Leviticus · Chapter 2

When a person brings a meal-offering before Hashem, his offering shall be of fine flour; he shall pour oil upon it and place frankincense on it.

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). 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). 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). 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), 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) . … ויצק ונתן … והביאה AND ...

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, and afterwards it says, and the priest shall remove from the meal-offering the memorial-part thereof, 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, and after that he removes the handful [to be burnt on the altar]. So also we have learned [in the Mishnah]: “The acts of laying hands upon the offering, the wavings, 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]: “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 it — 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.

"And a soul that brings an offering" — the soul of a person. He [Scripture] mentions the soul because the meal-offering is a freewill gift, and thus the soul too is called generous, as it is written: "and a willing spirit sustain me" (Ps. 51:14). — "Fine flour" — pure wheat flour, which is called in the tongue of Kedar samīd. It is fitting that an offering to the Most High be of nothing less than the finest grade.

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. 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?

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. מנחה, another word for “gift.”

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.”)

And when a soul offers a meal offering. Who typically volunteers a meal offering? A poor person. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I consider it as if he offered his soul (Menachot 104b). For this reason, it states in Parshat Tzav (6:9) it shall be eaten as matzah, meaning poor man’s bread, as all this relates to the poor person who is naturally humble like matzah dough that does not rise. In this way, the order of all these sacrifices can be explained. Whatever is first in the verses is first to lead to sin, as it is written Jeshurun grew fat and kicked (Deuteronomy 32:15). Anyone who is greater than his fellow in wealth or honor has a stronger evil inclination, as evidenced by what is said When a leader sins (Leviticus 4:22), where the word when [asher] indicates certainty, because his position of leadership brings him to sin as his evil inclination is greater than others. Therefore, Scripture first mentions cattle, which is presumably offered by the wealthy, then sheep, which is typically brought by the middle class, then bird offerings, which the poor person typically brings, and finally the meal offering, which is brought by those in extreme poverty. Therefore it is stated regarding the cattle, “and its innards and its legs he shall wash with water.” That is, the innards of the sacrifice, but the inner parts of a man and the deep heart are not washed, and his impurity remains within him, because usually wealth causes one to kick back [against God] and he does not wash his filth. But the average person has purer thoughts, therefore it is stated regarding him, and the innards and the legs he shall wash with water, to include also the inner parts of the person bringing the sacrifice, that through the sacrifice he will repent and be consoled for the evil, and his inside will be filled with pure water. But the poor person, for whom God is his refuge, has purer thoughts than all of them — therefore it is stated regarding him, and he shall remove its crop with its feathers and cast it away. This removal and casting away is better than washing, hinting that he will cast away from within him all iniquity, and a correct heart will be renewed within him, and he will discard the old in favor of the new. And regarding the poorest of the poor, who is especially humble and whose eyes are always lifted to God, it is stated, and when a soul offers. Because not only does he cast out from within himself all deceit, but he offers his entire soul completely to God, and he entirely becomes a new creation. Therefore, regarding this offering it is stated it is holy of holies from the fire-offerings of the Lord, meaning that it is more [holy] than the fire-offerings of the Lord mentioned above.

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.

He shall bring it to Aaron's sons, the priests; and one of them shall scoop from it a full handful of its fine flour and of its oil, along with all of its frankincense; and the priest shall cause its memorial portion to go up in smoke on the altar — an offering accepted with favor before Hashem.

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

"And he shall take a handful" — from the root of the word לקמצים, "handfuls." Our early authorities explained that it means a full fistful, and their words are correct. — "From its fine flour" — a little of it, and likewise a little of the oil, but all of the frankincense he shall burn. — "Its memorial portion" — the aleph is an added letter; the meaning is: that which was designated as a remembrance before Hashem on account of his offering. Many have explained it as connoting fragrance and incense, as in: "his memory is like the wine of Lebanon" (Hos. 14:8).

והביאה, both the letters ו and ה have the vowel segol under them. 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 person 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, he 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. He must not be viewed by onlookers as someone who first prepared a meal for himself, and then invited others to share it with him, or to send portions of these cakes to his friends while retaining the lion’s share for himself. This would not be viewed as honouring heaven. (B’chor shor) 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. מלא קומצו, “his fistful;” [we already explained that this was not a full fist. Ed.]

