מדרש אויף ויקרא 2:1

1) (Vayikra 2:1): "a meal-offering" — What obtains here (in our section) obtains with all (other) meal-offerings, and what obtains with all (other) meal-offerings obtains here. "soleth" (fine flour): Just as soleth elsewhere (Shemoth 29:2) is of wheat, so, here. (It could have been written) "soleth, his offering" (instead of) "soleth shall be (his offering"), the implication being that he may donate and offer only (a meal-offering) of wheat. (For without the limiting clause I would reason:) Does it not follow (that an individual may bring a meal-offering of barley)? viz.: The congregation brings a prescribed meal-offering of wheat (i.e., the libation meal-offering, the two loaves, and the show bread), and an individual brings a gift meal-offering of wheat. Just as the congregation, which brings a prescribed meal-offering of wheat, brings a prescribed meal-offering of barley (e.g., the meal-offering of the omer), so, the individual, who brings a gift-offering of wheat, may bring a gift-offering of barley. It is, therefore, written (to negate this): "soleth, his offering," "soleth shall it be" — he may donate and offer only (a meal-offering) of wheat.

1) (Vayikra 2:1): "And a soul" — to include the anointed priest (i.e., the high-priest) as bringing a gift meal-offering. Is it not a kal vachomer (that he may do so), viz.: If an individual (Jew), who does not bring a prescribed meal-offering every day, may bring a gift meal-offering — the high-priest, who does bring a prescribed meal-offering every day, (see Vayikra 6:13), how much more so may he bring a gift meal-offering! — No, the individual (in an instance of extreme poverty) brings a meal-offering for defilement of the sanctuary and its sacred objects, whereas the high-priest does not — and since he does not, (I would say that) he may not bring a gift meal-offering. It is, therefore, written: "And a soul," to include a high-priest as bringing a gift meal-offering.

1) (Vayikra 6:10) ("It shall not be baked with leaven. Their portion have I given it of My fire-offerings; it is holy of holies, as the sin-offering and as the guilt-offering.") "It shall not be baked with leaven": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 2:1) "It shall not be made of leaven," I would think that there was one negative commandment for all of them (i.e., for all of the operations that go into making it); it is, therefore, written: "It shall not be baked with leaven." Baking was in the category (of "It shall not be made of leaven.") Why did it leave that category (to be singled out here)? So that it serve as the basis for a comparison, viz.: Just as baking is characterized by its being a particular act and subject to liability in and of itself, so I include its kneading, its rolling and all of its particular acts as being subject to individual negative commandments in and of themselves.