Комментарий к Вайикра 2:1

ונפש כי תקריב AND WHEN A PERSON (or “A SOUL”) WILL OFFER — Nowhere is the word נפש employed in connection with free-will offerings except in connection with the meal-offering. For who is it that usually brings a meal-offering? The poor man! The Holy One, blessed be He, says, as it were, I will regard it for him as though he brought his very soul (נפש) as an offering (Menachot 104b).

AND HE SHALL POUR OIL UPON IT AND PUT FRANKINCENSE THEREON. 2. AND HE SHALL BRING IT TO AARON’S SONS. “This teaches that the pouring of the oil and the mingling of it together with the flour [of the meal-offering] is valid if done by a non-priest. TO AARON’S SONS THE PRIESTS; AND HE SHALL TAKE OUT HIS HANDFUL. From the taking of the handful [for the altar] and onwards is the duty of the priests.” This is the language of Rashi. Now we have to explain that the duty of the priests does not begin with the taking of the handful, for bringing the meal-offering near [to the altar] precedes the taking of the handful, and that too is invalid when done by a non-priest, as He said, and he shall present it unto the priest, and he shall bring it nigh unto the altar,¹⁹³Further, Verse 8. and afterwards it says, and the priest shall remove from the meal-offering the memorial-part thereof,¹⁹⁴Ibid., Verse 9. which is the handful. Thus you see that it is the priest who brings the meal-offering near the altar, to the south-west corner thereof,¹⁹⁵See Ramban further, 6:7. and after that he removes the handful [to be burnt on the altar]. So also we have learned [in the Mishnah]:¹⁹⁶Kiddushin 36a. “The acts of laying hands upon the offering, the wavings,¹⁹⁷These laws applied to certain animal offerings as well as certain meal-offerings. See Menachoth 61a. bringing [the meal-offering] near [to the altar], and removing the handful are performed by men and not by women.” In explanation thereof the Rabbis said [there in the Gemara]:¹⁹⁶Kiddushin 36a. “bringing near [can be performed only by men] because it is written, And this is the law of the meal-offering: the sons of Aaron shall bring it¹⁹⁸Further, 6:7. — the sons of Aaron but not the daughters of Aaron.” This being the case, the bringing near [of the meal-offering to the altar] is the duty of the sons of Aaron. But the intention of the Sages in saying: “From the taking of the handful and onwards is the duty of the priests” [as quoted by Rashi above], is to say that from this taking of the handful mentioned in this verse and onwards, is the duty of the priests, but not these things which Scripture mentioned here as preceding the taking of the handful, since He mentioned already in this section pouring the oil [and mingling it with the flour], putting the frankincense thereon and bringing it to the priest, and [the priest’s] removing the handful. However, bringing it near to the altar is not mentioned here, [but is stated further on in Seder Tzav 6:7] that all those things stated here before the taking of the handful — namely, pouring the oil and mingling it with the flour, and bringing it to the priest — are valid if done by a non-priest.

ונפש כי תקריב קרבן מנחה, And a person who offers a meal-offering, etc. Torat Kohanim views the word ונפש as both inclusive and restrictive, the singular נפש being considered restrictively in that a voluntary meal-offering is not acceptable from a community; on the other hand, the letter ו which introduced this verse is interpreted inclusively, to teach that whereas the כהן משיח, the High Priest who offers mandatory meal-offerings daily and who is not permitted to offer such a meal-offering as atonement in the event he had defiled himself before entering the Temple or while inside, -something that an ordinary Israelite is permitted to do,- is nonetheless allowed to bring a voluntary meal-offering in normal cirmcumstances.