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.

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. 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.

What remains of the meal-offering shall belong to Aaron and his sons — most holy, from the offerings of Hashem.

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). קדש קדשים MOST HOLY is it for them. '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).

"To Aaron and to his sons" — that is, to all the priests equally.

When you bring a meal-offering baked in an oven, it shall be of fine flour: unleavened loaves kneaded with oil, or unleavened wafers spread with oil.

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.

"Loaves" (challot) — thick [cakes]. Some say they are round, deriving the word from the term ḥalilah found in the words of our early authorities.

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.

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

If your meal-offering is prepared on a griddle, it shall be of fine flour kneaded with oil — it shall be unleavened.

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). 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).

"A griddle" (maḥavat) — a pan covered with a pan. The tav [at the end of the word] stands in place of a heh, as the tav in "and it shall return to the prince" (Ezek. 46:17) [stands in place of a heh].

You shall break it into pieces and pour oil over it; it is a meal-offering.

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). 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).

If your meal-offering is a deep-pan offering, it shall be made of fine flour with oil.

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).

"A deep pan" (marḥeshet) — a fried preparation. Some explain it from the root of "my heart stirred" (Ps. 45:2), the sense being that it makes a sound [i.e., a sizzling noise].

You shall bring the meal-offering that is made from any of these before Hashem; one shall present it to the priest, and he shall bring it up to the altar.

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, והקריבה AND HE SHALL OFFER IT — the owner shall offer it אל הכהן UNTO THE PRIEST, והגישה AND HE SHALL BRING IT NIGH — the kohen [shall bring it close], 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).

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, “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.

And the mincha which hath been made with the flour and the oil thou shalt bring in before the Lord, and the man who bringeth it shall present it to the priest, and the priest shall take it to the altar.

The priest shall set apart from the meal-offering its memorial portion and cause it to go up in smoke on the altar — an offering accepted with favor before Hashem.

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

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 animals (Leviticus 1,9), and with burnt offerings of birds (Leviticus 1,9), and here it is to teach us that the acceptability and its welcome in the eyes of the Lord does not depend on the monetary value but on the attitude of the donor who presents it.

What remains of the meal-offering shall belong to Aaron and his sons — most holy, from the offerings of Hashem.

"To Aaron and to his sons" — after him. The meaning is: to the priest who offers it, for so it is written regarding the two meal-offerings.

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 ha...

No meal-offering that you bring before Hashem shall be made leavened, for no leaven and no honey may you cause to go up in smoke from it as an offering before Hashem.

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 say that honey would have been appropriate for the incense, but the Torah prohibited it. 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 Menachoth and in Tractate Pesachim. The reason why Scripture mentions here minchah hi [in the feminine] while it is written hu [in the masculine], and similarly in all places, [will be understood] from the section, Behold, I send a messenger before thee. So also ‘ha’ishah hahi’ (that woman) [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, 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, and afterwards G-d hated it because [the Canaanites] had made it an ordinance of an idolatrous character, as He said, which the Eternal thy G-d hatheth. Concerning the reason why we were commanded to offer salt with every offering, [Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon] also said 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, similar to that which is written, Present it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee? That is why the Sages excluded wood and blood 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...

"Leaven" — it is the leavening agent. Likewise honey [is forbidden], and many have said that [the word "honey" here] means date-honey, and similarly "a land flowing with milk and honey" [refers to date-honey]. They have something resembling a proof for this from the book of Ezra.

