פרשת ויקרא — שני (Aliyah 2)
Parashat Vayikra | Leviticus 1:14–2:6 | Aliyah 2 of 7
קלאוד על הפרשה
The second aliyah of Parashat Vayikra completes the Torah’s treatment of the olah (burnt offering) by turning from cattle and flocks to the humblest category of sacrificial animal: birds. The shift is deliberate and deeply significant. Having opened with the bull — the most expensive offering — and moved to sheep and goats, the Torah now legislates the offering of turtledoves (torim) or young pigeons (benei yonah), the only animals that even the poorest Israelite could afford. Rashi, drawing on Menachot 110a, emphasizes that the Torah applies the identical phrase “a pleasing odor to the Lord” (isheh re’ach nichoach la-Shem) to the bird offering just as it does to the bull, teaching that “whether one offers much or little, it is equally pleasing to God, provided that one directs one’s heart to Heaven.” This principle stands at the heart of the sacrificial system’s moral architecture: sincerity of intention, not material value, determines an offering’s worth before God.
The bird offering introduces a procedure found nowhere else in the Temple service: melikah, the pinching of the bird’s neck with the kohen’s fingernail rather than slaughter with a knife. This unusual technique, which Rashi explains involves cutting through the nape, the spinal cord, and the organs (simanim), is performed entirely by the kohen himself — unlike animal offerings where the owner performs the slaughter. Ibn Ezra notes that the word “malak” appears only here in all of Scripture, underscoring the singularity of this rite. The Or HaChaim observes that the Torah’s repetition of “re’ach nichoach” for the bird, the animal, and later for the meal offering is not mere redundancy but a theological statement: no offering is derivative of another, and the poor person’s sacrifice stands independently in its own dignity.
The aliyah then pivots to an entirely new category of offering: the mincha, or meal offering, composed of fine flour (solet), oil, and frankincense. The transition is marked by a remarkable word choice. While all other voluntary offerings open with “adam ki yakriv” (when a person brings), the mincha alone uses “nefesh ki takriv” (when a soul brings). The Talmud in Menachot 104b explains this distinction: “Who is it that typically brings a meal offering? A poor person. The Holy One, blessed be He, says: I regard it as if he offered his very soul.” The word nefesh thus elevates the humblest offering to the most intimate plane of divine service, suggesting that the flour and oil of the poor carry the weight of a life surrendered.
The mechanics of the mincha are precise: oil is poured over the entirety of the flour, while frankincense is placed only on one side. The kohen then takes a kemitzah — a measured handful scooped with three fingers pressed against the palm — and burns it on the altar as the “azkarah,” the memorial portion. Rashi explains that this handful is what “memorializes” the offerer before God. The remainder of the flour belongs to Aaron and his sons as “kodesh kodashim,” a most holy portion, eaten only within the Temple courtyard. The aliyah concludes by introducing variations of the baked mincha — oven-baked cakes (challot matzot) or wafers (rekikei matzot), and the griddle-prepared mincha (machavat) — each with specific rules for mixing or anointing with oil, and all requiring that the finished product be broken into pieces before the kemitzah is taken.
Taken together, these ten verses reveal a sacrificial theology that refuses to let economic status determine spiritual access. From the bird that costs a few coins to the handful of flour that represents a day’s sustenance, the Torah insists that the altar is open to every Israelite. The kohen’s role intensifies as the offerings become simpler — performing melikah himself for the bird, scooping the kemitzah for the mincha — as if the Temple service itself compensates with greater priestly involvement for what the offering lacks in material grandeur. Classical commentators consistently read this progression as evidence that the sacrificial system is fundamentally about the inner orientation of the worshipper, not the outer value of the gift.
Leviticus 1:14–2:6 · ויקרא א:יד–ב:ו
פסוק א:יד · 1:14
Hebrew:
וְאִ֧ם מִן־הָע֛וֹף עֹלָ֥ה קׇרְבָּנ֖וֹ לַֽיהֹוָ֑ה וְהִקְרִ֣יב מִן־הַתֹּרִ֗ים א֛וֹ מִן־בְּנֵ֥י הַיּוֹנָ֖ה אֶת־קׇרְבָּנֽוֹ׃
English:
If your offering to יהוה is a burnt offering of birds, you shall choose your offering from turtledoves or pigeons.
The Torah introduces the bird offering as a third category of olah, after cattle and flocks, making the sacrificial system accessible to the poor. Only two species are permitted: turtledoves (torim) and young pigeons (benei yonah). Rashi notes that turtledoves must be mature while pigeons must be young, and birds in the transitional stage of plumage are disqualified from either category.
רש״יRashi
מן העוף. וְלֹא כָּל הָעוֹף; לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר תָּמִים זָכָר בַּבָּקָר בַּכְּשָׂבִים וּבָעִזִּים — תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בִּבְהֵמָה וְאֵין תַּמּוּת וְזַכְרוּת בְּעוֹפוֹת — יָכוֹל אַף מְחֻסַּר אֵבֶר, תַּ"ל מִן הָעוֹף (שם): תרים. גְּדוֹלִים וְלֹא קְטַנִּים: בני יונה. קְטַנִּים וְלֹא גְּדוֹלִים: מן התרים או מן בני היונה. פְּרָט לִתְחִלַּת הַצִּהוּב שֶׁבָּזֶה וְשֶׁבָּזֶה שֶׁהוּא פָּסוּל, שֶׁגָּדוֹל הוּא אֵצֶל בְּנֵי יוֹנָה וְקָטָן אֵצֶל תּוֹרִים (חולין כ"ב):
מן העוף [AND IF A BURNT OFFERING … BE] OF FOWLS — of (i.e. of some of) but not of every description of fowls (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 1.2 and Rashi on Leviticus 1:10). Since Scripture states, (Leviticus 22:19) "[Ye shall offer, to be accepted for you,] a male without blemish (תמים זכר) of the oxen, of the sheep and of the goats", it is evident (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 1.2 and Rashi on Leviticus 1:10) that unblemished condition and male sex in sacrifices are required only in the case of cattle, but unblemished condition and male sex are not required in the case of fowls. If, then, the condition of the fowl is immaterial one might think that a fowl may be brought as a sacrifice even if it lacks a limb! Scripture therefore states: "of fowls" — but not all fowls (Sifra, Emor, Section 7 2; Kiddushin 24b). התרים TURTLEDOVES — Grown-up ones only may be offered but not young ones. בני יונה YOUNG DOVES — Young doves only may be offered but not grown-up ones (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 8 4; Chullin 22a). מן התרים או מן בני היונה OF TURTLEDOVES AND OF YOUNG DOVES — The word מן is intended to exclude birds in the first stage of their plumage becoming golden-coloured in the case of the one as of the other, for this stage makes the bird unfit for sacrifice, since such a bird is a grown-up one in the case of בני יונה and a young one in the case of תורים (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 8 5; Chullin 22b).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
מן התרים. גדולים ולא קטנים: בני היונה. להוציא את הגדולים על כן לא אמרו יונים:
TURTLE-DOVES. Fully grown, not young. YOUNG PIGEONS. Scripture reads bene yonah (young pigeons) because it wants to exclude fully grown pigeons. It therefore does not say yonim (pigeons).85Which would indicate fully grown pigeons.
