Midrash su Levitico 2:1

(Numb. 8:1–2:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES SAYING: SPEAK UNTO AARON AND SAY UNTO HIM: WHEN YOU SET UP THE LAMPS. Let our master instruct us. Is it legal to light <a Sabbath lamp> with oil for burning¹I.e. defiled oil from the terumah (the priestly tithe on produce). So Shab. 23b. on a festival?²Tanh. Numb. 3:1. Thus have our masters taught (in Shab. 2:2): ONE MAY NOT LIGHT <A SABBATH LAMP>³See Shab. 2:1 for the context. WITH OIL FOR BURNING ON A FESTIVAL. [R. ISHMAEL SAYS: ONE MAY NOT LIGHT <IT> WITH TAR] OUT OF RESPECT FOR THE SABBATH. BUT THE SAGES PERMIT ALL KINDS OF OIL: SESAME OIL, NUT OIL, RADISH OIL, [FISH OIL], COLOCYNTH OIL, TAR, OR MINERAL OIL. R. TARFON SAYS: ONE MAY ONLY MAKE A LIGHT WITH OLIVE OIL ALONE.⁴Similarly TShab. 2:1-4; Shab. 26a. R. Johanan ben Nuri rose to his feet and said: What will the people of Babylon do, who have nothing but sesame oil? What will the people of Media do, who have nothing but nut oil? [What will the people of Alexandria do, who have nothing but radish oil?] And what will the people of Cappadocia do, who have neither the one or the other but only mineral oil? R. Tarafon said to them: See we have found that the Holy One loves olive oil in a lamp more than all the other oils and more than all the gifts which are offered. You know that <it is so>: See, with reference to all the <other> gifts it is only said of them (as in Lev. 2:15): AND YOU SHALL PUT OIL UPON IT;⁵Cf. Lev. 2:1, 6 where the same command is expressed with a different verb i.e. POUR. but with reference to the lighting of the lamp, it is written (in Exod. 27:20): CLEAR OIL OF <BEATEN> OLIVES. [Therefore R. Tarafon said: ONE MAY ONLY MAKE A LIGHT WITH OLIVE OIL ALONE.] We also find that in several places the Holy One warned about lighting the lamps WITH CLEAR OIL OF < BEATEN > OLIVES and so it says (in Exod. 27:20): <AND YOU SHALL COMMAND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL> TO BRING UNTO YOU CLEAR OIL OF <BEATEN> OLIVES. So also it says (in Lev. 24:2, 4): [<COMMAND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL> TO BRING UNTO YOU CLEAR OIL OF <BEATEN OLIVES….:] HE SHALL SET UP THE LAMPS UPON THE UNALLOYED LAMPSTAND. And here also it warns about the lamps. Where? From what we have read about the matter (in Numb. 8:2): <SPEAK UNTO AARON AND SAY UNTO HIM:> WHEN YOU SET UP THE LAMPS….

