יז אלא א"ר יוחנן
17 - Thus he means: The Beth din walk, and the two [loaves] of thanksgiving are borne, and the Beth din walk behind.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the Mishnah should be emended accordingly.');"><sup>29</sup></span> How are they borne? - R'Hiyya and R'Simeon son of Rabbi [disagreed]: One said, one opposite the other; and the other said, one behind the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The loaves are borne by two priests; according to one view, the priests walk side by side; according to the other view, they walk one behind the other.');"><sup>30</sup></span> According to the one who holds they were opposite each other, the inner one is that which is nearest the wall;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' According to Rashi, the procession marched round the wall outside; according to Tosaf., inside the city. In either case, the inner one is that which is nearest the wall. Tosaf. suggest that they marched inside the wall, because if the loaves were taken outside, they would automatically tmuh become invalidated by being (outside the consecrated area, i.e., the city of Jerusalem) .');"><sup>31</sup></span> and according to the one who holds that they were one behind the other, the inner one is that which is nearest the Beth din.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Because there is one priest in front, and the Beth din behind.');"><sup>32</sup></span> We learnt: THE INNER ONE IS EATEN, AND THE OUTER ONE IS BURNT. It is right according to the one who holds that they were one behind the other, therefore the inner one is eaten, because the outer one came before it and sanctified the place;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As soon as the first loaf in the procession comes to a place, it sanctifies it; the second one, coming to it, enters holy ground, and does not, tmuh therefore, become invalid by being (going out into unconsecrated ground) . The first one, however, is burnt, because at the actual moment tmuh of entering the unconsecrated spot it became . tmuh');"><sup>33</sup></span> but according to the one who holds that they were opposite each other, they both simultaneously sanctified the place!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Then, either both should be burnt, if we assume that at the moment of entry into unconsecrated ground they became ; or, both should be eaten, if we assume that the act of entry automatically sanctifies the spot at the same moment.');"><sup>34</sup></span> - But even according to your reasoning, according to the one who holds they were one behind the other, [why is the inner one eaten? ] does the one [loaf]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The first.');"><sup>35</sup></span> then sanctify the place? Surely, we have learnt: ANY [ADDITION] THAT WAS NOT MADE WITH ALL THESE [IS NOT HOLY];<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence we require both loaves to enter a place in order to consecrate it.');"><sup>36</sup></span> and even according to the one who holds [that the reading in the Mishnah is]: 'with any one of all these',<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Infra 16a; that any one of those mentioned in the Mishnah suffices to consecrate a place; and you might, therefore, conceivably say that one loaf suffices.');"><sup>37</sup></span> [still] these two [loaves] together are one precept!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' They are inseparable; 'any one of these' means either King or priest or Sanhedrin or two loaves.');"><sup>38</sup></span> - Well then, said R'Johanan,