Musar su Levitico 2:17

... And on this the Torah says (Exodus 13:7) "there will not be seen and there will not be found" - it will not be seen b'maaseh (in action) and will not be found b'machshava (in thought), rather one should anul it in his heart. The mitzvot have 3 categories: mitzvot of speech, of the heart and of action, as it is written (Deuteronomy 30:14) "in your mouth and in your heart to do it". Comes the Torah (instructing us) to anul it in the heart, corresponding to the mitzvot which are dependent on the heart. Comes the 'kabbalah' (instructing us) to eradicate it from the house or to burn it, corresponding to the mitzvot of action. And to say 'kol chamira', corresponding to mitzvot of speech. In this way the 3 categories of mitzvot are fulfilled through the prohibition of chametz, teaching you that the prohibition of chametz incorporates all the mitzvot... Just as the 'kabbalah' comes (instructing us) to eradicate chametz and (livdok) to check the house in nooks and in cracks, so too we are obligated to search and check the chambers of our inner being for bad (machshavas) intentions and bad (hirhurim) thoughts. Just as bedikat chametz (checking for chametz) is not valid by sunlight, nor by moonlight, nor by the light of a torch, but only by the light of a candle, so too the bedikah (checking) of the yetzer hara must be by the light of the neshama (soul) which is called 'ner' (candle), this is what is written (Proverbs 20:27) "the candle of Hashem is the soul of man, which searches the chambers of one's inner being.

על כל קרבנך תקריב מלח . Rabbi Menachem HaBavli sees this requirement as analogous to the covenant which G–d is reported to have made with the waters of the oceans promising that they would be used for a sacrifice on the altar. Anyone who offers a sacrifice has to cause himself some physical discomfort. Just as salt sweetens the meat, i.e. makes it more palatable, so physical afflictions make his sacrifice of himself more palatable to G–d. Our sages in Berachot 7a expressed this idea when they said: "A single self inflicted pain has more beneficial effect on one's heart than many painful blows administered by outsiders."

שלא להקטיר שאור ודבש . Rabbi Menachem HaBavli points out that the Torah's use of the expression להקטיר instead of להקריב in connection with the prohibition to offer leaven or honey on the altar (2,11) is a reminder that, in order for any offering to achieve its purpose and ensure goodwill from G–d, the owner must practice הכנעה, humility. Leaven and honey are symbols of the exact opposite. It is their nature to inflate themselves. All מנחות offerings are made of unleavened bread, i.e. flat cakes. Atonement always depends on the petitioner demonstrating submissiveness, and an agent that symbolizes the reverse cannot be used in this connection. We have the rule that אין קטיגור נעשה סניגור, "a prosecuting attorney cannot switch roles and become counsel for the defense." A real connection with the Divine can be established only after all the elements separating man from G–d have been submerged in the sense of ואד יעלה מן הארץ והשקה את כל פני אדם, "mist flooded the whole person."

The underlying secret dimension of the principle of the relationship of כלל to פרט is the principle governing the relationship of cause and effect, or Creator and creature. These relationships must not be reversed. It is interesting that the Talmud Chullin 133a, tells us that the 24 portions that have been assigned to the Priests are all based on the principle of כלל ופרט, and that he who observes the "covenant of the salt," is considered as having observed the principle of כלל ופרט, whereas he who fails to observe it is as if he had violated the principle of כלל ופרט. I have explained elsewhere the deeper meaning of the relationship of כלל and פרט. The 24 gifts that are assigned to the Priests correspond to the 24 books of the Bible. The Torah in its entirety (the 24 books of the Bible), is the soul of the Jewish nation, and the Priests represent the נשמה of that nation. The written Torah, with its six hundred thousand letters, represents the כלל, whereas the 24 books represent the פרט in that combination. The "covenant of salt," symbolises the attribute of "peace" of which Aaron was the foremost exponent, since he has been described by our sages as being an אוהב שלום ורודף שלום, a lover and active searcher for peace. (Avot 1,12) It is a well known fact that the "lower" waters complained about having been relegated from the "upper" waters [second day of Creation], and that in order to pacify them G–d ordered the ceremony of נסוך המים, the libations of waters which were offered on the altar during the festival of Tabernacles to compensate them (Numbers 29,16 et al). [Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi explains that salt is only congealed water, hence water and salt are viewed as identical. This helps explain the Rashi we quote in the next paragraph. Ed.] Rashi explains on Leviticus 2,13, that the salt which was offered with every sacrifice is an expression of this Covenant made between G–d and the "lower" waters which had been separated from their counterparts. Since all the ways of Torah are pleasantness (Proverbs 3,17), i.e. דרכיה דרכי נועם וכל נתיבותיה שלום, it is only natural that the Priests and the Levites were charged with instructing the people, i.e. יורו משפטיך ליעקב, ותורתך לישראל, "They shall teach Your social laws to Jacob, and Your Torah to Israel" (Deut. 33,10).

Our sages added that the animal first has to be thrown to the ground forcefully as a symbol of man having thrown down his own person, thereby confessing that he himself is guilty of death by stoning. When the animal is slaughtered this is equivalent to the owner killing himself suggesting that he is guilty of the two death penalties: death by the sword and by hanging. (There is a momentary feeling of choking experienced by the animal before the knife slices through its throat). When the animal is burned on the altar, this symbolizes the fourth kind of death penalty, death by burning. The owner of the animal recites a confession and G–d accepts it. The priest must also see to it that at the time when he sprinkles the animal's blood on the altar the man or woman for whom he performs this service should observe what he is doing. The priest is not himself allowed to look directly at a woman while he performs service in the precincts of the Temple; the copper laver used in the Temple was made of the mirrors the Jewish women used in Egypt when they prettied themselves for their husbands; when the priest offers a sin-offering owned by a woman he looks at this copper laver and sees her reflection in it. This has been explained by the Rekanati. The rule we learn from all that we have described above is that the person who offers the sacrifice should regard himself as being sacrificed. He is then fulfilling (2,1): ונפש כי תקריב קרבן מנחה "When a person sacrifices (himself) as a gift-offering".