(Lev. 6:1–2 [8–9]:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE < UNTO MOSES SAYING >: COMMAND AARON…. This text is related (to Ps. 89:7 [6]): FOR WHO IN THE SKIES IS COMPARABLE TO THE LORD, IS LIKE THE LORD AMONG THE CHILDREN OF GODS? The Holy One said: If I had < merely > desired an offering, would I not have told Michael to bring me an offering?¹Tanh., Lev. 2:1. From whom do I desire sacrifice? From Israel. And so it says about the shewbread (in Lev. 24:8) [HE SHALL ARRANGE IT BEFORE THE LORD REGULARLY] ON EVERY SABBATH DAY. But it is written (in Micah 6:7): DOES THE LORD WANT THOUSANDS OF RAMS WITH TEN THOUSANDS OF RIVERS OF OIL? Balaam the Wicked was an advocate²Gk.: synegoros. for the nations of the world. It is in reference to his place (as their advocate)³Cf. the parallels in Codex Vaticanus Ebr. 34 and in Tanhuma, which read: “It is in reference to the nations that….” that < Scripture > speaks (in Micah 6:7): DOES THE LORD WANT [THOUSANDS OF RAMS WITH TEN THOUSANDS OF RIVERS OF OIL]? He wants what you offer to him, < i.e. > a log⁴A log is a liquid measure that equals the contents of six eggs. of oil. We (gentiles) offer him ten thousand times ten thousands rivers of oil. What did Abraham offer to him? Was it not one ram? It is so stated (in Gen. 22:13): THEN [ABRAHAM] LIFTED HIS EYES TO LOOK AND THERE WAS A RAM BEHIND HIM…. If he wants, we should offer him thousands of rams; but what did Abraham offer him? His son. I might offer him my son and daughter, as stated (in Micah 6:7, cont.): SHALL I GIVE MY FIRST-BORN FOR MY TRANSGRESSION, THE FRUIT OF MY BELLY FOR THE SIN OF MY SOUL? MY FIRST-BORN FOR MY TRANSGRESSION? This is my first-born son. THE FRUIT OF MY BELLY FOR THE SIN OF MY SOUL? This is my daughter. See how crafty Balaam the Wicked was! He began to say (in Numb. 23:4): I HAVE PREPARED THE SEVEN ALTARS < AND OFFERED A RAM AND A BULL ON EACH ALTAR >. He did not say, "< seven > altars," but, THE < SEVEN > ALTARS. These are < all of the > seven altars, < which > they had built since the first Adam was created up to now. Now I am offering seven < sacrifices > corresponding to the seven of them. And what did they offer? Twelve cakes, as stated (in Lev. 24:5): THEN YOU SHALL TAKE FINE WHITE FLOUR AND BAKE IT INTO TWELVE CAKES. When the Holy One appeared to him, he said to him: O Wicked One, what are you doing? He said to him (In Numb. 23:4) I HAVE PREPARED THE SEVEN ALTARS. To whom is this wicked one comparable? To a butcher who sold < meat > in the market. When his store was full of meat, the market commissioner⁵Gk.: logistes. saw < him > and looked at the meat. < When > that butcher saw that he was looking at the meat, he said to him: Sir, I have already sent provisions⁶Gk.: opsonion. to your house. So it was with Balaam. The Holy One said to him: O Wicked One, what are you doing here? He said to him (in Numb. 23:4): I HAVE PREPARED THE SEVEN ALTARS WITH A BULL AND A RAM ON EACHALTAR. He said to him (in Micah 6:7): DOES THE LORD WANT THOUSANDS OF RAMS? He said to him (ibid., cont.): SHALL I GIVE MY FIRST-BORN FOR MY TRANSGRESSION? The Holy One said to him: O Evil One, if I had desired offering, I would have spoken to Michael and Gabriel, and they would have presented offerings to me. It is so stated (in Ps. 89:7 [6]): FOR WHO IN THE SKIES IS COMPARABLE TO THE LORD, IS LIKE THE LORD AMONG THE CHILDREN OF GODS? Among the children of Abraham are Isaac and Jacob. < These are the ones > who are the rams of the world. The Holy One said to him: What do you desire? To deceive yourself before me? < To persuade > me to accept offerings from the gentiles? You are not able. He said to him: It is an oath, (in the words of Lev. 24:8, cont.) AN EVERLASTING COVENANT ON THE PART OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, they say, so that I only accept offerings from Israel. It is so stated (in Lev. 6:1–2 [8–9]): COMMAND AARON AND HIS CHILDREN, SAYING: < THIS IS THE TORAH OF THE BURNT OFFERING >…. When the nations said: What is this, whereby Israel is presenting offerings and sacrificing? the Holy One said to them (ibid.): THIS IS THE TORAH OF THE BURNT OFFERING (rt.: 'LH). (Cant. 3:6): WHO IS THIS THAT COMES UP FROM THE DESERT < LIKE COLUMNS OF SMOKE PERFUMED WITH MYRRH AND FRANKINCENSE >…? (Exod. 19:3:) THEN MOSES WENT (rt.: 'LH) UP UNTO GOD.

