Commentaire sur Le Lévitique 2:11

וכל דבש [YE SHALL NOT CAUSE TO ASCEND IN FUMES] ANY HONEY – Any sweet juice of a fruit is called “honey”).

NO MEAL-OFFERING, WHICH YE SHALL BRING UNTO THE ETERNAL, SHALL BE MADE WITH LEAVEN. Here He prohibited the bringing of a meal-offering in leaven form. After that He said, Ye shall not ‘thaktiru’ (cause to ascend in fumes) either any leaven or honey, in order to prohibit the leavening of the handful and burning it upon the altar, this being included in the expression ye shall not cause to ascend in fumes … All terms of haktarah are expressions of burning aromatics, for druggists say¹⁹⁹Torath Kohanim, Vayikra 12:4. that honey would have been appropriate for the incense,²⁰⁰This explains why the Torah uses here the term thaktiru. For since honey is mentioned in the verse, and honey would have improved the scent of the incense, Scripture uses a term which is applicable to the burning of aromatics. but the Torah prohibited it.²⁰¹In the words of the Talmud Yerushalmi (Yoma IV, 5): “Bar Kappara taught: Druggists in Jerusalem used to say: had the smallest amount of honey been put into the incense no one could have stood its scent.” Scripture states any of it in order to prohibit [leaven or honey] even as a part of it, that is to say, even in one half of the handful. Similarly, one is liable to the punishment of stripes for mixing [leaven or honey with the handful in such a way that it is not recognized], because Scripture included it in saying, for ye shall not cause to ascend in fumes ‘any’ leaven or ‘any’ honey, as is explained in Tractate Menachoth²⁰²Menachoth 58a. and in Tractate Pesachim.²⁰³Pesachim 43b.
The reason why Scripture mentions here minchah hi²⁰⁴Verse 6. — Actually the word is written hu [hei-vav-alef, which is the masculine third person pronoun], but it is read hi [hei-yod-alef, which is the equivalent feminine pronoun]. Ramban intends to explain why it is written in the masculine when the word minchah is in the feminine, and hence Scripture should have written minchah hi. [in the feminine] while it is written hu [in the masculine], and similarly in all places,²⁰⁵Further, Verse 15, etc. [will be understood]²⁰⁶So expressly stated in Abusaula’s commentary on the mystic passages in Ramban. — See Vol. I, Preface p. xii, Note 21. from the section, Behold, I send a messenger before thee.²⁰⁷Exodus 23:20. — Reference is to Verse 21 there, for My Name is in him (Abusaula). The implication is that here too one gender is included in the other, namely, the feminine hi in the masculine hu, as explained in the text. So also ‘ha’ishah hahi’ (that woman)²⁰⁸Deuteronomy 17:5. [is written hahu in the masculine, while it is read hahi in the feminine], because the feminine is potentially included in the masculine.
It is possible that the reason why we are forbidden to bring leaven and honey [upon the altar] is as the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] states in the Moreh Nebuchim,²⁰⁹Guide of the Perplexed, III, 46. where he says that he found it written in their books that the custom among the idolaters was to offer all their meal-offerings only in leavened form, and to season all their sacrifices with honey; therefore He forbade bringing them on His altar. Our Rabbis have similarly said with reference to monuments [of one stone raised in order to sacrifice on it], that this was a favored mode of worship in the days of the patriarchs,²¹⁰See Genesis 28:18. and afterwards G-d hated it²¹¹Deuteronomy 16:22. because [the Canaanites] had made it an ordinance of an idolatrous character, as He said, which the Eternal thy G-d hatheth.²¹¹Deuteronomy 16:22.
Concerning the reason why we were commanded to offer salt with every offering,²¹²Verse 13. [Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon] also said²⁰⁹Guide of the Perplexed, III, 46. that it is because the idolaters rejected it and did not offer it at all to their idols; [therefore He commanded us to have salt in every offering]. It is possible that [we are commanded to offer salt because] it is not respectful that the food which is offered up to G-d should have no flavoring, being without salt,²¹³Job 6:6: Can that which hath no savor be eaten without salt? similar to that which is written, Present it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee?²¹⁴Malachi 1:8. — “The Torah thus teaches us a rule of conduct — that Royal Majesty of heaven is similar to that on earth” (Bachya, in my edition Vol. II, p. 406). That is why the Sages excluded wood and blood²¹⁵Menachoth 21a. from the requirement of being offered with salt [since they are not edible]. Or it may be that there is in all these matters some secret hidden from us.
In the case of leaven and honey Scripture speaks in the plural [for ‘ye’ shall not cause to ascend in fumes, either any leaven or honey] because it speaks to Aaron and his sons. After that it says, And every meal-offering of ‘thine’ shalt ‘thou’ season with salt,²¹²Verse 13. because it refers to him who brings the meal-offering, concerning whom it said at the beginning of the section, And if thy offering be a meal-offering of the stewing-pan;²¹⁶Verse 7. and the reason [why it refers to salting by the person who brings the offering, is because] it is valid if done by a non-priest,²¹⁷In view of the fact that the salting was done on top of the altar, which no non-priest was allowed to approach, Ramban must mean that if it happened that the non-priest salted it before the offering was taken up to the altar, it need not be salted again. See my Hebrew commentary p. 18. just as pouring the oil and mingling it with the flour are [as explained above in Verse 2]. Upon all thine ‘offering’ thou shalt offer salt²¹⁸Verse 13. The word korbancha (thine offering) is in the singular. Since this might be interpreted to refer only to the meal-offering mentioned in this verse, Ramban proceeds to explain that it means here “offerings” in the plural, for all offerings etc. means “upon all thine offerings” [in the plural], for all offerings have to be offered with salt, just as the meal-offering.

