Midrash sobre Levítico 2:2

1) (Vayikra 2:2) ("And he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, and he [the Cohein] shall take, etc."): (It could have been written "vehevi" ("And he shall bring.") Why "veheviah"? ("And he shall bring it")? That he not bring it by halves. So that if he said: "I vow to bring a meal-offering of two issaron," he should not bring it in two vessels but in one. "to the sons of Aaron" — even if they are very many (i.e., they can apportion the various services among themselves.) And thus is it written (Mishlei 14:28): "In the multitude of the people is the King's glory." "the Cohanim": We are hereby taught that kemitzah (the taking of the fistful) is the mitzvah of the priesthood. (non-Cohanim may not perform it.) (For without the exclusion clause I would reason:) Does it not follow (that kemitzah does not require a Cohein)? viz.: If shechitah, for which "north" was required, a Cohein was not required, kemitzah, for which north was not required, how much more so should a Cohein not be required! — This argument is refuted by melikah, which does not require "north," yet does require a Cohein. — No, this may be true of melikah because it requires the altar, as opposed to kemitzah, which does not require the altar. And since it does not require the altar, it should not require a Cohein. It is, therefore, written: "… the Cohanim, and he (the Cohein) shall take the fistful" — kemitzah is the mitzvah of the priesthood.

1) "And what is left (from the meal-offering shall be for Aaron, etc."): even if it were not salted, even if it were not presented (at the southwest corner of the altar) — except if nothing were smoked of its frankincense. "from the meal-offering" — except if it (the meal-offering) were diminished (between kemitzah and smoking), except if nothing were smoked of its frankincense. "for Aaron and for his sons": for Aaron first, and then for his sons; for Aaron without apportionment (with the other Cohanim), and for his sons with apportionment. Just as Aaron, the high-priest, eats without apportionment, so, his sons, the high-priests, eat without apportionment.

2) I might think that it is a mitzvah for a Cohein to take the fistful, but that if a non-Cohein does so it is also kasher; it is, therefore, written (Mishlei 14:9): "And the Cohein shall lift from the meal-offering its remembrance" (i.e., the fistful") — to stipulate that if a non-Cohein does so it is pasul.

2) "for Aaron and for his sons, holy of holies" — to permit the (remainders of the) meal-offerings of Israelite men. Now why should I (think to) exclude them (Israelite men, that I need a verse to include them)? It is written (Bamidbar 15:13): "All the native-born (men) shall do thus with these, to offer a fire-offering, a sweet savor to the L–rd." (Is the intent of the verse that) if he wishes to bring (libations [independent of the offering]) he may do so? Or (is its intent) that (the remainder of the) meal-offerings of (native-born) Israelite men be offered upon the fire (and not be eaten by the Cohanim, [the verse to be rendered: "All the native-born (men) shall do thus (as they do with the libation meal-offering) with these (gift meal-offerings), to offer (the remainder as) a fire-offering, etc."])? And how would I understand "And what is left from the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and for his sons"? As referring to (the meal-offerings) of proselytes, women, and bondsmen (and not to those of native-born Israelite men); it is, therefore, written: "for Aaron and for his sons, holy of holies" — to permit the (remainders of) meal-offerings of Israelite men (to be eaten by Cohanim).