(Numb. 8:1–2:) “Then the Lord spoke unto Moses saying, ‘Speak unto Aaron and say unto him, “When you set up the lamps.”’” Let our master instruct us: Is it permissible to light the Sabbath [lamp] with oil for burning¹I.e. defiled oil from the terumah (the priestly tithe on produce). So Shab. 23b. on a festival? Thus have our masters taught (in Shab. 2:2): One may not light with oil for burning on a festival. R. Ishmael says, “One may not light [it] with tar out of respect for the Sabbath.” But the sages permit all kinds of oil: Sesame oil, nut oil, radish oil, fish oil, colocynth oil, tar, or mineral oil. R. Tarfon says, “One may only make a light with olive oil alone.” R. Johanan ben Nuri rose to his feet and said, “What will the people of Babylon do, who have nothing but sesame oil? What will the people of Media do, who have nothing but nut oil? What will the people of Alexandria do, who have nothing but radish oil? And what will the people of Cappadocia do, who have neither the one nor the other but only mineral oil?” R. Tarfon said to them, “See we have found that the Holy One, blessed be He, loves olive oil in a lamp and in lighting more than all the other oils, as He repeated it and trebled it in several places. And from His great love [for it], He chose ‘clear oil of beaten olives for lighting’ (Exod. 27:20). ‘For lighting,’ but not for the offerings. And the rest of the olive was for the offerings that were sacrificed.” You know that [it is so]. See, with reference to all the [other] gifts it is only said of them (as in Lev. 2:15), “And you shall put oil upon it”;²Cf. Lev. 2:1, 6 where the same command is expressed with a different verb i.e. POUR. but with reference to the lighting of the lamp, it is written “oil of olives,” and not other oils, (in Exod. 27:20), “clear of beaten [olives] for lighting.” We find that in several places the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded about lighting the lamps with clear oil of beaten olives, and so it says (in Exod. 27:20) “And you shall command the Children of Israel to bring unto you clear oil of beaten olives.” So also it says (in Lev. 24:2, 4), “Command the Children of Israel to bring unto you clear oil of beaten olives for lighting.... Upon the unalloyed lampstand.” And here also it is written (in Numb. 8:2), “When you set up (literally, raise up) the lamps.”

1) (Vayikra 2:1): "a meal-offering" — What obtains here (in our section) obtains with all (other) meal-offerings, and what obtains with all (other) meal-offerings obtains here.

1) (Vayikra 2:1): "And a soul" — to include the anointed priest (i.e., the high-priest) as bringing a gift meal-offering. Is it not a kal vachomer (that he may do so), viz.: If an individual (Jew), who does not bring a prescribed meal-offering every day, may bring a gift meal-offering — the high-priest, who does bring a prescribed meal-offering every day, (see Vayikra 6:13), how much more so may he bring a gift meal-offering! — No, the individual (in an instance of extreme poverty) brings a meal-offering for defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred objects, whereas the high-priest does not — and since he does not, (I would say that) he may not bring a gift meal-offering. It is, therefore, written: "And a soul," to include a high-priest as bringing a gift meal-offering.

1) (Vayikra 6:10) ("It shall not be baked with leaven. Their portion have I given it of My fire-offerings; it is holy of holies, as the sin-offering and as the guilt-offering.") "It shall not be baked with leaven": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 2:1) "It shall not be made of leaven," I would think that there was one negative commandment for all of them (i.e., for all of the operations that go into making it); it is, therefore, written: "It shall not be baked with leaven." Baking was in the category (of "It shall not be made of leaven.") Why did it leave that category (to be singled out here)? So that it serve as the basis for a comparison, viz.: Just as baking is characterized by its being a particular act and subject to liability in and of itself, so I include its kneading, its rolling and all of its particular acts as being subject to individual negative commandments in and of themselves.

2) Rebbi says: It is written (Vayikra 22:18): "… who will bring his offering, of all of their vows and of all of their gift-offerings which they will present to the L–rd as a burnt-offering" — All consecrated offerings may be brought in partnership, Scripture excluding only meal-offerings, in respect to which it is written (Vayikra 2:1): "If a soul offer a meal-offering to the L–rd."

2) The same applies to the congregation (as opposed to the individual), viz.: If the individual who does not bring a prescribed meal-offering every day, may bring a gift meal-offering — the congregation, which does bring a prescribed meal-offering every day (the libation meal-offering accompanying the daily offering), how much more so may it bring a gift meal-offering! — No, the individual brings an offering for defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred objects, whereas the congregation does not (and since it does not [I would say that] it may not bring a gift meal-offering.) — This is refuted by the instance of the high-priest, who does not bring a meal-offering for defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred objects, yet does bring a gift meal-offering. Do not wonder, then, if a congregation, which does not bring a meal-offering for defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred objects would bring a gift meal-offering. It is, therefore, written (to negate this supposition): "a soul" — an individual brings a gift meal-offering, but not a congregation.

