepers pushed their way in and entered the Temple courtyard during the sacrifice of a Paschal offering that is brought in a state of impurity, i.e., when the majority of the nation are ritually impure due to contact with a corpse, that perhaps the zavim and lepers are liable. In other words, one might have thought that since it is prohibited for zavim and lepers to enter even under such circumstances, they would be liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [karet]. Therefore, the verse states: “That they send out from the camp any leper and any zav and anyone impure by reason of a corpse” (Numbers 5:2). The verse indicates that at a time when those who are impure with impurity imparted by a corpse are sent out of the Temple, zavim and lepers are also sent out of the Temple and are liable to receive karet if they enter it.
אין טמאי מתים משתלחין אין זבין ומצורעין משתלחין:
But when those who are impure with impurity imparted by a corpse are not sent out of the Temple, zavim and lepers are also not sent out, i.e., they are not liable to receive karet if they enter the Temple. The baraita that teaches that once the curtain surrounding the Tabernacle courtyard was rolled up it was permitted for zavim and lepers to enter the place where it had stood, is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. The reason is that once the curtain was rolled up it was permitted for those who were impure with impurity imparted by a corpse to enter; it was prohibited for them to enter only the Temple courtyard, and this had been dismantled. According to Rabbi Eliezer, it was permitted even for zavim and lepers to then enter the camp. The baraita that rules that even when the Tabernacle was dismantled zavim and lepers were sent outside the camp, is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.
מתני׳ אחת שתי הלחם ואחת לחם הפנים לישתן ועריכתן בחוץ ואפייתן בפנים ואינן דוחות את השבת רבי יהודה אומר כל מעשיהם בפנים רבי שמעון אומר לעולם הוי רגיל לומר שתי הלחם ולחם הפנים כשרות בעזרה וכשרות בבית פאגי:
MISHNA: In the case of both the two loaves and the shewbread, the kneading of their dough and the forming of their loaves take place outside the Temple courtyard, but their baking takes place inside the Temple courtyard. And their preparation does not override Shabbat. Rabbi Yehuda says: All of the procedures involved in their preparation take place inside the courtyard. Rabbi Shimon says: One should always be accustomed to say that the two loaves and the shewbread are fit if they were prepared in the Temple courtyard and they are also fit if they were prepared in Beit Pagei, outside the Temple Mount, as he maintains that they may be baked outside the Temple courtyard.
גמ׳ הא גופא קשיא אמרת
GEMARA: The mishna states that according to the opinion of the first tanna the two loaves and the shewbread are kneaded and shaped outside the Temple courtyard, but they are baked inside the courtyard. The Gemara comments: This itself is difficult.
לישתן ועריכתן בחוץ אלמא מדת יבש לא נתקדשה ואפייתן בפנים אלמא מדת יבש נתקדשה אמר רבה הקשה אדם קשה שהוא קשה כברזל ומנו רב ששת
The Gemara elaborates: You said initially that the kneading of their dough and the forming of their loaves take place outside the Temple courtyard. One can infer from this that apparently, the dry measure, i.e., the vessel used in the Temple for measuring dry substances, e.g., flour, was not consecrated. If the dry measure sanctified the items placed in them, the flour brought for the two loaves and the shewbread would already be sanctified, and these loaves could not be kneaded and shaped outside the courtyard. And the mishna subsequently states that their baking takes place inside the Temple courtyard. One can infer from this that apparently, the dry measure was consecrated. If the flour had not been sanctified by being placed in the measuring vessel, why must the loaves be baked inside the Temple courtyard? Rabba says: A formidable man, who is as tough as iron, raised this difficulty. And who is that Sage? This is referring to Rav Sheshet.
מאי קשיא דלמא עשרון לא מקדש תנור מקדש
The Gemara asks: What is the difficulty? Perhaps the measure of a tenth of an ephah, which is used to measure the flour for the two loaves and the shewbread, does not sanctify that which is placed inside it, but the oven sanctifies the loaves that are baked in it, and therefore they must be baked inside the Temple courtyard.
אלא אי קשיא הא קשיא ואפייתן בפנים אלמא תנור מקדש ואין דוחות את השבת איפסלה בלינה (אלא) אמר רבא הקשה אדם קשה שהוא קשה כברזל ומנו רב ששת
Rather, if the mishna is difficult, this is difficult: The mishna states that the baking of the two loaves and the shewbread takes place inside the courtyard. Evidently, the oven sanctifies that which is baked inside it. And the mishna subsequently states that kneading, shaping, and baking the loaves does not override Shabbat. If these procedures were performed before Shabbat in a vessel that sanctifies them, the loaves would be disqualified by virtue of the fact that they were left overnight without having been placed on the Table. Rather, Rava says: A formidable man, who is as tough as iron, raised this difficulty. And who is that Sage? This is referring to Rav Sheshet.