אור החייםOr HaChaim
ואם מן העוף. גם זה מוסיף על ענין ראשון, ליתן כל האמור למעלה בו זולת פרטים ששלל הכתוב בפירוש בו. הא' שאין עוף בא אלא עולה ממה שדייק העוף עולה שינה מסדר שבעולת בקר וצאן, או לצד הייתור, ועוד מיעט קרבנו שאין בא עוף עולה מצבור, גם בדין מליקה שמעכב בכהן מה שאין מעכבת השחיטה בעולת בקר וצאן, גם פרטים שהוכפלו בעולת בקר ועולת צאן ללא צורך בא הדבר למעט העוף, אבל שאר דברים שמיעט הכתוב באחד משניהם ולמד זה מזה כגון נרבע, מוקצה, ונעבד, טריפה, חולה, זקן, גזול כולם פסולים בעוף כבהמה, וכן הוא מבואר בדבריהם וברמב"ם בפרק ג' מהלכות איסורי מזבח ולזה אמר ואם מן העוף: קרבנו לה'. טעם אומרו קרבנו לה', מה שלא אמר כן בעולת בקר וצאן, לפי שמצינו שהכשיר הכתוב בעוף בעלי מומין כאומרם ז"ל (תו"כ קידושין כד) אין זכרות ותמות בעוף וכמו שכתבנו בסמוך, אם כן תבא הסברא לומר כי פחות הוא קרבן זה כי מום בו ואין זה בגדר קרבן לה' לזה אמר קרבנו לה' כי אין בו שום הדרגה פחותה לצד בחינה זו ואין רושם במומו כל עיקר. עוד ירצה על דרך אומרו (ישעי' נז) ואת דכא ושפל רוח ואמרו ז"ל (סוטה ה) אני את דכא ולמאן דאמר אתי דכא, ומהטעם עצמו לא הזכיר שמו יתברך סמוך להזכרת קרבן אלא בקרבן עוף, כי מי דרכו להביא עוף הוא העני ומביאו בשברון לב לצד מה שהוא העני ולצד מיעוט הקרבן וקרא עליו ואת דכא, מה שאין כן המקריב בקר וצאן שנפשו שמחה עליו בהקרבת דבר הראוי להתכבד. וכיוצא בזה דרשו בזבחים (מנחות קצ:) במה שאמר הכתוב במנחה ונפש יעו"ש:
ואם מן העוף, and if it is from the category of birds, etc. The letter ו in the word ואם means that the rules mentioned previously as applicable to burnt-offerings of four-legged animals apply also to burnt-offerings consisting of birds unless they are specifically negated by what is written in this paragraph. Amongst the differences are: 1) a bird cannot serve as any offering other than a burnt-offering. We derive this from the word העוף עולה as distinct from the descriptions used for burnt-offerings of four-legged animals in the previous two paragraphs. Alternatively, the very word עולה is superfluous and comes to tell us that it is the only kind of offering that can be offered using birds. 2) We also use the word קרבנו restrictively, i.e. that only an individual can offer a burnt-offering consisting of a bird, not a community. 3) the rule that instead of slaughtering the bird it must have its head pinched off is applicable only to a priest, whereas the parallel act of slaughtering the four-legged animal designated as a burnt-offering may be performed also by a non-priest, an Israelite. In instances where in the previous two paragraphs some details have been repeated needlessly, this means that they applied only to the burnt-offering consisting of four-legged animals. The other details, each of which appears in only one of the previous two paragraphs, apply equally to burnt-offerings consisting of birds. Examples of exclusions which are derived from the respective paragaphs are: animals which have been mated with other species, animals set aside to serve as sacrifice for an idol; animals which had been used for idolatrous purposes, animals which are טרפה, have a terminal defect; diseased animals, over-age animals; stolen animals. All of the aforesaid are unfit to serve as burnt-offerings, or as any other offering. All of these examples are listed in the fourth chapter of Maimonides' treatise Issurey Hamizbeach. קרבנו לשם, his offering to G'd. The reason the Torah adds these words here whereas they did not appear in the previous two paragraphs is that the Torah included birds which have certain physical defects as fit to serve as a sacrifice, something which is not the case with offerings consisting of four-legged animals. The source of this halachah is Kidushin 24: אין זכרות ותמות בעוף; "the requirement that sacrificial burnt-offerings be male and free from physical blemish does not apply to burnt-offerings consisting of birds." In view of this relaxation of certain rules when an offering consists of a bird, logic would have told us that any bird-offering is of an inferior nature, why else would the Torah permit a blemished bird to serve as an offering? The Torah therefore had to tell us that as far as G'd is concerned, קרבנו לשם the bird-offering is equally esteemed in the eyes of the Lord. We find support for our view from Isaiah 57,15 where the prophet describes G'd as especially close to the "contrite and lowly in spirit," and our sages in Sotah 5 interpret this as either: אני את דכא, "I descend from Heaven in order to be close to the contrite," or as אתי דכא, "I elevate the contrite to My domain." It is due to such considerations that the name of G'd is written next to the bird-offering and not next to the offerings consisting of four-legged animals. Anyone who offers a burnt-offering consisting of a bird is presumed to be in low spirits seeing he cannot afford to offer something of greater value to G'd. We find the same approach in Menachot 104 where the Talmud explains the reason for the wording נפש כי תקריב מנחה לשם, (2,1) as a hint that a poor person who cannot afford to offer more than a meal-offering is considered as offering his whole personality, נפש, to G'd by means of such a low cost offering.
פסוק א:טו · 1:15
Hebrew:
וְהִקְרִיב֤וֹ הַכֹּהֵן֙ אֶל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חַ וּמָלַק֙ אֶת־רֹאשׁ֔וֹ וְהִקְטִ֖יר הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חָה וְנִמְצָ֣ה דָמ֔וֹ עַ֖ל קִ֥יר הַמִּזְבֵּֽחַ׃
English:
The priest shall bring it to the altar, pinch off its head, and turn it into smoke on the altar; and its blood shall be drained out against the side of the altar.
Unlike animal offerings where the owner slaughters the animal, the kohen himself performs the entire bird procedure. He pinches off the head using his fingernail in a unique process called melikah -- a term that appears nowhere else in Scripture. The blood is then pressed against the wall of the altar and allowed to drain down.
