Midrash su Levitico 2:19

(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.”

(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.”

(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….

R. Simon b. Lakish said: "Whoever studies the Torah will prevent affliction from coming upon him, for it is said (Job 5, 7.), And the sons of fire take up their flight. By Uf (flight) is meant nothing else but the Torah, as it is said (Pr. 23, 5.) When thou letteth merely thine eye fly over it (i.e., if you study the Torah by merely glancing over it with your eyes), it is no more, (you will easily forget it). And Reshef (fire) means nothing else but affliction, as it is said (Deu. 32, 24.) Devoured with evil spirits." "Aye." exclaimed R. Jochanan, "even the school children know this! for it is said, (Ex. 15. 2.5.) And he said, if thou wilt deligently hearken unto the voice of the Lord and wilt do what is riqht in His eyes, etc. But it means thus: Upon him who is capable of studying the Torah, but does not do so the Holy One, praised be He! will bring repulsive suffering which will greatly disturb him; for it is said (Ps. 39, 3.) I was dumb in deep silence, I was quite still even from speaking good, but my pain greatly disturbed me. By tob (good) is meant nothing else but the Torah, for it is said (Pr. 4, 2.) For good doctrine do I give, etc." R. Zeira, and some say, R. Chanina b. Papa, said: "Come and see that the custom of the Holy One. praised be He! is not like the custom of mortal men. The custom of mortal men is that if a man sell a valuable thing to his fellow-man, the seller is sorry and only the buyer is happy; but the custom of the Holy One, praised be He! is not so. He bestowed the Torah on Israel and He rejoiced, for it is said (Ib. 4, 2.) For good doctrine do I give thee." Raba, and according to others R. Chisda, said: "If a man see that troubles are coming unto him, let him search his deeds, for it is said, (Lam. 3, 40) Let us search through and examine our ways and let us return unto the Lord. If he has investigated and found nothing wrong, then let him attribute it to a neglect of the study of the Torah. for it is said (Ps. 94, 12.) Happy is the man whom Thou admonisheth, O Lord, and teacheth out of Thy Torah. But if he investigated and did not find [neglect of the study of the Torah] then it is known that his affliction is the cause of God's love, for it is said (Pr. 3, 12.) Because whomsoever the Lord loveth He admonisheth." Raba, in the name of R. Sechorah, who quoted R. Huna, said: "Whomsover the Holy One, praised be He! loveth. He afflicteth, for it is said (Is. 53, 10.) But the Lord was pleased to crush him through disease. We might think that, even if he does not accept the affliction with resignation. It is therefore said (Ib.) When his soul hath brought the trespass-offering, i. e., just as a guilt offering must come with his acknowledgement, so also must this be accepted with resignation. And if he accept it with love what will be his reward? Then shall he see (his) seed live many days, (Ib.) and moreover his learning shall endure with him, as is said (Ib.) And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand." As to affliction, there is a difference of opinion between R. Jacob b. Ide and R. Acha b. Chanina. One holds that all such affliction which does not prevent one from studying the Torah is one of love, for it is said (Ps. 94, 12.) Happy is the man whom Thou admonisheth, O Lord, and teacheth from Thy Torah; and the other holds that such affliction which does not prevent one from praying is one which comes from love, for it is said (Ps. 66, 20.) Blessed he God who hath not removed my prayer nor His kindness from me. R. Abba, the son of R. Chiya b. Abba, said: "Thus said my father (R. Chiya) in the name of R. Jochanan; 'Both of these afflictions are the kind which come from love, for it is written (Pr. 3, 12.) Because whomsoever the Lord loveth He admonisheth; But what do we learn [from the passage] Thou teacheth him of the Torah. Do not read Tlamdenu (that he should be able to study the Torah); but read it Tlamdainu (Out of Thy Torah, Thou teacheth us) i. e., we learn from thine Torah [that one who is punished by God should be happy] namely, through the rule of a fortiori concerning the tooth and the eye; that if the loss of a tooth or an eye [stricken out by the master] which affects only one member of the human body, frees the slave, how much more then are afflictions, which affect the whole human body, capable of cleaning one of evil.'" And that is meant by R. Simon b. Lakish, for he said: "It is said Convenant (Brith) in connection with the word salt, and it is said Convenant (Brith) in connection with the word affliction. Covenant by salt — as it is written (Lev. 2, 13.) Thou shalt not suffer the salt of the covenant (Brith)! Covenant by affliction — as it is written (Deu. 28, 49.) These are the words of the covenant. (Brith) Just as the covenant of the salt was made to sweeten meat, so the covenant of affliction was made to cleanse man of all iniquities."

Furthermore, said R. Levi b. Chama, in the name of Resh Lakish : "What is meant by the passage (Ex. 24:12) And I will give thee the tablets of stone, with the law and the Commandments, which I have written to teach them? i.e, the tablets of stone, refers to the ten commandments; the Torah, refers to the Bible; the commandments, refers to the Mishnah; which I hare written, refers to the Prophets and Hagiographa ; to teach them, refers to the Gemara ; whence we infer that — all were given unto Moses on Mt. Sinai."...R. Simon b. Lakish said : "Whoever studies the Torah will prevent affliction from coming upon him, for it is said (Job 5:7), And the sons of fire take up their flight. By Uf (flight) is meant nothing else but the Torah, as it is said (Pr. 23, 5.) When thou letteth merely thine eye fly over it (i.e., if you study the Torah by merely glancing over it with your eyes), it is no more, (you will easily forget it). And Reshef (fire) means nothing else but affliction, as it is said (Deu. 32:24) Devoured with evil spirits." "Aye." exclaimed R. Jochanan, "even the school children know this! for it is said, (Ex. 15:2:5.) And he said, if thou wilt diligently hearken unto the voice of the Lord and wilt do what is right in His eyes, etc. But it means thus: Upon him who is capable of studying the Torah but does not do so, the Holy One, praised be He, will bring repulsive suffering, which will greatly disturb him; for it is said (Ps. 39, 3): I was dumb in deep silence, I was quite still even from speaking good, but my pain greatly disturbed me. By tov (good) is meant nothing else but the Torah, for it is said (Pr. 4, 2): "For good doctrine do I give, etc." R. Zeira, and some say, R. Chanina b. Papa said: "Come and see that the custom of the Holy One. praised be He, is not like the custom of mortal men. The custom of mortal men is that if a man sell a valuable thing to his fellow man, the seller is sorry and only the buyer is happy; but the custom of the Holy One, praised be He, is not so. He bestowed the Torah on Israel and He rejoiced, for it is said (ibid. 4, 2): For good doctrine do I give thee." Raba, and according to others R. Chisda said: "If a man see that troubles are coming unto him, let him search his deeds, for it is said (Lam. 3, 40): Let us search through and examine our ways and let us return unto the Lord. If he has investigated and found nothing wrong, then let him attribute it to a neglect of the study of the Torah. For it is said (Ps. 94, 12): Happy is the man whom Thou admonisheth, O Lord, and teacheth out of Thy Torah. But if he investigated and did not find [neglect of the study of the Torah], then it is known that his affliction is the cause of God's love, for it is said (Pr. 3, 12): Because whomsoever the Lord loveth He admonisheth." Raba, in the name of R. Sechorah, who quoted R. Huna, said: "Whomsoever the Holy One, praised be He, loveth. He afflicteth, for it is said (Is. 53, 10): But the Lord was pleased to crush him through disease. We might think that even if he does not accept the affliction with resignation. It is therefore said (ib.): When his soul hath brought the trespass offering, i.e., just as a guilt offering must come with his acknowledgment, so also must this be accepted with resignation. And if he accept it with love, what will be his reward? Then shall he see (his) seed live many days (ib.), and moreover his learning shall endure with him, as is said (ib.): And the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in his hand." As to affliction, there is a difference of opinion between R. Jacob b. Ide and R. Acha b. Chanina. One holds that all such affliction which does not prevent one from studying the Torah is one of love, for it is said (Ps. 94, 12): Happy is the man whom Thou admonisheth, O Lord, and teacheth from Thy Torah; and the other holds that such affliction which does not prevent one from praying is one which comes from love, for it is said (Ps. 66, 20): Blessed be God, who hath not removed my prayer nor His kindness from me. R. Abba, the son of R. Chiya b. Abba, said: "Thus said my father [R. Chiya] in the name of R. Jochanan: 'Both of these afflictions are the kind which come from love, for it is written (Pr. 3, 12): Because whomsoever the Lord loveth He admonisheth. But what do we learn [from the passage] Thou teacheth him of the Torah. Do not read tlamdenu (that he should be able to study the Torah); but read it tlamdainu (out of Thy Torah, Thou teacheth us), i.e., we learn from Thine Torah [that one who is punished by God should be happy], namely, through the rule of a fortiori concerning the tooth and the eye: that if the loss of a tooth or an eye [stricken out by the master], which affects only one member of the human body, frees the slave, how much more then are afflictions, which affect the whole human body, capable of cleansing one of evil.'" And that is meant by R. Simon b. Lakish, for he said: "It is said Covenant (Brith) in connection with the word salt, and it is said Covenant (Brith) in connection with the word affliction. Covenant by salt — as it is written (Lev. 2, 13): Thou shalt not suffer the salt of the covenant (Brith)! Covenant by affliction — as it is written (Deut. 28, 49): These are the words of the covenant (Brith). Just as the covenant of the salt was made to sweeten meat, so the covenant of affliction was made to cleanse man of all iniquities."

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.

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.

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.

1) (Vayikra 2:11): ("All of the meal-offering) that you offer up to the L–rd shall not be made of leaven": I might think that the negative commandment applies only to the fistful alone. Whence would I derive that it applies to the entire meal-offering? From "minchah" (connoting the whole meal-offering.) Whence do I derive that all meal-offerings are included?

1) (Vayikra 2:13): ("And every offering of your meal-offering you shall salt with salt"): If it were merely stated: "And every offering you shall offer with salt," I might think that even wood and blood, (which are referred to as "offerings") required salt. It is, therefore, written "offering of your meal-offering." Just as the offering of your meal-offering requires a supplement (i.e., wood), all (offerings) that are so characterized (require salt) — as opposed to wood and blood, which do not require a supplement.

1) (Vayikra 2:14): "And if you offer a meal-offering of first fruits (bikkurim) to the L–rd" (the meal-offering of the omer): R. Yehudah says: The meal-offering of bikkurim is destined to be suspended (with exile) and to be restored. And, similarly, it is written (Bamidbar 36:4): "And if the jubilee (yovel) will be for the children of Israel" — the jubilee is destined to be suspended and to be restored.

1) (Vayikra 2:14): ("Groats of the fresh ear [karmel]) you shall offer (the meal-offering of your bikkurim"): Why repeat this? (It is already mentioned in the beginning of the verse.) Because it is written "karmel," I might think the mitzvah is to bring only rach mal (see Vayikra 2:8) above). Whence do I derive that if he did not find rach mal he may bring it dry? From "you shall offer the meal-offering of your bikkurim" (in any event). It is a mitzvah to bring it from the harvest (i.e., from the standing grain). Whence do I derive that if he did not find this he may bring it from the (sheaves) in the loft? From "you shall offer the meal-offering of your bikkurim" — in any event.

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.

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.

1) (Vayikra 2:4): "And if you bring (an offering of a meal-offering, etc."): "if you bring" — it is optional (not mandatory). "an offer (korban) of a meal-offering": R. Yehudah said: Whence is it derived that if one says: "I take upon myself a baked meal-offering" that he may not bring part cakes and part wafers? From "an offer" — he brings on offering, and not cakes and wafers.

1) (Vayikra 7:9) ("And every meal-offering that is baked in the oven, and all that is made in the stewing-pan and on the griddle, to the Cohein who offers it up, to him shall it be. (Vayikra 7:10) And every meal-offering mixed with oil or dry, to all the sons of Aaron shall it be, one man as well as another.") R. Yossi b. R. Yehudah said: Whence is it derived that if one said: "I vow (to bring) a burnt-offering of meal baked in an oven" that he should not bring half-cakes (challoth) and half-wafers (rekikim)? From "every meal-offering that is baked in the oven, and all that is made in the stewing-pan and on the griddle … and every meal-offering mixed with oil or dry." Just as the latter ("stewing-pan and griddle" and "mixed with oil or dry") are (respectively) two kinds, so, these ("cakes and wafers" — viz. Vayikra 2:4 ("baked in an oven…) cakes and wafers") are two kinds (and cannot combine with each other to constitute a vow connoting a single kind). "and all that is made in the marchesheth (stewing-pan) and the machavath (griddle)." These terms connote the vessels (themselves) and not their products. Just as a tanur ("oven") is a vessel, so marchesheth and machavath are vessels.

1) "And if a meal-offering (baked) on a machavath (griddle) is your offering": We are hereby taught that "machavath" is a vessel. (This has various halachic ramifications.) (It is stated here) "your offering," and, below (Vayikra 2:7), "your offering," for a gezeirah shavah (identity). Just as the offering here requires pouring (of oil) and mixing, so, the offering below. And just as the offering below requires placing oil in the vessel before it (the meal-offering) is processed, so, the offering here.

1) "And if a meal-offering (baked) on a machavath (griddle) is your offering": We are hereby taught that "machavath" is a vessel. (This has various halachic ramifications.) (It is stated here) "your offering," and, below (Vayikra 2:7), "your offering," for a gezeirah shavah (identity). Just as the offering here requires pouring (of oil) and mixing, so, the offering below. And just as the offering below requires placing oil in the vessel before it (the meal-offering) is processed, so, the offering here.

1) (Vayikra 2:8) If it were written (only) "And you shall bring what shall be made of these to the L–rd, and he (the donor) shall present it to the Cohein, and he shall touch it to the altar," I might think that only the fistful alone required "touching." Whence would I derive that the entire meal-offering is intended? It is, therefore, written ("And you shall bring the) meal-offering." And whence is it derived that this includes the meal-offering of a sinner for "touching"? From "the meal-offering."