"soleth" (fine flour): Just as soleth elsewhere (Shemoth 29:2) is of wheat, so, here.

2) Whence did they (oil and frankincense) leave (the general ruling, that they must be reincluded)? Because it is written (Vayikra 2:1): "and he shall pour oil upon it and he shall put frankincense upon it … (Vayikra 2:3) and what is left from the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and his sons," I might think that only meal-offerings whose remainders are eaten (by the Cohanim) require oil and frankincense, but those which are not eaten, do not. Therefore, it is written "the law of the meal-offering" — There is one law for all meal-offerings, that they require oil and frankincense.

3) "a soul shall offer" — I might think this is a decree; it is, therefore, written: "If a soul shall offer" — it is optional. "korban minchah" (lit., "an offering, meal-offering"). We are hereby taught (by the superfluous "korban") that an individual may offer frankincense (as a distinct offering, apart from the meal-offering). Now does it not follow (that he may do so, i.e., Why does this require an inclusion clause?), viz.: It is written that a beast is brought (as an offering), and a meal-offering as a prescribed adjunct to it (Bamidbar 15:1, etc.); that a meal-offering is brought, and frankincense, as a prescribed adjunct to it — Just as a meal-offering, which comes as a prescribed adjunct to a beast, comes as a gift by itself (our verse), so, frankincense, which comes as a prescribed adjunct to a meal-offering, comes as a gift by itself. (Why, then, the inclusion clause?)

(It could have been written) "soleth, his offering" (instead of) "soleth shall be (his offering"), the implication being that he may donate and offer only (a meal-offering) of wheat.

4) (No, I would say:) Why does a meal-offering come as a gift by itself? Because it comes as a prescribed offering by itself. Should frankincense, then, which does not come as a prescribed offering by itself, come as a gift by itself! Certainly not! It is, therefore, written (to negate this); "korban" ("an offering") — an individual may donate frankincense by itself. What is the minimum amount? A fistful.

(For without the limiting clause I would reason:) Does it not follow (that an individual may bring a meal-offering of barley)? viz.: The congregation brings a prescribed meal-offering of wheat (i.e., the libation meal-offering, the two loaves, and the show bread), and an individual brings a gift meal-offering of wheat. Just as the congregation, which brings a prescribed meal-offering of wheat, brings a prescribed meal-offering of barley (e.g., the meal-offering of the omer), so, the individual, who brings a gift-offering of wheat, may bring a gift-offering of barley.

5) And whence is it derived that an individual may donate wine as a (distinct) gift? It is written that a beast is brought, and a meal-offering as a prescribed adjunct to it, and that a beast is brought, and wine as a prescribed adjunct to it — Just as a meal-offering, which comes as a prescribed adjunct to a beast, comes as a gift by itself, so, wine, which comes as a prescribed adjunct to a beast, comes as a gift by itself.

It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "soleth, his offering," "soleth shall it be" — he may donate and offer only (a meal-offering) of wheat.