Another interpretation (of Lev. 6:2 [9]): COMMAND AARON…. What is the function of Aaron here?⁷Tanh., Lev. 2:2. Israel was bringing offerings while Aaron waited. So the Scripture says here: COMMAND AARON. Note also, it is written (in Numb. 28:2): COMMAND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, AND SAY UNTO THEM: MY OFFERING, MY BREAD FOR MY FIRE OFFERING < … YOU SHALL TAKE HEED TO OFFER ME IN ITS DUE SEASON >, but here it says (in Lev. 6:2 [9]): COMMAND AARON < … >: THIS IS THE TORAH OF THE ONE WHO ASCENDS (H'LH).⁸The masoretic text vocalizes this word as ha’olah, which means, THE BURNT OFFERING, but the midrash interprets the word as though it were vocalized ha’oleh, which means, “The one who ascends,” with the ascending implying self-exaltation. So also Lev. R. 7:6. The Holy One said: Whenever someone raises (rt.: 'LH) himself up, his end is to go in the fire.⁹M.Ps. 11:5. [It is so stated (in Lev. 6:2 [9], cont.):] THAT IS THE ONE WHICH ASCENDS UPON THE BURNING PLACE…. The generation of the flood < suffered > because of what they said (in Job 21:15): WHAT IS THE ALMIGHTY THAT WE SHOULD SERVE HIM? AND WHAT DO WE PROFIT WHEN WE PRAY TO HIM? For that reason they were sentenced to the fire (of Gehinnom). And likewise the Sodomites, as stated (in Gen. 19:24): THEN THE LORD RAINED DOWN UPON SODOM AND UPON GOMORRAH BRIMSTONE AND FIRE. When Pharaoh said (in Exod. 5:2): WHO IS THE LORD, [THAT I SHOULD HEED HIS VOICE]? he exalted (rt.: 'LH) himself and said (in Ezek. 29:3): THE NILE IS MY OWN AND I MADE MYSELF. < He is > therefore (in the words of Lev. 6:2 [9]) UPON THE BURNING PLACE, for so it says (in Ps. 18:14 [13]): THE LORD THUNDERED {FROM HEAVEN} [IN THE HEAVENS], AND THE MOST HIGH GAVE FORTH HIS VOICE, HAIL AND COALS OF FIRE. And also when Sennacherib exalted (rt.: 'LH) himself and said (in II Kings 19:23 = Is. 37:24): IT IS I WHO HAVE ASCENDED (rt.: 'LH) THE MOUNTAIN HEIGHTS TO THE REMOTEST PARTS OF LEBANON…, what happened to him? (II Kings 19:35:) THE ANGEL OF THE LORD WENT OUT AND SMOTE < ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-THOUSAND > IN THE CAMP OF ASSYRIA…. (According to II Kings 19:23: cf. 18:17–35) he had blasphemed through a messenger (mal'akh);¹⁰The parallel in Is. 37:24 reads “servant” instead of “messenger.” therefore (in II Kings 19:35 = Is. 37:36 // II Chron. 32:21:) THE ANGEL (mal'akh) OF THE LORD WENT OUT AND SMOTE < ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-THOUSAND > IN THE CAMP OF ASSYRIA. What did he do to him? (Is. 10:16): AND UNDER HIS GLORY THERE SHALL BURN A BURNING LIKE THE BURNING OF FIRE. What is the meaning of UNDER HIS GLORY? That it burned him from within and left alone his clothes on the outside, since a person's glory is his garment.¹¹Cf. Sanh. 94a. Why did the Holy One leave their clothes behind? Because they were descendants of Shem, as stated (in Gen. 10:22): THE SONS OF SHEM ARE ELAM, ASSHUR,…. The Holy One said: I am indebted to their father Shem, because he took the garment and covered his father's nakedness, as stated (in Gen. 9:23): THEN SHEM AND JAPHETH TOOK A GARMENT…, < AND THEY COVERED THEIR FATHER'S NAKEDNESS >.