1) — Now does it not follow (without the inclusion clause [above] that the sotah's meal-offering requires "touching"?), viz.: If the meal-offering of a sinner, which does not require waving, requires "touching" — the meal-offering of a sotah, which requires waving, how much more so should it require "touching"! — No, it may be that this is so with the meal-offering of the sinner, which comes of wheat, and not with the meal-offering of the sotah, which does not come of wheat, (but of barley, an inferior variety). — This is refuted by the meal-offering of the omer, which does not come of wheat, (but of barley), and still requires touching.

1) (Vayikra 2:14): ("Groats of the fresh ear [karmel]) you shall offer (the meal-offering of your bikkurim"): Why repeat this? (It is already mentioned in the beginning of the verse.) Because it is written "karmel," I might think the mitzvah is to bring only rach mal (see Vayikra 2:8) above). Whence do I derive that if he did not find rach mal he may bring it dry? From "you shall offer the meal-offering of your bikkurim" (in any event). It is a mitzvah to bring it from the harvest (i.e., from the standing grain). Whence do I derive that if he did not find this he may bring it from the (sheaves) in the loft? From "you shall offer the meal-offering of your bikkurim" — in any event.

One time I was walking on the way. A man found me, and went with me on the way of mitzvot, and he had mikra (ie: written law) but no mishnah (ie: oral law). And he said to me, "Rabbi, mikra was given to us from Mount Sinai. Mishnah was not given to us from Mount Sinai." And I said to him, "My son, mikra and mishnah were both of them said from the mouth of God." And what is the difference between mikra and mishnah? Rather he told him a parable: To what is this matter similar? To a human king (lit: a king of flesh and blood) who had two servants, and he loved them with a great love. And he gave to one a kab (a measure) of wheat and to the other kab of wheat. And he also gave to each one of them a bundle of flax. The wise one of them took the flax and wove a beautiful cloth, and took the wheat and made it into fine flour, and sifted it, and ground it, and kneaded it, and baked it, and set it on the table, and spread the beautiful cloth over it, and left it there until the king should come. And the fool of them did nothing. After some time the king came into his house, and said to them, to his two servants, "My sons, bring to me what I gave you." One of them brought out the bread of fine flour, on the table, with the beautiful cloth spread over it. And the other of them brought out the wheat in a pile and the bundle of flax upon it. Woe for that shame! Woe for that disgrace! Which one is more favored? You must admit it is the one who brought out the bread on the table with the beautiful cloth spread over it.

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.

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).

2) For I might think that this applies only to those meal-offerings whose remainders (after the fistful) may be eaten. Whence do I derive that it applies even to those whose remainders are not eaten? From "All the minchah" (connoting all meal-offerings). "… that you offer up to the L–rd shall not be made of leaven": R. Yossi says: This includes the show bread (in the prohibition against leaven). R. Akiva says: It includes the libation meal-offering.

2) — But (why not say): Just as the "offering of your meal-offering" (i.e., the fistful) is something that permits, (in this instance, the remainder of the meal-offering), so, blood, which permits (the devoted portions to the altar and the flesh to the Cohanim, should require salt!) It is, therefore, written (to negate this [Vayikra 2:13]): ("And you shall not cut off the salt of the covenant of your G d) from your meal-offering" — not "from your blood." If "from your meal-offering" alone were written, I would think that the entire meal-offering required salt. It is, therefore, written "offering." The fistful (i.e., the part that is offered) requires salt, but the entire meal-offering does not require salt.

2) R. Shimon says: "And if you offer a meal-offering of bikkurim to the L–rd": This meal-offering is mandatory. I might think it is voluntary; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 23:10): "and you shall bring the omer, the first (grain) of your harvest to the Cohein" — it is mandatory.

2) "the meal-offering of your bikkurim": I might think this is an individual offering, (but) it is written here "bikkurim," and, elsewhere, (in respect to the two loaves, Vayikra 23:17): "bikkurim." Just as "bikkurim" there are a communal offering, so, bikkurim here. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Shimon says: I might think this is an individual offering, but (this is negated by) its being written (Vayikra 23:14): "And you shall bring the omer, the first (grain) of your harvest, to the Cohein." If you say that this (in our verse) is an individual offering, and that is a communal offering, this cannot be. For if this is "bikkurim to the L–rd," then that is not the first of the harvest; and if that is the first of the harvest, then this is not "bikkurim to the L–rd." (Note:) Things omitted here (in connection with the omer offering [e.g., "waving" and the permitting of chadash (the new crop)] are written there.

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).

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).

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.

2) "soleth mixed (with oil"): We are hereby taught that it is mixed (with oil) while it is soleth. Rebbi says: It is (thus) mixed (when they are at the stage of) challoth, viz. (Vayikra 2:4): "challoth … mixed" — whereupon they said to him: Are not "challoth" mentioned in respect to the thanksgiving loaves (Vayikra 7:12), and it is impossible to mix them (with oil) when they are challoth, (there being too little oil for that); but (it must be that the oil is mixed with) soleth. How is this done? He places oil in the vessel before processing (the meal-offering). Then he places oil on it (the soleth), and mixes it, and kneads it, and breaks it into pieces, and pours oil on it, and takes the fistful. Rebbi says: He mixes them (with oil) when they are challoth, viz.: "challoth … mixed with oil." How is this done? He places oil in the vessel before processing it, and places (oil) on it, and kneads it, and bakes it, and crumbles it, and places oil on it, and mixes it, and then again pours oil on it, and takes the fistful. "unleavened": I might think that this is a mitzvah specification only; it is, therefore, written "shall it be" — Scripture makes it a categorical requirement.

2) R. Shimon said: Is "offer" written twice? It is written only once, and this is followed by "cakes and wafers" — so that if he wishes to bring cakes he may do so; if he wishes to bring wafers, he may do so; if he wishes to bring cakes and wafers he may do so. And when he takes the fistful (of the cakes and wafers after baking), he mixes both of them (i.e., their pieces) together and takes the fistful. If in taking the fistful only one of them (i.e., one variety) comes up in his hand, it is sufficient.

2) "soleth mixed (with oil"): We are hereby taught that it is mixed (with oil) while it is soleth. Rebbi says: It is (thus) mixed (when they are at the stage of) challoth, viz. (Vayikra 2:4): "challoth … mixed" — whereupon they said to him: Are not "challoth" mentioned in respect to the thanksgiving loaves (Vayikra 7:12), and it is impossible to mix them (with oil) when they are challoth, (there being too little oil for that); but (it must be that the oil is mixed with) soleth. How is this done? He places oil in the vessel before processing (the meal-offering). Then he places oil on it (the soleth), and mixes it, and kneads it, and breaks it into pieces, and pours oil on it, and takes the fistful. Rebbi says: He mixes them (with oil) when they are challoth, viz.: "challoth … mixed with oil." How is this done? He places oil in the vessel before processing it, and places (oil) on it, and kneads it, and bakes it, and crumbles it, and places oil on it, and mixes it, and then again pours oil on it, and takes the fistful. "unleavened": I might think that this is a mitzvah specification only; it is, therefore, written "shall it be" — Scripture makes it a categorical requirement.

2) For I might think that only a gift meal-offering required "touching," and not a mandatory one. And it would, indeed, follow that this is so, viz.: It is written that a gift meal-offering is brought, and it is written that a mandatory meal-offering is brought. Just as a gift meal-offering requires "touching," so, a mandatory meal-offering requires "touching."

2) — No, this may be so with the meal-offering of the omer, because it requires oil and frankincense, and not with the meal-offering of the sotah, which does not require oil and frankincense. — It may be derived by binyan av (that the meal-offering of a sotah requires "touching,") viz.: The meal-offering of a sinner, which comes of wheat, is not like the meal-offering of the omer, which does not come of wheat; and the meal-offering of the omer, which requires oil and frankincense, is not like the meal-offering of the sinner, which does not require oil and frankincense.

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.

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….

Another interpretation (of I Sam. 2:2): AND THERE IS NO ROCK (TsWR) LIKE OUR GOD. When flesh and blood fashions (rt.: TsWR) an image (rt.: TsWR), he (the fashioner) speaks, but his image does not speak. [Still, he] praises his image. In the case of the Holy One, however, his image stands up and praises him. [Another interpretation (of I Sam. 2:2:) THERE IS NO ROCK (TsWR) LIKE OUR GOD.] When flesh and blood wants to fashion an image, how many ingredients must he bring before he fashions it? But the Holy One fashions an image out of a single drop (of seminal fluid). Come and see the peacock⁹Gk.: taos. in which there are three hundred sixty[-five] kinds of colors; yet it is created from a single drop of white stuff. Now you should not < only > speak about a bird, but also about a human being, who is fashioned from a single drop of white stuff. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 12:2): WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED AND BEARS A MALE. [Ergo (in I Sam. 2:2): AND THERE IS NO ROCK (TsWR) LIKE OUR GOD. Another interpretation: When a king of flesh and blood fashions a image, his image does not make < another > image; but when the Holy One fashions an image, his image does make < another > image, for it fashions the woman, and the woman bears an image like it. (Lev. 2:12:) WHEN A WOMAN EMITS HER SEED.]

It is written: “From people by Your hand, O Lord, from people from the world [meḥeled ], their portion is in life; Your hidden treasures will fill their bellies; their sons will be satisfied and they will leave their surplus to their young ones” (Psalms 17:14). Rabbi Ḥanina son of Rabbi Aḥa went to a place and found that this verse was at the head of the discussion: “The remnant of the meal offering shall be for Aaron and his sons…” (Leviticus 2:3, 10), and began: “From people by Your hand, O Lord” – how courageous are those who took their portion from under the hand of God; and who was that? It was the tribe of Levi. “From people from the world” – these are those who did take a portion in the land.⁴The midrash is reading “from the world” as removed from the land, i.e. the tribe of Levi, since it did not receive a portion in the Land of Israel. “Their portion is life” – these are the consecrations of the Temple offerings. “Your hidden treasures will fill their bellies” – these are the consecrations of the borders.⁵Consecrations of the borders refers to teruma, the portion of produce allocated to the priests which they may eat anywhere. “…their sons will be satisfied” – “every male among the priests shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:22). “And they will leave their surplus to their young ones” – “and the remnant of the meal offering shall be for Aaron and his sons…” (Leviticus 2:3, 10).

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.

3) "shall not be made of leaven": I might think that they (all of the steps in preparing the meal-offering) are subsumed in one negative commandment (against leaven); it is, therefore, written (to negate this [Ibid. 6:10]): "It shall not be baked with leaven." Baking was in the general category (of those steps). Why did it leave the category (for special mention)? So that it serve as the basis for a comparison, viz.: Just as baking is characterized by its being a particular, significant act, and subject to liability (for leaven) in and of itself, so, I will include all such acts, like kneading and mixing, for liability in and of themselves.

3) This tells me only of the fistful, (as requiring salt). Whence would I derive the frankincense (as requiring salt)? I would include the frankincense, which comes together with the meal-offering (in the same vessel and is thus subsumed in "offering of your meal-offering" as requiring salt.) Whence would I derive it for frankincense that comes by itself, and frankincense which comes with the show bread (in two censers), and the incense, and the devoted portions of a sin-offering, and of higher-order offerings, (the Atzereth lambs), and of lower-order offerings, and the (gift) meal-offerings of Cohanim, (which are entirely burnt), and the meal-offering of the high-priest, and the libation meal-offerings, and the limbs of burnt-offerings, and a burnt-offering of fowl — Whence would I derive these (as requiring salt)? From (Vayikra 2:13): "With all of your offerings (shall you offer salt.")

3) "first-fruits (bikkurim) to the L–rd": R. Shimon says: I might think this is an individual offering, but (this is negated by) its being written (Vayikra 23:14): "And you shall bring the omer the first grain of your harvest, to the Cohein." If you say that this is an individual offering, and that is a communal offering, this cannot be. For if this is bikkurim to the L–rd," then that is not the first of the harvest; and if that is the first of the harvest, then this is not "bikkurim" to the L–rd." (Note:) Things omitted there (in connection with the omer offering [e.g., "lifting" and the permitting of chadash (the new crop)] are written here. (See Dibbura d'Nedavah Chapter 15:2)

3) I might think that any bird is kasher; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 2:14): "… then he shall offer his offering from the turtle-doves or from the young pigeons" — only these are permitted. "turtle-doves" — large, and not small. For is it not a kal vachomer (if not for a limiting clause, that small ones should be permitted), viz.: If young pigeons, which may not be offered large, may be offered small — turtle-doves, which may be offered large, how much more so should it be permitted to offer them small.

3) If so, why is it written "if (you offer)")? To teach: If you bring it willingly, I shall account it to you as if you brought it as a gift; and if you do not bring it willingly, I shall account it to you as having brought it for your personal needs only (i.e., to allow you to eat chadash [the new grain]).

3) (Vayikra 2:15): "And you shall put oil upon it": oil upon it, and not upon the show bread. For (if not for the exclusion) would it not be a kal vachomer (that oil should be put upon the show bread, viz.:) If the libation meal-offering, which does not require frankincense, requires oil — the show bread, which does require frankincense, how much more so should it require oil! It is, therefore, written: "upon it" — oil upon it, but not upon the show bread....

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.

3) (Vayikra 1:16): "baked in an oven": and not baked in a brazier, or on hot tiles, or in the improvised fire places of the Arabs. R. Yehudah says: Why "oven," "oven," twice? (here and Vayikra 7:9). To validate a brazier. R. Shimon says: Why "oven," "oven," twice? (One,) that he consecrate it (to be baked in) an oven, and (the other,) that all of its processing be in an oven.

3) (Vayikra 2:6): "You shall break it": I might think only in two; it is, therefore, written: "into pieces." I might then think it should be made into crumbs; it is, therefore, written: "it" — "it" into pieces (so that there are four pieces), and not its pieces into pieces.