“A handful of tranquility is better than two handfuls of toil and herding wind” (Ecclesiastes 4:6).
“A handful of tranquility is better” – one who studies halakhot and is familiar with them is better than one who studies halakhot and the hermeneutical principles but does not review them and familiarize himself with them. The parable says: One bound bird is better than one hundred that are flying. “And herding [urut] wind” – his wish [re’utei] is to be called “master of the mekhiltot.”¹⁴A reference to the midrash halakha on the book of Exodus, largely based on hermeneutical exposition of the verses.
Another matter: “A handful of tranquility is better” – one who performs minimal acts of charity with his own [funds] is better than one who steals, robs, or exploits others and performs great acts of charity from that of others. The parable says: She commits adultery for apples and distributes them to the poor. “And herding [urut] wind” – his wish [re’utei] is to be called “master of mitzvot.”
Another matter: “A handful of tranquility is better” – one who has ten gold pieces and conducts business and earns a livelihood from them is better than one who takes the property of others and squanders it and loses it. The parable says: It is not enough that he loses his own, but he loses that of others, what is his and what is not his. “And herding [urut] wind” – his wish [re’utei] is to be called a merchant.
Another matter: “A handful of tranquility is better” – one who rents one garden and eats its fruit is better than one who rents many gardens and leaves them fallow. The parable says: One who rents a garden will eat birds; one who rents many gardens, birds will eat them. “And herding [urut] wind” – his wish [re’utei] is to be called a property owner.
Rabbi Yaakov ben Rabbi Kurshai said: “A handful of tranquility is better” in the World to Come “than two handfuls of toil and herding wind” in this world. He would say: One hour of satisfaction in the World to Come is preferable to the entire life of this world, and one hour of repentance and good deeds in this world is preferable to the entire life of the World to Come, as the World to Come comes by virtue of this world.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: “A handful of tranquility is better” – this is the Shabbat day; “than two handfuls of toil and herding wind” – these are the seven days of action, as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said: Israel is redeemed only thanks to Shabbat, as it is stated: “In stillness [beshuva] and quiet [vanaḥat] you will be saved” (Isaiah 30:15), with cessation from work and rest you will be saved. “And herding wind” – his wish is to be called one who works and eats.
Rabbi Berekhya said: The trampling that the Holy One blessed be He trampled in the land of Egypt, as it is stated: “I will pass in the land of Egypt on that night” (Exodus 12:12), is better than two handfuls, than their two handfuls of furnace soot. Why? It is because in this one there is redemption and they were redeemed, and in this of furnace soot, they were not redeemed.
Rabbi Yitzḥak interpreted the verse regarding the tribe of Gad and the tribe of Reuben who came to the Land of Israel and saw the amount of room for sowing that was in it, the amount of room for planting that was in it. They said: “A handful of tranquility is better” in the Land of Israel, “than two handfuls of toil” across the Jordan. They reconsidered and said: Did we not cause this to ourselves, did we not say: “Let this land be given to your servants” (Numbers 32:5)?
Rabbi Yitzḥak said: It is written: “The cloud of incense will cover” (Leviticus 16:13). This cover, we do not know what it is, until David came and explained it, as it is stated: “You forgave the iniquity of Your people, [You covered all their sins]” (Psalms 85:3). The Holy One blessed be He, too, said: The poor person’s handful of the gift meal offering is dearer to Me than the High Priest’s two handfuls of the incense of the spices. Why? It is because this one comes for atonement and that one does not come for atonement, as it is written: “When a person [venefesh]¹⁵The connotation is that it is as though the person in sacrificing his soul [nefesh] and thereby gaining atonement. sacrifices a meal offering to the Lord” (Leviticus 2:1).

6) (But this may be countered, viz.:) Why does a meal-offering come as a gift by itself? Because it comes as a prescribed offering by itself. Should wine, then, which does not come as a prescribed offering by itself, come as a gift by itself! Certainly not! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "korban" ("an offering") — an individual may donate wine by itself. What is the minimum amount? Three logim.

2) So that if one said: "I vow a meal-offering of barley," he brings one of wheat; "of kemach" (first flour), he brings one of soleth (fine flour); "without oil and frankincense," he brings oil and frankincense with it;" "a half-issaron," he brings a full issaron; "an issaron and a half," he brings two.

7) And whence is it derived that an individual may donate oil by itself? Adduce the same derivation and the same rebuttal (as in the instance of frankincense.) It is, therefore, written (to negate the rebuttal): "korban," etc. These are the words of R. Tarfon. R. Tarfon said: Just as we find that wine, which is brought as an obligation, is brought as a gift, so, oil, which is brought as an obligation, is brought as a gift. R. Akiva countered: No, this may be so in the case of wine, which is brought as an obligation by itself, but not in the case of oil, which is not brought as an obligation by itself. And whence is it derived that an individual may donate wood by itself? It is written: "korban" — an individual may donate wood by itself. What is the minimum amount? Two logs.

R. Shimon (in the above instances) exempts him, his not having donated in the customary manner.

8) R. Yossi says: I read "korban," and I might think an individual may donate (even) incense, and that he is bound by (Devarim 23:24): "What issues from your lips shall you observe and you shall do, and that he satisfies (Shemoth 30:9) "You shall not bring upon it (the altar) strange (i.e., donated) incense, nor burnt-offering" by not bringing it upon the inner altar, but he may bring it upon the outer altar (just as he does a burnt-offering) — it is, therefore, written (Shemoth 31:11): "and the spice incense for (smoking in the sanctuary, which is) holy" — spices are offered only within (i.e., in the sanctuary).