¹²Cf. Tanh. (Buber), Gen. 2:21, which interprets the verse to show that Shem took the lead in this act. Therefore, the Holy One left their clothes alone and burned < only > their body. (Lev. 6:2 [9]:) THAT (i.e. the person who exalts himself) IS THE ONE WHICH ASCENDS (ha'oleh) UPON THE BURNING PLACE…. And so < it was in the case of > [Nebuchadnezzar, < who > he exalted (rt.: 'LH) himself. He said (in Is. 14:14): I WILL ASCEND (rt.: 'LH) UPON THE HEIGHTS OF A CLOUD; I WILL BECOME LIKE THE MOST HIGH (rt.: 'LH). The Holy One said to him: O wicked one, was it not enough that you should say (in vs. 13): I WILL ASCEND (rt.: 'LH) < TO THE HEAVENS >; ABOVE THE STARS OF GOD I WILL SET MY THRONE, but that you should say (in vs. 14): I WILL ASCEND (rt.: 'LH) UPON THE HEIGHTS OF A CLOUD, on high (rt.: 'LH)? And so he (i.e., Nebuchadnezzar) said to Hananiah and his friends (in Dan. 3:15): {WHO IS} [NOW WHO IS] THE GOD WHO SHALL DELIVER YOU OUT OF MY HAND? I have burned his house and exiled his people. He did not stand against me in his house; so will he overcome me in my house? What did he do? He threw them into the fiery furnace. What did the Holy One do? He gave a sign to the furnace and it became a highway.¹³PLTYA, from the Gk.: plateia. Buber suggests emending to PLNTYH, from the Gk.: planetes, i.e., “planets”. Whoever was designated to be burned [was not burned and whoever was not designated to be burned] was burned. So the fire went forth and burned half of the peoples. Thus you find, when they assembled for the dedication of the image, at first there were eight peoples, as stated (in Dan. 3:3): THEN THE SATRAPS, THE PREFECTS, AND THE GOVERNORS, THE COUNSELORS, THE TREASURERS, THE JUDGES, THE MAGISTRATES, AND ALL THE PROVINCIAL OFFICIALS ASSEMBLED. That makes eight peoples; but when they came in to see Hananiah and his friends, there were only four peoples written there (in vs. 27): THE SATRAPS, THE PREFECTS, THE GOVERNORS, AND THE ROYAL COMPANIONS ASSEMBLED. {That makes four peoples.} [So where were four peoples?] It is simply that (in vs. 22) THE FLAME OF THE FIRE SLEW THEM. Now Nebuchadnezzar also was burned by the fire, and the fright (i.e., repulsiveness) of < a body disfigured by > burning was put upon him.¹⁴For this interpretation, Jastrow, s.v., ‘immus. Why was all of him not burned? The Holy One said: Leave this evil man half of himself so that he may know against whom he blasphemed. The Holy One said to him: O Wicked One, did you not say: I do not want to live with the children of Adam, but (in Is. 14:14): I WILL ASCEND (rt.: 'LH) UPON THE HEIGHTS OF A CLOUD? [By your life,] (according to Dan. 4:22 [25]) YOU SHALL BE DRIVEN AWAY FROM HUMANS. Just as he brought the plagues upon Pharaoh and upon Egypt, so he brought < punishment > upon Nebuchadnezzar. It is so stated (in Dan. 3:32 [4:2]): THE SIGNS AND WONDERS WHICH THE MOST HIGH GOD HAS WORKED FOR ME IT SEEMED GOOD TO ME TO MAKE KNOWN. This fright of < a body disfigured by > burning fell upon him. Therefore it is stated (in Lev. 6:2 [9]): THAT IS THE ONE WHICH ASCENDS (H'LH) UPON THE BURNING PLACE….