3) — No, it may be that a gift meal-offering requires "touching" because it requires oil and frankincense (as opposed to a mandatory meal-offering, which does not.) — This is refuted by the meal-offering of a sotah (a woman suspected of adultery), which does not require oil and frankincense, but which does require "touching."

3) What is common to both is that they are similar in (requiring) the fistful and similar in (requiring) "touching" — I shall likewise adduce the meal-offering of the sotah, which is similar to them in (requiring) the fistful, as being similar to them in (requiring) "touching."

Sisera also < was punished by fire > because he blasphemed. Thus it is written about him (in Jud. 4:3): AND HE OPPRESSED THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL WITH MIGHT, < i.e. > with blasphemies and invectives.¹⁶See M. Ps. 2:1, which derives this interpretation of WITH MIGHT (rt.: HZQ) from Mal. 3:13: YOUR WORDS HAVE BEEN MIGHTY (rt.: HZQ) AGAINST ME. See also below, 9:7. He was therefore punished by fire, as stated (in Jud. 5:20): THE STARS FOUGHT FROM THE HEAVENS; FROM THEIR COURSES THEY FOUGHT WITH SISERA.¹⁷See Pes. 118b, according to which the stars descended and heated the iron implements in Sisera’s army. < There is > also < retribution > in the world to come, when the Holy One comes to exact retribution from Esau. What did Esau do to him? Wrapped in a prayer shawl like a lion,¹⁸Cf. the parallel in Tanh., Lev. 2:3, which reads: “Wrapped in a prayer shawl like an elder.” he came and took his seat beside Jacob. It is so stated, (in Obad., vs. 4): AND THOUGH YOUR NEST IS SET AMONG THE STARS. STARS can only mean Israel, since it is stated (in Gen. 15:5): LOOK TOWARD THE HEAVENS AND COUNT THE STARS,…: [SO SHALL YOUR SEED BE.] Jacob says to him: My brother ('HY), you shall not be like me. Thus it is stated (in Hos. 13:14): MY BROTHER ('HY),¹⁹The unemended reading below, given in braces, shows that the midrash is reading the he in ‘HY as a het, so that the WHERE of the Masoretic Text cited here is to be interpreted as MY BROTHER. YOUR WORDS²⁰Devarekha. YOUR WORDS is the translation required by the midrash. In the biblical context devarekha should be rendered, YOUR PLAGUES. ARE DEATH; MY BROTHER ('HY), YOUR DESCENT (QTB) IS TO SHEOL.²¹A traditional translation of the line would read: WHERE IS YOUR PESTILENCE, O SHEOL? {MY BROTHER ('HY), MY BROTHER ('HY).} [WHERE ('HY)? WHERE ('HY)?].²²By emending the het of MY BROTHER to the Masoretic he of WHERE, Buber has obscured some of the meaning of the midrash. < YOUR WORDS > are decrees which you decreed over me. You decreed over me that I should serve idols. If I had done so, I would have been condemned to death at the hands of Heaven; and if I had not served them, you would have killed me. Ergo (in Hos. 13:14): MY BROTHER, YOUR WORDS ARE DEATH. (Ibid., cont.:) MY BROTHER ('HY), YOUR DESCENT (QTB) IS TO SHEOL. < QTB > is a Hellenistic²³From the Gk. adverb: Hellenisti. word.²⁴Thus QTB is understood as coming from the Greek, kataba, an aorist imperative meaning, “descend.” {While Jacob remained, Esau descended to Sheol.} [When Esau descended to Sheol, Jacob remained by himself.] It is therefore stated (in Zech. 13:8): AND IT SHALL COME TO PASS THROUGHOUT ALL THE LAND, SAYS THE LORD, THAT TWO-THIRDS IN IT [SHALL BE CUT OFF AND DIE, BUT ONE-THIRD SHALL REMAIN IN IT.] Now the one-third can only be Israel, since it is stated (in Is. 19:24): {AND} ISRAEL SHALL BE A THIRD < PARTNER WITH EGYPT AND ASSYRIA, A BLESSING IN THE MIDST OF THE EARTH. > So Israel, because they made themselves despised and lowly, was avenged by fire, as stated (in Zech. 2:9 [5]): AND I MYSELF, SAYS THE LORD, WILL BE A WALL OF FIRE AROUND IT (i.e., around Jerusalem), AND I WILL BE A GLORY WITHIN IT. When Esau departed from the world, the Holy One [and Israel remained, as stated (in Cant. 6:9): < ONLY > ONE IS MY DOVE, MY PERFECT ONE. It also says:] {It says:} (in Deut. 32:12): THE LORD ALONE DID LEAD HIM, AND THERE WAS NO FOREIGN GOD WITH HIM.

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.

4) (Vayikra 2:11): ("… for all leaven and all [fruit] honey you shall not smoke from it a fire-offering to the L–rd"): "… leaven … you shall not smoke": This tells me (that he has transgressed) only (if he smoked) the great part (i.e., the entire fistful, leavened). Whence do I derive (that he has transgressed even if he smoked) the lesser part? From "all leaven." This tells me only of it (leaven, by) itself. Whence do I derive the same for an admixture (of leaven and non-leaven)? From "for all leaven." I might think that only meal-offerings subsumed under (Vayikra 2:5) "unleavened bread shall it be" come under the interdict against smoking leaven, but that meal-offerings which are not thus subsumed (such as the thanksgiving loaves and the two breads [if he transgressed and smoked them]) do not come under that interdict. It is, therefore, written: "for all leaven and all honey you shall not smoke." (Just as the interdict against honey applies to all meal-offerings, so, the interdict against leaven.) This tells me (in respect to honey) only of the great part (i.e., smoking an entire fistful of date-honey). Whence do I derive (that he has transgressed even if he smoked) the lesser part? From "all honey." This tells me only of it itself. Whence do I derive the same for an admixture? From "and all honey." This tells me only of things (i.e., offerings) which honey spoils. Whence do I derive (that honey is forbidden even with) things which honey improves? [For, (as) the spice compounders say: "Honey enhances the incense."] From "all honey."

4) R. Yishmael, the son of R. Yochanan b. Broka, says: Just as the "offering of your meal-offering," which is susceptible of defilement (tumah) and is burnt on the outer altar (requires salt, so do all others of this kind) — to exclude wood, which is not susceptible of defilement; to exclude blood and wine, which are not burnt; to exclude the incense, which is not burnt on the outer altar. If "with salt" alone were stated, I might think that a "hint" of salt were sufficient; it is, therefore, written: "you shall salt." If "you shall salt" alone were stated, I might think that salt water, too, was permissible; it is, therefore, written: "with salt." (Vayikra 2:13): "You shall not cut off salt": salt that is never "cut off" (from nature, as opposed to fabricated salt). Which salt is that? Sodom salt. And whence is it derived that if he cannot find Sodom salt he may bring Astrakhan salt (of an inferior grade)? From (Vayikra 2:13): "you shall offer salt" — whatever the quality. I might think that one who donated a meal-offering brought salt along with it — just as he brings frankincense — from his home. And it would follow that he did so, viz.: It is written that a meal-offering is brought and that frankincense is brought; that a meal-offering is brought and that salt is brought. Just as the frankincense is brought by the donor of the meal-offering, so, the salt.

4) as it is written (Vayikra 23:14): "And bread, and kali, and karmel you shall not eat until this self-same day, until you have brought the offering of your G d." "And if you offer a meal-offering of bikkurim to the L–rd": This is the meal-offering of the omer. From which (grain) does it come? From barley. — But perhaps it comes from wheat! R. Eliezer says (to negate this): It is written here (Vayikra 2:14): "aviv" (grain in the ear), and also in respect to Egypt (Shemoth 9:41). Just as "aviv" in respect to Egypt is barley, so, "aviv" here. R. Akiva says: It is written that the congregation is to bring bikkurim (the omer) on Pesach and that the congregation is to bring bikkurim (the two loaves) on Atzereth (Shavuoth). Just as we find that of that kind (of grain [i.e., wheat]) of which the individual brings his obligatory offering, the congregation brings its obligatory offering (the two loaves) on Atzereth — so, of that kind (i.e., barley), of which the individual brings his obligatory offering (the meal-offering of rancor of the sotah), the congregation is to bring its bikkurim (the omer) on Pesach. From which kind does the individual bring his obligatory offering? From barley. The congregation, too, is to bring its obligatory offering only from barley. An alternate derivation: If you say (that he brings it) of wheat, then the two loaves (which are of wheat) could not be (called) "bikkurim" (first fruits).

4) ("and you shall put frankincense upon it"): upon it, and not upon the libation meal-offering. For (if not for the exclusion) would it not be a kal vachomer (that frankincense should be put upon the libation meal-offering, viz.:) If the show bread, which does not require oil, requires frankincense — the libation meal-offering, which does require oil, how much more so should it require frankincense! It is, therefore, written "frankincense upon it," but not upon the libation meal-offering.

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!

4) (Vayikra 2:11): ("… for all leaven and all [fruit] honey you shall not smoke from it a fire-offering to the L–rd"): "… leaven … you shall not smoke": This tells me (that he has transgressed) only (if he smoked) the great part (i.e., the entire fistful, leavened). Whence do I derive (that he has transgressed even if he smoked) the lesser part? From "all leaven." This tells me only of it (leaven, by) itself. Whence do I derive the same for an admixture (of leaven and non-leaven)? From "for all leaven." I might think that only meal-offerings subsumed under (Vayikra 2:5) "unleavened bread shall it be" come under the interdict against smoking leaven, but that meal-offerings which are not thus subsumed (such as the thanksgiving loaves and the two breads [if he transgressed and smoked them]) do not come under that interdict. It is, therefore, written: "for all leaven and all honey you shall not smoke." (Just as the interdict against honey applies to all meal-offerings, so, the interdict against leaven.) This tells me (in respect to honey) only of the great part (i.e., smoking an entire fistful of date-honey). Whence do I derive (that he has transgressed even if he smoked) the lesser part? From "all honey." This tells me only of it itself. Whence do I derive the same for an admixture? From "and all honey." This tells me only of things (i.e., offerings) which honey spoils. Whence do I derive (that honey is forbidden even with) things which honey improves? [For, (as) the spice compounders say: "Honey enhances the incense."] From "all honey."

4) From here it was derived that the meal-offering of an Israelite (not a Cohein) is doubled into halves and then into quarters and separated (for the taking of the fistful); the meal-offering of Cohanim is doubled into halves and then into quarters, but not separated, (no fistful being taken); the meal-offering of the anointed (high-) priest was not doubled (twice, but only once). R. Shimon says: The meal-offering of Cohanim and the meal-offering of the high-priest did not require doubling, there being no fistful requirement for them; and wherever there is no fistful, there is no doubling. And all of the pieces (after the quartering) are reduced to olive-sizes.

4) — No, this may be so with the meal-offering of a sotah, which requires waving, but not with the meal-offering of a sinner, which does not require waving. — It may be derived by binyan av ([see Baraitha d'R. Yishmael, principle 3] that the meal-offering of a sinner requires "touching."), viz.: A gift meal-offering, which requires oil and frankincense, is not like the meal-offering of a sotah, which does not require oil and frankincense. And the meal-offering of a sotah, which requires waving, is not like a gift meal-offering, which does not require waving.

4) — But, their ("strategic") common factor might be that they may not come of flour but of soleth (fine flour), and they require "touching," as opposed to the meal-offering of the sotah, which may come of flour, and, therefore, would not require "touching"! It is, therefore, written: "and he shall present it' — to include the meal-offering of the sotah as requiring "touching."

(Lev. 1:7:) “And the sons of Aaron the Priest shall put fire upon the altar, and they shall lay wood in order upon the fire.” (Tamid 2:3:) All of the trees are proper for [altar] firewood except the vine and the olive.¹⁸TMen. 9:14; Sifra to Lev. 1:7, Wayyiqra, Pereq 6.Why? Because they produce excellent fruit.¹⁹Cf. Tamid 29b. See, you have learned that by virtue of sons, fathers are honored. (Lev. 2:5:) “And if [your offering] is a meal offering on a griddle.” [But] it is also written (in Exod. 2:7), “And if [your offering] is a meal offering in a pan.” (Men. 5:8:) What is the difference between a griddle and a pan?²⁰Sifra to Lev. 2:5, Wayyiqra, Pereq 12. A pan has a cover, and a griddle does not have a cover. A pan (rt.: rhsh) is deep, and its products tremble (rt.: rhsh).²¹Lev. R. 3:7. A griddle is flat and its products are solid. (Men. 11:3:) The cakes of the high priest had their kneading and their rolling out within [the Temple court], and [doing so] overrides the Sabbath. Their grinding and sifting do not override the Sabbath. (Men. 5:1:)²²See Tanh. (Buber), Numb. 8:11. All meal offerings were offered unleavened except the leavened [cakes] in the thank offering and the two loaves (of Pentecost) which were offered leavened. (Men. 5:2:) All meal offerings were kneaded in lukewarm water and one watched them lest they become leavened; and if the rest of it became leavened, one transgressed a negative commandment, as stated (in Lev. 2:11), “No meal offering which you offer to the Lord [shall be made with leaven].”