מנחה. We already explained that the word portrays a gift, in connection with Genesis 4,3. The root of the word is נחה, as in Exodus 32,34 נחה את העם,

ונפש כי תקריב קרבן מנחה “When a person offers a meal-offering, etc.” This offering consists of fine flour, oil, and frankincense, as spelled out at the end of our verse. The priest squeezes a fistful in his hand and burns it on the altar whereas the remainder belongs to him personally as stated in verse 3: “the remnant of the meal-offering belongs to Aaron and his sons, it is of the most sacred category of the fire-offerings of Hashem.”
In our verse the Torah speaks of the priest taking מלא קמצו, “a whole fistful” in order to burn it on the altar, whereas in 6,8 the Torah omits the word מלא, writing only בקמצו. What is the difference? The reason that the Torah varies the description of what is a “fistful” is to teach that there is no objective measurement for what constitutes a קומץ, “fistful.” The priest is not to employ one of the measuring cups used in the Temple to determine weight and measure. The word בקומצו refers to the manner in which he arrives at the correct amount, i.e. he covers the mixture with the middle three fingers of his hand when forming a fist. Seeing that I could have assumed that even the fingertips of the priest are to be used in forming this “fistful,” the Torah writes מלא קמצו, “what fits comfortably into the palm of his hand.”
Menachot 11 describes that the priest wipes the excess mixture from the palm of his hand with his thumb and little finger respectively. The procedure is described as very difficult to perform, in fact one of the procedures requiring extreme dexterity by the priest performing it.
Rashi comments that the Hebrew word קמץ describes the lair of an animal (based on Nachum 2,13 and the Targum there of the words וימלא טרף חוריו, ”he filled his lair with prey”). When following this approach the word קמץ symbolizes the precious prey in an animal’s lair.
It is remarkable that the Torah introduces the subject of the meal-offering by writing נפש כי תקריב. What kind of person volunteers a meal-offering, i.e. a very inexpensive offering? It is the poor. By introducing the subject of the meal-offering with the word נפש, the Torah teaches that in the eyes of G’d a poor man who offers a meal-offering is considered as if he had offered his very life, i.e. נפשו. The Torah also describes this offering here as “a fire-offering of sweet smelling odor for the Lord.” This expression occurs with all kinds of offerings to teach that quantity does not determine the value of an offering in the eyes of the Lord. All that matters is the intention of the donor to dedicate it to G’d. (Compare Menachot 110, אחד המרבה ואחד ההמעיט, “both the one who offers a great quantity and the one who offers a small quantity, etc.”)

A meal-offering without specifying. Otherwise, it should say: “When a person brings a meal-offering to Adonoy, if his offering shall be of fine flour,” and afterwards (v. 4): “And when you bring a meal-offering that has been baked in an oven,” as it does concerning the burntoffering (1:3): “If his offering is a burnt offering [of cattle],” [and afterwards (v. 10): “If his offering is from flocks of sheep,”] and then (v. 14): “[If his burnt-offering to Adonoy is] of fowl.” Rather, it must be that the reason it says in a definitive fashion is to convey that whoever says: I am obligated [to bring] a meal-offering without specifying [which one] must bring a fine-flour meal offering.

When a person brings. God says, Who usually brings a meal-offering? A poor man. I consider it as if he has sacrificed his soul (Menachos 104b). For this reason it says in Parshas Tzav (6:9), It must be eaten as matzoh, the bread of poverty that represents a poor man who is lowly by nature, like the matzoh dough which does not rise. This provides a basis for explaining the verses order in this section: The first ones mentioned are the most prone to sin, because anyone who is wealthier or more honorable than others has a greater urge to sin. A proof of this is what it says, If (אשר) a leader sins (4:22); the expression אשר connotes certainty. This is because his leadership role makes him more prone to sin, since his urges are greater than others. Therefore, it mentions first the calf, which is usually brought by a rich man, and afterwards mentions sheep, then birds, and finally the meal-offering that is brought by the poorest of the poor.

"And when a person brings a grain-offering". All grain-offerings are holy of holies and a non-priest (zar) may not eat of them. And since it is the way of poor people to bring grain-offerings, it pleased the Holy Blessed One to make them (the grain-offerings) holy of holies. [This is] to show Their humility (of the Holy Blessed One), since They are a great monarch (melech gadol) and love the poor.