רש״יRashi
והקריבו. אֲפִלּוּ פְּרֵדָה אַחַת יָבִיא (ספרא): הכהן, ומלק. אֵין מְלִיקָה בִּכְלִי אֶלָּא בְּעַצְמוֹ שֶׁל כֹּהֵן, קוֹצֵץ בְּצִפָּרְנוֹ מִמּוּל הָעֹרֶף וְחוֹתֵךְ מַפְרַקְתּוֹ עַד שֶׁמַּגִּיעַ לַסִּימָנִין וְקוֹצְצָן (שם): ונמצה דמו. לְשׁוֹן מִיץ אַפַּיִם (משלי ל'), כִּי אָפֵס הַמֵּץ (ישעיהו ט"ז), כּוֹבֵשׁ בֵּית הַשְּׁחִיטָה עַל קִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְהַדָּם מִתְמַצֶּה וְיוֹרֵד (זבחים ס"ה): ומלק, והקטיר, ונמצה. אֶ"לֹ כֵּן מֵאַחַר שֶׁהוּא מַקְטִיר הוּא מוֹצֶה? אֶלָּא מַה הַקְטָרָה הָרֹאשׁ בְּעַצְמוֹ וְהַגּוּף בְּעַצְמוֹ, אַף מְלִיקָה כֵּן. וּפְשׁוּטוֹ שֶׁל מִקְרָא מְסֹרָס הוּא — וּמָלַק וְהִקְטִיר, וְקֹדֶם הַקְטָרָה וְנִמְצָה דָמוֹ כְּבָר:
והקריבו [AND THE PRIEST] SHALL OFFER IT — It — even a single bird he may offer (not necessarily more than one, as might be assumed from the plural תורים and בני יונה) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 1; Zevachim 65a). הכהן … ומלק THE PRIEST SHALL … NIP OFF [ITS HEAD] — The nipping of the bird's head must not be done with an instrument but by the priest's very self:) he nips with his finger-nail close by the nape, cuts right through the neck-bone until he comes to the "organs" (the wind pipe and the gullet) and cuts them through too (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 3; Zevachim 65a). ונמצה דמו AND THE BLOOD THEREOF SHALL BE WRUNG OUT — The word ונמצה is connected in meaning with (Proverbs 30:33) "the pressing out (מיץ) of wrath"; (Isaiah 16:4) "for extortion (המץ) is at an end). — He presses the place where the neck has been cut (בית השחיטה) against the wall and the blood thus drains itself out) and runs down the wall (cf. Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 7; Zevachim 64b). ומלק … והקטיר …ונמצה AND HE SHALL NIP OFF … AND CAUSE IT TO ASCEND IN FUMES … AND [THE BLOOD] SHALL BE WRUNG OUT — Is it possible to say so? Since he has burnt it can he squeeze the blood out?! But the wording is intended to suggest the following: How is it with the burning of the sacrifice? The head is separate and the body is separate (since it states here ומלק את ראשו והקטיר, and in v. 17 it is enjoined והקטיר אתו i. e. the body; vv. 16—17 speaking of the rites performed on the body)! So, too, the nipping has to be thus (i. e. has to have the effect of severing the head from the body so that it may be burnt apart from the body; the מליקה accordingly denotes here complete severance, whilst in 5:8 this is forbidden. The translation therefore is: and he shall nip off the head so that he may burn it on the altar) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 5; Zevachim 65a). According to the literal sense of the verse, however, the wording is inverted: he shall nip off [the head] and burn it, and before the burning the blood shall have been pressed out already (ונמצה has therefore a future-perfect meaning: "and its blood shall have been pressed out").
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
ומלק. אין לו אח במקרא ומשפט המליקה מדברי הקבלה: ונמצה דמו. מבנין נפעל מגזרת מצית:
PINCH. The word malak (pinch) has no brother in Scripture.86The word is not found again in Scripture. We know the laws of "pinching" from our tradition.87The kohen "cuts with his nail against the nape of the neck of the fowl and cuts its neck until he reaches the organs and severs them" (Rashi). Also see Zevachim 65a; Chulin 21b. AND THE BLOOD THEREOF SHALL BE DRAINED OUT. Ve-nimtzah (shall be drained out) is a nifal. It is related to the word matzit (drained) (Is. 51:17).
פסוק א:טז · 1:16
Hebrew:
וְהֵסִ֥יר אֶת־מֻרְאָת֖וֹ בְּנֹצָתָ֑הּ וְהִשְׁלִ֨יךְ אֹתָ֜הּ אֵ֤צֶל הַמִּזְבֵּ֙חַ֙ קֵ֔דְמָה אֶל־מְק֖וֹם הַדָּֽשֶׁן׃
English:
He shall remove its crop with its contents,*contents Others “feathers.” and cast it into the place of the ashes, at the east side of the altar.
The kohen removes the bird's crop along with its contents and discards them at the east side of the altar where the ashes are deposited. Rashi explains why the bird's innards are discarded while an animal's innards are washed and offered: a bird feeds freely and may have eaten stolen food, so its crop is unfit for the altar, whereas cattle eat only from their owner's trough.