(Lev. 7:11) THIS IS THE LAW OF THE SACRIFICE FOR PEACE OFFERINGS. This text is related (to Prov. 3:17): < WISDOM'S > WAYS ARE WAYS OF PLEASANTNESS, AND ALL HER PATHS ARE PEACE. Whatever is written in the Torah is written {as an expression of} [to establish] peace.²⁵Tanh., Lev. 2:3. Although wars are written about in the Torah, they are written about for the sake of peace. You find that the Holy One cancelled the decree < of utter destruction (herem) > for the sake of peace. When? When the Holy One said to Moses (in Deut. 20:19): WHEN YOU BESIEGE A CITY A LONG TIME…., < YOU SHALL NOT DESTROY ITS TREES…. > Now concerning that whole matter, the Holy One had said that he would destroy them, as stated (above in vs. 17): NO, YOU SHALL UTTERLY DESTROY THEM. However, Moses did not do so. Rather he said: Am I to go and smite them now? I do not know who has sinned and who has not sinned. Instead, let me come against them in peace, as stated (in Deut. 2:26): THEN I SENT MESSENGERS FROM THE DESERT OF KEDEMOTH < UNTO KING SIHON OF HESHBON > WITH WORDS OF PEACE, SAYING: < …. > When he saw that he did not come in peace, he smote him, as stated (in Numb. 21:35): SO THEY SMOTE HIM, HIS CHILDREN, AND ALL HIS PEOPLE. The Holy One said to him: I myself told you (in Deut. 20:17): NO, YOU SHALL UTTERLY DESTROY THEM…. Now you have come to them in Peace. By your life, just as you have said, so will I do. Thus it is stated (in Deut. 20:10): WHEN YOU DRAW NEAR UNTO A CITY TO FIGHT AGAINST IT, YOU SHALL OFFER TERMS OF PEACE UNTO IT. Therefore, it is so stated (in Prov. 3:17): < WISDOM'S > WAYS ARE WAYS OF PLEASANTNESS, AND ALL HER PATHS ARE PEACE.

(Lev. 1:7:) “And the sons of Aaron the Priest shall put fire upon the altar, and they shall lay wood in order upon the fire.” (Tamid 2:3:) All of the trees are proper for [altar] firewood except the vine and the olive.¹⁸TMen. 9:14; Sifra to Lev. 1:7, Wayyiqra, Pereq 6.Why? Because they produce excellent fruit.¹⁹Cf. Tamid 29b. See, you have learned that by virtue of sons, fathers are honored. (Lev. 2:5:) “And if [your offering] is a meal offering on a griddle.” [But] it is also written (in Exod. 2:7), “And if [your offering] is a meal offering in a pan.” (Men. 5:8:) What is the difference between a griddle and a pan?²⁰Sifra to Lev. 2:5, Wayyiqra, Pereq 12. A pan has a cover, and a griddle does not have a cover. A pan (rt.: rhsh) is deep, and its products tremble (rt.: rhsh).²¹Lev. R. 3:7. A griddle is flat and its products are solid. (Men. 11:3:) The cakes of the high priest had their kneading and their rolling out within [the Temple court], and [doing so] overrides the Sabbath. Their grinding and sifting do not override the Sabbath. (Men. 5:1:)²²See Tanh. (Buber), Numb. 8:11. All meal offerings were offered unleavened except the leavened [cakes] in the thank offering and the two loaves (of Pentecost) which were offered leavened. (Men. 5:2:) All meal offerings were kneaded in lukewarm water and one watched them lest they become leavened; and if the rest of it became leavened, one transgressed a negative commandment, as stated (in Lev. 2:11), “No meal offering which you offer to the Lord [shall be made with leaven].”

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.

5) Why mention (both) "all leaven" and "all honey" (instead of mentioning just one and learning one from the other)? For there is a factor relating to leaven which does not relate to honey, and there is a factor relating to honey which does not relate to leaven: Something in the class of leaven (i.e., the two loaves) is permitted in the sanctuary, but nothing in the class of honey is permitted in the sanctuary. Honey is permitted (to be eaten) by the Cohanim with what is left of the meal-offering, but not leaven. So that since there obtains with leaven what does not obtain with honey, and with honey what does not obtain with leaven, it is necessary to state "all leaven and all honey."

5) — Or, perhaps we should go in the other direction, viz.: It is written that a meal-offering is brought and that wood is brought; that a meal-offering is brought and that salt is brought. Just as the wood is provided communally, so, the salt!

5) R. Yishmael, the son of R. Yochanan b. Broka, says: I might think that it (the omer) could be brought from spelt, oats, and rye; but this is (negated by) a kal vachomer, viz.: If wheat, which is kasher for all other meal-offerings, is not kasher for the meal-offering of the omer — then spelt, oats, and rye, which are not kasher for all other meal-offerings, how much more so should they not be kasher for the omer! — No, this may be the case with barley because the sotah's meal-offering is brought of it, unlike spelt, oats, and rye, so that wheat is excluded (from the omer) by Scripture (as above), and spelt, oats, and rye by the kal vachomer.

5) ("It is) a meal-offering" — to include the meal-offering of the eighth day (of the consecration of the tabernacle) as requiring frankincense. "it" — to exclude the two loaves from the requirement of oil and frankincense.

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.

5) "You shall break it into pieces … It is a meal-offering" — to include all meal-offerings for breaking into pieces. I might think that even the two loaves and the show bread are to be broken into pieces; it is, therefore, written: "it" (to exclude the foregoing). Why do you see fit to include all the meal-offerings and to exclude the two loaves and the show bread? After Scripture included, it excluded. Just as these (the other meal-offerings) are unique in that something is taken from them for the fire (of the altar), so, all from which something is taken for the fire (are broken into pieces) — to exclude the two loaves and the show bread, from which nothing is taken for the fire (but which are entirely eaten by the Cohanim).

5) What is common to both is that they are similar in (requiring) the fistful and similar in (requiring) "touching" — I shall likewise adduce the meal-offering of the sinner, which is similar to them in (requiring) the fistful as being similar to them in (requiring) "touching."

5) R. Yehudah says: "And you shall bring" — to include the meal-offering of the sotah as requiring "touching," it being written (Bamidbar 5:15): "And he shall bring her (the sotah's) offering for her." But perhaps the intent of "And you shall bring" is that the individual may donate a variety of meal-offering (barley) other than the variety (wheat) specified in our context! And it would follow (that he may do so), viz.: The congregation brings a mandatory meal-offering of wheat (the two loaves of Atzereth), and the individual brings a voluntary meal-offering of wheat. Just as the congregation, which brings a mandatory meal-offering of wheat, brings a mandatory meal-offering of barley (that of the omer), so, the individual, who brings a voluntary meal-offering of wheat, may bring a voluntary meal-offering of barley. It is, therefore, written: ("And you shall bring the meal-offering that shall be made of) these" — you may bring of (the variety of) these alone (i.e., wheat). But perhaps the intent of "these" is that if he vows to bring a meal-offering, he must bring all five kinds! It is, therefore, written: "of these." Sometimes, he brings one of them, and sometimes, (as when he forgot which one he specified), he brings all five.

Another interpretation (of Lev. 7:11): THIS IS THE LAW OF THE SACRIFICE FOR PEACE OFFERINGS…. This text is related (to Ps. 85:9 [8]): LET ME HEAR WHAT GOD, THE LORD, WILL SPEAK; FOR HE WILL SPEAK PEACE UNTO HIS PEOPLE AND UNTO HIS SAINTS. The peoples of the world said²⁶Reading ‘MRW with the parallel in Tanh., Lev. 2:4, instead of ‘MRY from the Buber text. to Balaam: Why did the Holy One tell Israel to bring him sacrifices without telling us anything? Balaam said to them: The sacrifices are only peace (i.e., the peace offering). Whoever has accepted the Torah in which they are written must offer sacrifice. You rejected < Torah > from the start, and now you wish to offer sacrifices. Whoever accepted it is the one who offers < sacrifices >, as stated (in Ps. 29:11): THE LORD WILL GRANT STRENGTH TO HIS PEOPLE; THE LORD WILL BLESS HIS PEOPLE WITH PEACE (i.e., with peace offerings). It is therefore stated (in Ps. 85:9 [8]): LET ME HEAR WHAT GOD, THE LORD, WILL SPEAK; FOR HE WILL SPEAK PEACE UNTO HIS PEOPLE AND UNTO HIS SAINTS. What did he speak? (Lev. 7:11): THIS IS THE LAW OF THE SACRIFICE FOR PEACE OFFERINGS…. Why was it worded, THE SACRIFICE FOR PEACE OFFERINGS? Because it makes peace among the altar, the priests, and Israel. Come and see. The whole burnt offering belonged wholly to the flames. Also, in the case of the sin offering, its best parts and its devoted portions²⁷Emurim. Perhaps from the Greek, meria, i.e., “thigh bones.” belonged to the altar, its skin and its flesh belonged to the priests, but there was no enjoyment from it for Israel. So also in the case of the guilt offering. However, in the case of the thank offering, its blood and its devoted parts belonged to the altar, the breast and the shoulder belonged to the priests, but the skin and flesh belonged to Israel. It resulted in making peace among the altar, the priests, and Israel. It is therefore called (in Lev. 7:11), THE SACRIFICE FOR PEACE OFFERINGS, because it made peace for all.

“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.

6) Whence is it derived that if one offers up what is left from the flesh of a sin-offering, or of a guilt-offering, or of higher order or lower order offerings, or the two loaves or the show bread or what is left of meal-offerings — that he transgresses "You shall not smoke"? From "for all leaven and all honey you shall not smoke of it a fire-offering to the L–rd" — Anything that there is "of it" (i.e., of which there has been offered) a fire-offering to the L–rd, you shall not smoke.

6) Let us see which is (salt) is most like. We derive something (salt) which is offered with all sacrifices from something (wood) which is offered with all sacrifices — and this is not to be refuted by frankincense, which is not offered with all sacrifices — Or, go in this direction: We derive something (salt), which is offered with the meal-offering (the fistful). Itself, from something (frankincense), which is offered with the meal-offering itself (in one vessel) — and this is not to be refuted by wood, which is not offered with the meal-offering itself. It is, therefore, written: "And you shall not cut off the salt of the covenant of your G d from your meal-offering," and, elsewhere, (in reference to the show bread), (Ibid. 24:8): "from the children of Israel, an everlasting covenant." Just as there, the salt is provided communally, so, here.

6) "Aviv kalui with fire, karmel" (groats of the fresh ear): We are hereby taught that we scorch it in fire to fulfill the mitzvah of kalui. These are the words of R. Meir. The sages say: It is called "kalui" because a tube of the kala'im (parched-grain merchants) was there, which was perforated like a sieve, so that the fire enveloped the whole.

6) Does it not follow by kal vachomer (that the two loaves should be excluded from oil and frankincense? i.e., Why is "it" needed to exclude them from both? Why not just exclude them from either oil or from frankincense, and I would know by kal vachomer that they are excluded from the other, viz.:) If they are excluded from oil, which obtains with the libation meal-offering, would I not exclude them from frankincense, which does not obtain with the libation meal-offering? If they are excluded from frankincense, which obtains with the show bread, would I not exclude them from oil, which does not obtain with the show bread? — No, by this reasoning (I would derive just the opposite conclusion, viz.:) If they are excluded from oil, which does not obtain with the show bread, should they be excluded from frankincense, which does obtain with the show bread! If they are excluded from frankincense, which does not obtain with the libation meal-offering, should they be excluded from oil, which does obtain with the libation meal-offering! It is, therefore, written "it," to exclude the two loaves from the requirement of oil and frankincense.

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.

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.

6) (Vayikra 2:6): "and you shall pour oil upon it; it is a meal-offering" — to include all meal-offerings for pouring of oil. I might think that even a meal-offering baked in an oven (is thus included); it is, therefore, written "upon it." (In that case,) I would exclude (from pouring, only) challoth, (of which the verse [Vayikra 2:5] speaks), but not wafers (baked in an oven); it is, therefore, written (to exclude wafers too): "it (is a meal-offering").

6) (Vayikra 2:6): "and you shall pour oil upon it; it is a meal-offering" — to include all meal-offerings for pouring of oil. I might think that even a meal-offering baked in an oven (is thus included); it is, therefore, written "upon it." (In that case,) I would exclude (from pouring, only) challoth, (of which the verse [Vayikra 2:5] speaks), but not wafers (baked in an oven); it is, therefore, written (to exclude wafers too): "it (is a meal-offering").

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.

6) — But, their ("strategic") common factor might be that they are similar in being offered by both rich and poor and requiring "touching" (as opposed to the meal-offering of a sinner, which is offered by a poor man only); it is, therefore, written: "the (implying "any") meal-offering," to indicate both a gift meal-offering and the meal-offering of a sinner as requiring "touching." R. Shimon says: "And you shall bring" — to include the meal-offering of the omer as requiring "touching," it being written (Ibid. 23:10): "And you shall bring the omer, the first of your harvest to the Cohein"; "and he shall present it" — to include the meal-offering of the sotah as requiring "touching," it being written (Bamidbar 5:25): "And he shall present it (the sotah's meal-offering) to the altar."

6) R. Shimon says: "meal-offering" — to include all meal-offerings (e.g., those of gentiles, those of women) as requiring "touching." I might think (that this applies) even to the two loaves and the show bread; it is, therefore, written: "of these" (i.e., what is similar to these five kinds). Why do you see fit to include all meal-offerings and to exclude the two loaves and the show bread? After Scripture includes, it excludes. Just as these are distinct in that part of them (the fistful) goes to the fire (of the altar), so, all (meal-offerings), part of which goes to the fire (require "touching") — to exclude the two loaves and the show bread, nothing of which goes to the fire (but which is entirely eaten by the Cohanim).

