Комментарий к Вайикра 2:20

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).

הכהנים וקמץ [AND HE SHALL BRING UNTO …] THE PRIESTS: AND HE SHALL TAKE A FISTFUL — from the קמיצה (the taking of the fistful) and onwards is the duty of the priesthood (Menachot 9a).

מלא קומצו, our sages in Yuma 47 explain that what the Torah refers to as קומץ is the amount of flour mixed with oil which a priest can hold when he doubles over the three middle fingers of his hands as if making a fist.

וקמץ, “he shall scoop three fingers full;” this is the first part of the procedure that only the priests were allowed to perform. The procedures mentioned up until this point, i.e. the pouring of oil, the adding of frankincense to the flour before handing the mass to the priest could be performed by the owner/donor, even if he was not a priest. There is only one step in the procedure prior to the scooping up by the priest of three fingers full of the mixture, that also necessitated a priest, and this was the presentation of the mass at the southwestern corner of the altar.

Spilling out. מבצבץ is the translation of מבורץ; Rashi is explaining what is meant by מבורץ.

והביאה, both the letters ו and ה have the vowel segol under them.

וקמץ משם AND HE SHALL TAKE A FISTFUL FROM THERE — from the place where the feel of the layman may stand; and this is stated in order to teach you that the קמיצה is valid at whatever place in the fore-court it is carried out, even in that eleven cubits) which are the area where the feet of the ordinary Israelites may tread (cf. Yoma 16b).

אזכרתה, the Torah employs an expression involving זכר, memory, memorial, in connection with frankincense the fragrance of which rises heavenwards, designed to bring the party offering same to the attention of his Maker. This is spelled out more clearly in Isaiah 66,3. We also find this kind of terminology in connection with the showbreads (Leviticus 24,7) which were accompanied with a bowl of frankincense for each stack of six such breads. Even the precise amount of frankincense and the amount of oil it contains is all spelled out, as well as the difference between the different types of gift offerings. All of them contain unleavened bread as mentioned in Parshat Tzav 6,10.

Three fingers. Meaning: with his two other fingers, which are the thumb and little finger, he would make it even, for he would wipe away from below with his little finger and with the thumb from above, so that it would not be overflowing.

אל בני אהרן, “to the priests;” they brought into the foyer, עזרה of the Sanctuary. [This expression is not used with the Tabernacle except possibly with the Tabernacle in Shiloh,where Channah is reported as having offered a silent prayer. Ed.] Seeing that the woman offering that meal offering brings fine flour to the Temple, and this flour had not previously undergone the procedures necessary for an offering on the altar, she does not need to bring it to the altar as it is clear that her intention is to do this for the sake of heaven. However, the kind of meal offerings that are brought already baked, regardless of in which type of pans, require to be brought to the altar, in order to make plain to all that she had only baked these cakes for the sake of their being consumed on the altar not for secular consumption. She must not be viewed by onlookers as someone who first prepared a meal for herself, and then invited others to share it with her, or to send portions of these cakes to her friends while retaining the lion’s share for herself. This would not be viewed as honouring heaven. (B’chor shor)

מלא קמצו HIS FISTFUL — One might think that it (the fist) may be full to overflowing — that it may burst through his fist and come out on every side! Scripture, however, states in another passage, (Leviticus 6:8) “and he shall take from it in his closed hand [some of the flour … and burn it on the altar)”, which shows that only that is fitted to be burnt which is within his closed hand. If, then, he has to take what is בקמצו, within his closed hand, one might assume that it may be defective (underfull)? Scripture, however, states here, מלא, “his full [closed hand]”. How then does he do it that it shall be neither overfull nor underfull? After placing his hand in the vessel containing the meal-offering he (the priest) bends his three fingers (those next to his thumb) at full length over on to the palm of his hand, removing with his thumb and little finger all the flour that shows outside these three fingers. This is the literal meaning that the word קמץ has in the Hebrew language (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 9 6; Menachot 11a; Yoma 47a).

And this is the meaning of a “fistful.” For in other languages a fistful is called what is inside of four fingers. But since the finger close to the little finger is called קמיצה in Hebrew, that which is inside the three fingers including the קמיצה finger is therefore called קומץ (fistful) (Gur Aryeh).

וקמץ משם, “and he (the priest) shall take from that flour a handful; according to Rashi on the words מלא קומצו, which appears to contradict the restrictive expression: וקמץ, the Torah here speaks of the קומץ that we are familiar with from the Hebrew tongue as meaning something hollow. This is based on Samuel II 17,9: נחבא באחת הפחתים, “hidden in one of the holes, etc. which is rendered by the Targum as קומציא [I have failed to find the word גומא quoted by our author in the text of Rashi. The super commentary on Rashi by Mizrachi also appears to have had this difficulty Ed]. According to the Talmud (Menachot 11) describes the priest as making a partial fist of the three middle fingers of his hand and wipes of any excess on either side with the remaining two fingers trapping the fine flour inside the curve of the three middle fingers. It is described as one of the most difficult parts of the priests’ duties.

‎ על כל לבנתה‎‎ [HIS FISTFUL OF FLOUR …] BESIDES ALL THE FRANKINCENSE — i. e. apart from all the frankincense shall his fist be full.

Must be burned. Because you might think that the burning is only for the fistful, but the frankincense, which is not included in the taking of the fistful, is not included in the burning [either], therefore, it comes to inform us [otherwise].

מלא קומצו, “his fistful;” [we already explained that this was not a full fist. Ed.]

לבנתה והקטיר ITS FRANK-INCENSE. AND HE SHALL BURN — The frankincense too comes under the law of burning (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 9 10).

A particle of frankincense. Meaning: Since a fistful that is lacking [in its minimum measurement] is invalid, perforce, if a grain of salt or a particle of frankincense came into his hand, in which case the fistful is lacking, it is invalid. [You might ask:] Why does Rashi reverse the order [of the verse]? He should explain first “his fistful” before he explains “Its frankincense and he shall burn.” [The answer is:] Because you might think that only fine flour and oil are burned, since they are [included] in [the taking of] the fistful, but its frankincense, which is not in the fistful, would not be burned. But now that he explains that although its frankincense is not in the fistful, nonetheless it is burned, if so, the words “his fistful” are extra, and it teaches that if a grain of salt or a particle of frankincense came into his hand, etc. (Gur Aryeh). We need not ask: How does Rashi know that the frankincense is burned? The answer is: Since it juxtaposes “and he shall burn” to “its frankincense,” perforce, even its frankincense is burned (Gur Aryeh). In the first chapter of Menachos (11a) Rashi raises a difficulty: Let it say [only] frankincense [may not be in the fistful] and I would know salt through a kal vachomer! The answer is: This is taught in the form of “not only this but even that”: If it taught [only] salt [is invalid], I might think specifically salt, for which the Torah does not clearly specify a place for salt is not put into the meal-offering, as it is added only at the top of the altar [invalidates the fistful], but regarding frankincense, which needs to be brought with the meal-offering from the beginning as well, I might think that if a grain of frankincense came into his hand it would be valid, therefore, it lets us know [that it is not] (Gur Aryeh).

