שבתחלה היתה עליו בכלל היתר. נאסרה, וחזרה והותרה, יכול תחזור להיתירה הראשון — תלמוד לומר: ״מצות תאכל במקום קדוש״ — מצוה.
as initially, before the flour was consecrated, it was among all other foods that are permitted to him, and then when the flour was consecrated as a meal-offering, it became forbidden to him, and then once a handful of the offering was brought on the altar, it reverted from its forbidden status and became permitted to him. One might have thought that it would revert to its original permitted status; therefore, the verse states: “It should be eaten unleavened in a sacred place” (Leviticus 6:9), which indicates that it is a mitzva to eat it.
בשלמא לרבא דאמר הא מני רבנן היא — הכא, הכי קאמר: ״מצות תאכל במקום קדוש״ — מצוה. שבתחלה היתה עליו בכלל היתר, רצה — אוכלה, רצה — אינו אוכלה (נאסרה, חזרה והותרה, יכול תחזור להיתירה הראשון), רצה — אוכלה, רצה — אינו אוכלה.
The Talmud asks: Granted, according to Rava, who said: In accordance with whose opinion is this baraita? It is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis; according to him, here, in the first clause, this is what the baraita is saying: “It should be eaten unleavened in a sacred place” indicates that it is a mitzva for the priest who prepares the offering to eat it himself. As, initially, before the flour was consecrated, it was among all other foods that are permitted to him: If he wishes, he may eat it, and if he wishes, he may choose not to eat it. When the flour was consecrated, it became forbidden to him, and then once a handful was brought on the altar, it reverted from its forbidden status and became permitted to him. One might have thought that it would revert to its original permitted status, so that if he wishes, he may eat it, and if he wishes, he may choose not to eat it.