[(Lev. 7:11): THIS IS THE LAW OF THE SACRIFICE FOR PEACE OFFERINGS.] When they offered the sacrifice of the peace offerings, the Holy One would lift up his face to them, as stated (in Numb. 6:26): THE LORD LIFT UP HIS FACE UNTO YOU AND GRANT YOU PEACE.²⁸Tanh., Lev. 2:5. Is it possible for the Holy One to lift up a face to mortals? Two verses contradict each other. One text says (in Ezek. 33:11): {FOR} I DO NOT DESIRE THE DEATH OF THE WICKED BUT THAT THE WICKED TURN FROM HIS WAY AND LIVE. The other text says (in I Sam. 2:25): FOR THE LORD TOOK PLEASURE IN SLAYING THEM. How has he not taken pleasure in the death of the wicked? It is simply that before their verdict was sealed, he did not take pleasure; after a verdict was sealed, THE LORD TOOK PLEASURE IN SLAYING THEM. And so Daniel said (in Dan. 10:21): HOWEVER, I WILL TELL YOU WHAT IS INSCRIBED IN THE RECORD OF TRUTH. Our masters have said: There was a story about Our Holy Rabbi (i.e., about R. Judah the Prince) that, when he was passing through Simonia (where he lived), all the people of the city came out to meet him.²⁹yYev. 12:6 (13a); Gen. R. 81:2; cf. Yev. 105:1. They wanted one elder from him to teach Torah. He gave them R. Levi bar Simon. They said to him: Rabbenu, what is the meaning of what is written in Daniel (10:21): HOWEVER, I WILL TELL YOU WHAT IS INSCRIBED IN THE RECORD OF TRUTH? Is there something false in the Torah that it < must specifically > say TRUTH < here >? < When > he did not find an answer to give them, he immediately went away [from there and came] to Rabbi. He said to him: I could not stand up before them. They asked me one thing, and I could not find out what to answer them. He said to him: What was the < one > thing. He said to him: HOWEVER, I WILL TELL YOU WHAT IS INSCRIBED IN THE RECORD OF TRUTH. Is there something false in the Torah? He said to him: There was a great answer for you to give them. He said to him: You had something to tell them: When someone sins, the Holy One inscribes death for him. < If > he repents, the record is canceled. < If > he does not repent, IT IS INSCRIBED IN THE RECORD OF TRUTH. [Here] also one text says (in Numb. 6:26): THE LORD LIFT UP HIS FACE UNTO YOU…, while another text says (in Deut. 10:17): WHO DOES NOT LIFT UP HIS FACE. If he lifts it up, why does he not lift it up? It is simply that for the nations of the world, < he is one > WHO DOES NOT LIFT UP HIS FACE, but for Israel, THE LORD LIFT UP HIS FACE UNTO YOU. The Holy One said: Just as Israel lifts up a face to me, so I lift up a face to them. And how do they lift up a face to me? < When > someone poor from Israel has four children, he takes one loaf. They sit down and eat all that loaf, but they are not satisfied from what there is in it. So they give a blessing and say (from Deut. 8:10): THEN YOU SHALL EAT, BE FULL, [AND BLESS]. I shall also lift up a face to them, as stated (in Numb. 6:26): THE LORD LIFT UP HIS FACE UNTO YOU. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 7:11): THIS IS THE LAW OF THE SACRIFICE FOR PEACE OFFERINGS.

(Lev. 2:5:) AND IF <YOUR OFFERING > IS A MEAL OFFERING ON A GRIDDLE…. It is also written (in Exod. 2:7): AND IF <YOUR OFFERING > IS A MEAL OFFERING IN A PAN. (Men. 5:8:) WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A GRIDDLE AND A PAN?²⁶Sifra to Lev. 2:5, Wayyiqra, pereq 12. A PAN HAS A COVER, AND A GRIDDLE DOES NOT HAVE A COVER. <…> A PAN (rt.: RHSh) IS DEEP, AND ITS PRODUCTS TREMBLE (rt.: RHSh).²⁷Lev. R. 3:7. A GRIDDLE IS FLAT AND ITS PRODUCTS ARE SOLID. (Men. 11:3:) THE CAKES OF THE HIGH PRIEST HAD THEIR KNEADING AND THEIR ROLLING OUT WITHIN <THE TEMPLE COURT >, AND < DOING SO> OVERRIDES THE SABBATH. THEIR GRINDING AND SIFTING DO NOT OVERRIDE THE SABBATH. (Men. 5:1:)²⁸See below, Tanh. (Buber), Numb. 8:11. ALL MEAL OFFERINGS WERE OFFERED UNLEAVENED EXCEPT THE LEAVENED <CAKES> IN THE THANK OFFERING AND THE TWO LOAVES (of Pentecost) WHICH WERE OFFERED LEAVENED. (Men. 5:2:) ALL MEAL OFFERINGS WERE KNEADED IN LUKEWARM WATER AND ONE WATCHED THEM LEST THEY BECOME LEAVENED; AND IF THE REST OF IT BECAME LEAVENED, ONE TRANSGRESSED A NEGATIVE COMMANDMENT, ASSTATED (in Lev. 2:11): NO MEAL OFFERING WHICH YOU OFFER TO THE LORD SHALL BE MADE WITH LEAVEN….

(Lev. 2:5:) AND IF <YOUR OFFERING > IS A MEAL OFFERING ON A GRIDDLE…. It is also written (in Exod. 2:7): AND IF <YOUR OFFERING > IS A MEAL OFFERING IN A PAN. (Men. 5:8:) WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A GRIDDLE AND A PAN?²⁶Sifra to Lev. 2:5, Wayyiqra, pereq 12. A PAN HAS A COVER, AND A GRIDDLE DOES NOT HAVE A COVER. <…> A PAN (rt.: RHSh) IS DEEP, AND ITS PRODUCTS TREMBLE (rt.: RHSh).²⁷Lev. R. 3:7. A GRIDDLE IS FLAT AND ITS PRODUCTS ARE SOLID. (Men. 11:3:) THE CAKES OF THE HIGH PRIEST HAD THEIR KNEADING AND THEIR ROLLING OUT WITHIN <THE TEMPLE COURT >, AND < DOING SO> OVERRIDES THE SABBATH. THEIR GRINDING AND SIFTING DO NOT OVERRIDE THE SABBATH. (Men. 5:1:)²⁸See below, Tanh. (Buber), Numb. 8:11. ALL MEAL OFFERINGS WERE OFFERED UNLEAVENED EXCEPT THE LEAVENED <CAKES> IN THE THANK OFFERING AND THE TWO LOAVES (of Pentecost) WHICH WERE OFFERED LEAVENED. (Men. 5:2:) ALL MEAL OFFERINGS WERE KNEADED IN LUKEWARM WATER AND ONE WATCHED THEM LEST THEY BECOME LEAVENED; AND IF THE REST OF IT BECAME LEAVENED, ONE TRANSGRESSED A NEGATIVE COMMANDMENT, ASSTATED (in Lev. 2:11): NO MEAL OFFERING WHICH YOU OFFER TO THE LORD SHALL BE MADE WITH LEAVEN….

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.

7) (Vayikra 2:12): ("As a first-offering you may offer them [leaven and honey] up to the L–rd"): "As a first-offering" (the two loaves were leavened, and the first-fruits contained the honey of fruits and dates.): — that they (the two loaves) be first of all the meal-offerings (of the year, no meal-offering of the new grain being brought before the two loaves are offered), as it is written (Vayikra 23:16): "And you shall offer a new meal-offering to the L–rd" — that it be the newest of all the meal-offerings. This tells me (that it precedes) only a meal-offering of wheat (the two loaves being of wheat.) Whence do I derive that it precedes even) a meal-offering of barley (such as the meal-offering of rancor [of the sotah])? From (Numbers 28:26): "And on the day of first-fruits, when you offer a new meal-offering to the L–rd, in your (festival of) weeks (Shavuoth)." If it ("new") is not needed for a wheat meal-offering, (this already having been written), understand it as applying to a barley meal-offering (i.e., that a barley meal-offering, too, does not precede it).

7) (Vayikra 2:13): ("With all your offerings) you shall offer salt": "you shall offer" (salt, in a communal offering) — even on the Sabbath; "you shall offer" — even in a state of uncleanliness; "you shall offer salt" — any kind (both Sodom salt and Astrakhan salt); "you shall offer salt" — from any place, (even from outside Eretz Yisrael).

7) "aviv": If it were written "aviv kalui geresh (groats)," it would be ambiguous (i.e., Does "kalui" (parched) refer to aviv, that it is to be parched before it is ground, or does it refer to geresh), that it is to be parched after it is ground? Now that it is written "aviv kalui ba'esh (with fire)," "with fire" creates a hiatus, so that (the meaning must be) it is roasted (when) aviv (grain in the ear).

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.

7) (Vayikra 2:7): "And if a meal-offering of the marchesheth (stewing pan) is your offering": What is the difference between the machavath (griddle) and the marchesheth? The marchesheth has a cover and the machavath does not have a cover. These are the words of R. Yossi Haglili. R. Chanina b. Gamliel says: A marchesheth is deep, and what is baked in it (accordingly) soft; a machavath is flat, and what is baked in it (accordingly) hard. "Of soleth in oil shall it be made": This teaches us that it is first necessary to place oil into the vessel.

7) In that case, should not the libation meal-offering, which goes entirely to the fire, require "touching"! It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "and he shall present it" (and not the libation meal-offering). Why do you see fit to include all the meal-offerings (as requiring "touching") and to exclude the libation meal-offering? After Scripture includes, it excludes. Just as these (five kinds) are distinct in that they come by virtue of themselves, (so all that come by virtue of themselves require "touching"), to exclude the libation meal-offering, which does not come by virtue of itself (but by virtue of the sacrifice that it accompanies).

(Lev. 7:12:) IF HE OFFERS IT FORA THANKSGIVING…. See how the Holy One forgives the sins of Israel.³⁰Tanh., Lev. 2:6. So what did they offer to the Holy One? It is simply that the Holy One said: Whoever has a bull, let him bring a bull; and whoever has a calf let him bring a calf. Whoever has a lamb, let him bring a lamb. Whoever has a dove, let him bring a dove. Whoever has only one of all these, let him bring fine flour; and whoever has neither flour nor anything at all, let him bring words. Thus it is stated (in Hos. 14:3 [2]): TAKE YOUR WORDS WITH YOU [AND RETURN UNTO THE LORD]. It is therefore stated (in Lev. 7:12:) IF HE OFFERS IT FOR A THANKSGIVING….

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.

8) See Gift Offerings, Chapter 11:1

8) I might think they do not make apportionment with higher order offerings, but they do make apportionment with lower order offerings; it is, therefore, written (after (Vayikra 2:11) "And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings [lower order offerings]"), (Vayikra 2:12) "If for thanksgiving (a lower order offering) he shall offer it" — Just as apportionment is not made with higher order offerings, they are not made with lower order offerings.

8) And whence is it derived that they (the two loaves) precede the (bringing of) the first-fruits (bikkurim)? From (Shemoth 34:22): ("And the festival of Shavuoth shall you make for yourself,) the first of the wheat harvest" (i.e., What you make on Shavuoth [the two loaves] should precede [all that comes of] the wheat harvest.) This tells me (that it precedes only bikkurim) of wheat. Whence do I derive (that it precedes also bikkurim) of barley? From (Shemoth 23:16): "which you sow" (implying all that you sow.) This tells me only of what is sown. Whence do I derive (that the two loaves precede) what grows of itself (from seeds scattered by the wind)? From (Shemoth 23:16): "in the field" (implying all that grows in the field.) This tells me only of what grows in the field. Whence do I derive the same for (fruits planted on) a roof, in a yard, or in a ruin? From (Bamidbar 18:13): (The two loaves shall be) "the first-fruits of all that is in their land." And whence is it derived that they precede the (bikkurim of) libations and the fruits of the tree? From (Bamidbar 23:16): (The two loaves shall be) "the first fruits of your labor," and (Bamidbar 23:16): "when you gather your labor from the field." (Grapes for libations and fruits are subsumed in "gathered.")

8) I might think they do not make apportionment with higher order offerings, but they do make apportionment with lower order offerings; it is, therefore, written (after (Vayikra 2:11) "And this is the law of the sacrifice of peace-offerings [lower order offerings]"), (Vayikra 2:12) "If for thanksgiving (a lower order offering) he shall offer it" — Just as apportionment is not made with higher order offerings, they are not made with lower order offerings.

8) "karmel": (acronymically) "rach mal" (soft and malleable). And (similar instances of acronymics) (II Kings 4:42): "And a man came from Bal Shalishah, and brought to the man of G d bread of the first fruits: twenty loaves of barley bread and karmel in his scrip (betziklono)," (acronymically): Ba (Come), veyatzok lanu (and spill out to us), ve'achalnu (and we shall eat), venavah hayah (and it was tasty).

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.

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.

8) See Gift Offerings, Chapter 11:1

8) In that case, should not the meal-offerings of Cohanim and the high-priest's meal-offering, which come by virtue of themselves, require "touching"? It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "and he shall touch it." Why do you see fit to include all of the meal-offerings and to exclude the meal-offerings of Cohanim and the high-priest's meal-offering? After Scripture includes, it excludes. Just as these are distinct in that part of them goes to the fire, that they come by virtue of themselves, and that part of them goes to the Cohanim (to be eaten) — (so, all meal-offerings like these require "touching"): to exclude the two loaves and the show bread, no part of which goes to the fire; to exclude the libation meal-offering, which does not come by virtue of itself, and to exclude the meal-offerings of Cohanim and the high-priest's meal-offering, no part of which goes to the Cohanim (but which is entirely consumed on the altar). (Ibid. 2:9): "And he shall lift (from the meal-offering its remembrance" [the fistful]): I might think (that he lifts it) in a vessel; it is, therefore, written elsewhere (Ibid. 6:8): "And he shall lift from it in his fist." Just as there, "in his fist," so, here.

(Lev. 7:11:) THIS IS THE LAW OF THE SACRIFICE FOR PEACE OFFERINGS…. You find (in Ezra 10:19): AND THEY GAVE THEIR WORD (literally, THEIR HAND) THAT THEY WOULD PUT AWAY THEIR WIVES; AND BEING GUILTY, < THEY GAVE > A RAM FROM {THE} [A] FLOCK FOR THEIR GUILT.³¹Tanh., Lev.2:7. Now the sin offering {was} [took place] for the unintentional sin, as stated (in Numb. 15:25): AND THEIR SIN OFFERING BEFORE THE LORD FOR THEIR UNINTENTIONAL SIN. A burnt offering took place for a thought of the heart. Thus it is stated (in Job 1:5): AND RISING EARLY IN THE MORNING, HE WOULD OFFER BURNT OFFERINGS, ONE FOR EACH OF THEM, FOR JOB SAID: PERHAPS MY CHILDREN HAVE SINNED AND BLASPHEMED GOD IN THEIR HEARTS. But when the thank offering took place, it took place on account of their gratitude. The Holy One said: This is the dearest to me of all the offerings. David said (in Ps. 50:23): WHOEVER SACRIFICES A THANK OFFERING HONORS ME (YKBDNNI). It does not say YKBDNI but YKBDNNI, < spelled with N > two times, < once > for this world and < once > for the world to come.³²Lev. R. 9:2; Rashi on Sanh. 43b.