מלא קמצו מסלתה ומשמנה [AND HE SHALL TAKE THEREOUT] HIS HANDFUL OF THE FLOUR THEREOF AND OF THE OIL THEREOF — Consequently if when he takes the handful of the flour a grain of salt (for salt was mingled with every offering; cf. v. 13) or a particle of frankincense comes into his hand with the flour it (the offering) is invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 9 10; Menachot 6a).

אזכרתה THE MEMORIAL PORTION THEREOF — The handful of flour that is offered to the Most High God forms the memorial portion of the meal-offering, being that part of it through which the owner is remembered for good and for having caused satisfaction to the Lord.

לאהרן ולבניו AND THAT WHICH IS LEFT OF THE MEAL OFFERING] SHALL BE AARON’S AND HIS SONS’ — The High Priest takes a portion first, just as he pleases, without having to take part in the equal division of the מנחה, whilst the ordinary priest shares in an equal division (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 11 1; Yoma 14a and Yoma 17b).

Takes a portion first. Otherwise, why does it say, “Aharon and his sons”? Is he worse than his sons? Rather, it must mean that he takes a portion first, without a distribution.

קדש קדשים MOST HOLY is it for them.

After the [fire-]offerings. I.e., Aharon and his sons may have a portion of what remains of the meal-offering for eating only after the fistful was burned for the sake of Hashem and it becomes a fire-offering of Hashem.

'מאשי ה OF THE FIRE OFFERING OF THE LORD — they have no portion in it (in what is left) except after the gifts (the prescribed quantity) for the fire (i. e. the קומץ) have been offered (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 11 2).

וכי ‎‎'ו גו‎תקריב‎‎‎‎‎ AND IF THOU OFFER [AN OFFERING OF AN OBLATION BAKEN IN THE OVEN] in that one said, “I take upon myself the obligation to bring a meal-offering taken in the oven. Scripture teaches you that he may bring either cakes or wafers, the cakes being mingled with oil and the wafers being anointed with oil (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 10 2). Our Rabbis are of different opinions as to their anointing. Some hold that they smeared them with oil and then repeatedly smeared them until the oil in the log was at an end, for every kind of meal-offering required a log of oil: whilst others hold that they smeared them only in the form of a Greek X (cf. Rashi on Exodus 29:7 and Note thereon) and that the rest of the oil was consumed separately by the priests (Menachot 75a; cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 11 6). — Why is the word בשמן used twice in this verse (it would have sufficed to state: חלות מצות בלולות בשמן ורקיקי מצות משוחים בו)? In order to permit for use with the meal-offering the “second grade of oil” and the “third grade of oil” which comes out of the olives) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 11 6), and to teach that “the first oil” is required only for the candelabrum of which it is stated, (Exodus 27:20) “clear [olive oil for the light]”. — We read in Treatise Menachoth 76a: All the meal-offerings that were baked before the “fistful” was taken from them and at which the קמיצה could therefore be performed only by first breaking them into pieces — each of them had to be offered of ten cakes, and that at which “wafers” are prescribed was offered of ten wafers.

וכי תקריב, and if you will offer, etc. The letter ו at the beginning of the word כי is again an indication that the laws mentioned in this paragraph are to be viewed in conjunction with those of the previous paragraph. This means that the various details governing meal-offerings also apply to the High Priest's meal-offerings. As to the exclusion of communal meal-offerings, such rules apply also to the details of offering frankincense and the like.

Baked in an oven. [Rashi states this] for if he did not say clearly, but only said without specifying: “I am obligated to bring a meal-offering,” he brings a fine-flour offering, as stated above.

חלות מצות בלולות בשמן, “unleavened cakes soaked in oil;”

Or matzoh wafers. As it is written, “And when you bring an offering,” which implies a singular offering. Therefore, when it is written: “Matzohloaves ... and matzoh wafers,” the ו of ורקיקי is like או (or).

on the other hand, the רקיקי מצות, “unleavened wafers,” mentioned in the same verse were not soaked in oil. The pan in which they had been baked had only been lightly oiled.

Our Rabbis disagree on their smearing. I.e., [the loaves] are specifically mixed [with oil] and [the wafers] are specifically smeared [with oil]. As a result, there is no place to ask what difference exists between them to the point that our Rabbis disagree on their smearing! However, from what is written in the verse: “matzoh-loaves ... mixed ... or matzoh wafers smeared...” there is no proof, because I might think that mixed and smeared is the same thing, but only that the term ‘mixed’ is appropriate for loaves and ‘smeared’ is appropriate for wafers. Therefore, Rashi explains [the loaves mixed and the wafers smeared]... The difference between mixing and smearing is that mixing is when they are still fine flour and the smearing is after the baking.

To permit oil of the second [or third pressing]. [You might ask:] Above, in Parshas Tetzaveh, it says (Shemos 27:20): “crushed for lighting,” and Rashi there explains: [oil from the second crushing is unfit for the menorah] but not for meal-offerings; for there even second oil is fit. If so, why do we need [the drashah here from] “in oil ... in oil”? The answer is: I might think that the verse that makes second oil valid is applicable only to meal-offerings [brought together with an animal sacrifice with the] wine-offerings, but for meal-offerings [brought] by themselves, mixed with oil or smeared with oil, [then oil from the second crushing] would be invalid. Therefore, we need the verse, “in oil ... in oil.” (Re”m). It seems that it comes to permit here even oil of the third [crushing], for I might think [since] for the lighting it requires clear oil, which is the first [crushing], then regarding meal-offerings it drops down only one level, i.e., even the second oil is valid. Thus, it lets me know that even third oil is valid here (Divrei Dovid).

Ten loaves. As it is written in Parshas Tzav, regarding the breads of a thanksgiving offering (7:12): “loaves and matzoh wafers,” and it is written afterwards (v. 14): “From it, he shall bring one from each offering as separated portion (תרומה) to Adonoy.” And we learn [through a gezeirah shavah based on the words] תרומה תרומה: It is written here (ibid.): תרומה (separated portion), and it is written (Bamidbar 18:26) regarding the separation of a tenth from the Levites’ tithes (תרומת מעשר): “[You shall set aside from it] a separated portion (תרומה) [for Hashem, a tithe of the tithe].” Just as regarding the separated portion from the tithes (תרומת מעשר) it is written that it must be one out of ten, so too the separated portion [of the thanksgiving offering] here must be one out of ten. [Now,] if the loaves were less than ten or more than ten, a tenth of each offering would constitute a fraction of a loaf. The Torah requires, however, “one” of each type, i.e., it must be a whole loaf or whole wafer, not a fraction (Menachos 77b).

ואם מנחה על המחבת AND IF AN OBLATION BAKEN IN THE PAN [BE THY OFFERING], in that one said, “I take upon myself the obligation to bring a meal-offering baken in the pan” (cf. Rashi on previous. verse and Note thereon). This (the מחבת) was a vessel employed in the Temple in which they baked this particular meal-offering on the open fire in oil. The vessel was not deep but flat; therefore the meal-offering made in it was hard, for just because it (the מחבת) was flat the fire burnt the oil. (Menachot 63a). — All of them (i.e. both the meal-offerings prepared in a vessel) require a three-fold use of oil — pouring upon them after they ware prepared, mingling with their dough, and placing of oil in the vessel prior to preparing them (Menachot 74b; cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 12 1).