3) "and he shall take a fistful": one fistful for (a meal-offering of) one issaron; one fistful for sixty issaron. — Or, one fistful for one issaron; sixty fistfuls for sixty issaron I reason: (A meal-offering) requires kemitzah and it requires frankincense. Just as with frankincense, one fistful (of frankincense) for (a meal-offering of) one issaron; one fistful for sixty issaron — so, kemitzah: one fistful for one issaron; one fistful for sixty issaron.

3) I would know that only their meal-offerings (are permitted to Cohanim). Whence do I derive that their melikah (bird-offerings are also permitted to be eaten by Cohanim)? R. Shimon says: (If not apprised otherwise) I would read (Vayikra 22:8): "Neveilah (carcass [including, ostensibly, a melikah offering] or treifah (an organically "torn" animal) he (a Cohein) shall not eat to defile himself therewith" (If he does eat it, he is forbidden to eat kodshim). It is, therefore, written: "for Aaron and for his sons," to permit the melikah offerings of Israelites.

4) Or, go in this direction: (A meal-offering) requires kemitzah, and it requires oil. Just as with oil, one log for one issaron; sixty log for sixty issaron — so, with kemitzah: one fistful for one issaron; sixty fistfuls for sixty issaron!

4) I would know that only the melikah offerings of Israelites are permitted to Cohanim. Whence would I derive the same for the melikah offerings of Cohanim? And, indeed, it would follow that they are not permitted, viz.: If optional (eating of) soleth is permitted and (eating) soleth of mitzvah is forbidden (i.e., the meal-offering of a Cohein must be entirely burnt) — then, if optional (eating of a bird slaughtered by) melikah is forbidden, should it not follow that (a) melikah of mitzvah (bird offering) is forbidden (to be eaten by the Cohanim and that the offering should be entirely burnt)? — This is refuted by the melikah offerings of Israelites, whose optional melikah is forbidden and (eating of the offering by the Cohanim after) melikah of mitzvah permitted!

5) Let us see what it (the fistful) is most like. We derive a thing (the fistful), which is entirely burnt, from a thing (frankincense), which is entirely burnt. And this is not countermanded by oil, which is not entirely burnt, (most of it being eaten by the Cohanim). Or, go in this direction: We derive something (the fistful), (the absence of) a small amount of which invalidates its (extant) preponderant amount, from something (oil), (the absence of) a small amount of which does not invalidate its (extant) preponderant amount; it is, therefore, written "and he shall take a fistful" (the connotation of which is) one fistful for sixty issaron. "and he shall take a fistful from there" — from wherever the stranger (i.e., the donor) is standing (in the azarah). Ben Betheira says: Whence is it derived that if he took the fistful with his left hand, he puts it back (in the vessel) and takes it again with his right hand? From "from there" — from where he had taken it before.

5) — No. What permits the melikah of mitzvah of Israelites (to Cohanim)? The fact that the soleth of mitzvah (of Israelites) was permitted to them. Shall we then permit the melikah of mitzvah of Cohanim, when their soleth of mitzvah was forbidden to them! Since their soleth of mitzvah is forbidden to them, their melikah of mitzvah should be forbidden to them! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "for Aaron and for his sons, holy of holies," to permit the melikah-offerings of the Cohanim (to be eaten by them). "of the fire-offerings of the L–rd" — it (the remainder) may not be eaten until the fistful has been burnt.

6) "his full fistful": I might think it should be flowing over; it is, therefore, written (to negate this) (Vayikra 6:8): "in his fistful." If "in this fistful," I might think he can take the fistful with his fingertips (and that they need not reach his palm); it is, therefore, written: "his full fistful." How is this done? He bends three fingers over his palm (and bunches the flour in). And with a machvath or a marchesheth (baked meal-offerings, that do flow over [see Vayikra 2:5 and Vayikra 2:7]), he "erases" (the overflow) with his thumb from above and with his little finger from below.

7) "his full fistful" soleth (fine flour). I might think that the place of the kemitzah must be soleth and the rest may be kemach (first flour); it is, therefore, written: "from soleth." I might then think that the place of the kemitzah and the sides must be soleth and the rest may be kemach. It is, therefore written: "from its soleth" — it must be all soleth; "and from its oil" — it must be all oil.

8) "from its soleth and from its oil" — the soleth must be mixed with oil. Another rendering: "from its soleth" — If the soleth were missing any amount (short of an issaron) it is pasul. "and from its oil" — If the oil were missing any amount (short of a log), it is pasul.

9) "from its soleth": not from the soleth of its neighbor (offering); "and from its oil": not from the oil of its neighbor — that he not bring two meal-offerings in one vessel — whence it was ruled: Two meal-offerings from which fistfuls were not taken, which got mixed up with each other — If he can take a fistful from each independently, they are kasher; if not, they are pasul.