כי כל שאר וכל דבש לא תקטירו ממנו לה', “for you shall not burn up any leavening or fruit-honey as a fire-offering to the Lord.” Maimonides writes in his Moreh Nevuchim 3,46 that the heathens were in the habit of offering leavened products in all their meal-offerings and that they mixed in some honey in all of them. This is why the Torah forbade us to imitate the heathens and it banned these ingredients as offerings to the Lord. This corresponds to something our sages taught in connection with the offering of sacrifices to the Lord on altars known as מצבה, a slab of rock anointed for the purpose. Whereas prior to the giving of the Torah such altars were pleasing in the eyes of the Lord, they became objects which He hated after He had given the Torah to the Jewish people (compare Deut. 16,22 and the hilchot shoftim of Maimonides’ code). According to the plain meaning of our text the purpose of the offerings is to atone for one’s sins. Had it not been for the evil urge man would never have committed a sin in the first place. There would not have been any need for such offerings then. Our sages in Mechilta Pischa 8 commening on Deut. 16,3 לא תאכל עליו חמץ, explain this. The reason that חמץ is not to be eaten at a time when the Passover lamb can be brought (on the 14th of the month of Nissan after noon) is that the lamb atones for the idolatrous practices of the Jewish people prior to the Exodus. G’d wanted to keep anything which reminded the Israelites of the evil urge away from them so that they would not be tempted to return to such practices. Not only chametz, but also honey is a symbol of the evil urge as the letters of the word דבש have the same numerical value as the letters of the word אשה, woman (306). We find that when the first human being, Adam, sinned and G’d asked him how this could be, he blamed his wife, i.e. woman as such saying that “the woman You G’d have given me gave me of that fruit and I ate.” (Genesis 3,12). Clearly, he equated woman with the personification of the evil urge, his temptress. Woman herself said that she had been seduced by the serpent, the creature embodying the concept of the evil urge. This is the mystical dimension of the relationship between woman-the serpent- and the inherent hostility between the serpent and woman, i.e. man born by woman (compare our commentary on Genesis 3,13). This is why both leavened goods and honey have generally been declared as unfit to be the means through which man atones for his sin when bringing a sacrifice. Another reason for this is the well known statement of our sages that “one cannot immerse oneself in a ritual bath and expect it to cleanse one while holding the source of one’s ritual impurity, i.e. a dead mouse or such like in one’s hand” (Taanit 16). A kabbalistic approach: both chametz and honey are symbols of the attribute of Justice as they represent an intensive nature rather than something composed of tempering influences As such, these two phenomena have a tendency to estrange man from the altar rather than to bring him closer to what the altar represents. Hence the Torah writes: “do not use it to burn it up as a fire-offering for the Lord.”

For any leaven and any honey, you shall not bring up as a burnt offering, etc. You shall bring them as a first offering to the Lord, but they shall not be brought up on the altar for a pleasing aroma (Leviticus 2:11-12). Rashi explains that the two loaves brought on Shavuot are made of leaven, and the first fruits [bikkurim] are from honey. The explanation of these matters is that every person has a desire for all the pleasures of this world, which are symbolized by honey. Just as honey is sweet to the palate but excessive consumption is harmful, so too all the pleasures of this world are necessary, but in excess they are harmful. This is the advised counsel: that a person should use what is necessary and forbid [himself] the rest. Leaven is a metaphor for the evil inclination, as Rabbi Alexandri said in his prayer (Berakhot 17a): “It is our will to do Your will, but the leaven in the dough prevents it.” These two things are necessary for human existence. If a person does not involve himself with his required needs, which are symbolized by honey, he will die and not live, and his limbs will not be strong or healthy enough to exert themselves in fulfilling God’s commandments. And if not for the evil inclination, a person would not marry a woman or build a house, and the world would be destroyed. These two things precede the pursuit of Torah and mitzvot in time, because if one does not first eat flour, there is no Torah. However, the pursuit of Torah is primary in thought and in rank, because the leaven and honey we mentioned do not have inherent perfection to ascend as a pleasing aroma to God, but they are the first and beginning for a person, through which he can come to achieve perfection of the soul. “Therefore it is said, ‘You shall not burn any leaven or any honey as a fire offering to the Lord.’” Because in themselves they have no aspect of perfection that would ascend as a pleasing aroma to the Lord. However, you shall bring them as a first-fruit offering to indicate that they are the first and the beginning for a person to bring him to true perfection, which is impossible to attain without them. For this reason, the leaven is only offered as a first-fruit offering on the day of the Giving of the Torah, because the Torah is like a spice for the evil inclination. And the two loaves of Shavuot were made from leavened bread because the Torah that was given on that day is “healing for your flesh.” And the first fruits come from honey, because when one gives to the Lord the first fruits of his ground from all food that he eats, then all his days he will eat ordinary food that has been prepared with the purity of the sacred. For this demonstrates that his eating is with this intention: that true perfection is foremost in his thoughts. And similarly, the reason for the first fruits is to break his desire, as will be explained, God willing, in the portion of Ki Tavo.