The fire burnt. I.e., it is not deep, but rather the pan’s bottom ‘floats up’ (צפין) close to the rim and the oil scattered towards the pan’s rim. An alternative interpretation: The middle of the pan’s floor, which is the place he would place the meal-offering, was raised from below to above, and protruded like our glass vessels. It was raised like a mount in its middle, and when they put the meal-offering on that place it seemed as if it floated (צפה), since it was a raised area.

סלת בלולה בשמן FLOUR MINGLED WITH OIL — This teaches us that he mingles them together when they (the cakes) are yet flour (are not yet baked, and not, as might be assumed, when the dough is already formed into cakes, as is the case with לחמי תודה. the cakes of the sacrifice of acknowledgment, Leviticus 7:12, where Scripture prescribes חלות בלולת בשמן, “Cakes” mingled with oil; cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 12 2).

Pouring, mixing. As it is written with regard to the pan-baked meal-offering (v. 5-6): “Mixed with oil ... and pour oil on it.”

And placing of oil in the vessel. As it is written with regard to the deep-pan meal-offering (v. 7): “With fine flour and oil you shall make it,” which refers to placing the oil in the vessel. This is before they are prepared, as it is written, “with fine flour and oil,” followed afterwards by, “you shall make it.” Next, we learn [a gezeirah shavah from the words קרבנך קרבנך]: “קרבנך (your offering)” stated above [regarding the pan-baked meal offering] from קרבנך stated below regarding the deep-pan meal-offering, and we apply what is stated by this to that, and what is stated by that to this. Therefore, all of them require pouring, mixing and placing of oil in the vessel before they are prepared. “Before they are prepared” means: Before anything is done with them at all. Although it says: “Mixed with oil... Break it into pieces” and only afterwards: “And pour oil on it,” and if so, perforce, after they were prepared he poured the oil on it! Rather, the explanation is [the oil is poured] before they are brought, [i.e., the flour is put into the vessel].

פתות אתה פתים — THOU SHALT SUNDER IT INTO MORSELS — This is stated to include all meal-offerings that are baked before the קמיצה (i. e. all mentioned here with the exception of מנחת סלת; cf. לחם משנה on Maim. הל' מעשה קרבנות פי״ג ה"י) in the law of breaking into pieces (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 12 5; Menachot 75a).

To include. Meaning: It is not the phrase “break it into pieces” that includes all the meal-offerings, for here, the phrase is not extra that it should include, as it is needed for itself. Rather, we derive it from the verse’s end, where it is written, “It is a meal-offering,” because “it is a meal-offering” is extra, to include all the meal-offerings in [the law of] breaking into pieces. [You might ask:] It is written “it,” which implies an exclusion! [The answer is:] “It” excludes the Two Loaves and the Show Bread from [the law that requires the] breaking into pieces.

ויצקת עליה שמן מנחה הוא AND THOU SHALT POUR OIL THEREON: IT IS A MEAL OFFERING — This is intended to include all meal-offerings (with the exception of one; cf. Rashi below) in the law of pouring oil upon them after the מנחה is prepared. One might think the meal-offering baken in an oven (v. 4) should also be treated thus, Scripture, however, states עליה, “[thou shalt pour oil] upon it”, but not upon that baken in the oven. But perhaps I should exclude only The cakes of the מנחת מאפה תנור and not also the wafers of which that מנחה may consist! Scripture, however, states היא, — “it is a meal-offering” using this limitative word to the exclusion of wafers too (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 12 6; Menachot 75a).

Perhaps. That which they exclude a meal-offering baked in an oven from pouring, and [they exclude] the Two Loaves and the Show Bread from [the law] of breaking into pieces, is explained in פרק אלו מנחות (Menachos 75b), because pouring has two exclusions: “on it” and “it,” which excludes the [meal-offering] baked in an oven that has two types: loaves and wafers. Breaking into pieces, however, which has only one exclusion: “it,” excludes the Two Loaves and the Show Bread which need only one exclusion.

מרחשת [AND IF THOU BRING A MEAL OFFERING PREPARED IN A] מרחשת — This was a vessel used in the Temple, a deep one, and because it was deep the oil in it was heaped up (of considerable depth) and the fire did not burn it, and therefore the meal-offering made in it was, as it were, creeping). Every thing that is soft (elastic) because of the liquid contained in it appears as though it were creeping and moving (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 12 7; Menachot 63a).

אשר יעשה מאלה [AND THOU SHALT BRING THE MEAL OFFERING] THAT IS MADE OF THESE THINGS — i. e. of one of these kinds (the meal offerings mentioned) UNTO THE LORD,

In any of [these] types. I.e., a meal-offering only needs to be presented to the altar if it is one of the types mentioned, which are the meal-offering of fine flour, baked in an oven, a pan, or a deep pan...

והבאת, “you will bring (offer);” the letter ו at the beginning of the word is a hint at the offering of the omer, the first ripe offering of the barley harvest, (though it is a communal and mandatory offering) Compare also Leviticus 23, 10: והבאתם את העומר, “you are to bring the omer.”

והקריבה AND HE SHALL OFFER IT — the owner shall offer it אל הכהן UNTO THE PRIEST,

The owners. Not that the one who brings the offering should present it, as might be understood, for if so, why does it say “he shall being it to the kohein”? What does the kohein have to do with bringing it?

והקריבה, “one has to bring it, etc.;” here the emphasis is on the pronoun ה at the end of the word, i.e. “it, but not the libations.” Also the gift offerings of the priest as well as the High Priest and the showbreads, do not require libations, as well as the first ripe wheat offering (communal) do not require libations to accompany it.

והגישה AND HE SHALL BRING IT NIGH — the kohen [shall bring it close],

To the southwest corner. As it is written in Parshas Tzav (6:7): “He shall bring it ... before Adonoy, to the front of the altar.” We derive from what is written “before [Hashem]” that it means that the presenting needs to be towards the west side of the altar, which is opposite the Sanctuary entrance; this is [considered] before Hashem. Additionally, when it is written, “to the front of the altar,” it implies the southern side of the altar, where the ramp is located, because the entrance to the house is the front of the house. How can this be reconciled? Perforce, he presents it to the southwest corner of the altar.

והגישה … .אל המזבח AND HE SHALL BRING IT NIGH UNTO THE ALTAR — He (the priest) brings it nigh unto to the south-west corner of the altar (cf. Zevachim 63b).

את אזכרתה ITS MEMORIAL PORTION — this is the “fistful” (קמץ) (cf. Rashi on v. 2).

The fistful. [Rashi knows this] because it is written above: “The kohein shall separate from the meal-offering,” and afterwards it is written: “its memorial portion and burn it on the altar...”

והרים, “the priest will lift off, etc.” just as this procedure mentioned in chapter 6,8 consists of a fistful of the priest’s three middle fingers, קומץ, so this is also what it means here, though the Torah does not mentions a quantity.