3) "his offering" — the individual brings a gift meal-offering, but not partners.

(For without the exclusion clause I would reason:) Does it not follow (that a gift meal-offering may be brought in partnership)? viz.: A beast burnt-offering is brought in vow or gift, and a meal-offering is brought in vow or gift. Just as the first may be brought by two, so, the second may be brought by two.

“The king said to Haman: Hurry, take the garments and the horse; as you have said, do so to Mordekhai the Jew who sits at the king’s gate. Do not omit anything that you spoke of. Haman took the garments and the horse, dressed Mordekhai and led him, riding, through the city square and proclaimed before him: ‘So shall be done for anyone the king wishes to honor!’” (Esther 6:10-11).
“Take the garments and the horse… Haman took the garments and the horse.” He went to Mordekhai. When he [Mordekhai] was told that he was coming, he was very afraid, and he was sitting with his students before him. He said to his students: ‘My children, run and remove yourselves from here that you are not burned with my coal, as the wicked Haman is coming to kill me.’ They said: ‘If you die, we will die with you.’ He said to them: ‘If so, let us stand in prayer and pass away while praying.’ They completed their prayers and sat and engaged in the halakhot of Sefirat ha-Omer,⁵ The commandment to count the days between Passover and Shavuot. When the Temple stood, they would bring a meal offering of barley measuring one omer (the omer offering) on the 16th of Nisan, the second day of Passover. as that day was the 16th of Nisan and on that day they would bring the omer offering at the time when the Temple stood. Haman came to them and said to them: ‘What are you engaged in?’ They said to him: ‘In the commandment of the omer. That is what it says: “And if you present an offering of the first fruits to the Lord…”’ (Leviticus 2:14). There⁶For the residents of the Land of Israel, “there” refers to Babylonia, and vice versa. In the Babylonian Talmud (Megilla 16a) it is stated that Mordekhai was demonstrating to his students how to take a handful of a meal offering (Etz Yosef). they say: They showed him the halakhot of taking a handful [of a meal offering]. And [these interpretations] are one and the same, as they would take a handful from the omer. He said to them: ‘This omer, what is it? Is it [made] of gold or of silver?’ They said to him: ‘Not of gold and not of silver and not of wheat, but of barley.’ He said to them: ‘What is its value? Is it ten kantrin?’⁷Kantrin, or singular Kantar, is a measurement of silver equivalent to one talent, ~33 kg. They said to him: ‘It goes for ten manin.’⁸Manin, or singular maneh, in this context is equivalent to the small silver coin known as a ma’a. He said to them: ‘Rise, for your ten manin have vanquished my ten thousand kantrin of silver.’
Once [Mordekhai] had finished praying, Haman said to Mordekhai: ‘Put on these royal garments.’ He said to him: ‘Why are you dishonoring the monarchy? Is there any man who would put on royal garments without bathing?’ He [Haman] went and sought a bath attendant and could not find one. What did he do? He girded his loins and went in and bathed him. When he came out, he said to him: ‘Take this crown.’ He [Mordekhai] said to him: ‘Why are you dishonoring the monarchy? Is there any man who would put on a royal crown without a haircut?’
He [Haman] went and sought a barber and did not find one. What did he do? He went to his house and brought scissors and sat and gave him a haircut. He began to sigh. He [Mordekhai] said to him: ‘Why are you sighing?’ He said to him: ‘Woe to this man’s⁹ Referring to oneself in the first person was considered bad luck. “This man” in this context is Haman, referring to himself. father – he [Haman] has been removed from being a high official and an overlord and has been made a bath attendant and a barber!’ He [Mordekhai] said to him: ‘That is why I asked you. Do I not know that the father of that man [Haman] was a bath attendant and a barber in Kefar Karyanus and you have found his barber tools?’ He [Haman] said to him: ‘Arise and ride this horse.’ He said to him: ‘I have not the strength [to mount it], for I am old.’ He said to him: ‘Am I not an old man?’ He said to him: ‘Was it not you who brought it on yourself?’ He said to him: ‘Get up, for I will bend my back for support and you step on me and get up and ride, to fulfill for you that which Scripture says: “And you shall tread on their high places” (Deut. 33:29).

