Midrasz do Kapłańska 2:8

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.

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.

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."

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."

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.

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).

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).

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. 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 >.