אשה ריח ניחוח, “an offering made by fire, of pleasant fragrance, for the Lord.” We find the same expression, i.e. ריח ניחוח in connection with the burnt offerings of birds (Leviticus1,9, and here it is to teach us that the acceptability and its welcome in the eyes of the Lord of an expensive offering or a low cost offering does not depend on the monetary value but on the attitude of the donor who presents it.

והנותרת מן המנחה, As to what is left over from the meal-offering, etc. Why did the Torah repeat this verse twice both here and in verse 3? Perhaps we can understand this by referring to what we learned in Menachot 58. The Talmud states that all meal-offerings whose left-overs are permitted to be eaten may be consumed together with honey; if the left-overs had become leavened, however, a person eating same is guilty of Malkot 39 lashes with a strap. Menachot 55 derives this halachah from Leviticus 6,10: לא תאפה חמץ חלקם, "it (the meal-offering) shall not be baked with leaven even partially." If I did not have the word והנותרת, I would have argued that the culpability for eating it when it had become leavened would apply only if the meal-offering had already been baked with leaven, not if it had become leavened after having been baked. The word כל המנחה in that verse makes it plain that even if only the left-over of the meal-offering had become leavened, the same law of not consuming it applies and he who does so is culpable. Even though our sages there derived their halachah from the Torah writing the words לא תאפה חמץ immediately before the word חלקם, that exegetical use of the word would not have sufficed to make someone culpable for eating only the left-overs of a meal-offering which has become leavened; culpability was established only for the person who had actually baked such a meal-offering. Even eating from such left-over turned-leaven meal-offering could not be culpable unless there was some additional indication in the text of the Torah. Menachot 55 and Torat Kohanim stated that baking meal-offerings as chametz had been part of a general prohibition applying to all kinds of meal-offerings so that there was no need to mention this here specifically. If the Torah nonetheless wrote the prohibition here specifically, it served notice that just as baking is something performed by an individual, so any other activity connected with the meal-offering which is performed by an individual is equally prohibited on pain of the penalty of malkot. I believe that even after having learned this, the culpability would be limited to such activities as taking a Kometz, a partial fistful of the ingredients of the meal-offering, etc. Eating from the left-overs should not have been culpable. In order to make one culpable for eating left-over parts of a meal-offering which had become leavened the Torah had to write the word והנותרת in our verse.

The ראב"ד writes that both the letter ו and the letter ה in the word והנותרת are unnecessary and therefore available for exegetical purposes. This is why we were able to derive the requisite laws for not eating from the left-over meal-offering which had become leavened. Torat Kohanim derives additional inclusions from the word והנותרת, such as that even though the meal-offering did not contain salt (a requirement for any sacrifice), did not have all its frankincense burnt up, or that its main component the kometz had not reached the altar at all, the left-over parts may be consumed by the priests. The words מן המנחה in our verse are restrictive, i.e. that if a basic ingredient was missing or none of the frankincense had been burnt up, the remains, נותרת, may not be consumed. To come back to the exegetical use the ראב"ד made of the extraneous letters ו and ה before the word נותרת, I do not agree that these letters may be used for the purpose suggested by the ראב"ד. If we were to omit those two letters, the word נותרת would not make any sense at all. The author of Korban Aharon felt that only the letter ו in that word is superfluous and may therefore be used exegetically to include something. I have my doubts even about this. Moreover, what is the source of the Torat Kohanim including the absence of the above-mentioned three additional requirements of the meal-offering as items considered non-essential? Whereas it is in the nature of a restrictive clause that the items excluded are thereby categorised as being מעכב, essential, it makes sense that the author uses the word מן המנחה as excluding the right to eat from the left-over parts if three items had been missing (any basic ingredient, none of the frankincense not having been burned up, and no kometz having been separated). This kind of reasoning is inadmissible when applied to inclusions, however. If at all, the extraneous word והנותרת could serve as including only a single item as non-essential in the מנחה and its absence therefore not prohibiting the priests from consuming the left-overs.

Perhaps the consideration which motivated the author of the Torat Kohanim in this instance was the fact that the three מצות which he categorized as non-esential based on the extraneous word והנותרת are scattered throughout the text. They appear in different paragraphs. The need to burn up all the frankincense appears in connection with the מנחת סלת in 2,2. The need to offer the meal-offering on the altar appears in the paragraph of מנחת מרחשת, 2,8. The need to add salt to the meal-offering appears at the end of the meal-offering legislation in 2,13. It is remarkable that the legislation about what may be done with the נותרת, the left-over of the meal-offering, is not recorded at the end of the meal-offering legislation but already at the end of the first paragraph (2,3), even though the requirement for the meal-offering to be offered on the altar had not yet been mentioned. Clearly, this implies that the offering of the meal-offering on the altar is not something we have to consider as relevant to the rules applicable for eating the left-overs. We pointed out earlier (page 945) that when a new paragraph commences with the letter ו, this establishes a connection to the laws recorded in the previous paragraph and vice versa. Accordingly, the need to present the meal-offering on the altar which is written in the following paragraph which commenced with the word ואם should also govern the rules of the נותרת legislation. The fact that the legislation dealing with the left-overs is written in the middle of the total meal-offering legislation instead of at the end makes it clear that the requirement to present the meal-offering on the altar is only לכתחילה, i.e. an initial requirement, it is not so essential a requirement that its omission would invalidate the right to eat of the left-overs. On the other hand, omission of the burning up of any of the frankincense would invalidate the right of the priests to eat the left-overs of the meal-offerings. We find also that the Torah repeats the line והנותרת once more at the end of the paragraph dealing with the מנחת מרחשת (verse 10). Anyone reading this verse can see immediately that it is quite superfluous (except for exegetical purposes), as everything written therein has already been written in 2,3. Clearly, the reason for writing this verse is to teach us that compliance with the rules laid down in this paragraph (2,5-2,13) is enough to entitle Aaron and his sons to partake of the left-overs of such meal-offerings. There is no mention in that paragraph of frankincense altogether. The only major requirement written there is the קמץ, the partial fistful of the mixture containing the meal and oil of which the Torah says in verse 8 that "the priest shall take off from the meal-offering the memorial part thereof," i.e. the קמץ. Failure of the Torah to mention the לבונה, frankincense, in that paragraph persuaded the Torat Kohanim to deduce that even if not all of it had been burned up the priests could still consume the left-overs. This is why the author said: "even if it had not been brought on the altar, and even if not all its frankincense had been burned up, the right to eat the left-overs has not been jeopardised. The author adds his comment about the salting of the offering seeing that this requirement also appeared only at the end of the entire legislation, i.e. much later than the permission given to Aaron and his sons to partake of the left-overs of the meal-offering. [This "left-over" probably amounted to 90% of the mixture from which the קמץ was placed on the altar. Ed.]

וכל דבש [YE SHALL NOT CAUSE TO ASCEND IN FUMES] ANY HONEY – Any sweet juice of a fruit is called “honey”).

