Komentaryong Sumisipi para sa Mga Bilang 2:3

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.”)

Thus the sin of the sons of Aaron was reported very explicitly by the Torah. Our portion testifies to this by writing that they entered without incense. This is the reason that Aaron was warned concerning the same matter.
As a further proof reinforcing my opinion that this is the correct interpretation consider the following comment by the Midrash (Vayikra Rabbah 20,8) “Nadav and Avihu died because they brought external fire into the Holy of Holies before the Lord in the desert of Sinai, fire taken from their hearths” (compare Numbers 2,3). Did then the sons of Aaron die in the desert of Sinai? [Actually they did seeing that the people did not leave that spot until the 20th of the second month of the second year (Numbers 10,11 Ed.] Did they not die in the Sanctuary, the Tabernacle? Answer: they died as a result of a decree which G’d had decreed while they were in the desert of Sinai (at the time of the revelation), i.e. a sin dating back to that occasion.

May Reuven live He begins with the eldest, as is customary. He does not mention Shimon, either because of the incident of Baal Peor [Numbers 25: 3], in which the worshipers were Shimonites, as evidenced by their decline in numbers [Numbers 26: 14] [cf. Numbers 1: 23], as well as by the fact that it was their chieftain who was killed [Numbers 25: 14]. or He follows Yaaqov’s example, who did not bless Shimon or Levi. Out of respect for Aaron, his tribe was excepted, borne up on the coattails of Aaron; but Shimon lacked a great man of equivalent stature. If one should object, and ask, Why, then, did Moshe bless Reuven? — the answer is that Yaaqov did bless Reuven, the blessing being “you shall not stand out” [Genesis 49: 4], i.e., that he should be as one of his brethren. After Reuven, he mentions Y e hudah, who was the standard-bearer, and the first to go into battle. Then Levi, and then Benjamin, on account of the Levites’ dwelling in Jerusalem, which lay between the territory of Y e hudah and the territory of Benjamin, as it is written [cf. Joshua 18: 28 , Judges 1: 8]. Then the tribe of Joseph, in order not to postpone them, having already given precedence to his younger brother. Then Zevulun, on account of his going into war [Judges 5: 18], and then Yissakhar. After completing the children of the major wives, he begins with Gad, who encamped under the standard of two children of the major wives, and then Dan, since he was a standard-bearer, and then Naftali, because he was greater than Asher.

ואיש על דגלו [AND THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL SHALL ENCAMP, EVERY MAN BY HIS OWN CAMP] AND EVERY MAN BY HIS OWN STANDARD, just as the order of the banners is given in this Book (Numbers) — three tribes for every banner.