(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.

9) I might think that if a different offering (of the new grain) preceded them (the two loaves) they should not be offered; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 2:12): "You may offer them." I might think that if they were not offered on Shavuoth they could be offered afterwards; it is, therefore, written (to negate this): "them" (i.e., the ones specifically designated in respect to Shavuoth). I might think that an individual could bring their like (the two loaves) as a gift-offering (whenever he wished); it is, therefore, written: "them." I might think that an individual cannot bring their like as a gift-offering because he does not bring their like as a mandatory offering, but that the congregation, which does bring their like as a mandatory offering, could bring their like as a gift-offering. It is, therefore, written: "them." (Vayikra 2:12): ("but they [leaven and honey] shall not come up to the altar for a sweet savor"): "the altar": This tells me only of the altar. Whence do I derive the ramp (to be included in the prohibition)? From "and to the altar they shall not come up." I might think (that they are prohibited) both for an offering and not for an offering (i.e., as fuel); it is, therefore, written: "for a sweet savor" — it is only for an offering that they are prohibited.

9) And (Iyyov 39:13): "knaf renanim ne'elassah" ("The knaf renanim [a kind of bird] ne'elassah" [acronymically]): noseh (it carries [its egg]), oleh (it goes up [to its nest]), umithchateh (and drops it in.) And (Proverbs 7:18): "Nithalssa ba'ahavim," (acronymically): Nissa venitan (Let us consort), vena'aleh (and let us go up [to bed]), venithchatah ba'ahavim (and immerse ourselves in love). And (Bamidbar 22:32): "ki yarat haderech lenegdi," (acronymically): yarathah (it feared), ra'athah (it saw), nat'thah (it turned aside).

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.

(Lev. 17:3:) “If any single person from the House of Israel.” This text is related (to Ps. 51:20–21), “Make Zion prosper in Your good pleasure; rebuild the walls of Jerusalem. Then You shall delight in sacrifices of righteousness, burnt offerings, and whole offerings….” To what is the matter comparable? To a rich and noble man, who has no wife. His house was not [really] a house. Why? When the tenants came, he said to them, “Go rest in another place.” Why? Because he had neither house nor wife. He took a wife. He said to them, “Whatever you bring me, from now on bring them up to the house.” Thus all the days before Moses erected the tent of meeting, they offered sacrifices [in] any place, as stated (in Exod. 24:5), “Then he sent youths of the Children of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings….” And so it says (in Exod. 8:23), “Let us go a distance of three days into the wilderness and sacrifice to the Lord our God.” When the tabernacle was raised, the [Holy One, blessed be He,] said to Moses, “From now on you are only permitted to offer sacrifice in the tent of meeting”; and there they offered up the [gift]⁶⁷Gk.: doron. to the Holy One, blessed be He. It is so stated (in Deut. 12:13-14), “Take heed that you do not offer up your burnt offerings in any place that you see. But only in the place that the Lord will choose.” And where did the Holy One, blessed be He, choose? Jerusalem, as stated (in Ps. 132:13), “For the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His dwelling.” Moses therefore warns Israel, saying (in Lev. 17:3-4), “If any single person from the House of Israel [slaughters an ox, a lamb, or a goat in the camp]…. And does not bring it unto the entrance of the tent of meeting to offer it as a sacrifice… [bloodguilt shall be imputed to that person].“ The Holy One, blessed be He, foresaw that the Temple was going to be destroyed; so the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “As long as the Temple exists, you shall sacrifice within it, [and] there will be atonement for you; but when the Temple does not exist, how will there be atonement for you? Occupy yourselves with the words of Torah, because they are comparable with offerings, and they will atone for you.” Thus it is stated (ibid.), “This is the thing (literally: word).” So also the prophet says (in Hos. 14:3), “Take words with you, and return unto the Lord.” The words of Torah resemble all the offerings. One offers wine as a libation upon the altar, as stated (in Numb. 15:5), “And a quarter hin of wine for a libation”; and Torah resembles wine, as stated (in Prov. 9:5, where wisdom says), “and drink of the wine I have mixed.” One offers bread upon the altar, as stated (in Numb. 28:2), “My offering, My bread for My fire offering; and so it says (in Exod. 25:30), “And you shall set the [show]bread upon the table before Me always”; and Torah resembles bread, as stated (in Prov. 9:5, where wisdom says), “Come and eat of my bread.” One offers oil upon the altar, as stated (in Lev. 2:5), “fine flour mixed with oil”; and Torah resembles oil, as stated (in Eccl. 9:8), “Always let your clothes be white, and let there be no lack of oil upon your head.”⁶⁸Cf. Eccl. R. 9:8:1, which also understands this verse as referring to Torah.

(Lev. 7:11:) THIS IS THE LAW OF THE SACRIFICE FOR PEACE OFFERINGS. [Peace offerings rank high] because they make peace between Israel and their Father in heaven. Eleazar haQappar says: Peace is great, because even though Israel worships idols but < still > forms one fellowship (havurah), strict justice does not harm them.³³Tanh., Lev. 2:7; Numb. R. 11:17; cf. Gen. R. 38:6. It is so stated (in Hos. 4:17): EPHRAIM IS ASSOCIATED (havur) WITH IDOLS. LET HIM BE. R. Levi says: Peace is great, because there is no conclusion to the Priestly Blessing except peace, as stated (in Numb. 6:26): AND GRANT YOU PEACE. R. Simeon ben Gamaliel said: Peace is great, because the Holy One has written things in the Torah which are there only because of Peace.³⁴yPe’ah 1:1 (16a); see Gen. R. 48:18; 100:8; Lev. R. 9:9; Deut. R. 5:5; Yev. 65b. They are the following:

Rabbi Berachiyah said in the name of Rabbi Abbah Bar Kahana expounding on the verse about Aaron. At the time when the Israelites were about to commit the act [make the golden calf] they first came to Chur, and they said to him: "Make us a god!" Since he did not listen to them, they rose up and slew him. This is why it's later written in the prophets: "Also in your wings we find the blood of the souls of the innocent and the poor etc." This refers to the blood of Chur. . . . " Afterwards, they went to Aaron and said to him: "Make us a god." Aaaron had heard about what they did to Chur, and became afraid. It is therefore written: "Aaron was frightened and built an alter before them." Aaron was frightened that he might be the one who was going to be slaughtered. Aaron said, what should I do? They've already killed Chur, and he was was a prophet. Now if they kill me, the priest, they will fulfill the word later written in scripture: "Should priest and prophet be slain in the sanctuary of YHWH (Eicha 2:20)." If they kill me, they will all be exiled. Here is another interpretation (Davar Acher): Aaron saw this, and built an altar before it (Exodus 32:5). What did he see? He saw the situation playing out like this: If they build it, one will bring a pebble, another a larger stone, and they will finish the building of the idol in one day. If I build it, then I can delay and dally, and give time for our teacher Moses to come down the mountain and then destroy this idol worship. And if I build it, I can dedicate it to the name of the Holy one Blessed be God, therefore it is written: "Aaron called and said this shall be a festival for YHWH." It is not written a feast for the calf, but a feast to YHWH. Another interpretation: "And Aaron saw this, etc." What did he see? He saw the situation playing out as follows: "If they build it the sin will be upon them, but if it will be better if I build it, so that the sin should be upon me and not the people. Rabbi Abba Bar Yodan said in the name of Abbah, we can give a parable that demonstrates this. It's like the son of a king who became filled with pride in his heart and took a sword and rose up to try and cut his father. The son's tutor said to him: Don't trouble yourself, leave it to me and i'll do cut him for you." The king saw the tutor and said to him: "I know what your intention was, it was that you believed it better that the sin should be upon you than upon my son. As you live, you shall not leave my palace, and that which remains over from my table, you shall eat it, and you will receive twenty four perks. So too with Aaron: "You shall not leave my palace" is compared to "He shall not go out of the sanctuary Leviticus 21:12"And that which remains of the table, you shall eat it" is compared to: "That which is let of the meal-offering shall be Aaron's and his sons (Leviticus 2:3)." The twenty four perks is paralleled to the twenty four gifts of the priesthood assigned to Aaron and his sons. . . .

“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).

“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.

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).

(Numb. 28:1–2:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE UNTO MOSES, SAYING: COMMAND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, AND SAY UNTO THEM: MY OFFERING, MY BREAD FOR MY FIRE OFFERING, <MY SWEET AROMA, YOU SHALL TAKE HEED TO OFFER ME IN ITS DUE SEASON>. Let our master instruct us: Regarding the meal offerings that were offered upon the altar, how were they offered?⁴¹Tanh., Numb. 8:12. Thus have our masters taught (in Men. 5:1–2):⁴²See above, Lev. 1:7. ALL MEAL OFFERINGS WERE OFFERED UNLEAVENED EXCEPT THE LEAVENED <CAKES> IN THE THANK OFFERING AND THE TWO LOAVES (of Pentecost) WHICH WERE OFFERED LEAVENED. R. MEIR SAYS: THE LEAVEN IS SEPARATED FROM THEIR OWN <DOUGH>, AND <IT IS FROM THIS THAT> THEY ARE LEAVENED. R. JUDAH SAYS: EVEN THAT IS NOT THE BEST <METHOD>; ONE SHOULD BRING THE LEAVEN, PUT IT INTO THE MEASURE, AND FILL THE MEASURE <WITH THE FLOUR>. <THE SAGES> SAID TO HIM: EVEN THAT <METHOD> RESULTED TOO LITTLE OR TOO MUCH. ALL MEAL OFFERINGS WERE KNEADED IN LUKEWARM WATER AND ONE WATCHED THEM LEST THEY BECOME LEAVENED; AND IF THE REST OF IT BECAME LEAVENED, ONE TRANSGRESSED A NEGATIVE COMMANDMENT, AS STATED (in Lev. 2:11): NO MEAL OFFERING WHICH YOU OFFER TO THE LORD SHALL BE MADE WITH LEAVEN. THUS ONE MAY BECOME CULPABLE IN THE KNEADING OF <LEAVEN>, IN ROLLING IT, AND IN BAKING IT. Of all the offerings none is more pleasing to you than the thank offering. The Holy One said to Moses: Say to those Israelites: I did not tell you to offer me sacrifices because I have need of them, since the whole world is mine.⁴³Numb. R. 21:16; see Men. 110a; PRK 6:1; PR 16:1; 48:3; Tanh., Exod. 8:14. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 50:12): IF I AM HUNGRY, I WOULD NOT TELL YOU, FOR THE WORLD AND EVERYTHING IN IT BELONG TO ME.

(Lev. 8:1–2:) THEN THE LORD SPOKE < UNTO MOSES >…: TAKE AARON AND HIS SONS ALONG WITH HIM, THE VESTMENTS < …. > This text is related (to Ps. 65:5 [4]): BLESSED IS THE ONE YOU CHOOSE AND BRING NEAR TO DWELL IN YOUR COURTS. Blessed is the one whom the Holy One has chosen, even though he has not brought him near.³⁹Tanh., Lev. 2:8. And Blessed is the one whom he has brought near, even though he did not choose him. Now which was this one whom he chose? This was Abraham. {However he did not bring him near; instead he brought himself near to him.} It is so stated (in Neh. 9:7): YOU ARE THE LORD, THE GOD WHO CHOSE ABRAM…. [However he did not bring him near. Instead he brought himself near.] In the case of Jacob, the Holy One chose him, as stated (in Is. 41:8): JACOB, WHOM I HAVE CHOSEN. It also says (in Ps. 135:4): FOR THE LORD HAS CHOSEN JACOB FOR HIMSELF. But he did not bring him near. Instead he brought himself near. Thus it is stated (in Gen. 25:27): BUT JACOB WAS A PERFECT MAN DWELLING IN TENTS. Moses he chose but did not bring near, as stated (in Ps. 106:23): < …, > HAD NOT MOSES HIS CHOSEN ONE < STOOD IN THE BREACH >,…. David he chose but did not bring near, as stated (in Ps. 78:70): HE CHOSE DAVID, HIS SERVANT. He also brought himself near, as stated (in Ps. 119:63): I AM A COMPANION TO ALL WHO FEAR YOU. Blessed are those whom the Holy One chose, even though he did not bring them near. Come and see Jethro. The Holy One brought him near, but he did not choose him. In the case of Rahab the harlot, he brought her near but did not choose her. Aaron was doubly blessed because < the Holy One > chose him and brought him near. Where is it shown that he chose him? Where it is stated (in I Sam. 2:28): AND I CHOSE HIM [FROM ALL THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL TO BE MY PRIEST]. And where is it shown that he brought him near? Where it is stated (in Exod. 28:1): AND YOU SHALL BRING NEAR UNTO YOURSELF YOUR BROTHER AARON < AND HIS SONS ALONG WITH HIM,… TO SERVE ME AS PRIESTS >. Therefore, David praised him (in Ps. 65:5 [4]): BLESSED IS THE ONE YOU CHOOSE AND BRING NEAR < TO DWELL IN YOUR COURTS >.

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.

11) From (Shemoth 29:37): "All that touches the altar shall become consecrated" we learn that the altar consecrates what is appropriate for it. Whence do we derive that even the ramp (leading to the altar) consecrates what is appropriate for the altar? From "eth the altar" ("eth" connoting inclusion). Whence do I derive that even the ministering vessels consecrate what is appropriate for them? From (Shemoth 30:29): "And they (the ministering vessels) shall be holy of holies. All that touches them shall be consecrated."