NO MEAL-OFFERING, WHICH YE SHALL BRING UNTO THE ETERNAL, SHALL BE MADE WITH LEAVEN. Here He prohibited the bringing of a meal-offering in leaven form. After that He said, Ye shall not ‘thaktiru’ (cause to ascend in fumes) either any leaven or honey, in order to prohibit the leavening of the handful and burning it upon the altar, this being included in the expression ye shall not cause to ascend in fumes … All terms of haktarah are expressions of burning aromatics, for druggists say¹⁹⁹Torath Kohanim, Vayikra 12:4. that honey would have been appropriate for the incense,²⁰⁰This explains why the Torah uses here the term thaktiru. For since honey is mentioned in the verse, and honey would have improved the scent of the incense, Scripture uses a term which is applicable to the burning of aromatics. but the Torah prohibited it.²⁰¹In the words of the Talmud Yerushalmi (Yoma IV, 5): “Bar Kappara taught: Druggists in Jerusalem used to say: had the smallest amount of honey been put into the incense no one could have stood its scent.” Scripture states any of it in order to prohibit [leaven or honey] even as a part of it, that is to say, even in one half of the handful. Similarly, one is liable to the punishment of stripes for mixing [leaven or honey with the handful in such a way that it is not recognized], because Scripture included it in saying, for ye shall not cause to ascend in fumes ‘any’ leaven or ‘any’ honey, as is explained in Tractate Menachoth²⁰²Menachoth 58a. and in Tractate Pesachim.²⁰³Pesachim 43b.
The reason why Scripture mentions here minchah hi²⁰⁴Verse 6. — Actually the word is written hu [hei-vav-alef, which is the masculine third person pronoun], but it is read hi [hei-yod-alef, which is the equivalent feminine pronoun]. Ramban intends to explain why it is written in the masculine when the word minchah is in the feminine, and hence Scripture should have written minchah hi. [in the feminine] while it is written hu [in the masculine], and similarly in all places,²⁰⁵Further, Verse 15, etc. [will be understood]²⁰⁶So expressly stated in Abusaula’s commentary on the mystic passages in Ramban. — See Vol. I, Preface p. xii, Note 21. from the section, Behold, I send a messenger before thee.²⁰⁷Exodus 23:20. — Reference is to Verse 21 there, for My Name is in him (Abusaula). The implication is that here too one gender is included in the other, namely, the feminine hi in the masculine hu, as explained in the text. So also ‘ha’ishah hahi’ (that woman)²⁰⁸Deuteronomy 17:5. [is written hahu in the masculine, while it is read hahi in the feminine], because the feminine is potentially included in the masculine.
It is possible that the reason why we are forbidden to bring leaven and honey [upon the altar] is as the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] states in the Moreh Nebuchim,²⁰⁹Guide of the Perplexed, III, 46. where he says that he found it written in their books that the custom among the idolaters was to offer all their meal-offerings only in leavened form, and to season all their sacrifices with honey; therefore He forbade bringing them on His altar. Our Rabbis have similarly said with reference to monuments [of one stone raised in order to sacrifice on it], that this was a favored mode of worship in the days of the patriarchs,²¹⁰See Genesis 28:18. and afterwards G-d hated it²¹¹Deuteronomy 16:22. because [the Canaanites] had made it an ordinance of an idolatrous character, as He said, which the Eternal thy G-d hatheth.²¹¹Deuteronomy 16:22.
Concerning the reason why we were commanded to offer salt with every offering,²¹²Verse 13. [Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon] also said²⁰⁹Guide of the Perplexed, III, 46. that it is because the idolaters rejected it and did not offer it at all to their idols; [therefore He commanded us to have salt in every offering]. It is possible that [we are commanded to offer salt because] it is not respectful that the food which is offered up to G-d should have no flavoring, being without salt,²¹³Job 6:6: Can that which hath no savor be eaten without salt? similar to that which is written, Present it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee?²¹⁴Malachi 1:8. — “The Torah thus teaches us a rule of conduct — that Royal Majesty of heaven is similar to that on earth” (Bachya, in my edition Vol. II, p. 406). That is why the Sages excluded wood and blood²¹⁵Menachoth 21a. from the requirement of being offered with salt [since they are not edible]. Or it may be that there is in all these matters some secret hidden from us.
In the case of leaven and honey Scripture speaks in the plural [for ‘ye’ shall not cause to ascend in fumes, either any leaven or honey] because it speaks to Aaron and his sons. After that it says, And every meal-offering of ‘thine’ shalt ‘thou’ season with salt,²¹²Verse 13. because it refers to him who brings the meal-offering, concerning whom it said at the beginning of the section, And if thy offering be a meal-offering of the stewing-pan;²¹⁶Verse 7. and the reason [why it refers to salting by the person who brings the offering, is because] it is valid if done by a non-priest,²¹⁷In view of the fact that the salting was done on top of the altar, which no non-priest was allowed to approach, Ramban must mean that if it happened that the non-priest salted it before the offering was taken up to the altar, it need not be salted again. See my Hebrew commentary p. 18. just as pouring the oil and mingling it with the flour are [as explained above in Verse 2]. Upon all thine ‘offering’ thou shalt offer salt²¹⁸Verse 13. The word korbancha (thine offering) is in the singular. Since this might be interpreted to refer only to the meal-offering mentioned in this verse, Ramban proceeds to explain that it means here “offerings” in the plural, for all offerings etc. means “upon all thine offerings” [in the plural], for all offerings have to be offered with salt, just as the meal-offering.

וכל דבש, honey gained from trees. Dates are also called “honey.”

כל המנחה אשר תקריבו לה' לא תעשה חמץ, “Any meal-offering that you present to Hashem must not be made of or contain anything leavened.” This is the initial prohibition not to add any leavening to the meal offering. It is followed by a second warning that even after the priest has already scooped up the three fingers full of the meal, it must not be allowed to become leavened before being burned up, i.e. לא תקטירו ממנו אשה לה'. Concerning the rationale of why both leavening and honey are forbidden to be part of this type of offering, Maimonides writes that it was the custom of the pagans to prepare all their offerings of this type containing leavening and some honey. (Moreh Nevuchim 3,46); once such materials symbolized a pagan practice, they became forbidden as an offering to the Eternal G’d. This is also the reason why private altars, known as מצבה were forbidden Seeing that the pagans never used salt in their offerings to their deities, the Torah insisted that we must always add some salt to our offerings. This was in spite of the fact that during the period of the patriarchs, private altars bearing the name מצבה were welcome in the eyes of Hashem. Some commentators hold that the prohibition of leaven and honey derives from the fact that the kometz had to be complete, and that, had it contained any leaven or honey, the priest’s hands would have retained some of it, or the air holes in the dough would have reduced the required of amount of meal.

Sweet [juice] of a fruit. [Rashi knows this] from what it says next that they bring first fruit offerings from [honey of the first fruits of] dates and figs. If “all honey you shall not burn” refers to bee honey, what does it mean when it says afterwards “You shall bring them as a first fruit offering,” i.e., including honey? But, first fruits are not brought from bee honey! Rather, it must be that any sweet juice of a fruit is called honey. However, this raises a difficulty: Perhaps “all honey” comes to include date honey and bee honey! And [the verse] “You shall bring them as a first [fruit-]offering” refers to date honey alone and to sourdough, because when the Torah says honey without specifying it refers to dates. [The answer is:] Rashi derives this because Scripture should have said “all sourdough or honey,” which would imply that the word “all” refers to both. Since it is written “and all honey,” however, it includes another principle: Any sweet juice of a fruit is included (Rav Yaakov Trivash).