Another interpretation: “Haman took the garments and the horse....” (Esther 6:11). He came to Mordekhai and said: ‘Rise and get dressed.’ How unlucky is this man; last night I was engaged in arranging a gibbet for him, and the Holy one blessed be He arranged a crown for him. ‘I would have arranged for you ropes and nails, and the Holy one blessed be He arranged for you royal garments. I sought from the king to hang you on a gibbet, and he said to mount you on a horse. Stand up and get dressed.’ And he did everything we said above.
When he [Mordekhai] was riding, he began praising the Holy one blessed be He: “I will exalt You, O Lord, for You have lifted me up and have not caused my enemies to rejoice over me. O Lord my God, I cried out to You and You have healed me. O Lord, You brought my soul up from the grave; You have given me life that I not go down to a pit” (Psalms 30:2–4). What did his students say? “Sing to the Lord, his devout ones, and give thanks to His holy name. For His anger is a moment, life is by His will; in the evening one may lie down weeping, and in the morning, joy” (Psalms 30:5–6). What did that wicked one say? “And I said in my tranquility, I shall never be shaken. O Lord, by Your will You set my mountain strong – You hid Your face, I became terrified” (Psalms 30:7–8). What did Esther say? “To You, O Lord, I will call, and to the Lord I will make supplication. What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to destruction? Will dust thank You, will it declare Your truth?” (Psalms 30:9–10) What did the congregation of Israel say? “Hear O Lord and show favor to me; [O Lord, be my aid;] You have turned my lamenting into dance for me; [You have undone my sackcloth and girded me with joy]” (Psalms 30:11–12). What did the holy spirit say? “So that I can sing to You glorious praise, and not be silent, O Lord my God, forever I will thank You” (Psalms 30:13).
Haman’s daughter gazed from the window to see the hanging, and when she saw Mordekhai riding and her father declaring before him ‘so will be done for the man…,’ she cast herself to the ground and died.

4) — No, this may be true in the case of a beast burnt-offering, which comes as a communal gift-offering, but not in that of a meal-offering, which does not come as a communal gift-offering. — This is refuted by the instance of a bird burnt-offering, which does not come as a communal gift-offering, yet does come as a gift of two.

5) — So that you should not wonder if a meal-offering, which does not come as a communal gift-offering, does come as a gift of two.

(Fol. 104b) R. Isaac said: "Why has the sacrifice of the Mincha been singled out in the passage (Lev. 2, 1) with the term Neffesh (soul)? The Holy One, praised be He! said, Who usually brings a Mincha, surely the poor man. I shall therefore consider his sacrifice as if he sacrificed his own soul before Me." R. Isaac said further: "Why is the Mincha different from all other sacrifices, that in connection with a Mincha there are five kinds of preparations? This may be compared unto a frail king for whom a friend prepared a feast. The king knowing that his friend was poor said to him: 'Make it in five kinds of preparation, so that I may enjoy your treatment'."

It is, therefore, written (to negate this) "his offering" — the individual brings a gift meal-offering, but not partners.

6) Just as two do not bring a gift meal-offering, so they do not bring wine or frankincense or wood. But they can donate a burnt-offering and peace-offerings, and, with (a) fowl (-offering), even one bird.

7) "And he shall pour oil upon it" — upon all of it; "and he shall put frankincense upon it" — upon part of it.

Why do you see fit to say this" (i.e., to make this distinction).

— For there is no inclusion ("upon it") after inclusion (upon it") in the Torah except for limitation.

8) Another rendering: "And he shall pour oil upon it" — upon all of it, because it (the oil) is mixed with it, and the fistful is taken with it. "and he shall put frankincense upon it" — upon part of it, because it (the frankincense) is not mixed with it, and the fistful is not taken with it.

9) "and he shall put frankincense upon it" — upon part of it, I do not know how much. I, therefore, reason: It (the meal-offering) requires kemitzah (the taking of the fistful), and it requires frankincense. Just as kemitzah is a full fist (Ibid. 2), so the frankincense requires a full fist. R. Yehudah says: If the frankincense (on the meal-offering) was diminished (from a fistful after kemitzah), it is kasher.

10) "And he shall pour oil upon it and he shall put frankincense upon it, and he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim": The implication is that all men (i.e., even non-Cohanim) may do the pouring and the mixing.