רש״יRashi
מראתו. מְקוֹם הָרְעִי, זֶה הַזֶּפֶק (ספרא): בנצתה. עִם בְּנֵי מֵעֶיהָ, וְנוֹצָה לְשׁוֹן דָּבָר הַמָּאוּס, כְּמוֹ כִּי נָצוּ גַּם נָעוּ (איכה ד'), וְזֶהוּ שֶׁתִּרְגֵּם אֻנְקְלוֹס בְּאוּכְלֵיהּ; וְזֶהוּ מִדְרָשׁוֹ שֶׁל אַבָּא יוֹסֵי בֶּן חָנָן שֶׁאָמַר נוֹטֵל אֶת הַקֻּרְקְבָן עִמָּהּ; וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ זִ"לִ אָמְרוּ קוֹדֵר סְבִיב הַזֶּפֶק בְּסַכִּין כְּעֵין אֲרֻבָּה וְנוֹטְלוֹ עִם הַנּוֹצָה שֶׁעַל הָעוֹר (ספרא); בְּעוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ אוֹכֶלֶת אֶלָּא בְּאֵבוּס בְּעָלֶיהָ, נֶאֱמַר וְהַקֶּרֶב וְהַכְּרָעַיִם יִרְחַץ בַּמָּיִם וְהִקְטִיר, וּבָעוֹף שֶׁנָּזוֹן מִן הַגָּזֵל, נֶאֱמַר וְהִשְלִיךְ אֶת הַמֵּעַיִם, שֶׁאָכַל מִן הַגָּזֵל (ויקרא רבה ג'): אצל המזבח קדמה. בְּמִזְרָחוֹ שֶׁל כֶּבֶשׁ (ספרא): אל מקום הדשן. מָקוֹם שֶׁנּוֹתְנִין שָׁם תְּרוּמַת הַדֶּשֶׁן בְּכָל בֹּקֶר וְדִשּׁוּן מִזְבֵּחַ הַפְּנִימִי וְהַמְּנוֹרָה, וְכֻלָּם נִבְלָעִים שָׁם בִּמְקוֹמָן:
מראתו [AND HE SHALL REMOVE] ITS CROP — The word is connected in meaning with the word רעי in Rabbinical Hebrew (or the Biblical ראי; cf. Nahum 3:6); it thus denotes the place of the רעי, the digested food, i. e. the crop (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 9). בנצתה means together with its entrails (not with its feathers which meaning the word נוצה usually has). The word נוצה is really an expression for anything that is loathsome. Similar is (Lamentations 4:15) "[depart, depart, touch not:] for they are become loathsome (נצו) and are fled away".) That is also what Onkelos means when he translates באוכליה, "with the digested food" found in the entrails (excrement). This, too, is the interpretation of the verse given by Abba José ben Chanan who states: he removes the stomach (being the organ which contains digested food) together with it (the crop). But our Rabbis, of blessed memory, taking נוצה; in its usual sense of "feathers", say: with a knife he cuts out around the crop an opening like a flap and removes it together with the feathers on the skin (of that spot) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 7 9; Zevachim 65a). — In the case of the burnt offering of the cattle which eats only from the crib of its owner it is stated, (v. 13) "But he shall lave the inwards and the legs with water: and [the priest] shall offer it"; in the case of a fowl, however, which feeds itself from what it picks up of other people's property (lit., "of robbery") it states, "he shall cast the entrails away", because it (the bird) eats that which is stolen (Leviticus Rabbah 3 4). אצל המזבח קדמה BESIDE THE ALTAR ON THE EAST — i. e. at the east of the כבש (the inclined ascent leading to the top of the altar which was on the south of the altar) (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 9 3). אל מקום הדשן BY THE PLACE OF THE ASHES — i. e. that place where they deposited the ashes removed from the altar (תרומת הדשן) each morning (cf. Rashi on Leviticus 6:3, 4) and the ashes removed from the inner altar and the candelabrum (Meilah 12a;Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Chapter 9 3). All these miraculously sunk there in their place (i. e. on the very spot where they were deposited) (Yoma 21a).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
מראתו. ידוע וכמוהו הוי מראה ונגאלה: בנצתה. עם הנוצה שלו וכן מלא הנוצה: אצל המזבח. מחוץ: קדמה.כי הוא רחוק ממקום הכבוד: אל מקום הדשן. גם שם ישימוהו:
ITS CROP. The meaning of murato (its crop) is known.88Everybody knows that it refers to the crop. The word more'ah (filthy) in Woe to her that is filthy and polluted (Zeph. 3:1) is similar.89The contents of the crop are filthy. Hence the term murah (crop). WITH THE FEATHERS THEREOF. The meaning of be-not-zatah is, with the feathers thereof.90There is an opinion that notzatah means its entrails (see Rashi). Hence I.E.'s comment. The word notzah (feathers) in Full of feathers (Ezek. 17:3) is similar. BESIDE THE ALTAR. On the outside.91Of the altar. ON THE EAST PART. For it is far from the place of the Glory.92The altar (Weiser). The crop and its feathers were not placed on the altar, but outside of it. IN THE PLACE OF THE ASHES. They shall also place it there.93Among the ashes, which were removed far away from the altar.
פסוק א:יז · 1:17
Hebrew:
וְשִׁסַּ֨ע אֹת֣וֹ בִכְנָפָיו֮ לֹ֣א יַבְדִּיל֒ וְהִקְטִ֨יר אֹת֤וֹ הַכֹּהֵן֙ הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חָה עַל־הָעֵצִ֖ים אֲשֶׁ֣ר עַל־הָאֵ֑שׁ עֹלָ֣ה ה֗וּא אִשֵּׁ֛ה רֵ֥יחַ נִיחֹ֖חַ לַיהֹוָֽה׃ {ס}
English:
The priest shall tear it open by its wings, without severing it, and turn it into smoke on the altar, upon the wood that is on the fire. It is a burnt offering, an offering by fire, of pleasing odor to יהוה.
The kohen tears the bird open along its wings by hand -- not with a knife -- but does not sever it into two pieces. Rashi notes that even though the smell of burning feathers is unpleasant, the Torah requires the bird to be offered with its plumage intact so that the altar appears adorned with the poor person's sacrifice. The verse concludes with 're'ach nichoach,' a pleasing odor, teaching that God values the poor person's offering equally with the wealthy person's bull.
רש״יRashi
ושסע. אֵין שִׁסּוּעַ אֶלָּא בַּיָּד, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר בְּשִׁמְשׁוֹן וַיְשַׁסְּעֵהוּ כְּשַׁסַּע הַגְּדִי וְגוֹ' (שופטים י"ד): בכנפיו. עִם כְּנָפָיו — אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לִמְרֹט כַּנְפֵי נוֹצָתוֹ: בכנפיו. נוֹצָה מַמָּשׁ; וַהֲלֹא אֵין לְךָ הֶדְיוֹט שֶׁמֵּרִיחַ רֵיחַ כְּנָפַיִם נִשְֹרָפִים וְאֵין נַפְשׁוֹ קָצָה עָלָיו, וְלָמָּה אָמַר הַכָּתוּב יַקְרִיב? כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא הַמִּזְבֵּחַ שָֹבֵעַ וּמְהֻדָּר בְּקָרְבָּנוֹ שֶׁל עָנִי (ויק"ר ג'): לא יבדיל. אֵינוֹ מְפָרְקוֹ לְגַמְרֵי, לִשְׁתֵּי חֲתִיכוֹת, אֶלָּא קוֹרְעוֹ מִגַּבּוֹ; נֶאֱמַר בָּעוֹף רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ וְנֶאֱמַר בַּבְּהֵמָה רֵיחַ נִיחוֹחַ, לוֹמַר לְךָ אֶחָד הַמַּרְבֶּה וְאֶחָד הַמַּמְעִיט וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיְּכַוֵּן אֶת לִבּוֹ לַשָּׁמַיִם (ספרא):
ושסע AND HE SHALL CLEAVE [IT] — The term שסע is used only for rending with the hands. Similarly it states in the story of Samson (Judges 14:6) "and he rent him (וישסעהו) as he would have rent a kid" (Zevachim 65b). בכנפיו means: he shall rend it together with its feathers he need not pluck out the feathers that form its plumage before doing so. בכנפיו means actually the feathers (not the wings). But surely you will not find even a common sort of man who can smell the odour of burnt feathers without being disgusted with it! Why, then, does Scripture say that it shall be offered with the feathers? In order that the altar should appear full up, as it were, and adorned with the sacrifice of the poor (since the bird with its feathers makes a finer show than without them) (Leviticus Rabbah 3:5). לא יבדיל BUT HE SHALL NOT SEPARATE IT — he must not break it entirely into two pieces, but only rends it from behind. — It is stated here of a bird-offering "a pleasing odour [to the Lord]" and it is stated (v. 13) of an animal-sacrifice "a pleasing odour [to the Lord]", to tell you: whether one offers much or little it is equally pleasing to God provided that he directs his heart to Heaven (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Nedavah, Section 9 7; Menachot 110a).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
ושסע. מגזרת ושוסעת שסע כטעם בקוע:
AND HE SHALL REND IT. The word ve-shissa (and he shall rend it) is related to ve-shosa'at shesa (and is wholly cloven) (Lev. 11:3). The meaning of shissa is split.