ונפש כי תקריב, “an individual brings the socalled “gift offering,” “מנחה,” a meal offering, as a voluntary offering. This applies even to the High Priest. This type of offering is never presented by a group of people.

סלת יהיה קרבנו [AND WHEN A PERSON WILL OFFER A MEAL OFFERING] HIS OFFERING SHALL BE OF SIFTED FINE FLOUR — i. e. if one says, “I take upon myself the obligation to bring a מנחה”, without further defining it, he must bring that which is termed “the meal-offering of fine sifted flour” (מנחת סלת) which is that mentioned first among the different meal-offerings) since the קומץ is taken from it whilst it is yet flour (whilst in the case of other meal-offerings this is done after they have been baked), as is explained further on in this section (cf. Menachot 104b). — Because there are five different meal-offerings enumerated here all of which had to be brought ready baked beforẹ the קמץ was taken of them with the exception of this, therefore this alone is technically termed “a meal-offering of flour’ (though the others too had to be made of sifted fine flour).

Which is the first. Rashi does not mean to say because it is the first [mentioned], for if so, one who volunteers to bring a burnt offering [without specifying] should have to bring specifically from cattle. Rather, this is what it means: He brings the fine flour meal-offering which is the first of the meal-offerings, and not from one of the other four meal-offerings that are from fine flour as well. Rashi gives the reason why the fine flour meal-offering is called the first, more than other meal-offerings, and says because its fistful is taken while it is [still] fine flour, but all the other four meal-offerings have their fistfuls taken only after they are baked. Although the halachah follows the view of the Sages (Menachos 104b) who said he [one who volunteers to bring a meal-offering without specifying] may bring from whichever [mealoffering] he wants, [nevertheless,] since this is closer to the verse’s plain meaning, Rashi’s way is to explain it this way even though it is not in accordance with the halachah.

Why did the Torah write a single word which is restrictive and inclusive at one and the same time? Perhaps the reason is that seeing that the meal-offering by a group of people could be excluded only by reference to the High Priest's inclusion, the Torah felt that both of these halachot should be alluded to in the same word, even though these two הלכות themselves appear contradictory. Had it not been for the fact that the letter ו enabled us to include the High Priest in the category of individuals from whom ordinary (not intended for atonement) meal-offerings are acceptable, there would have been no need to write a word which would indicate that a group of people is denied such a privilege. Why would I even have imagined that groups would be allowed to offer such meal-offerings [the cheapest offering there is. Ed.] that I should have had to exclude them?

מנחה, another word for “gift.”

A meal-offering. The expression מנחה connotes a tax or tribute given by a servant to his master. It appears to me that it is based on the root נח (to rest, lie down), which connotes submission and coming down from above to below. Accordingly, מנחה connotes how a servant demonstrates his submission to his master. This same usage of מנחה applies to any present sent from one to another, such as in (Bereishis 32:14): A present (מנחה) to his brother, Eisov. Here, Yaakov wished to demonstrate to Eisov that he is submissive to him and honors him as a servant honors his master. Now, a poor man whose home is empty and has nothing to offer besides a tenth of an ephah demonstrates his great submission when he brings the little in his possession to God, more than the rich man who offers a calf. Therefore, this offering, although it is very little in quantity, is called the מנחה.

סלת — The term סלת always denotes “fine flour of wheat”, as it is said, (Exodus 29:2) “fine flour (סלת) of wheat” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 10 2). No meal-offering is ever less than one tenth part of an ephah of flour, as it said, (Leviticus 14:21) “and one tenth deal of flour … for a meal-offering”, i. e. there must be a tenth part for every kind of meal-offering (cf. Menachot 99a).