וכל דבש, honey gained from trees. Dates are also called “honey.”

כל המנחה אשר תקריבו לה' לא תעשה חמץ, “Any meal-offering that you present to Hashem must not be made of or contain anything leavened.” This is the initial prohibition not to add any leavening to the meal offering. It is followed by a second warning that even after the priest has already scooped up the three fingers full of the meal, it must not be allowed to become leavened before being burned up, i.e. לא תקטירו ממנו אשה לה'. Concerning the rationale of why both leavening and honey are forbidden to be part of this type of offering, Maimonides writes that it was the custom of the pagans to prepare all their offerings of this type containing leavening and some honey. (Moreh Nevuchim 3,46); once such materials symbolized a pagan practice, they became forbidden as an offering to the Eternal G’d. This is also the reason why private altars, known as מצבה were forbidden Seeing that the pagans never used salt in their offerings to their deities, the Torah insisted that we must always add some salt to our offerings. This was in spite of the fact that during the period of the patriarchs, private altars bearing the name מצבה were welcome in the eyes of Hashem. Some commentators hold that the prohibition of leaven and honey derives from the fact that the kometz had to be complete, and that, had it contained any leaven or honey, the priest’s hands would have retained some of it, or the air holes in the dough would have reduced the required of amount of meal.

Sweet [juice] of a fruit. [Rashi knows this] from what it says next that they bring first fruit offerings from [honey of the first fruits of] dates and figs. If “all honey you shall not burn” refers to bee honey, what does it mean when it says afterwards “You shall bring them as a first fruit offering,” i.e., including honey? But, first fruits are not brought from bee honey! Rather, it must be that any sweet juice of a fruit is called honey. However, this raises a difficulty: Perhaps “all honey” comes to include date honey and bee honey! And [the verse] “You shall bring them as a first [fruit-]offering” refers to date honey alone and to sourdough, because when the Torah says honey without specifying it refers to dates. [The answer is:] Rashi derives this because Scripture should have said “all sourdough or honey,” which would imply that the word “all” refers to both. Since it is written “and all honey,” however, it includes another principle: Any sweet juice of a fruit is included (Rav Yaakov Trivash).

כי כל שאור וכל דבש לא תקטירו, “for you must not let go up in smoke anything leavened or any honey.” The reason was that G–d had said that every offering had to be accompanied with a certain amount of salt (Leviticus 2,13) and the two ingredients mentioned here are not compatible with salt.

לא תקטירו ממנו, “you must not burn up from it.” The reason why the Torah again uses the plural mode is that both Aaron and his sons were included in this prohibition.