פירוש על ויקרא 2:10

והנותרת מן המנחה, As to what is left over from the meal-offering, etc. Why did the Torah repeat this verse twice both here and in verse 3? Perhaps we can understand this by referring to what we learned in Menachot 58. The Talmud states that all meal-offerings whose left-overs are permitted to be eaten may be consumed together with honey; if the left-overs had become leavened, however, a person eating same is guilty of Malkot 39 lashes with a strap. Menachot 55 derives this halachah from Leviticus 6,10: לא תאפה חמץ חלקם, "it (the meal-offering) shall not be baked with leaven even partially." If I did not have the word והנותרת, I would have argued that the culpability for eating it when it had become leavened would apply only if the meal-offering had already been baked with leaven, not if it had become leavened after having been baked. The word כל המנחה in that verse makes it plain that even if only the left-over of the meal-offering had become leavened, the same law of not consuming it applies and he who does so is culpable. Even though our sages there derived their halachah from the Torah writing the words לא תאפה חמץ immediately before the word חלקם, that exegetical use of the word would not have sufficed to make someone culpable for eating only the left-overs of a meal-offering which has become leavened; culpability was established only for the person who had actually baked such a meal-offering. Even eating from such left-over turned-leaven meal-offering could not be culpable unless there was some additional indication in the text of the Torah. Menachot 55 and Torat Kohanim stated that baking meal-offerings as chametz had been part of a general prohibition applying to all kinds of meal-offerings so that there was no need to mention this here specifically. If the Torah nonetheless wrote the prohibition here specifically, it served notice that just as baking is something performed by an individual, so any other activity connected with the meal-offering which is performed by an individual is equally prohibited on pain of the penalty of malkot. I believe that even after having learned this, the culpability would be limited to such activities as taking a Kometz, a partial fistful of the ingredients of the meal-offering, etc. Eating from the left-overs should not have been culpable. In order to make one culpable for eating left-over parts of a meal-offering which had become leavened the Torah had to write the word והנותרת in our verse.

The ראב"ד writes that both the letter ו and the letter ה in the word והנותרת are unnecessary and therefore available for exegetical purposes. This is why we were able to derive the requisite laws for not eating from the left-over meal-offering which had become leavened. Torat Kohanim derives additional inclusions from the word והנותרת, such as that even though the meal-offering did not contain salt (a requirement for any sacrifice), did not have all its frankincense burnt up, or that its main component the kometz had not reached the altar at all, the left-over parts may be consumed by the priests. The words מן המנחה in our verse are restrictive, i.e. that if a basic ingredient was missing or none of the frankincense had been burnt up, the remains, נותרת, may not be consumed. To come back to the exegetical use the ראב"ד made of the extraneous letters ו and ה before the word נותרת, I do not agree that these letters may be used for the purpose suggested by the ראב"ד. If we were to omit those two letters, the word נותרת would not make any sense at all. The author of Korban Aharon felt that only the letter ו in that word is superfluous and may therefore be used exegetically to include something. I have my doubts even about this. Moreover, what is the source of the Torat Kohanim including the absence of the above-mentioned three additional requirements of the meal-offering as items considered non-essential? Whereas it is in the nature of a restrictive clause that the items excluded are thereby categorised as being מעכב, essential, it makes sense that the author uses the word מן המנחה as excluding the right to eat from the left-over parts if three items had been missing (any basic ingredient, none of the frankincense not having been burned up, and no kometz having been separated). This kind of reasoning is inadmissible when applied to inclusions, however. If at all, the extraneous word והנותרת could serve as including only a single item as non-essential in the מנחה and its absence therefore not prohibiting the priests from consuming the left-overs.

Perhaps the consideration which motivated the author of the Torat Kohanim in this instance was the fact that the three מצות which he categorized as non-esential based on the extraneous word והנותרת are scattered throughout the text. They appear in different paragraphs. The need to burn up all the frankincense appears in connection with the מנחת סלת in 2,2. The need to offer the meal-offering on the altar appears in the paragraph of מנחת מרחשת, 2,8. The need to add salt to the meal-offering appears at the end of the meal-offering legislation in 2,13. It is remarkable that the legislation about what may be done with the נותרת, the left-over of the meal-offering, is not recorded at the end of the meal-offering legislation but already at the end of the first paragraph (2,3), even though the requirement for the meal-offering to be offered on the altar had not yet been mentioned. Clearly, this implies that the offering of the meal-offering on the altar is not something we have to consider as relevant to the rules applicable for eating the left-overs. We pointed out earlier (page 945) that when a new paragraph commences with the letter ו, this establishes a connection to the laws recorded in the previous paragraph and vice versa. Accordingly, the need to present the meal-offering on the altar which is written in the following paragraph which commenced with the word ואם should also govern the rules of the נותרת legislation. The fact that the legislation dealing with the left-overs is written in the middle of the total meal-offering legislation instead of at the end makes it clear that the requirement to present the meal-offering on the altar is only לכתחילה, i.e. an initial requirement, it is not so essential a requirement that its omission would invalidate the right to eat of the left-overs. On the other hand, omission of the burning up of any of the frankincense would invalidate the right of the priests to eat the left-overs of the meal-offerings. We find also that the Torah repeats the line והנותרת once more at the end of the paragraph dealing with the מנחת מרחשת (verse 10). Anyone reading this verse can see immediately that it is quite superfluous (except for exegetical purposes), as everything written therein has already been written in 2,3. Clearly, the reason for writing this verse is to teach us that compliance with the rules laid down in this paragraph (2,5-2,13) is enough to entitle Aaron and his sons to partake of the left-overs of such meal-offerings. There is no mention in that paragraph of frankincense altogether. The only major requirement written there is the קמץ, the partial fistful of the mixture containing the meal and oil of which the Torah says in verse 8 that "the priest shall take off from the meal-offering the memorial part thereof," i.e. the קמץ. Failure of the Torah to mention the לבונה, frankincense, in that paragraph persuaded the Torat Kohanim to deduce that even if not all of it had been burned up the priests could still consume the left-overs. This is why the author said: "even if it had not been brought on the altar, and even if not all its frankincense had been burned up, the right to eat the left-overs has not been jeopardised. The author adds his comment about the salting of the offering seeing that this requirement also appeared only at the end of the entire legislation, i.e. much later than the permission given to Aaron and his sons to partake of the left-overs of the meal-offering. [This "left-over" probably amounted to 90% of the mixture from which the קמץ was placed on the altar. Ed.]