Comentario sobre Levítico 6:10

לא תאפה חמץ חלקם IT SHALL NOT BE BAKEN AS ANYTHING LEAVENED FOR THEIR PORTION — The remains of the meal-offering which become the portion of the priests, are also forbidden to be baked in the form of leavened (Menachot 55a).

I HAVE GIVEN IT AS THEIR PORTION OF MY OFFERINGS. Even to apportion it [i.e., the residue of the meal-offering which the priests are to eat] they are not permitted to do until after the parts given to the fire [i.e., the handful] have gone up on the altar. It is from here that we learn that the same law applies to all hallowed offerings, as it is written, I have given it as their portion of My offerings; it is most holy.⁴⁴The verse thus says that the reason, why the priests are not permitted even to apportion the residue of the meal-offering amongst themselves until the altar’s share has gone up as a fire offering, is because the meal-offering is most holy, therefore it follows that the same principle applies to all offerings, since they are all holy.
It shall not be baked as anything leavened. Their portion …⁴⁵The Hebrew text reads: lo thei’apheh chametz chelkam … The juxtaposition of the word chelkam (their portion) to the word chametz (leavened) is the reason for the Rabbis’ interpretation that the portion the priests receive from the meal-offering, neither may be baked with leaven. — even the residue [which the priests receive as their share of the meal-offering] may not be baked with leaven. As the sin-offering, and as the guilt-offering — this teaches that just as the sin-offering must come from ordinary money,⁴⁶One who is required to bring a sin-offering because of a transgression committed, cannot use sacred money [such as money of the Second Tithe, and the like]; but he must take some of his ordinary money and buy the offering with it. This principle is derived from the verse, And Aaron shall offer the bull of the sin-offering ‘which is his’ (further, 16:6), that is, from the money which belongs to him. Sacred money, on the other hand, is not completely his to dispose of as he wishes. and can be offered only at daytime, and the priest performs all its acts with his right arm — so also this meal-offering must come from ordinary money, and be brought at daytime, and its acts must be performed with the priest’s right hand. Every male among the children of Aaron may eat of it³⁸Verse 11. — it may be apportioned even amongst those priests who have a bodily blemish [such as are mentioned further in Chapter 21:16-21 as disqualifying them from performing the acts of offering, but they may eat the residue of the meal-offering].
Now with regards to the meal-offering of the priests He added [this command]: And every meal-offering of the priest shall be wholly burnt; it shall not be eaten.⁴⁷Verse 16. On this the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] wrote in the Moreh Nebuchim⁴⁸Guide of the Perplexed III, 46. that the reason [for the meal-offering of the priest being entirely burnt] is because every priest offered up his own meal-offering himself, and if he were to offer it and eat the residue of it himself, it would appear as if he had brought no offering. For nothing was offered of an ordinary individual’s meal-offering⁴⁹The meal-offerings which accompanied the Daily and Additional Offerings brought in the name of all Israel, were wholly burnt on the altar (Menachoth 73 b). Hence Rambam speaks of the minchath yachid (the meal-offering of the individual). except the frankincense and the handful of the flour. If then, in addition to the fact that the whole offering was small, he who offered it were to eat it himself, he would imagine⁵⁰“V’yidmeh (and he will imagine).” Such is the text in Al Charizi’s translation of the Moreh Nebuchim, which Ramban follows. The intent would seem to be that the priest who is offering his own meal-offering will imagine that he has performed no Divine Service, and therefore he might violate the laws regarding the eating of the residue. Hence the Torah prohibited him from eating it. In Ibn Tibbon’s translation, however, the reading is: “V’lo yeira’eh (and it will not appear),” that is, to others, that a Service has been performed, and therefore they will hold the priest in disregard for eating it. That is why the Torah commanded that it be wholly burnt. that he had brought no offering at all. Therefore [the Torah required] that it be entirely burnt.

חלקם נתתי אותה מאשי, “I have presented it as their share from My fire-offerings.” The meaning of the entire verse, which on the face of it contains nothing new, is that none of the remains becomes the property of the priests until all the parts of the sacrifice slated for burning up have done so. From this verse we derive the rule that what applies to the three fingers full of the minchah offering applies to all the offerings, seeing that the Torah adds the words קודש קדשים היא כחטאת וכאשם, i.e. the meal offering is just as holy of holies to G’d as are the sin and guilt offerings.

Even the left-over portions. So much more so that what is burnt on the altar [is prohibited when chometz], as it is clearly written in Parshas Vayikro (2:11). Rashi’s proof [that even the left-over portions are prohibited] is that the word חלקם (their portion) is juxtaposed to “It should not be baked as leavened.”

חלקם נתתי אותה מאשי, “I have given it as their share of My offerings by fire;” The Torah explains here why it must not be baked with leavening, having first been part of the offerings brought to Hashem. Of these offerings we had been told in Leviticus 2,11: 'כל שאור וכל דבש לא תקטירו ממנו אשה לה, “you are not to burn up as a fire offering to Hashem anything leavened or anything containing honey.”

כחטאת וכאשם [IT IS MOST HOLY] AS THE SIN OFFERING OR THE GUILT OFFERING — the meal-offering of the sinner (v. 11) is as the sin-offering, therefore if he (the priest) takes the fistful out of it not as such (not having in mind that offering) it is invalid as is the sin-offering under such circumstances (cf. Rashi on 5:12); a free-will meal-offering (i.e. any of the other meal-offerings mentioned in ויקרא), however, is as the guilt-offering, therefore if he takes the fistful out of it not doing it as such, it is still valid (Sifra, Tzav, Chapter 3 3; Zevachim 11a).

Like a sin-offering. As it is written (4:24): “It is a sin-offering,” it should remain as it is, [i.e.,] it must be slaughtered for the sake of a sin-offering. However, regarding a guilt offering it says “it is a guilt-offering” only after its fats have been burnt [on the altar], but [the guilt-offering] itself even though its fats have not been burnt is valid (as Rashi explains on 7:5).

קדש קדשים היא, “it is most holy;” it is of the same status as all holy things.

כחטאת, “just as the sin offering;” just as the sin offering originally had been secular, i.e. the person presenting it used money to purchase the animal without first sanctifying that money. This had to done by day and with the right hand.