אמר רב אשי מאי קושיא דלמא מאי מבפנים במקום זריזין
Rav Ashi said: What is the difficulty? Perhaps the oven does not sanctify the loaves that are baked in it, and therefore the two loaves and the shewbread are not disqualified by being left overnight. And accordingly, what is the meaning of the statement: Their baking takes place inside? This is not referring to inside the Temple courtyard. Rather, it means they are baked in a place where there are priests who are vigilant in their efforts, who will supervise the loaves as they are baked and ensure they do not become leavened.
והא דרב אשי ברותא היא מה נפשך אי אפייה בעינן זריזין לישה ועריכה נמי [בעינן] זריזין ואי לישה [ועריכה] לא בעינן זריזין אפייה נמי לא בעינן זריזין אלא דרב אשי ברותא היא:
The Gemara notes: And this statement attributed to Rav Ashi is an error [baruta], as whichever way you look at it, it is difficult: If we require vigilant priests for the baking of the two loaves and the shewbread, we should also require vigilant priests for the kneading and forming of the loaves. And if we do not require vigilant priests for the kneading and forming of the loaves, we should also not require vigilant priests for the baking. Rav Ashi’s explanation does not explain why the mishna differentiates between the kneading and forming of the loaves on the one hand, and their baking on the other hand. Rather, the statement attributed to Rav Ashi is an error.
ר' יהודה אומר כל מעשיהן בפנים [וכו']: אמר רבי אבהו בר כהנא ושניהן מקרא אחד דרשו (שמואל א כא, ו) והוא דרך חול אף כי היום יקדש בכלי
§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yehuda says: All the procedures involved in the preparation of the two loaves and the shewbread take place inside the Temple courtyard, whereas Rabbi Shimon maintains that even their baking may take place outside the courtyard. Rabbi Abbahu bar Kahana says: Both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon derived their opinions from the same verse, which they interpreted homiletically. When David fled from King Saul he came to Nov, where he requested bread from Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech replied: “There is no non-sacred bread under my hand, but there is sacred bread” (I Samuel 21:5), i.e., the shewbread. David then said to Ahimelech: “But it is a non-sacred manner, and yet it shall be consecrated today in the vessel” (I Samuel 21:6).
רבי יהודה סבר בחול אשכחינהו דקא אפו ליה אמר להו דרך חול קא אפיתו ליה אף כי היום יקדש בכלי איפסיל ליה בלינה
Both Sages understand David’s response to be a halakhic critique: Rabbi Yehuda holds that David found the priests baking the shewbread on a weekday. David said to them: Why are you baking the shewbread in a non-sacred manner, i.e., on a weekday, rather than on Shabbat? “Yet it shall be consecrated today in the vessel,” i.e., it will be consecrated today when it is baked in the oven, and it will be disqualified tomorrow because it will have been left overnight. Rabbi Yehuda infers from David’s criticism that the shewbread must be baked on Shabbat in the Temple courtyard, as it is consecrated in the oven.
רבי שמעון סבר בשבת אשכחינהו דקא אפו ליה אמר להו לא דרך חול בעיתו למיעבדיה מידי תנור מקדש שלחן הוא דמקדש
Rabbi Shimon holds that David found the priests baking the shewbread on Shabbat. David said to them: Aren’t you required to prepare it in a non-sacred manner, i.e., on a weekday? Does the oven consecrate the shewbread? No, it is the Table that consecrates it when the shewbread is placed there. The loaves are therefore not disqualified by being left overnight.
ומי מצית אמרת דבשעת אפייה אשכחינהו והכתיב (שמואל א כא, ז) ויתן לו הכהן קודש כי לא היה שם לחם כי אם לחם הפנים המוסרים מלפני ה'
The Gemara asks: And how can you say that David found the priests at the time of baking? But isn’t it subsequently written: “And the priest gave him sacred bread, for there was no bread there but the shewbread that was taken from before the Lord” (I Samuel 21:7)? This indicates that David received shewbread that had already been on the Table, not loaves that had just been baked.
אלא מאי דרך חול דקא אמר להו הכי קא אמרו ליה ליכא לחם כי אם לחם הפנים המוסרים מלפני ה'
Rather, what is the meaning of the statement: “But it is a non-sacred manner, and yet it shall be consecrated today in the vessel,” which David said to the priests? The Gemara replies: This is what the priests said to him: There is no bread here except “the shewbread that was taken from before the Lord,” and the shewbread is prohibited for consumption by non-priests.
אמר להו לא מיבעיא האי דכיון דנפק ליה ממעילה דרך חול הוא אלא אפילו האיך נמי דהיום יקדש בכלי הבו ליה דליכול
David said to the priests: It is not necessary to say that it is permitted for me to eat this shewbread, which has already been removed from the Table. This is because the frankincense placed in the bowls that were on the Table has been burned. Since the shewbread has been removed from having the status of items to which the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property apply, it is considered a non-sacred matter, i.e., permitted to priests for consumption. But even the other shewbread, which “shall be consecrated today in the vessel,” i.e., the shewbread placed on the Table today, you should give him, i.e., you should give me, to eat.