פירוש על ויקרא 6:7

וזאת תורת המנחה AND THIS IS THE LAW OF THE MEAL OFFERING — one law for all meal-offerings (cf. Rashi on v. 2) — making requisite for them “oil” and “frankincense” which are prescribed in the previous section (Leviticus 2:1). This had to be intimated in some way here because I might think that there I have the law that meal offerings require oil and frankincense only if they belong to an ordinary Israelite since it is that alone of which a fistful (קומץ) had to be taken, (for the command to take the קומץ is preceded by the words ויצק עליה שמן ונתן עליה לבונה cf. Leviticus 2:1 and 2)! Whence can I know that the same applies to the meal-offering of priests which was entirely burnt (and of which therefore no קומץ was taken; cf. Rashi on v. 15)? Because Scripture states, תורת — “this is the general law of the meal-offering” (Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 3).

AND THIS IS THE LAW OF THE MEAL-OFFERING. This section, according to the plain meaning of Scripture, adds [to Chapter 2 above where the law of the meal-offering was discussed] four commandments about the meal-offering: that [the residue be] eaten unleavened, that it be eaten in the Court of the Tent of Meeting,³⁷Verse 9. that every male among the children of Aaron may eat of it,³⁸Verse 11. and that whatever touches it becomes holy.³⁹“So that it becomes exactly like the meal-offering — that if it had become disqualified to be eaten, the food which touched it is also disqualified. And if the meal-offering was fit to be eaten, the other food must also be eaten under the same stringency as the meal-offering” (Rashi, Verse 11).
Now according to the Rabbinical interpretation thereof, there are many new teachings added [in this section, among them being the following]: that even of a meal-offering brought by priests the handful is taken out [and burnt on the altar, in the same way as the residue which must be burnt on the altar];⁴⁰If a meal-offering is brought by a non-priest, a handful of it is taken off by a priest and burnt on the altar, while the residue is eaten by the priests. Now the Torah specifies, however, that if the meal-offering is brought by a priest, it is to be wholly burnt (further, Verse 16). The question appears: is it necessary that a handful thereof be taken by a priest and be burnt separately on the altar, or that the whole meal-offering should be burnt at the same time as a unit? According to the text in Ramban before us, the answer is clearly in the affirmative. Scholars, however, have pointed to the Talmud (in Menachoth 72 b) where the conclusion is contrary to this text. The suggestion has therefore been made that the text here is faulty, and should be emended to read: “that even a meal-offering of priests requires ‘oil and frankincense’” (mentioned in Verse 8). See my Hebrew commentary, p. 29. that the priest must bring it near before the Eternal⁴¹In Verse 7 before us. which means to the western corner [of the altar, since the Tent of Meeting where the ark of the covenant stood, was to the west of the altar, and therefore nearest to it], and in front of the altar⁴¹In Verse 7 before us. which means to the southern corner [since the ramp of the altar which is its “front,” was on the south side thereof]. Thus you find that it had to be “presented” [i.e., brought near] to the southwestern corner of the altar. [And this section further teaches:] And he shall take up from it⁴²Verse 8. a handful — “from it” as one joined mass, meaning that he is not to bring one tenth of an ephah of flour [which is the amount brought for a meal-offering] in two receptacles [but it must be a full tenth of an ephah in one receptacle], nor is he to make a fixed measure that holds as much as his handful [to remove the amount of flour for the altar, but he must do it with his hand]. He also states, It shall not be baked as anything leavened.⁴³Verse 10. This is to liken all the stages of work [in the preparation of the meal-offering] to baking, thus teaching that one is also liable for kneading and rolling it if it be leavened, and that for each and every such act he transgresses a negative commandment and is liable to whipping on each count.

לפני המזבח, now the Torah explains the “Torah” of the gift-offering, מנחה, explaining that all of it is to be brought לפני המזבח “in front of the altar” as opposed to the Olah which was brought on the מוקד of the altar. All sacrifices are brought directly and exclusively to G’d. The parts allocated to the priests are not allocated by the owners of the sacrifice, but are to be viewed as G’d inviting the priests to be guests at His table, in Talmudic parlance as משלחן גבוה קא זכו, “they are benefiting from a table in the celestial regions.” The gift offering by a priest ends up on the altar completely as opposed to that of ordinary Israelites’ gift offering of which only a fistful gets to the altar, the balance being eaten by the priests.

וזאת תורת המנחה, “and this is the law of the meal-offering.” Actually this had already been mentioned in Leviticus 2,1 where the Torah wrote: “if a person wishes to offer a meal-offering, etc.” It is mentioned here again on account of four additional commandments listed in this paragraph. 1) It has to be eaten as unleavened bread; 2) It has to be consumed inside the courtyard of the Tabernacle (Temple) as the Torah writes: “in the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting they shall eat it” (6,9). 3) It may be eaten only by male priests (verse 11). 4) It confers sanctity on anything which touches it. This means that such matters will henceforth be subject to the stringent regulations governing holy things. Even when things which are already “holy,” such as parts of offerings which have the status of קדשים קלים, “sacred matters of a relatively mild level of sanctity,” touch the meal-offering, they will be upgraded in their sanctity, i.e. be subject to the more stringent regulations of קדשי קדשים, “most holy things.”

To require oil. Meaning: Every time the word תורה is written in Scripture it comes to include, as Rashi explains above (v. 2).

אל פני המזבח, “In front of the altar.” There was no need to present it on the altar, as explained already on Leviticus 2,1. (Compare also B’chor shor)

הקרב אתה [AARON AND HIS SONS SHALL] BRING IT — This means bringing near (not offering, i. e. burning, for this is mentioned later in v. 8) to the south-west corner of the altar.

That is bringing near. And not burning as the plain meaning implies, for the kohein would burn only the fistful and not the entire [meal-offering], as it is written: “He shall separate from it, when he takes his fistful ... and he shall burn on the altar...”

לפני ה׳ BEFORE THE LORD — This is the west side of the altar which faced the direction of the “tent of meeting” in which the Lord revealed himself.

To the southwest corner. As Rashi himself explains: It is written “before Hashem,” which is the west... “To the front of the altar” — that is the south...

אל פני המזבח — This again implies the south side of the altar, because that was the ‎‎‎ אל פני המזבח, the front of the altar, since the ascent leading up to it was situated on that side (the combination therefore of both locations:'לפני ה and אל פני המזבח describes the south-west corner of the altar, as stated above) (Sotah 14b; Sifra, Tzav, Section 2 4).