10) "his fistful from its soleth and from its oil": If in taking the fistful there came up in his hand a pebble or a grain of salt or of frankincense, it is pasul. "from its soleth and from its oil, aside from all of its frankincense" There must be frankincense there (on the meal-offering) at the time of the kemitzah. "aside from all of its frankincense and he shall smoke": He picks the (grains of) frankincense (from the meal-offering, places it on the fistful in the vessel) and offers it on the fire (of the altar).

Rabbi Yitzḥak began: “But you did not call Me, Jacob, for you wearied of Me, Israel” (Isaiah 43:22). Rabbi Yoḥanan understood this from this verse: “A prophecy of Damascus: Behold, Damascus is removed from being a city, and it will be a heap of ruins. Abandoned are the cities of Aroer” (Isaiah 17:1–2). He is standing in Damascus and mentions Aroer, but is Aroer not within the boundaries of Moav?²⁶Damascus is in the territory of ancient Aram, whereas Aroer is in Moav. Rather, there were three hundred and sixty-five houses of idol worship in Damascus, and each and every one of them they would worship one day, and they had one day on which they would worship all of them.²⁷There were 365 idols, each with its own house of worship. The people of Damascus would dedicate one day a year to worship each of them. There was also one day per year when they would worship all of the idols. Aroer is mentioned with Damascus because even the gods of Amon were worshipped in Damascus. Israel made all of them a joint deity and worshipped them, as it is written: “The children of Israel continued to do what was evil in the eyes of the Lord, and they worshipped the Be’alim, the Ashtarot, the gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the children of Amon, and the gods of the Philistines; they forsook the Lord and did not worship Him” (Judges 10:6), even together with other gods. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: Shall the wife of a priest not be like an innkeeper?²⁸The wife of the priest is distinguished whereas the innkeeper is considered lowly. This is a parable which means: Shall the Holy One blessed be He be regarded any less than the idols?
Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥanina said: If only My children had treated Me like a dessert that is served last.²⁹Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥanina says, speaking from the perspective of God: If only Israel had worshipped me at all, even just as the conclusion of their idolatrous services. Rabbi Yudan said: This is analogous to a king’s servant who made a feast and invited his whole circle of friends, but did not invite his master. The king said: If only my servant had made me the equal of his circle of friends. So too, the Holy One blessed be He said: If only My children had made Me like a dessert that is served last. Rather, “but you did not call Me, Jacob” (Isaiah 43:22). You stand and engage in business all day and do not grow weary, but to pray before Me you are weary. He stands and engages in business all day and does not grow weary, but when his friend says to him: Come and pray, he says: I cannot. Regarding Baal what is written? “They called in the name of the Baal from morning until noon, saying: Baal, answer us. But there was neither sound nor response. They danced near the altar that they had made” (I Kings 18:26). That is, “but you did not call Me, Jacob” – if only I had not known you, Jacob. Why? “For you wearied of Me, Israel” (Isaiah 43:22).
“You did not bring Me the sheep of your burnt offerings” (Isaiah 43:23) – the two daily offerings that they would sacrifice each day, as it is stated: “The one lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the second lamb you shall offer in the afternoon” (Numbers 28:4). “And you did not honor Me with your offerings” (Isaiah 43:23) – these are the offerings of the most sacred order. “I have not burdened you with a meal offering” (Isaiah 43:23) – this is the handful from the meal offering.³⁰A handful is taken from each meal offering and burned on the altar. The remainder is eaten by the priests. See Leviticus 2:2–3. “And I have not wearied you with frankincense” (Isaiah 43:23) – this is the handful of frankincense.³¹Frankincense is brought with a meal offering; see Leviticus 2:2. “You did not buy cane [kaneh] for Me with silver” (Isaiah 43:24) – Rav Huna said in the name of Rav Yosef: Cinnamon [kinamon] would grow in the Land of Israel, and goats and gazelles would eat from it.³²Although it was readily available and could have been harvested even from wild crops, they did not bring it to the Temple for the incense (see Exodus 30:23). “And with the fat of your offerings you did not satisfy Me” (Isaiah 43:24) – these are the portions of the offerings of lesser sanctity that are burned on the altar. “Rather, you burdened Me with your sins, you wearied Me with your iniquities” (Isaiah 43:24) – look what your iniquities caused Me: To burn My Temple, to destroy My city, to exile My children among the nations of the world, and for Me to sit alone. “How does…sit solitary?” (Lamentations 1:1).