אור החייםOr HaChaim
אשה ריח ניחוח. רז"ל אמרו (מנחות קי) נאמר בעולת בהמה אשה ריח וגו' ונאמר בעולת העוף אשה וגו' לומר לך אחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט וכו' עד כאן. הנה נתכוונו רז"ל לתרץ מה שקשה כי יאמר הכתוב אשה ריח ניחוח בעוף שהוא שוה איסר ומכל שכן בעולת הבהמה, לזה דקדקו בלשונם ואמרו לומר לך אחד המרבה וכו', פירוש שבא הכתוב להודיענו שאין הפרש בין המועט למרובה, שלא תאמר שאין זה אלא לצד שה' מצד רחמיו מתרצה בקרבן העני הגם שאינו חשוב כקרבן העשיר, ועל כל פנים אין המוחש נכחש כי זה מביא פר וזה מביא עוף, לזה נתחכם הכתוב ואמר ריח ניחוח בבהמה ולא הספיק לו במה שאמר בעוף ללמוד ממנו להעירך ולהראותך כי לא פחות הוא מקרבן בהמה ללמוד ממנו וצריך הוא להודיעך גם בקרבן בהמה אשה ריח ניחוח, והוא מה שדקדק התנא באומרו נאמר ונאמר וכו' פירוש ולא הספיק לו לומר הדבר במדרגה הקטנה נתכוין לומר לך בזה אחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט פירוש בהשואה הם, ולזה לא אמר התנא לומר הממעיט כמרבה שאז בטלה לה הכוונה שפי' בדבריו, כי כשנגיע לומר זה כזה יתחייב לומר כי הנלמד קטן מהמלמד כמשפט הרב ותלמידו, ומדקדוק לשון אומרו אחד ואחד הרי זה מראה באצבע השכל כי אין הדרגה לאחד מחברו, ובזה הוא שהשיג תירוץ למה לא אמר ריח ניחוח בעוף, כי בא ללמדנו דבר זה שאין מעלה לעשיר בשורו ולא כלום, ומטעם זה גם כן הוצרך לומר אשה ריח ניחוח בצאן ולא הספיק בבקר ועוף שהם ב' קצוות, כי בענין זה אין דבר נלמד מחברו לצד המובא:
אשה ריח ניחוח לשם, a fire-offering whose fragrance is pleasing to G'd. Our sages in Menachot 110 comment that the fact that the Torah used this expression when describing the burnt-offering consisting of a four-legged animal, as well as when a bird-offering is being offered, as proof that G'd does not judge a person's offering by its monetary value but by the attitude it reflects. As long as the donor's motivation is G'd-oriented, both kinds of offerings are equally welcome in His eyes. The problem the sages wanted to overcome was that if the Torah had written the term אשה ריח ניחוח לשם only in connection with the bird-offering which is worth a few coins, it is obvious that a burnt-offering consisting of a four-legged animal should qualify for that description no less. Hence why did the Torah have to write the expression in connection with the offering of a four-legged animal? This is why they were careful to write: אחד המרבה ואחד הממעיט, that there is no difference between the person who offers a valuable animal as a sacrifice and the one who offers something less valuable. We should not imagine that the fact that the Torah mentioned ריח ניחוח in connection with the bird-offering was just an act of graciousness on the part of G'd towards the poor, whereas the four-legged animal offered by the wealthy is dearer to Him. The Torah made the point that the bird-offering is not considered inferior for any reason at all by writing the otherwise unnecessary words ריח ניחוח לשם also in connection with the burnt-offering consisting of four-legged animals. This is why the Rabbi in the Talmud did not simply write הממעיט כמרבה, as this would not have conveyed his true meaning. It is a rule that when one says: "this is as good as that," that the "this" is inferior to the "that" seeing it is a derivative of it. The "this" to "that" relationship is akin to the student-teacher relationship. Even if the student has absorbed all of the teacher's knowledge, the teacher remains superior by dint of having taught the student what he knows. When the Rabbi phrased his comment: "one who does a lot is as one who does a little," he made sure the reader would not consider either of the two as superior or inferior to the second one. This consideration prompted the Torah to write the same wording once more in connection with the meal-offering in 2,2.
פסוק ב:א · 2:1
Hebrew:
וְנֶ֗פֶשׁ כִּֽי־תַקְרִ֞יב קׇרְבַּ֤ן מִנְחָה֙ לַֽיהֹוָ֔ה סֹ֖לֶת יִהְיֶ֣ה קׇרְבָּנ֑וֹ וְיָצַ֤ק עָלֶ֙יהָ֙ שֶׁ֔מֶן וְנָתַ֥ן עָלֶ֖יהָ לְבֹנָֽה׃
English:
When a person presents an offering of meal to יהוה: The offering shall be of choice flour; the offerer shall pour oil upon it, lay frankincense on it,
The Torah transitions from animal offerings to the mincha, or meal offering, made of fine wheat flour (solet), oil, and frankincense. Notably, the verse uses the word 'nefesh' (soul) rather than 'adam' (person). The Talmud in Menachot 104b explains: who typically brings a meal offering? A poor person. God considers it as if that person offered his very soul. Oil is poured over all the flour, while frankincense is placed on only one side.
