Komentarz do Kapłańska 7:14

אחד מכל קרבן [AND OF IT SHALL HE OFFER] ONE OUT OF EACH OFFERING [FOR A HEAVE OFFERING UNTO THE LORD] — one bread (piece) of each of these different kinds shall he take as a heave offering for the priest who performs the rite connected with it (the קרבן), and the rest may be eaten by the owner (Menachot 77b). The flesh of the sacrifice also belongs to the owner with the exception of the breast and the shoulder of it, just as the waving of the breast and the shoulder is expressly prescribed later on, (Leviticus 7:31 Leviticus 7:32) in the case of the “peace offerings”, thus making them become the portion of the priests (cf. Leviticus 7:31 Leviticus 7:32), and the sacrifice of acknowledgement comes under the term שלמים (Zevachim 4a).

AND OF IT HE SHALL PRESENT ONE OUT OF EACH OFFERING — one whole cake [for a heave-offering unto the Eternal]. Thus he takes as a heave-offering four cakes [and gives them to the priest].
But I wonder! When Scripture excluded [first-fruits] from the prohibition against burning leaven [on the altar],⁹⁷Above, 2:11. by stating, as an offering of first-fruits ye may bring them⁹⁸Ibid., 12. [which means that “the two loaves” of the Festival of Shevuoth were to be brought of leavened dough, as clearly mentioned further on in Scripture],⁹⁹Further, 23:17. why did it not say that [the ten leavened cakes of] the thanks-offering [are also an exception]? But this is not really a question. For Scripture states, and unto the altar they [i.e., leaven and honey] shall not come up for a sweet savor,⁹⁸Ibid., 12. and of the [forty] breads of the thanks-offering, none came up on the altar at all, for they require only waving.¹⁰⁰The Tur refutes this argument by pointing to the fact that nothing of “the two loaves” of the Festival of Shevuoth came up on the altar either; yet Scripture found it necessary to call attention to their being an exception to the prohibition against burning leaven on the altar, because of the offerings that came with the two loaves (see ibid., Verse 18), and such is the case also with the thanks-offering. So the question recurs: Why did Scripture not call attention to the exception of the breads of the thanks-offering? The Tur answers that Scripture called attention only to an obligatory offering, such being the case of “the two loaves” on the Festival of Shevuoth, but not to a thanks-offering, which is a freewill offering. See further my Hebrew commentary pp. 33-34. Even though in the case of the showbread¹⁰¹Twelve loaves were put on the golden table in the Sanctuary every Sabbath, with two spoons of frankincense beside them. On the following Sabbath the frankincense was burnt on the altar and the loaves were divided among the priests. None of the bread was offered on the altar. He did say that one commits a transgression if one brought it in a leaven state¹⁰²“ ‘Kol’ (any) meal-offering, which ye shall bring unto the Eternal, shall not be made with leaven (above, 2:11), the word kol includes the showbread, that it too must not be leavened” (Menachoth 57 a). [although there too none of the loaves are burnt on the altar], that is because of the frankincense that was on it which was to the bread for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto the Eternal.¹⁰³Further, 24:7. But of the bread of the thanks-offering, nothing at all came up on the altar [hence the Torah permitted the ten loaves to be leavened]. Perhaps Scripture only had to mention that exception [as an offering of first-fruits ye may bring them]⁹⁸Ibid., 12. because of the honey,¹⁰⁴And not because of the leaven, as we have understood it till now. since it was not clearly stated concerning the first-fruits [which were brought of “the seven kinds”]¹⁰⁵I.e., the seven kinds of products for which the Land of Israel was famed: wheat, barley, grapes, figs, pomegranates, olive-oil, and [date] honey. See my translation of “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 133-134. that they may be brought from honey [and it therefore had to be explicitly stated in that verse], and thus He also included leaven with it, saying of both of them, as an offering of first-fruits ye may bring them.⁹⁸Ibid., 12. With reference to leaven, however, since it is clearly explained in its correct place [that the “two loaves” of the Festival of Shevuoth constitute an exception to the usual negative commandment], there was no need any more to mention it as an exception [when mentioning the general negative commandment], just as Scripture has not specified the exception to the rule about the Sabbath, when stating every one that profaneth it shall be put to death,¹⁰⁶Exodus 31:14. [by saying] “except for the Service of the offerings” [which may be done on the Sabbath], or in the case of thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife,¹⁰⁷Further, 18:16. [by saying] “except for a brother’s childless wife” [whom he is to marry].¹⁰⁸Deuteronomy 25:5. See “The Commandments,” Vol. I, p. 217, that the duty of marrying the wife of a deceased brother who left no offspring comes before the duty of chalitzah. For various reasons the practice now established is to grant the widow chalitzah, and she is then free to marry.

One bread of each type. Rashi is answering the question: There was only one קרבן (offering) — the peaceoffering of thanksgiving! [How, then, can the verse say, “one from each קרבן”?] Therefore, he explains: “One bread of each type, etc.” because each type is called a קרבן.

'תרומה לה, “as a gift to the Lord;” (author questions rhetorically why no measurements are given) I do not know the measurements of this gift; the Sifra writes that we might derive it from a similar verse in Numbers 18 where the תרומת מעשר is described as being one tenth of the regular tithe, i.e. slightly less that 1% of the total.

לכהן הזורק את דם השלמים לו יהיה, “it shall belong to the priest who sprinkles the blood of it.” The remainder may be eaten by the owners.