כי כל שאור וכל דבש לא תקטירו, “for you must not let go up in smoke anything leavened or any honey.” The reason was that G–d had said that every offering had to be accompanied with a certain amount of salt (Leviticus 2,13) and the two ingredients mentioned here are not compatible with salt.

לא תקטירו ממנו, “you must not burn up from it.” The reason why the Torah again uses the plural mode is that both Aaron and his sons were included in this prohibition.

קרבן ראשית תקריבו אתם YE MAY OFFER THEM AS AN OFFERING OF THE FIRST FRUITS — But what is it that you have to offer of leaven and of honey? The offering of the first fruits, viz., the “two loaves’’ of the Feast of Weeks” that were brought of leavened dough, — as it is said, (Leviticus 23:16, 17) “[and ye shall offer a new meal-offering unto the Lord . . . two loaves] they shall be baken leavened”. — and the first ripe fruits were brought of species that contain sweet juices (דבש), such as the firstlings of figs and dates (Menachot 58a).

קרבן ראשית, the two breads made from the new wheat harvest and presented in the Temple on the Shavuot festival are called מנחה חדשה, a new “first” offering, details are found in Deuteronomy 26,2. The first fruit mentioned in that verse are also included.

קרבן ראשית תקריבו אותם, “You shall offer them as a first-fruit offering.” Rashi explains that for the presenting of the two loaves on the festival of Shavuot of the first wheat harvest, leavened loaves were in order, though on the altar no leavened products were to be presented. It was also in order to bring to the Temple honey as part of the first ripe dates of the season. The Torah writes a special dispensation for this in Leviticus The common denominator of these two offerings is that both are described as בכורים, “first fruit offerings.”

'תקריבו אום לה, “you are to present it to Hashem.” This procedure is performed in the courtyard of the Temple, but the offering does not reach the altar.

'תקריבו אותם לה, they are presented in the courtyard of the Temple, the עזרה, and a “weaving” is performed with them, but they do not wind up on the altar.

מלח ברית [NEITHER SHALT THOU SUFFER] THE SALT OF THE COVENANT [… TO BE LACKING FROM MY MEAL OFFERING], because a covenant was established with the salt as far back as the six days of Creation when the lower waters (those of the oceans) received an assurance that they would be offered on the altar in the form of salt and also as water in the ceremony of “the libation of water” on the Feast of Tabernacles).‎

NEITHER SHALT THOU SUFFER THE SALT OF THE COVENANT OF THY G-D TO BE LACKING FROM THY MEAL-OFFERING. “For a covenant was established with salt as far back as the six days of Creation, for the lower waters [i.e., those of the oceans] were promised that they would be offered upon the altar in the form of salt, and [also as water] at the libation of water, on the Festival of Tabernacles.”²¹⁹During the morning Daily Whole-offering on the seven days of the Festival of Succoth, there was in addition to the regular libation of wine, a libation of water on the altar. The drawing of the water from the fountain of Shiloah was marked by a great public festivity held in the Court of the Sanctuary during the evenings of the festival. They were known as the Simchath Beth Ha’sho’evah (Rejoicing of the Drawing of the Water). This is Rashi’s language, and it is a homiletic exposition of the Sages.²²⁰Numbers 18:19. See Rabbi M. Kasher’s Torah Shleimah here, Note 111. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra interpreted it in line with the plain meaning of Scripture as follows: “I have brought you into a covenant and made you swear that you would not offer a saltless offering, nor shall it [i.e., a saltless offering] be eaten,²²¹Ibn Ezra’s intention in using this phrase [“Nor shall it be eaten”] is unclear to me. Perhaps he means that the priests when eating the flesh of certain offerings [such as the sin-offering, guilt-offering etc., or the Israelite eating the peace-offering] must salt it, otherwise the food is without flavor and thus they show their contempt for it, as they did not take the effort to prepare it properly. The commentators on Ibn Ezra are silent on this point. because it is a mark of contempt.” Now since salt is the covenant of the offerings, Scripture made this accord the pattern for all such agreements, saying of the gifts given to priests and the dynasty of David that they are [an everlasting] covenant of salt,²²²Numbers 18:19 [referring to the gifts of the priests]; II Chronicles 13:5 [referring to the kingdom of the House of David]. meaning that they are as everlasting as the covenant of salt of the offerings. There, however, Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained:²²³Numbers 18:19. “A covenant of salt — a covenant decreed, it being of the root, a fruitful land into a salt waste,²²⁴Psalms 107:34. since a salt waste is as if it has been decreed [upon it that nothing should grow therein].”²²⁵So clearly explained in Ibn Ezra (Numbers 18:19). But there is no sense to his words.
Now it seems to me that since Scripture here states, the covenant of thy G-d, and does not say “the covenant of the Eternal,” which would have been in consonance with the language of the section and the way all the offerings are mentioned [throughout Scripture], or did not say, “the covenant of the Eternal thy G-d” — that the reason for this is because salt is derived from water, and it is through the power of the sun which shines upon it that it becomes salt. Now the nature of water is that it soaks into the earth and makes it bring forth and bud; but after it becomes salt it destroys every place and burns it, that it is not sown, nor beareth.²²⁶Deuteronomy 29:22. Since a covenant is inclusive of all attributes, water and fire come into it, and unto her shall come the former dominion²²⁷Micah 4:8. — the Kingdom of G-d, just like salt which seasons all foods and helps to preserve them, but destroys them when they are over-saturated with it. Thus salt is like the covenant. It is for this reason that Scripture states, Ought ye not to know that the Eternal, the G-d of Israel, gave the kingdom over Israel to David forever, even to him and to his sons by a covenant of salt²²⁸II Chronicles 13:5. forever? For this too is the attribute of David. Therefore He says in connection with the offerings, it is an everlasting covenant of salt,²²³Numbers 18:19. for the covenant is “the salt of the world,” and by virtue of it [the world] exists or may be destroyed. I have already taught you to understand from our words in other places the meaning of these three words, brith olam hi (it is a perpetual covenant).²²⁹See Exodus 31:16-17, and Ramban there at the end of Verse 13 (Vol. II, p. 548).

וכל קרבן מנחה במלח תמלח, “and you are to add a portion of salt to every meal-offering.” The reason why the Torah again reverted to the singular mode is that the command is directed at the owners presenting the offering to the priest as their deputy. You will recall that at the beginning of this paragraph, (verse 7) when speaking of מנחת מרחשת, a meal offering in a deep pan, the Torah had also used the singular mode. The reason is that the adding of the salt is something permitted to be done by the ordinary Israelite who is not a priest. The same rule applies here as it does to the pouring and mixing of the oil of the meal offering.