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.

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.

(Numb. 28:1–2:) “Then the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, ‘Command the Children of Israel, [and say unto them], “My offering, My bread for My fire offering….”’” Let our master instruct us: Regarding the meal offerings that were offered upon the altar, how were they offered? Thus have our masters taught (in Men. 5:1–2):³³See above, Lev. 1:7. All meal offerings were offered unleavened except the leavened [cakes] in the thank offering and the two loaves (of Pentecost) which were offered leavened. R. Meir says, “The leaven is separated from its own [dough], and [it is from this that] they are leavened.” R. Judah says, “Even that is not the best [method]; one should bring the leaven, put it into the [measure], and fill the measure [with flour].” [The sages] said to him, “Even that [method] resulted in too little or too much.” All meal offerings were kneaded in lukewarm water and one watched them lest they become leavened; and if the remnants of it became leavened, one transgressed a negative commandment, as stated (in Lev. 2:11), “No meal offering which you offer to the Lord shall be made with leaven.” Thus one may become culpable in the kneading of [leaven], in rolling it, and in baking it. There is nothing more pleasing for you than the offerings. The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses, “Say to those Israelites, ‘I did not tell you to offer me sacrifices because I have a need for them, since the whole world is Mine, and I created the animal from which you offer a sacrifice in front of Me.’”³⁴Numb. R. 21:16; see Men. 110a; PRK 6:1; PR 16:1; 48:3; Tanh., Exod. 8:14. Thus it is stated (in Ps. 50:12), “If I am hungry, I would not tell you, for the world and everything in it belong to Me.” R. Judah bar Simon said, “It is not that I require to eat anything which I commanded you to offer as My offering, My bread; as there is not eating or drinking in front of Me.” R. Simon said, “There are thirteen attributes of mercy that are written about the Holy One, blessed be He, as stated (in Exod. 34:6), ‘And the Lord passed over his face….’ Is there a merciful one that delivers his victuals to a cruel one?” Ergo (in Ps. 50:12), “If I am hungry, I would not tell you.” R. Judah bar Simon said, “The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘I have delivered ten [kinds of] clean animals to you (for food).³⁵See also PR 16:1; Numb. R. 20:5; 21:16. Three are in your possession, and seven are not in your possession. Now these are those which are in your possession (according to Deut. 14:4), “the bull, the sheep, and the goat.” And these are those which are not in your possession (according to Deut. 14:5), “The deer, the gazelle, the roebuck, the wild goat, the ibex, the antelope, and the mountain sheep.” I did not burden you to have you seek them in the mountains and the hills, in order to bring Me a sacrifice from those [which are not in your possession]. Rather [your sacrifices come] from those which are in your possession, which grew up at your feeding trough.’” Ergo (in Ps. 50:12), “If I am hungry, I would not tell you.” R. Isaac said, “It is written (in Numb 28:2), ‘My offering, My Bread, for My burnt offering.’ Is there eating and drinking in front of Me? And if you say there is eating and drinking in front of Me, [you should] learn from the ministering angels, as stated (in Ps. 104:4), ‘His servants flaming fire.’” From what are they [then] sustained? R. Judan said in the name of R. Isaac, “They are nourished from the radiance of the Divine Presence, as stated (in Prov. 16:15), ‘The light of the king’s face is light.‘” R. Simeon ben Laqish said, [Regarding (Numb. 28:6),] “The regular burnt offering done at Mount Sinai,” “And did they do it at Mount Sinai? It is simply that if you will say that that there is eating and drinking in front of Him, learn from Moshe, our teacher. Observe what is written about him (in Exod. 34:28), ‘And he was there with the Lord forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water.’ If there was eating and drinking in front of Me, he would have eaten and drank from what I eat and drink. And if Moses who [only] fulfilled the errand of God, ‘neither ate bread nor drank water,’ all the more so is it true of the Holy One, blessed be He.” Ergo (in Ps. 50:12), “If I am hungry, I would not tell you.” R. Hiyya bar Abba said, “So did the Holy One blessed be He say: ‘My [other] creatures do not need My creatures (people). In your days have you heard one saying, “Let this vine produce wine,” and it produces much wine, [or] “Let this olive tree produce oil,” and it produces much wine. My creatures do not need My creatures and I should need My creatures?’” R. Jannai said, “It is customary that when a man is walking by a river, it is impossible for him not to drink two or three log. Now all the water that is in the world would fill the hollow of My hand, as stated (in Is. 40:12), ‘Who has measured the waters in the hollow of His hand?’ But [yet] I have written about your log (in Numb. 28:7), ‘to be poured in the sacred precinct as an offering of fermented drink to the Lord,’ which is an expression of drinking, an expression of satiation, an expression of inebriation.” I have created one animal in My world, and you are not able to support its victuals. And which is it? That is (in Psalms 50:10), “the behemoths on a thousand mountains.” R. Johanan, R. Joshua ben Levi and the Sages [disagreed about this]. R. Johanan said, ‘It was one animal crouching on a thousand mountains and it would pasture on a thousand [different] mountains each day, as stated, (in Job 40:20), ‘The mountains yield him produce.’” R. Joshua ben Levi says, “It was one animal crouching on a thousand mountains and a thousand mountains would produce many types of food, for the righteous to eat in the future to come, as stated (in Is. 65:10), ‘Sharon shall become a pasture for flocks, And the Valley of Achor a place for cattle to lie down.’” And the Sages say, “It crouches upon the thousand mountains, and the thousand mountains produce animals every day and it eats [them].” What is the explanation? As it states (in Job 40:20, cont.), “and all the beasts of the field play there.” Is it possible for a grazing animal to eat a grazing animal? R. Tanchuma says, “Great is the work of our God and how great are His acts.” And from where does it drink? R. Joshua ben Levi and the Sages [disagreed about this]. R. Joshua ben Levi says, “It drinks up with one swallow all that the Jordan produces in six months, as stated (in Job 40:23), ‘He can restrain the river from its rushing; [he is confident the Jordan will gush at his command].’ [And the sages say, “Twelve months….”]³⁶See Numb. R. 21:18. But it only has a moistening of the mouth [from it].” And [so] from where does it drink? R. Shimon ben Gamliel taught (form Gen. 2:10), “’A river issues from Eden to water the garden’ and its name is Yuval, as stated (in Jer. 17:8), ‘sending forth its roots by a stream (yuval),’ and it drinks from it.” R. Chiya taught in the name of R. Meir (from Job 12:7), “’But ask the beasts, and they will teach you; the birds of the sky, they will tell you’: ’But ask the beasts,’ this is the behemoth; ‘the birds of the sky,’ this is the ziz of the Omnipresent (a giant bird). (Job 12:8:) ‘Or speak to the earth, it will teach you; the fish of the sea, they will inform you’: ‘Or speak to the earth,’ this is the Garden of Eden; ‘The fish of the sea,’ that is the leviathan. (Job 12:9:) ‘Who among all these does not know that the hand of the Lord has done this?’” You have one king and his name was Solomon, as stated (about the lavishness of his meals in I Kings 5:2-3), “Solomon’s daily provisions consisted of thirty kor of semolina, and sixty kor of [ordinary] flour, ten fattened oxen….” R. Yehuda bar Zvidah said, “Solomon had a thousand wives and each and every one would make him like this every day, as she thought he would eat with her. [And] Nehemiah the governor did not [even] have the ability to reckon his meal, as stated (in Neh. 5:18), ‘And although what was prepared for each day came to one ox….’ The Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘My children, it is not because there is eating and drinking in front of Me. Rather it is because of the smell, that you shall be pleased and give the pleasant smell in front of Me.’”

[(Lev. 8:2:) TAKE AARON AND HIS SONS.] It is written (in Prov. 3:35): THE WISE SHALL INHERIT GLORY, [BUT FOOLS TAKE UP SHAME.] This verse functioned in the beginning of the world.⁴⁰Cf. Tanh., Lev. 2:9: “from the beginning of the world until now.” THE WISE SHALL INHERIT GLORY. This refers to Noah and his children. BUT FOOLS TAKE UP SHAME. This refers to the generation of the flood. There is also this interpretation (of Prov. 3:35): THE WISE SHALL INHERIT GLORY. This refers to Shem of whom it is stated (in Gen. 9:26): BLESSED BE THE LORD, THE GOD OF SHEM. (Prov. 3:35, cont.): BUT FOOLS TAKE UP SHAME. This refers to Ham of whom it is stated (in Gen. 9:25): AND HE SAID: CURSED BE CANAAN (the son of Ham).

(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.

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.

[(Lev. 8:2:) TAKE AARON AND HIS SONS.] This text is related (to Prov. 20:7): THE ONE WHO WALKS IN HIS INTEGRITY IS RIGHTEOUS; BLESSED ARE HIS CHILDREN AFTER HIM. This refers to Aaron and his children.⁴²Tanh., Lev. 2:10. If this interpretation is so,⁴³Reading KN for MN, as suggested in Midrash Tanhuma (Jerusalem: Eshkol, n.d.), p. 500, n. 3. The Buber text is more awkward, but means essentially the same: “If < this interpretation results > from this saying.” Moses also was righteous, but his children were not like him. And Eli also was righteous, but his children were not like him. And Samuel [was] righteous, but his children were not like him. (I Sam. 8:3:) BUT HIS SONS DID NOT WALK IN HIS WAYS. Why do you say < of Aaron > (in Prov. 20:7): THE ONE WHO WALKS IN HIS INTEGRITY IS RIGHTEOUS; < BLESSED ARE HIS CHILDREN AFTER HIM >? Because during his lifetime he saw his sons after him serving in the High Priesthood. Therefore (in Lev. 8:2:) TAKE AARON AND HIS SONS ALONG WITH HIM.

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.

(Lev. 8:3:) AND ASSEMBLE THE WHOLE CONGREGATION. The Holy One said to Moses: Pay him honor in front of all Israel, in order that they may see him when he enters the High Priesthood.⁴⁶Tanh., Lev. 2:11. In addition, you are to warn them not to rebel against the priesthood like Korah and his crowd (in Numb. 16:1–35). For I know that Uzziah is going to arise and rebel against the Priesthood (in II Chron. 26:16–21). Thus it is stated (in Numb. 17:5 [16:40]): IT WAS TO BE A REMINDER TO THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL THAT NO OUTSIDER < WHO WAS NOT OF AARON'S SEED > SHOULD DRAW NEAR < TO OFFER INCENSE BEFORE THE LORD >…. He (i.e., Uzziah) was not of Levi's seed just as Korah was < not of Levi's seed >. It (i.e., the altar covering of Numb. 17:4 [16:39]) gave him a reminder: What you did to Korah you would do to him. It said to him (ibid., cont.): LET HIM NOT BE LIKE KORAH AND HIS CROWD. He said to it: And how did you act toward him? It said to him (ibid., cont.): AS THE LORD SPOKE TO HIM THROUGH MOSES. He (the Holy One) said to him (Moses): Just as I did to your hand (in Exod. 4:6): AND WHEN HE WITHDREW IT {FROM HIS BOSOM}, BEHOLD IT WAS LEPROUS, < AS WHITE > AS SNOW; so will I do to him (in II Chron. 26:20–21). Therefore (in Lev. 8:3): AND ASSEMBLE THE WHOLE CONGREGATION.

