Midrash sobre Levítico 2:5

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.

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.

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."