And the water-offering. I.e., water is brought to the altar by the means of salt because salt has its origins in water. Rashi mentions the example “water-offering” so that you will not pose the difficulty: If it was because of the promise made to the waters, it would be more appropriate that the waters themselves should go up on the altar and not salt. He answers, therefore, that the waters also go up on the altar with the water-offering. You might ask: If so, why are there two things — salt and the water-offering? It would be sufficient with the water-offering, which is preferable! The answer is: Salt and water are two opposite entities — water is liquid and salt is dry. Therefore, one does not make up for the other. You should comprehend these matters well: Why were these two chosen for the altar? Actually, this Midrash contains a concealed matter, which is that everything seeks to be elevated, [as it is said:] We raise up in matters of holiness and do not bring down. [At the time of Creation some of] the upper waters were separated from the upper waters and made into the lower waters, which is the reverse of the order of creation. Therefore, the waters would not agree to be separated until Hashem promised them they would be offered on the altar. In this way, they would acquire a high level by being elevated in an elevation of holiness. Furthermore, we find that Hashem chose only humble species for the altar, as the Sages said: Why did He choose the turtledoves and young pigeons? Because there is no species among the birds that is more pursued than these, and there is no species among the animals and beasts that is more pursued than the ox, sheep, and goat; and Hashem chose them. Also, in a number of places we find: This teaches you that Hashem uplifts anyone who humbles himself. Since the waters were separated to become the lower waters [and thereby humbled], they were promised that they would go up on the altar (Gur Aryeh). [Rashi mentions the water-offering on Sukkos] because he wishes to answer the question: Why was salt water privileged to be brought, more than fresh water? Therefore, he answers that without doubt the fresh water was privileged to be brought on Sukkos, [but even salt water was privileged as well]. The reason why salt water was brought with every offering but fresh water was brought only on Sukkos is because fresh water is representative of the righteous and salt water is representative of the evil-doers. We find that every fast and tefillah needs that evildoers be a part of the congregation. And the proof is from the חלבנה [galbanum, “spice with a bad odor, to teach us not to look with contempt at the sinners among Israel but to include them in our gatherings for fasts and prayers,” Rashi, Shemos 30:33], which is one of the eleven spices in the ketores. Therefore, the Torah honors the evil-doers so that they should repent, for the repentant sinner is greater than a completely righteous person (Divrei Dovid).

ולא תשבית מלח, “and you must not omit salt;” the reason salt must not be omitted is that it is something that endures, and one of the most important symbolic features of animal sacrifice is to remind the Jewish people as well as individuals of the permanence of G–d’s covenant with us, and that it is not He who has to worry about being transient but we mortals. Seeing that He is not in need of food or drink, this legislation is clearly meant for the benefit of the Jewish people. When a person has sinned, and offered a sacrifice to further his atonement, knowing that after that he will be free of sin, he will be careful not to commit a careless act which resulted in his becoming obligated to cleanse himself from sin. If, on the other hand, he fails to take steps to obtain atonement, he will undoubtedly continue to commit sins as our sages have said in the Talmud tractate Kidushin, folio 20: “once a person has committed a sin-and has not repented and taken steps to rehabilitate himself,-the sin will no longer appear to him as having been a trespass against G–d, but he will treat it as if it had not even been a sin.” They explain this by comparing it to someone who has found a stain on his outer garment. Unless he takes steps to remove it, it will soon become something that he gets used to and before long his whole garment will become soiled. Concerning this subject, Solomon, in Kohelet, 9,8 says: בכל עת יהיו בגדיך לבנים, “be sure that your garments are white at all times;” our sages in the Talmud, tractate Makkot folio 2,add: “do not let them become stained by sin.” The Torah added numerous commandments, which the average person would perform even if the Torah had not specifically commanded him to do so. The reason is that it wished to give us additional opportunities to acquire spiritual merits.

במלח, “with salt.” Not with salt water.

על כל קרבנך‎ UPON ALL THY OFFERINGS [THOU SHALT OFFER SALT] — upon burnt-offerings of cattle and fowls and upon the fat-portions of all sacrifices in general (Menachot 20a).

לא תשבית מלח ברית אלוקיך, “You must not discontinue adding the salt representing the covenant with the Lord your G’d from all your offerings.” Rashi explains that the covenant referred to is one made with the universe ever since the conclusion of the six days of creation, when the “lower” waters were assured by G’d that some of them would be presented on the Holy Altar on the festival of Sukkot as libations accompanied by salt. Ibn Ezra writes that the reason for the presence of salt is that G’d concluded a covenant with Israel that they would not offer something that is תפל, tasteless (as anything which is devoid of salt). It would be considered insulting to present such an offering. Nachmanides writes that seeing that salt has become a constituent covenant as far as sacrifices are concerned, it has become the basic symbol of all covenants. This surfaces in connection with the various gifts, primarily by the farmers, allocated by the Torah to the priests. The concept also resurfaces as a corollary to the Davidic dynasty, which will endure in a manner similar to that of the covenant governing the use of salt in the sacrifices. It is possible that salt is an integral part of the waters of the oceans, in the sense of being a natural process, seeing that G’d’s attribute אלוקים instead of Hashem is associated with it. It may have been distilled into solids due to the warming power of the sun’s rays. Water, by definition, is meant to irrigate the earth to enable it to be worked agriculturally. Once he earth has been contaminated by salt, it ceases to be a potential life-giver. In fact it destroys everything planted in its vicinity. [We observe a similar phenomenon in the earth surrounding the area from which volcanic gases escape. Ed.] Seeing that salt displays such negative influences, the Torah stresses its use in connection with the sacrifices where the presence of salt makes the flesh of the animals tasty. Assuring the endurance of the dynasty of King David throughout the generations, it is a similar promise of something positive, and salt is associated with this to demonstrate that we perceive of salt as something positive.

תמלח. In accordance with the details spelled out in Menachot folio 21.

ולא תשבית מלח ברית ה' אלו-היך מעל מנחתך, “you may not discontinue the salt of your G’d’s covenant from upon your meal-offering.” The reason the Torah calls the salt “the covenant of the Lord,” is because by means of it the covenant will be maintained or destroyed. You may compare this to a statement in Bereshit Rabbah 14,15: “when G’d saw that man would not be able to survive if He ruled the universe by means of the attribute of Justice exclusively, He co-opted the attribute of Mercy;” in a similar way we may view “salt” either as the instrument of preserving matters or as being the instrument of destruction and making earth forever useless to man. An example was the brimstone and salt which fell on the cities of Sodom, etc. (Jeremiah 17,6; compare also Deut. 29,22).
Still on the same words: “do not discontinue salt, etc.” Seeing the Torah had already written that every meal-offering consisting of fine flour has to have salt on it, and that every meat-offering has to have salt on it, why does the Torah once more write the above words? Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes that these latter words by the Torah are to be viewed as if they were an oath by G’d who says to The Jewish people: “I who have made a covenant with you beseech you on oath that you shall not discontinue the practice of adding salt to your meal-offerings.” Thus far Ibn Ezra.
The Torah writes: “you shall offer salt with every one of your sacrifices” as otherwise we would have thought that only meal-offerings such as the showbreads, etc., require that they be salted or accompanied by salt, and that this is the reason the Torah mentioned salt always in connection with the מנחה, the meal-offering. To avoid such an error, the Torah had to write a line saying that salt is to be part of every offering.