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

(Lev. 8:3:) AND ASSEMBLE THE WHOLE CONGREGATION…. He said to him: Where?⁴⁷Tanh., Lev. 2:12; see Lev. R. 10:9; cf. Gen. R. 5:7. He said unto him: Unto the door of the Tent of Meeting. Moses our Master said to him: Sovereign of the World, < there are > sixty myriads of adults and sixty myriads of young people. How will I have them stand at the opening of the Tent of Meeting? < The area is > only the size of a field requiring of two seahs of seed; yet you are saying (in Lev. 8:3:) AND ASSEMBLE THE WHOLE CONGREGATION. The Holy One said to him: Are you surprised about this command? Are the heavens not like a cataract on the eye? For I made them < to stretch > from one end of the world to the other, [as stated] (in Is. 40:22): WHO HAS STRETCHED OUT THE HEAVENS LIKE A CURTAIN [AND SPREAD THEM OUT LIKE A TENT TO DWELL IN]. And also in the world to come I will do likewise for Zion. How will all those populations⁴⁸Gk.: ochloi. from the first Adam until the dead rise < have room to > stand? Then they are going to say (in Is. 49:20): THE PLACE IS TOO CROWDED FOR ME; MAKE ROOM FOR ME TO DWELL. What shall I do for them? I shall enlarge it, as stated (in Is. 54:2): ENLARGE THE SITE OF YOUR TABERNACLE? From where do you learn so? From Mount Sinai. When the Holy One appeared upon it, what is written (in Ps. 68:18 [17])? THE CHARIOTS OF GOD ARE MYRIADS, THOUSANDS UPON THOUSANDS; < THE LORD IS AMONG THEM ON SINAI >…. R. Avdimi of Haifa said: I have learned in my Mishnah: When the Holy One appeared on Mount Sinai to give the Torah, twenty-two thousand chariots came down with him.⁴⁹PRK 12:22; PR 21:7; Exod. R. 29:2. R. Berekhyah [the Priest] said that the Holy One foresaw that none would remain in their teaching (literally: their water) except the tribe of Levi. He therefore came down < with a number > corresponding to the camp of the Levites (according to Numb. 22:39). R. Jannay said: If so, how is it that THE CHARIOTS (rt.: RKB) OF GOD ARE MYRIADS. It is simply that twenty-two thousand chariots came down with the Holy One, with each and every chariot like the chariot which Ezekiel ben Buzi saw (Ezek. 1:19–21); yet it (i.e., Mt. Sinai) contained them. Indeed the event was a miracle. The Holy One said: Become wider (rt.: RHB) and longer to receive my children, < who are > faithful children. And so you find in the world to come, that the Holy One will widen (rt.: RHB) Jerusalem, as stated (in Ezek. 41:7): AND IT BECAME {LONGER} [WIDER] (rt.: RHB) AS IT WOUND ABOUT HIGHER (LM'LH)…, until it was rising to the heavens.⁵⁰See PRK 20:7. On the enlargement of Jerusalem in the age to come, cf. BB 75b. Now, HIGHER (M'LH) can only mean "heaven" (ShMYM). Thus it is stated (in Ps. 108:5 [4]) FOR [YOUR FAITHFULNESS IS] GREAT, ABOVE (M'L) {THE HEAVENS (HShMYM)} [HEAVEN (ShMYM)].⁵¹Note that the Mss reading (in the braces) adds an extra H to the Masoretic Text. Thus the H appears at the end of M‘L to make M‘LH. When it (i.e., Jerusalem) reaches the heavens, it says (in Is. 49:20): THE PLACE IS TOO CROWDED FOR ME…. Nevertheless, the Holy One raises it up from the heavens to the firmament, from the second < heaven > to the third, from the third to the fourth, from the fourth to the fifth, from the fifth to the sixth, and from the sixth to the seventh. R. Eleazar ben Jacob said: < The elevation of Jerusalem continues > until it reaches the throne of glory. But how are they (the Israelites) to ascend? The Holy One will bring clouds and will have them fly. Thus it is stated (in Is. 60:8): WHO ARE THESE THAT FLY LIKE A CLOUD? Then each and every one of the righteous will have a canopy (huppah) for himself. Thus it is stated (in Is. 4:5): FOR THE LORD WILL CREATE OVER THE [WHOLE] SITE OF MOUNT ZION AND OVER ITS ASSEMBLY [< A CLOUD AND SMOKE BY DAY AND THE BRIGHTNESS OF A FLAMING FIRE BY NIGHT >; FOR OVER < ALL > THE GLORY THERE SHALL BE A CANOPY (huppah)]. When it reaches the throne of glory, the Holy One shall say to them: I and you shall walk through the world < together >, as stated (in Lev. 26:12): AND I WILL WALK AMONG YOU. The Holy One will dwell in the middle and the righteous shall < proudly > point him out. It is so stated (in Is. 25:9): IN THAT DAY THEY SHALL SAY: SEE, THIS IS OUR GOD; WE WAITED FOR HIM, AND HE DELIVERED US…. It also says (in Ps. 48:15 [14]): FOR THIS IS GOD, OUR GOD, FOR EVER AND EVER; HE WILL LEAD EVERMORE. Because the nations say (in Deut. 32:37): AND HE WILL SAY: WHERE ARE THEIR GODS? Israel shall therefore say (in Ps. 48:15 [14]): FOR THIS IS GOD, OUR GOD, FOR EVER AND EVER; HE WILL LEAD EVERMORE.

[(Lev. 17:2:) THIS IS THE THING.] The Holy One foresaw that the Temple was going to be destroyed; so the Holy One said: As long as the Temple exists, you shall sacrifice within it, < and > there will be atonement for you; but when the Temple does not exist, how will there be atonement for you? Occupy yourselves with the words of Torah, because they are comparable with offerings, and they will atone for you. Thus it is stated (ibid.): THIS IS THE THING (literally:WORD). So also the prophet says (in Hos. 14:3 [2]): TAKE YOUR WORDS WITH YOU, < AND RETURN UNTO THE LORD…; LET US RENDER AS BULLOCKS THE OFFERING OF OUR LIPS >. The words of Torah resemble all the offerings. One offers wine as a libation upon the altar, as stated (in Numb. 15:5): AND A QUARTER HIN OF WINE FOR A LIBATION; and Torah resembles wine, as stated (in Prov. 9:5, where Wisdom says): AND DRINK OF THE WINE I HAVE MIXED. {And Torah resembles bread, as stated} [One offers bread upon the altar, as stated (in Numb. 28:2): MY OFFERING, MY BREAD FOR MY FIRE OFFERING; and so it says] (in Exod. 25:30): AND YOU SHALL SET THE [SHOW] BREAD UPON THE TABLE [BEFORE ME ALWAYS]; and Torah resembles bread, as stated (in Prov. 9:5, where Wisdom says): COME AND EAT OF MY BREAD. One offers oil upon the altar, as stated (in Lev. 2:5): FINE FLOUR MIXED WITH OIL; and Torah resembles oil, as stated (in Eccl. 9:8): ALWAYS LET YOUR CLOTHES BE WHITE, AND LET THERE BE NO LACK OF OIL UPON YOUR HEAD.⁸²Cf. Eccl. R. 9:8:1, which also understands this verse as referring to Torah.

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

(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.

"he shall be put to death": by stoning. You say by stoning; but perhaps by one of the other "deaths" of the Torah? It follows thus: It is written here (in respect to cursing father and mother, Leviticus 2:9) "his blood is in him," and elsewhere (Ibid. 27) "their blood is in them." Just as there, (he is killed) by stoning, so, here, by stoning. We have heard the punishment, but whence do we derive the exhortation? From (Exodus 22:27) "Elohim you shall not curse." If your father is a judge, he is included in "Elohim you shall not curse." And if he is a Nassi ("president"), he is included in (Ibid.) "and a Nassi in your people you shall not curse." If he is neither, it follows by induction from both, viz.: A judge is not like a Nassi, and a Nassi is not like a judge. The common element between them is that they are "in your people," and you are exhorted against cursing them. Your father, too, is "in your people," and you are exhorted against cursing him. __ But perhaps the common element between them is that they are dignitaries, and it is their eminence that accounts for this, wherefore you are exhorted against cursing them — as opposed to (the status of) your father! It is, therefore, written (Leviticus 19:14) "You shall not curse a deaf-mute," the most abject of men, and you reason by induction among the three, viz.: A judge is not like a Nassi, and a Nassi is not like a judge, and neither is like a deaf-mute, and a deaf-mute is not like either. The common element among them is that they are "in your people," and you are exhorted against cursing them. Your father, too, is "in your people," and you are exhorted against cursing him.

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.

(Exodus, Ibid. 22) "And if an altar of stones you make for Me": R. Yishmael says: Every "if" in the Torah connotes optionality, except for three; (Leviticus 2:14) "And if you offer an offering of first-fruits" — This is mandatory. You say it is mandatory, but perhaps it is optional. (This is not so, for) it is written (Ibid.) "You shall offer the offering of your first-fruits." It is mandatory, not optional. Similarly, (Exodus 22:24) "If you lend money to My people, the poor man with you, etc." This is mandatory. You say it is mandatory, but perhaps it is optional. It is, therefore, written (Devarim 15:8) "Lend shall you lend him." It is mandatory, not optional. Similarly, "And if an altar of stones you make for Me." This is mandatory. You say it is mandatory, but perhaps it is optional. (This is not so,) for it is written (Devarim 27:6) "Of whole stones shall you build the altar of the L rd." It is mandatory and not optional (to build an altar). And what is the intent of "if an altar of stones"? If he wishes to build it of stones, he may do so. (If he wishes to build it) of bricks, he may do so. Now does this not follow a fortiori for the other vessels, viz. If he may vary (i.e., either stones or bricks) for the altar, the more "formidable," how much more so may he do so for other vessels (of lesser formidability) (e.g., the menorah and the table, to make them of silver.) (Exodus 20:22) "Do not build them gazith": "gazith" is "gezuzoth" (hewn,) iron having been lifted upon them. R. Nathan says: I might think that if one built two stones (into the altar) upon which iron had been lifted (that) the entire altar is unfit, it is, therefore, written "Do not build them hewn" — They are unfit, but not the entire altar.

(Exodus 22:24) "Im you lend money to My people": R. Yishmael says: Every "im" (generally "if") in the Torah connotes optionality, with the exception of this and two others; (Leviticus 2:14) "And im ("when") you offer a meal-offering of first-fruits," where it is mandatory. You say it is mandatory, but perhaps it is optional? It is, therefore, written (Ibid. 14) "You shall bring the meal-offering of your first-fruits." It is mandatory and not optional. Similarly, (Exodus 20:22) "And im ("when") an altar of stones you make unto Me." It is mandatory. You say it is mandatory, but perhaps it is optional? (Devarim 27:6) "Of whole stones shall you build the altar of your G d" indicates that it is mandatory and not optional. Here, too, "Im ("when") you lend money." It is mandatory and not optional. You say it is mandatory, but perhaps it is optional? (Devarim 15:8) "Lend shall you lend" indicates that it is mandatory and not optional.

(Numb. 4:18:) “Do not cut off.” This text is related (to Ps. 33:18), “Behold, the eye of the Lord is on those who fear Him….” The text speaks along many lines of thought.¹²¹Shittim. For this use of the word, Buber, n. 209, cites Lev. R. 34:8. For the other interpretations, see above, Gen. 6:5. For what we need, however, it is speaking about the tribe of Levi.¹²²Numb. R. 5:1. And where is it shown? Where the tribe of Levi is called those who fear the Lord, as stated (in Mal. 2:5), “and I gave them (i.e., life and peace) as well as fear, and he feared Me.” (Ps. 33:19) “On those who wait for His steadfast love,” because they are always waiting for the name of the Holy One, blessed be He. (Ps. 33:19:) “To deliver their soul from death and to keep them alive in famine,” through the twenty-four gifts which the Holy One, blessed be He, has given them.¹²³THal. 2:7-9; BQ 110b (bar.); Hul. 133b (bar.); cf. Hal. 4:9. These are them: ten in the sanctuary, ten within the borders, and four in Jerusalem. The ten in the sanctuary: the sin offering (Lev. 6:17-23; Zev. 5:3), the guilt offering (Lev. 5:14-16, 20-26; 19:20-22; Zev. 5:5), the peace sacrifices and the community peace sacrifices (Lev. 23:19-20; Zev. 5:5), the sin offering of a fowl (Lev. 5:8), the guilt offering for a doubtful sin (Lev. 5:17-19; Zev. 5:5), the leper's log of oil (Lev. 14:12), the two loaves (Lev. 23:17), the shewbread (Exod. 25:30; Lev. 24:5-9), the remnant of the omer (Lev. 23:10-12; Men. 10:4), and the remainder of the meal offering (Lev. 2:3).
The ten within the borders: the terumah (Numb. 18:12), the terumah of the tithe (Numb. 18:25-29), the hallah (Numb. 15:18-21), the first of the shorn wool (Deut. 18:4), the shoulder, the cheeks, and the stomach (Deut. 18:3), the redemption of the [first-born] son (Numb. 18:15-16), [the redemption of] a firstling ass (Exod. 13:13), [the payment for] the robbery of a proselyte (Thal. 2:9; Bq 110b; Hul. 133b), things consecrated (Numb. 18:14; Bik. 3:12), and a field of possession (Lev. 27:16-21)
The four in Jerusalem: the firstlings [of animals] (Numb. 18:17-18), the first fruits (Exod. 23:19; Numb. 18:13; Hal. 4:9), the priest's share from the thank-offering ram and from the nazarite ram, the breast of the peace offerings, and the thigh (Exod. 29:27-28; Lev. 7:12-14; 31-34; 10:14-15; Numb. 6:13-20; 18:18), and skins of [burnt, sin, and guilt] offerings (Lev. 7:8; Zev. 12:3)
Behold, these are twenty-four gifts. Ergo (in Ps. 33:19), “and to keep them alive in famine. (Numb. 4:18) “Do not cut off [the tribe of the Kohathite families from the Levites].” The Holy One, blessed be He, foresaw that Korah was going to arise and disagree about the priesthood.¹²⁴Cf. Numb. R. 5:5. The Holy One, blessed be He, said. “I will not destroy the Levites because of Korah.” (Numb. 4:18:) “Do not cut off [the tribe of the Kohathite families from the Levites].” This text is related (to Is. 48:9), “For the sake of My name I will delay My anger, and for My praise I will hold back for you so as not to cut you off.” To what is the matter comparable?¹²⁵Numb. R. 5:6. To a king who had a son that was associated with bandits;¹²⁶Gk.: lestai. and when they were captured, his son was captured with them. The king said, “What shall I do? Shall I execute the robbers? Possibly my son is with them. Instead, for the sake of my son, I will exonerate them for now.” Similarly, the Levites carried the tabernacle. Thus it is stated (in Numb. 7:9), “But to the Children of Kohath he gave no [wagons], because they had the service of the holy.” When the Holy One, blessed be He, saw that Korah and his assembly were going to be opposed to Moses and Aaron, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “What shall I do with these? To kill them in the desert is not possible.” Why? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, had taken half of His name and bestowed it upon them, the yh (of yhwh) in the Kohathite (hqhty in Numb. 4:18).¹²⁷Numb. R. 5:6, and Yalqut Shim‘oni, Is. 48:9, 326 (466) add that the letters from the divine name appear at the end and the beginning of HQHTY, and Numb. R. explains further that the Holy One added the definite article (H) to the name, Kohathite, for this very reason. It therefore says (in Is. 48:9), “For the sake of My name I will delay¹²⁸Literally: LENGTHEN. This verb may have suggested that the Holy One deliberately lengthened the name, Kohathite, with the addition of the article. My anger….”

The sin offering (Lev. 6:17-23; Zev. 5:3),
The guilt offering (Lev. 5:14-16, 20-26; 19:20-22; Zev. 5:5),
The community peace sacrifices (Lev. 23:19-20; Zev. 5:5),
The sin offering of a fowl (Lev. 5:8),
The guilt offering for a doubtful sin (Lev. 5:17-19; Zev. 5:5),
The leper's log of oil (Lev. 14:12),
The two loaves (Lev. 23:17),
The shewbread (Exod. 25:30; Lev. 24:5-9),
The remnant of the omer (Lev. 23:10-12; Men. 10:4), and
The remainder of the meal offering (Lev. 2:3).