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. 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.

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

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.

As a first-fruits offering you shall bring them before Hashem, but they shall not go up on the altar to be accepted with favor.

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).

"As an offering of first-fruits you shall bring them to Hashem" — this is analogous to the two loaves of two tenths [of an ephah] that are waved before Hashem on the Festival of Shavuot. And this is the meaning of "to Hashem": even though they are consecrated to Hashem, they are for the priest to eat.

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.

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.”

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. '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.

Every meal-offering of yours you shall season with salt; you shall not omit the salt of the covenant of your God from your meal-offering — on every offering of yours you shall offer salt.

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). 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).

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.” This is Rashi’s language, and it is a homiletic exposition of the Sages. 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, 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, meaning that they are as everlasting as the covenant of salt of the offerings. There, however, Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained: “A covenant of salt — a covenant decreed, it being of the root, a fruitful land into a salt waste, since a salt waste is as if it has been decreed [upon it that nothing should grow therein].” 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. Since a covenant is inclusive of all attributes, water and fire come into it, and unto her shall come the former dominion — 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 salt forever? For this too is the attribute of David. Therefore He says in connection with the offerings, it is an everlasting covenant of salt, 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).

"The covenant of your God" — He brought you into a covenant and made you swear not to offer something tasteless [i.e., unsalted], for it shall not be eaten and it is a way of contempt.

במלח, “with salt.” Not with salt water. תמלח. In accordance with the details spelled out in Menachot folio 21.

במלח תמלח, “with salt you shall salt it.” It would have sufficed for the Torah to write ובכל מנחתך תתן מלח, or תמלח. Why did the Torah use the additional word במלח? The expression במלח תמלח, appears to mean that the salt should be of a controlled quantity and efficiency. On the one hand, it should be assimilated, i.e. dissolve in the moisture contained in the meat; on the other hand, it should not be so potent as to draw all the blood out from the meat. The practice of salting our meat nowadays is meant to simulate what occurred with the sacrificial meat. According to the plain meaning of the text the reason for salting sacrificial meat is to ensure that its taste is not bland (compare Ibn Ezra). The Torah teaches us manners with this instruction. Although G’d, of course, does not “eat” the meat, it is not fitting for us to offer Him something as food on the altar which we ourselves would reject as unpalatable. One certainly would not serve unsalted meat to a king of flesh and blood (Berachot 58). The same idea has been expressed explicitly by the prophet Maleachi 1,8 where he asks bitingly: “would you dare offer something (of such inferior quality) to your governor?” Maimonides’ thoughts on this subject, as expressed in his Moreh Nevuchim 3,46 are that the heathens removed all salt from their offerings and they would not offer it as a sacrifice precisely because it drew the blood from the meat; they considered the blood as the essence of the animal and did not want any of it to be wasted. The Torah wanted to counter these pagan theories; this is why the Torah commanded that every offering brought on G’d’s altar must be accompanied by some salt. A Midrashic approach tinged with kabbalah: G’d had concluded a covenant with the waters in the “lower” regions of the universe .at the time these waters were separated from the “upper” waters (Genesis 1,7) that on Sukkot some of these waters laced with salt would be used as a libation on G’d’s altar. This is confirmed by Bereshit Rabbah 5,5 according to which the “lower” waters were called “crying waters” as they accepted the separation from the upper waters only after shedding salty tears. This is reflected in Job 28,11: “He dammed up the streams because they cried so much.” Rabbi Abba said that these waters separated from the upper waters by crying. The reason they cried was that they were saying “woe to us that we did not merit to ascend to the celestial regions where we would be close to our Creator.” In fact they were so upset that they dared to split “the deep” and threatened to ascend with their intrinsic power. G’d became angry at them and forced them back to their realm. We know all this from Isaiah 43,16: “Who made a road through the sea and a path through mighty waters.” Nonetheless, G’d told the “lower” waters that seeing their revolt was motivated by their desire to be closer to Him, He would not allow the upper waters to commence with the song of praise to Him until they had obtained permission from the “lower” waters to do so. This has been confirmed in Psalms 93,4: “more majestic than the sounds of the mighty waters of the sea is the voice of the Lord on high.” What is it that these waters say in order to signify their consent? אדיר במרום ה', “the Lord is majestic on high.” Furthermore, G’d promised the “lower” waters that when the time would come for the Israelites to offer sacrifices to Him on the altar, these would be accompanied by both salt and water libations. We have another Midrash in which the (terrestrial) world is described as divided into one third desert, one third habitable, and one third ocean. The oceans said to G’d: “the desert merited that the Torah was given in it; the habitable parts of earth merited that the Temple was erected on them; what are we going to get?” G’d responded saying that in the future, in G’d’s own good time, the Jewish people would include both salt and water in the sacrificial rites A kabbalistic approach: salt contains two forces which are opposites of one another. They are fire and water, the power of warmth, i.e. the sun which dries out the water making the salt congeal, solidify. [I suppose the meaning is that through the heat of the sun which causes such water as the waters of the Dead Sea to evaporate, salt is isolated and becomes identifiable. Ed.] In other words, heat (fire), the opposite of water releases the power of the salt in the water. Seeing that water and fire are the two elements which ensure the existence and continuity of the universe, salt combines these two elements in a certain form. It is the catalyst, so to speak, for water and fire to interact. This is the reason why the Torah writes : 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.