ואם תקריב AND IF (according to Rashi, AND “WHEN”) THOU OFFER [A MEAL-OFFERING OF FIRST FRUITS] — אם here has the meaning of כי, “when”, for this (the offering of the מנחת בכורים) is not optional, since Scripture is speaking of the meal-offering of the “Omer” which is obligatory. Similar is אם in the phrase (Numbers 36:4) ואם יהיה היובל which means: “when the jubilee will be”, not: “if the jubilee will be”, since it is bound to come (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 13 2; see also Rashi on Exodus 20:22).

V’IM (AND IF) THOU BRING A MEAL-OFFERING OF FIRST-FRUITS. “The word im (if) here has the meaning of ki (when), for the bringing [of this meal-offering of the first-fruits] is not a voluntary matter, since Scripture speaks here of the meal-offering of the new barley, which is obligatory.²³⁰Further 23:10. It was brought on the sixteenth day of Nisan — the second day of Passover. It is known as the Omer. For a full discussion see “The Commandments,” Vol. I, pp. 54-55. Similarly, ‘V’im’ (and if) the Jubilee of the children of Israel shall be²³¹Numbers 36:4. [means ‘when’ the Jubilee will be — for it is bound to come].” This is Rashi’s language.
The correct interpretation is that He used the expression im (if) because He is not commanding the performance now of this precept [namely bringing the meal-offering of the new barley], and He is thus saying: “When you offer a meal-offering baked on the griddle²³²Verse 5. you shall do it in such-and-such a way; and if you offer a meal-offering of the stewing-pan,²³³Verse 7. you shall make it in another way; and if the meal-offering you will bring will be the one of first-fruits, you should do it in this manner.” Thus the word im is here to be understood in its literal sense [namely, “if”]. Then the meaning of the verse, ‘V’im’the Jubilee of the children of Israel shall be²³¹Numbers 36:4. is as follows: [The heads of the fathers’ houses of the tribe of Manasseh] said to Moses: “Even ‘if’ the children of Israel will inherit the Land forever, and will be privileged to sanctify the year of the Jubilee, the inheritance [of Zelophchad] will not return to us” [because his daughters might marry men from other tribes, which would cause the land to be transferred to other tribes].
It is also possible that He is stating: “And if you bring a meal-offering of the first-fruits, you shall do it in this prescribed way,” as if He were to say, “if the Eternal your G-d will bring you into the Land, and you will reap the harvest thereof and bring the meal-offering of the first-fruits, you shall do it in such-and-such a manner;” for G-d always mentions the inheritance of the Land to them conditionally, just as He said, For if ye shall diligently keep all this commandment … then will the Eternal drive out all these nations from before you,²³⁴Deuteronomy 11:22-23. and so also in many places.

ואם תקריב מנחת בכורים, "And if you bring a meal-offering consisting of first-fruit, etc." The word אם here means "when," and refers to the period when the first-fruit ripens. The offering of the first-fruit is mandatory whenever it is being offered. The word תקריב means "you are to offer it, it is a duty." The conditional word ואם refers only to the timing of the offering.

ואם תקריב, when you offer the “Omer,” not “if you offer, etc.”

ואם תקריב מנחת בכורים, “When you bring a meal-offering of the first (grain) etc.” Rashi states that the meaning of the word אם here is the same as the meaning of the word כי, “when,” as opposed to when the same word is conditional and means “if.” Nachmanides writes that the justification for using this word at this juncture, [although every time the Torah used this introductory word thus far in our chapter it meant “if,” Ed.] is the fact that first ripe specimens of any of the seven categories of produce qualifying for the commandment of בכורים, are not immediately capable of being performed as one has to await the time when nature enables us to harvest such fruit. The word refers to the previous paragraph in which the meal offering in a deep pan had been discussed. The rules applying to that meal offering also apply to the offering of bikkurim consisting of grain products. Nachmanides explains in similar fashion the use of the word אם where it prefaces some of the legislation of the Jubilee year (Numbers 36,4) It cannot be translated there as “if,” as the Jubilee will occur every 50 years and is not subject to man’s whims. The verse speaks of the time after the Israelites will have taken possession of their homeland. The Torah promises that as long as the Jewish people will observe that legislation the land will remain their ancestral possession. Another approach to the meaning of the word ואם here, could be simply: “if” the Lord will bring you to the land and you will in due course reap your harvest and bring the first fruit offerings, then you shall do so in the manner here described. Inheritance of the land of Israel is always described as conditional on our observing the relevant legislation pertaining to the earth of that land. Failure to observe this legislation will result in our expulsion from that land.

As meaning “when.” Then, I may explain it as being an obligation.

מנחת בכורים THE MEAL-OFFERING OF FIRSTFRUITS — Scripture is speaking here of the meal-offering of the “Omer” (Leviticus 23:10) which is brought when the grain is in the green ears ,(אביב), i.e.. at the time of the ripening of the grain, and which was brought of barley, for it states here “אביב”, and there, too, (Exodus 9:31) it slates “for the barley was in the ears (אביב)” (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 13 4; Menachot 68b).

גרש, similar to the same word with the letter ס as in Lamentations 3,16 ויגרס בחצץ שיני, “He broke my teeth on gravel.” Here the term means that the grain is to be ground in a mill.

When there will be a jubilee year. [You might ask:] Above, at the end of Parshas Yisro (Shemos 20:22), Rashi cites only three [examples], and he does not bring this one. The answer is: Over there he explains according to the view of Rabbi Yishmael, but here he explains according to the view of Rabbi Shimon, who explains this phrase, “when there will be a jubilee year” as being obligatory.

קלוי באש PARCHED BY THE FIRE It is thus described because they roast it on the fire in the “tube of the grain-parchers (אביב של קלאים)”, for unless it was treated thus it could not be ground in the mill because it was fresh, as the term אביב green, fresh suggests (cf. Rashi on Exodus 9:31).

Comes fresh. I.e., Rashi provides two signs [that it deals with the omer]. One is that it comes fresh, i.e., at the time when the crops ripen, which is the start of the harvest. Secondly, it comes from barley, as is derived from a gezeirah shavah from the words אביב אביב.

גרש כרמל means broken (גרוש) whilst it was yet fresh (כרמל).

Kernels. I.e., the word כרמל is a compound word: כר מלא (full husk).

גרש is an expression for breaking and grinding. — He ground it in a grit-mill. — גרש has the same meaning as the verb in (Lamentations 3:16) “and He hath broken (ויגרס) [my teeth] with gravel-stones”; and similarly (Psalms 119:20) “My soul is broken (גרסה).

כרמל — i. e., broken whilst the husk (כר) is yet full (מלא) (according to this כרמל is a word compounded of כר and מל) — when the crop is yet fresh and full in its stalks; for this reason the fresh ears are called כרמל. Similar is, (2 Kings 4:42) “and full ears of corn (כרמל) in the husk thereof”.

ושמת עליה לבונה, מנחה היא, “and lay frankincense thereon, it is a giftoffering, מנחה. This includes the minchah on the eighth day to include frankincense. (Sifra)

מגרשה, “of the groats thereof,” the letter ג has the vowel chirik.

That is that He commanded us to offer salt on every sacrifice. And that is His saying, "on all of your sacrifices, offer salt" (Leviticus 2:13). And the regulations of this commandment were already explained in the Sifra and in Menachot. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Things Forbidden on the Altar 5.)

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.)

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.)