רש״יRashi
ונפש כי תקריב. לֹא נֶאֱמַר נֶפֶשׁ בְּכָל קָרְבְּנוֹת נְדָבָה אֶלָּא בַּמִּנְחָה, מִי דַּרְכּוֹ לְהִתְנַדֵּב מִנְחָה? עָנִי. אָמַר הַקָּבָּ"ה, מַעֲלֶה אֲנִי עָלָיו כְּאִלּוּ הִקְרִיב נַפְשׁוֹ (מנחות ק"ד): סלת יהיה קרבנו. הָאוֹמֵר הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחָה סְתָם, מֵבִיא מִנְחַת סֹלֶת, שֶׁהִיא הָרִאשׁוֹנָה שֶׁבַּמְּנָחוֹת וְנִקְמֶצֶת כְּשֶׁהִיא סֹלֶת, כְּמוֹ שֶׁמְּפֹרָשׁ בָּעִנְיָן; לְפִי שֶׁנֶּאֶמְרוּ כָּאן חֲמִשָּׁה מִינֵי מְנָחוֹת, וְכֻלָּן בָּאוֹת אֲפוּיוֹת קֹדֶם קְמִיצָה חוּץ מִזּוֹ, לְכָךְ קְרוּיָה מִנְחַת סֹלֶת: סלת. אֵין סֹלֶת אֶלָּא מִן הַחִטִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר סֹלֶת חִטִּים (שמות כ"ט), וְאֵין מִנְחָה פְּחוּתָה מֵעִשָּׂרוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְעִשָּׂרוֹן סֹלֶת … לְמִנְחָה (ויקרא י"ד) — עִשָּׂרוֹן לְכָל מִנְחָה: ויצק עליה שמן. עַל כֻּלָּהּ: ונתן עליה לבנה. עַל מִקְצָתָהּ — מַנִּיחַ קֹמֶץ לְבוֹנָה עָלֶיהָ לְצַד אֶחָד. וּמָה רָאִיתָ לוֹמַר כֵּן? שֶׁאֵין רִבּוּי אַחַר רִבּוּי בַּתּוֹרָה אֶלָּא לְמַעֵט; דָּ"אַ: שֶׁמֶן עַל כֻּלָּהּ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא נִבְלָל עִמָּהּ וְנִקְמָץ עִמָּהּ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר מִסָּלְתָּהּ וּמִשַּׁמְנָהּ, וּלְבוֹנָה עַל מִקְצָתָהּ, שֶׁאֵינָהּ נִבְלֶלֶת עִמָּהּ וְלֹא נִקְמֶצֶת עִמָּהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר עַל כָּל לְבֹנָתָהּ, שֶׁלְּאַחַר שֶׁקָּמַץ מְלַקֵּט אֶת הַלְּבוֹנָה כֻּלָּהּ מֵעָלֶיהָ וּמַקְטִירָהּ (ספרא): ויצק, ונתן, והביאה. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁיְּצִיקָה וּבְלִילָה כְּשֵׁרִים בְּזָר (שם):
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 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).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
ונפש כי תקריב. נפש אדם והזכיר הנפש שהמנחה נדבה גם הנפש תקרא נדיבה ורוח נדיבה תסמכני: סלת. קמח חטה נקיה והיא הנקראת בלשון קדר סמי״ד והנה אין ראוי להיות מנחה לגבוה כי אם מהמין שאין למעלה הימנו:
AND WHEN ANY ONE BRINGETH. The word nefesh (anyone) means a person. Scripture mentions nefesh1Scripture here refers to a person by the term nefesh. However, in chapter 1, it refers to a person by the term adam (man). See Lev. 1:2. Hence I.E.'s comment. because the meal offering is a free will offering and nefesh is called "willing."2Nefesh also means spirit. Compare, And let a willing spirit uphold me (Ps. 51:14).3Thus the deeper meaning of our verse is, when a willing spirit brings a free will offering unto the Lord. For another interpretation of why Scripture here employs the term nefesh and not adam see Rashi on verse 1. FINE FLOUR. The meaning of solet (fine flour) is pure wheat flour. It is the same as that which is called samid in Arabic. Look, it is not fitting that a meal offering brought to the Most High come from anything than which nothing better exists.4In other words, it is unfit that a meal offering brought to the Most High come from anything but the best. What is the value of this work today? From an historical and intellectual view, Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch is most important, as explained previously in the preface to Genesis. His influence can be seen in all subsequent Hebrew Biblical commentaries, particularly that of Nahmanides. His influence is equally apparent on Maimonides both in his philosophical work, the Guide of the Perplexed, and his halakhic work, his Mishneh Torah, extending also to many later Biblical scholars and philosophers. All this is well documented in Dr. Strickman's forewords to the five books of this set. In spite of all of this, however, the question of the English translation's value still remains. In his introduction to his commentary on the Torah, Ibn Ezra writes, "With regard to verses which deal with laws, statutes and regulations, if we find two possible interpretations for a verse and one of them in keeping with the interpretation of the transmitters of tradition, all of whom were righteous men, then without reservation and with all our might we will rely on the truth of their words. Heaven forbid that we should join the Sadducees who claim that the traditions of the Rabbinic sages contradict the literal meaning of Scripture and the rules of grammar. The fact of the matter is that our ancient sages are true and all their words are true" (Vol. 1, pp. 18,19). However, it must be noted that the rabbis who posited post-Mosaic changes in the Torah were men of stellar reputation. Abarbanel (Num. 21:1) claimed, though his opinion is very questionable, that Nahmanides held such views regarding Num. 21:1-3. Furthermore, despite the fact that Maimonides' thirteen principles of Judaism ultimately became part of the liturgy and thus were accepted at face value by all pious Jews, in practice not all of Maimonides' pronouncements on what constitutes heresy were accepted by post-Maimonidian authorities. There was room for difference. For example, according to Maimonides one who directs his or her prayer to anyone but God is guilty of idol worship. Nevertheless, there are prayers that are directed to angels or to God's attributes. Thus there had to be another reason for normative Judaism's rejection of the notion of any post-Mosaic changes in the Torah.
אור החייםOr HaChaim
ונפש וגו'. בתורת כהנים דרשו יתור ונפש שיש בו מיעוט וריבוי, מיעוט נפש לשון יחיד למעט צבור שלא יביאו מנחת נדבה, ריבוי ביתרון הוא"ו לרבות יחיד שאינו מביא מנחה על טומאת מקדש וקדשיו שהוא כהן משיח, שמביא מנחת נדבה. וטעם הכתוב שכתב כאן רבוי ומיעוט בתיבה אחת. אולי כי לצד שלא הוכרח למעט הצבור אלא לצד שריבה כהן משיח לזה רמז שניהם יחד הגם שהם ב' דברים הפכיים, כי לולי רבוי כהן משיח אין צורך למעט צבור כי מנין יעלה על דעתנו שיביאו שיוצרך למעט, ואחר שבא רבוי כהן משיח יצא לנו דין חדש שישנו במלמד לצבור כאומרם שם בתורת כהנים לזה הוצרך למעט:
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?