And you shall salt every meal offering with salt. In order to acknowledge God’s kingship over all apparent opposites in the world, which have caused many to turn to heresy, saying that two opposites cannot come from one source. Behold, salt has in its nature a thing and its opposite, for it has the power of fire and heat, and the properties of water, to the extent that the kabbalistic sages said that it corresponds to the attribute of judgment and the attribute of mercy. Therefore, it is called the covenant of your God, because through this offering, one makes a covenant with God to give Him dominion over all opposites. All meal offerings, except for those of the priests, were eaten by the priests, and this is like charity, which is compared to salt that preserves and sustains meat. Similarly, “salt diminishes wealth” (Ketubot 66b), and the charity element in the sacrifice is greater than the sacrifice itself, as it is written To do righteousness and justice is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice (Proverbs 21:3). This is what is meant by on [al] all your offerings you shall offer salt, because salt is superior [oleh al] to all offerings and is more acceptable to the Lord than sacrifice. And according to the simple meaning, on all your offerings also refers to the meat.

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. 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.

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.

If you bring a meal-offering of first fruits before Hashem, you shall bring your first-fruits meal-offering as fresh ears roasted in fire, crushed, soft kernels.

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

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. Similarly, ‘V’im’ (and if) the Jubilee of the children of Israel shall be [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 griddle you shall do it in such-and-such a way; and if you offer a meal-offering of the stewing-pan, 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 be 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, and so also in many places.

"And if you bring a meal-offering of first-fruits" — many have said that the word im here expresses obligation [i.e., 'when' not 'if']. In my view there is no need for this, because the obligation is the first-fruits offering, not this meal-offering of first-fruits; one who wishes to bring a voluntary meal-offering from the first-fruits may do so. — "Ears of grain" (aviv) — it is called thus because it is first, and it derives from the root av [father]. — "Parched" (gareś) — its meaning is well known, and it is close in root to "my soul longed" (Ps. 119:20), even though that word is spelled with a samekh. — "Carmel" — as in "and fresh ears in his sack" (II Kings 4:42).

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 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.

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

You shall place oil on it and lay frankincense upon it; it is a meal-offering.

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)

The priest shall cause its memorial portion — from its crushed kernels and from its oil, together with all of its frankincense — to go up in smoke as an offering before Hashem.

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