Rabbi Yitzḥak began: “But you did not call Me, Jacob, for you wearied of Me, Israel” (Isaiah 43:22). Rabbi Yoḥanan understood this from this verse: “A prophecy of Damascus: Behold, Damascus is removed from being a city, and it will be a heap of ruins. Abandoned are the cities of Aroer” (Isaiah 17:1–2). He is standing in Damascus and mentions Aroer, but is Aroer not within the boundaries of Moav?²⁶Damascus is in the territory of ancient Aram, whereas Aroer is in Moav. Rather, there were three hundred and sixty-five houses of idol worship in Damascus, and each and every one of them they would worship one day, and they had one day on which they would worship all of them.²⁷There were 365 idols, each with its own house of worship. The people of Damascus would dedicate one day a year to worship each of them. There was also one day per year when they would worship all of the idols. Aroer is mentioned with Damascus because even the gods of Amon were worshipped in Damascus. Israel made all of them a joint deity and worshipped them, as it is written: “The children of Israel continued to do what was evil in the eyes of the Lord, and they worshipped the Be’alim, the Ashtarot, the gods of Aram, the gods of Sidon, the gods of Moab, the gods of the children of Amon, and the gods of the Philistines; they forsook the Lord and did not worship Him” (Judges 10:6), even together with other gods. Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said: Shall the wife of a priest not be like an innkeeper?²⁸The wife of the priest is distinguished whereas the innkeeper is considered lowly. This is a parable which means: Shall the Holy One blessed be He be regarded any less than the idols?
Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥanina said: If only My children had treated Me like a dessert that is served last.²⁹Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Ḥanina says, speaking from the perspective of God: If only Israel had worshipped me at all, even just as the conclusion of their idolatrous services. Rabbi Yudan said: This is analogous to a king’s servant who made a feast and invited his whole circle of friends, but did not invite his master. The king said: If only my servant had made me the equal of his circle of friends. So too, the Holy One blessed be He said: If only My children had made Me like a dessert that is served last. Rather, “but you did not call Me, Jacob” (Isaiah 43:22). You stand and engage in business all day and do not grow weary, but to pray before Me you are weary. He stands and engages in business all day and does not grow weary, but when his friend says to him: Come and pray, he says: I cannot. Regarding Baal what is written? “They called in the name of the Baal from morning until noon, saying: Baal, answer us. But there was neither sound nor response. They danced near the altar that they had made” (I Kings 18:26). That is, “but you did not call Me, Jacob” – if only I had not known you, Jacob. Why? “For you wearied of Me, Israel” (Isaiah 43:22).
“You did not bring Me the sheep of your burnt offerings” (Isaiah 43:23) – the two daily offerings that they would sacrifice each day, as it is stated: “The one lamb you shall offer in the morning, and the second lamb you shall offer in the afternoon” (Numbers 28:4). “And you did not honor Me with your offerings” (Isaiah 43:23) – these are the offerings of the most sacred order. “I have not burdened you with a meal offering” (Isaiah 43:23) – this is the handful from the meal offering.³⁰A handful is taken from each meal offering and burned on the altar. The remainder is eaten by the priests. See Leviticus 2:2–3. “And I have not wearied you with frankincense” (Isaiah 43:23) – this is the handful of frankincense.³¹Frankincense is brought with a meal offering; see Leviticus 2:2. “You did not buy cane [kaneh] for Me with silver” (Isaiah 43:24) – Rav Huna said in the name of Rav Yosef: Cinnamon [kinamon] would grow in the Land of Israel, and goats and gazelles would eat from it.³²Although it was readily available and could have been harvested even from wild crops, they did not bring it to the Temple for the incense (see Exodus 30:23). “And with the fat of your offerings you did not satisfy Me” (Isaiah 43:24) – these are the portions of the offerings of lesser sanctity that are burned on the altar. “Rather, you burdened Me with your sins, you wearied Me with your iniquities” (Isaiah 43:24) – look what your iniquities caused Me: To burn My Temple, to destroy My city, to exile My children among the nations of the world, and for Me to sit alone. “How does…sit solitary?” (Lamentations 1:1).