But to exclude. Meaning: Each [mention of the word] “upon it” in Scripture is to include. Therefore, the Sages derived from the first inclusion “upon it” that he shall put the oil on all of the fine flour and mix thoroughly together. From the second “upon it,” which would now be an inclusion after an inclusion — and there is no inclusion after inclusion but to exclude — they derived that he should place the frankincense on part of the flour, and it is not required that he put it on all of the flour, for it does not need to be mixed thoroughly. Rather, he puts it on the fine flour in one place, and at the time of burning the fistful, he gathers the frankincense from there and burns both of them together.

ויצק עליה שמן AND HE SHALL POUR OIL UPON IT — upon the whole of it (of the flour) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 10 14),

From its flour and from its oil. I.e., since it is written: “He takes from there its fistful from its flour and from its oil,” we hear that the oil was mixed thoroughly with the fine flour, which excludes with regard to frankincense, where it is written: “With all its frankincense.” From this we hear that the frankincense is not taken as a fistful with the fine flour, because it is impossible to take all the frankincense with one fistful. Rather, after he takes the fistful [he gathers the frankincense].

ונתן עליה לבנה AND PUT FRANKINCENSE THEREON — upon a part of it: he lays a fistful of frankincense upon one side of it. And what reason have you (lit., what do you see) to say so? Because there is a rule: when in the Torah a רבוי, i. e. a term usually intended to include a particular detail) follows one of a similarly inclusive character, the latter implies a restriction). Another explanation of why I say that oil has to be poured upon the whole meal-offering is, because it (the oil) has to be mingled with it (the מנחה) and has to undergo the קמיצה (the taking of a fistful of the mass) together with it, as it is stated, “[and he shall take thereout by grasping a fistful] of the flour thereof and of the oil thereof”; frankincense, however, has to be put only upon a part of it, since it is not mingled with it and has not to undergo the קמיצה together with it, because it is said immediately afterwards, “besides (i. e. in addition to) all the frankincense thereof” (cf. Rashi on that passage), — which implies that after he had taken the קמץ he picks all the frankincense from off it and offers it (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 10 14-18; cf. also Sota 14b)

Are valid when done by a non-kohein. Meaning: Rashi knows that “pouring” [is valid when done by a non-kohein] because it is written: “He shall pour oil upon it ... he shall bring it to the sons of Aharon.” Perforce, before he brings it to the kohein, he is permitted to put oil upon it, thus it implies that even a non-kohein may “pour.” “Mixing” also [can be done by a non-kohein] as demonstrated from what is written (v. 5) regarding a panbaked meal-offering: “mixed with oil,” and afterwards it is written (v. 6): “and pour oil on it.” Perforce, since the pouring is after the mixing, and since the pouring is valid with a non-kohein, as we explained, so certainly the mixing, which precedes the pouring, is valid if done by a non-kohein (Re”m). Rashi mentioned pouring and mixing but did not mention the placing of the frankincense and the bringing, which were mentioned explicitly in the verse, because he mentions a matter through which the meal-offering is done, which excludes placing [the frankincense] because the meal-offering is not done with it, for he gathers the frankincense from it afterwards, and similarly, the meal-offering is not done through the bringing [either] (Gur Aryeh).

. … ויצק ונתן … והביאה AND HE SHALL POUR … AND HE SHALL PUT … AND then HE SHALL BRING IT [TO AARONS SONS] — This teaches us that the pouring of the oil and the mingling it (with the flour) is valid even if done by non-priests (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 10 19: Menachot 9a).

That is that He commanded us with the process of the meal-offering sacrifices, according to the description that is mentioned for each and every type. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "When a person offers a sacrifice of a meal-offering to the Lord [...]. And if your meal-offering is on a griddle [...]. And if your meal-offering is in a deep pan" (Leviticus 2:1, 5, 7). And He said with the completion of the process, "And that is the law of the meal-offering" (Leviticus 6:7). And the regulations of this commandment and most of its content is explained in Tractate Menachot. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 13.)