פסוק ב:ב · 2:2
Hebrew:
וֶֽהֱבִיאָ֗הּ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י אַהֲרֹן֮ הַכֹּהֲנִים֒ וְקָמַ֨ץ מִשָּׁ֜ם מְלֹ֣א קֻמְצ֗וֹ מִסׇּלְתָּהּ֙ וּמִשַּׁמְנָ֔הּ עַ֖ל כׇּל־לְבֹנָתָ֑הּ וְהִקְטִ֨יר הַכֹּהֵ֜ן אֶת־אַזְכָּרָתָהּ֙ הַמִּזְבֵּ֔חָה אִשֵּׁ֛ה רֵ֥יחַ נִיחֹ֖חַ לַיהֹוָֽה׃
English:
and present it to Aaron’s sons, the priests. The priest shall scoop out of it a handful of its choice flour and oil, as well as all of its frankincense; and this token portion he shall turn into smoke on the altar, as an offering by fire, of pleasing odor to יהוה.
The offerer brings the mincha to the kohanim, and the kohen performs the kemitzah -- scooping a precise handful by pressing three fingers against his palm. This handful of flour and oil, along with all the frankincense, is burned on the altar as the azkarah (memorial portion), the part that represents the offerer before God. Rashi explains that if even a grain of salt or particle of frankincense enters the handful with the flour, the offering is invalidated.
רש״יRashi
הכהנים וקמץ. מִקְּמִיצָה וָאֵילָךְ מִצְוַת כְּהֻנָּה (שם): וקמץ משם. מִמָּקוֹם שֶׁרַגְלֵי הַזָּר עוֹמְדוֹת; לְלַמֶּדְךָ שֶׁהַקְּמִיצָה כְּשֵׁרָה בְּכָל מָקוֹם בָּעֲזָרָה, אַף בְּי"א אַמָּה שֶׁל מְקוֹם דְּרִיסַת רַגְלֵי יִשְֹרָאֵל (יומא ט"ז): מלא קמצו. יָכוֹל מְבֹרָץ — מְבַצְבֵּץ וְיוֹצֵא לְכָל צַד, תַּ"לֹ בְּמָקוֹם אַחֵר וְהֵרִים מִמֶּנּוּ בְּקֻמְצוֹ (ויקרא ו') — לֹא יְהֵא כָּשֵׁר אֶלָּא מַה שֶּׁבְּתוֹךְ הַקֹּמֶץ, אִי בְּקֻמְצוֹ יָכוֹל חָסֵר, תַּ"לֹ מְלֹא, הָא כֵּיצַד? חוֹפֶה שְׁלוֹשׁ אֶצְבְּעוֹתָיו עַל פַּס יָדוֹ, וְזֶהוּ קֹמֶץ בְּמַשְׁמַע לָשׁוֹן הָעִבְרִית (מנחות י"א): על כל לבנתה. לְבַד כָּל הַלְּבוֹנָה יְהֵא הַקֹּמֶץ מָלֵא: לבנתה והקטיר. אַף הַלְּבוֹנָה בְּהַקְטָרָה: מלא קמצו מסלתה ומשמנה. הָא אִם קָמַץ וְעָלָה בְּיָדוֹ גַּרְגֵּר מֶלַח אוֹ קֹרֶט לְבוֹנָה פְּסוּלָה (שם ו'): אזכרתה. הַקֹּמֶץ הָעוֹלֶה לְגָבוֹהַּ הוּא זִכְרוֹן הַמִּנְחָה — שֶׁבּוֹ נִזְכָּר בְּעָלֶיהָ לְטוֹבָה וּלְנַחַת רוּחַ:
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.
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
וקמץ. מגזרת לקמצים וקדמונינו פירשו קמץ מלא ודבריהם אמת: מסלתה. מעט ממנה וכן מהשמן רק כל הלבונה יקטיר: אזכרתה. האל״ף נוסף והטעם מה שהיה לו לזכרון לפני השם בעבור מנחתו ורבים פירשוהו כריח וקטורת כמו זכרו כיין לבנון:
AND HE SHALL TAKE. Ve-kamatz (and he shall take) is related to the word li-kematzim (in heaps) (Gen. 41:47).5According to this interpretation, ve-kamatz (and he shall take) means and he shall gather. Our sages explained that melo kumtzo means a handful.6See Menachot 9a, 18b. Their words are true. OF THE FINE FLOUR THEREOF. A little of it, and so too of the oil. However, he shall burn all of the frankincense. THE MEMORIAL-PART THEREOF. The alef of azkaratah (the memorial part thereof) is superfluous.7According to this opinion azkaratah comes from the root zayin, kaf, resh. The alef serves no purpose. Azkaratah is so called because the meal offering by the celebrant serves as a memorial before God.8In other words, azkaratah means the memorial part thereof. God recalls the celebrant because of his meal offering. Others say that azkaratah means its scent. It is like scent of the incense.9The portion of the meal offering offered on the altar is similar to the incense offered on the altar. Compare, The scent thereof (zikhro) shall be as the wine of Lebanon (Hos. 14:8).
פסוק ב:ג · 2:3
Hebrew:
וְהַנּוֹתֶ֙רֶת֙ מִן־הַמִּנְחָ֔ה לְאַהֲרֹ֖ן וּלְבָנָ֑יו קֹ֥דֶשׁ קׇֽדָשִׁ֖ים מֵאִשֵּׁ֥י יְהֹוָֽה׃ {ס}
English:
And the remainder of the meal offering shall be for Aaron and his sons, a most holy portion from יהוה’s offerings by fire.
After the kemitzah is burned on the altar, the remainder of the meal offering belongs to Aaron and his sons. It is classified as kodesh kodashim (most holy), meaning it may be eaten only by male kohanim within the Temple courtyard. Rashi notes that the Kohen Gadol takes his portion first, before the rest is divided equally among the ordinary kohanim.
רש״יRashi
לאהרן ולבניו. כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל נוֹטֵל חֵלֶק בָּרֹאשׁ שֶׁלֹּא בְּמַחֲלֹקֶת וְהַהֶדְיוֹט בְּמַחֲלֹקֶת (ספרא): קדש קדשים. הִיא לָהֶם: מאשי ה'. אֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק בָּהּ אֶלָּא לְאַחַר מַתְּנוֹת הָאִשִּׁים (שם):
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).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
לאהרן ולבניו. ולכל הכהנים בשוה:
SHALL BE AARON'S AND HIS SONS'. And to all kohanim equally.10Unlike the meal offerings that are baked in the oven which belong to the priest who offers them (Lev. 7:9), a meal offering mingled with oil is shared by all the kohanim (Lev. 7:10) (Filwarg).