11) "and he shall smoke" the fistful, even in the absence of the remainder (i.e., if the remainder were lost before the smoking). If the fistful became unclean or were lost, I might think that the Cohanim could (still) eat the remainder, and (I could adduce) a kal vachomer to that effect, viz.: If in an instance where the "power of the altar" is weak — that of the two breads and the show bread, (of which the altar receives nothing) — the power of the Cohanim is strong (i.e., they receive these breads), then, in an instance where the power of the altar is strong — that of the fistful — how much more so should the power of the Cohanim be strong with the remainder (i.e., they should be able to eat it) (even if the share of the altar is lacking)! (To negate this) it is written (Ibid. 3): "And what is left over from the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and for his sons from the fire-offerings of the L–rd." They have no portion in it until the fistful has been smoked.

11) (Vayikra 9:17): "And he presented the meal-offering and he filled his hand from it": "filling" is stated here, and "filling" is stated elsewhere (Vayikra 5:2). Just as the "filling" there is "his full fistful," so the "filling" here is his full fistful. And just as with the "filling" there, if he took a fistful and there entered into it a pebble, a grain of salt, or a particle of frankincense, it is invalid; here, too, it is invalid.

12) (Vayikra 2:2): "its remembrance" (the fistful): The owners are "remembered" (for good) thereby (i.e., by its presentation to the altar), by (the smoking of) the fistful, and by (the smoking of) the frankincense. R. Shimon says: "remembrance" is mentioned here, and "remembrance" is mentioned elsewhere (in reference to the show bread [Vayikra 24:7]). Just as the "remembrance" here is a full fistful, so, the "remembrance" there.

(Bamidbar 5:25) "And the Cohein shall take from the hand of the woman": and not from the hand of her representative — If she were in her menstrual period, she did not drink, (being forbidden to enter the azarah at that time). (5:24) "And he shall make the woman drink": Why is it written again (Ibid. 27) "and he shall make her drink the water"? For if the scroll were erased and she said "I will not drink," they shake her and make her drink perforce. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Shimon says: (Ibid. 26) "and then he shall make the woman drink": What is the intent of this? It is written afterwards "and he shall make her drink the water"! (To indicate that) three things are categorically required for (the validity of) the sotah (procedure): the erasure of the scroll, the offering of the fistful, and her acceptance of the oath. If the scroll were erased and she said; I am tamei, the waters are spilled out, the offering is scattered in the beth hadeshen, and the scroll is not valid for the drinking of a different sotah. R. Achi b. R. Yoshiyah says: It is valid. "and he shall wave the offering": back and forth and up and down. Whence is this derived? From (Shemot 29:23) "which was waved and which was lifted": Lifting is hereby likened to waving. Just as waving is back and forth, so, lifting. And just as lifting is up and down, so, waving — whence they ruled: The mitzvah of waving — back and forth, up and down. "before the L-rd": in the east (i.e., at the eastern side of the altar [opposite the sanctuary]). Wherever "before the L-rd" is written, the east is intended unless specified otherwise. "and he shall wave the offering before the L-rd, and he shall present it at the (south-west corner of the) altar" — whereby we are taught that the offering of the sotah requires waving and presentation. (Ibid. 26) "And the Cohein shall take a fistful from the offering as its 'remembrance,' and he shall smoke it on the altar.": This refers to the smoking of the fistful, which is called "remembrance" (viz. Vayikra 2:2) "and then he shall make the woman drink the water": as mentioned above.