From what I have explained you will understand that by means of the (animal) sacrifice man's "lower" will is elevated and thereby able to approach G–d's "higher" will. G–d's will in turn is also able to relate more closely to man's "lower" will. It is incumbent on the lowly to subdue his will by means of the sacrifice, so that man's soul, נפש, will identify with the נפש of the animal he offers up. When he does this the Torah will consider his sacrifice as if he had sacrificed his own נפש, his own life. When the priest offers the sacrifice, his נפש "sticks" to the נפש on the Celestial Altar in the first instance, and then proceeds to still higher regions. When that process is complete the priest is called מלאך. This is what Malachi 2,7 has in mind when he describes the function of the priest as מלאך ה' צבאות הוא.

We therefore see that this "meal" was an עולה, total offering, unaccompanied by the customary meal offering, seeing there was no bread. When Isaac lay bound on the altar, he too was a total offfering unaccompanied by a meal offering, seeing that the offering was in response to a קטרוג, an accusation by Satan as we have explained. The lamb that substituted for Isaac was also not accompanied by a מנחה. I have found that the reason the afternoon prayer, מנחה, is called by that designation, (although the other prayers also represent offerings that were accompanied by a meal offering), is because Isaac had questioned the absence of that מנחה, and subsequently introduced תפלת מנחה as a separate prayer to compensate for that missing meal-offering at the עקדה (cf Genesis 43,63 and Bereshit Rabbah 60,14). The Torah alludes to this in Leviticus 2,1 when, instead of saying ואדם כי תקריב מנחה, the Torah says: ונפש כי תקריב מנחה, hinting that מנחה is associated with someone who had offered up his own נפש.

In earlier eras all such sacrifices were performed with firstling animals, as indicated by the phrase קרבן ראשית in Leviticus 2,12. Moses' whole mission to Pharaoh was to inform the latter that Israel's was G–d's true firstling, i.e. בני בכורי ישראל (Exodus 4,22). As a result it was appropriate that the Jewish people first and foremost should perform עבודה for G–d. The only reason Jacob had purchased the birthright from Esau was to qualify as the first-born in order to perform this service to G–d. Jacob would not otherwise have been been qualified to perform this service, [at a time when the Levites had not yet replaced the first-born as priests. Ed.]

ועל כל קרבנך תקריב מלח . Salt represents the Covenant with your G–d, for salt is water which has become solid through being heated by fire. It alludes to the emanation מלכות. Although אסתר המלכה, Queen Esther, [a symbol of the emanation מלכות Ed.] had the חוט של חסד, thread of loving kindness (from the emanation חסד which represents the "upper” waters) extended to her, the fact remains that דינא דמלכותא דינא, that the preponderant emanation she was subject to was the emanation of דין, justice. The waters of this emanation are "salted" due to the power of the fire which has "burned" those waters. Salt as a symbol of the Covenant is the mystical dimension based on the emanation יסוד, which is in itself the אות הברית, symbol of the Covenant, as is well known to Kabbalists. שאור ודבש, yeast and honey, represent the כחות חיצוניות, negative forces in the universe, because yeast causes fermentation, whereas honey "sweetens” the חימוץ, i.e. strengthens the negative forces [because it makes sin appear palatable, enjoyable. Ed.]. Inasmuch as these two ingredients represent rebellion against G–d's commandments, they must not form part of any offering dedicated to G–d. The purpose of קרבן is to bring about a rapprochement between man and G–d. Yeast and honey are instruments which help to estrange man from G–d. It is clear that they cannot be part of any offering.

The following is an excerpt of the סמ"ג’s introduction to the list of negative commandments: " Maimonides includes a widow and an orphan as a collective entity whenever the Torah enjoins us to treat the widow or orphan in a certain way, or not to treat them in a certain way. Similarly Maimonides lumps the Moabite and the Ammonite together. Whenever we read in the Torah that a Moabite or a member of the people of Ammon is prohibited from something, this constitutes a single prohibition in Maimonides' count. Maimonides also treats the prohibition of שאור ודבש, leaven and honey which are forbidden to constitute a smoke or incense offering on the altar, as a single negative commandment (cf. Leviticus 2,11). Maimonides similarly views the physical blemishes mentioned in Deut. 23,2 (someone whose member is cut off, or whose testes have been crushed and who is therefore prohibited from marrying a Jewish woman), as a single negative commandment. The same applies to someone eating the Passover sacrifice whether it is raw or boiled in water (Exodus 12,9). Because Maimonides has thereby reduced the number of negative commandments making up the required number of 365, he was forced to look for other negative commandments to make up the required number. We have already demonstrated in the name of Rashi that the prohibition of offering leaven or honey on the altar constitutes two separate Biblical prohibitions. Rashi also admits that though the widow and the divorcee that the High Priest is prohibited from marrying (Leviticus 21), are mentioned together we deal here with two separate prohibitions. When discussing these respective commandments in our book, we have demonstrated clear proof that this is so." So far the introductory comments of the סמ"ג.