פסוק ב:ד · 2:4
Hebrew:
וְכִ֥י תַקְרִ֛ב קׇרְבַּ֥ן מִנְחָ֖ה מַאֲפֵ֣ה תַנּ֑וּר סֹ֣לֶת חַלּ֤וֹת מַצֹּת֙ בְּלוּלֹ֣ת בַּשֶּׁ֔מֶן וּרְקִיקֵ֥י מַצּ֖וֹת מְשֻׁחִ֥ים בַּשָּֽׁמֶן׃ {ס}
English:
When you present an offering of meal baked in the oven, [it shall be of] choice flour: unleavened cakes with oil mixed in, or unleavened wafers spread with oil.
The Torah introduces the first variation of the baked mincha: one prepared in an oven. The offerer may choose between thick unleavened cakes (challot matzot) mixed with oil, or thin unleavened wafers (rekikei matzot) spread with oil, but may not combine both types. Rashi explains that the word 'bashemen' (with oil) appears twice to teach that second- and third-grade olive oil may be used for meal offerings, while only first-grade oil is required for the Menorah.
רש״יRashi
וכי תקריב וגו'. שֶׁאָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחַת מַאֲפֵה תַּנּוּר; וְלִמֵּד הַכָּתוּב שֶׁיָּבִיא אוֹ חַלּוֹת אוֹ רְקִיקִין, הַחַלּוֹת בְּלוּלוֹת וְהָרְקִיקִין מְשׁוּחִין; וְנֶחְלְקוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ בִּמְשִׁיחָתָן, יֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים מוֹשְׁחָן וְחוֹזֵר וּמוֹשְׁחָן עַד שֶׁכָּלֶה כָּל הַשֶּׁמֶן שֶׁבַּלֹּג — שֶׁכָּל הַמְּנָחוֹת טְעוּנוֹת לֹג שֶׁמֶן — וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים מוֹשְׁחָן כְּמִין "כִי" וּשְׁאָר הַשֶּׁמֶן נֶאֱכָל בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ לַכֹּהֲנִים (מנחות ע"ה); מַה תַּ"ל בַּשֶּׁמֶן בַּשֶּׁמֶן שְׁנֵי פְּעָמִים? לְהַכְשִׁיר שֶׁמֶן שֵׁנִי וּשְׁלִישִׁי הַיּוֹצֵא מִן הַזֵּיתִים, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ שֶׁמֶן רִאשׁוֹן אֶלָּא לַמְּנוֹרָה שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בּוֹ זָךְ (שמות כ"ז), וְשָׁנִינוּ בִּמְנָחוֹת כָּל הַמְּנָחוֹת הָאֲפוּיוֹת לִפְנֵי קְמִיצָתָן וְנִקְמָצוֹת עַל יְדֵי פְּתִיתָה, כֻּלָּן בָּאוֹת עֶשֶֹר עֶשֶֹר חַלּוֹת, וְהָאָמוּר בָּה רְקִיקִין בָּאָה עֲשָׂרָה רְקִיקִין (מנחות ע"ו):
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.
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
חלות. עבות ויש אומרים עגולות מלשון חלילה בדברי קדמונינו:
UNLEAVENED CAKES. The word challot (cakes) means thick cakes.11Thus challot matzot (unleavened cakes) means thick unleavened cakes. Others connect challot to the Rabbinic term chalilah (circle).12They say that challot means rounded cakes. See Sukkah 5:6.
אור החייםOr HaChaim
וכי תקריב. אמר וכי בתוספת וא"ו לסמוך דין זה לענין ראשון, לומר לך שגם בפרטי המנחה נתרבה כהן משיח, ונתמעטו צבור גם לתנאי פרטי ההקרבה שנרשמו בקומץ מנחת סולת, גם להביא לבונה הגם שלא הוזכרה בה:
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.
פסוק ב:ה · 2:5
Hebrew:
וְאִם־מִנְחָ֥ה עַל־הַֽמַּחֲבַ֖ת קׇרְבָּנֶ֑ךָ סֹ֛לֶת בְּלוּלָ֥ה בַשֶּׁ֖מֶן מַצָּ֥ה תִהְיֶֽה׃
English:
If your offering is a meal offering on a griddle, it shall be of choice flour with oil mixed in, unleavened.
A second variation is the griddle mincha (al hamachavat), prepared on a flat, open pan used in the Temple. Rashi explains that because the pan is shallow, the fire burns the oil quickly, producing a hard, crispy result. The flour must be mixed with oil while still in its raw state, and the offering must be unleavened. Ibn Ezra connects the word 'machavat' to the root meaning 'hidden,' suggesting a covered vessel.
רש״יRashi
ואם מנחה על המחבת. שֶׁאָמַר הֲרֵי עָלַי מִנְחַת מַחֲבַת; וּכְלִי הוּא שֶׁהָיָה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, שֶׁאוֹפִין בּוֹ מִנְחָה זוֹ עַל הָאוּר בְּשֶׁמֶן, וְהַכְּלִי אֵינוֹ עָמֹק אֶלָּא צָף, וּמַעֲשֵׂי הַמִּנְחָה שֶׁבְּתוֹכוֹ קָשִׁין, שֶׁמִּתּוֹךְ שֶׁהִיא צָפָה, הָאוּר שׂוֹרֵף אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן. וְכֻלָּן טְעוּנוֹת שָׁלוֹשׁ מַתְּנוֹת שֶׁמֶן — יְצִיקָה וּבְלִילָה וּמַתַּן שֶׁמֶן בִּכְלִי קֹדֶם לַעֲשִֹיָּתָן (שם ע"ד): סלת בלולה בשמן. מְלַמֵּד שֶׁבּוֹלְלָן בְּעוֹדָן סֹלֶת (מנחות ע"ד):
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).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
מחבת. קערה מכוסה בקערה והתי״ו תחת ה״א כתי״ו ושבת לנשיא:
A GRIDDLE. Machavat (griddle) refers to a plate covered with a plate.13It refers to a pan with a cover. Its tav is in place of a heh,14A variant of machavah. Machavah comes from the root chet, bet, heh, meaning to hide. A machavah is a utensil in which the food is hidden (Weiser), i.e., covered. like the tav of ve-shavat (it shall return) in then it shall return to the prince (Ezek. 46:17).15The tav of ve-shavat is in place of a heh, for ve-shavat is a variant of veshavah.
פסוק ב:ו · 2:6
Hebrew:
פָּת֤וֹת אֹתָהּ֙ פִּתִּ֔ים וְיָצַקְתָּ֥ עָלֶ֖יהָ שָׁ֑מֶן מִנְחָ֖ה הִֽוא׃ {ס}
English:
Break it into bits and pour oil on it; it is a meal offering.
The griddle mincha must be broken into pieces after baking, and oil is poured over the fragments before the kemitzah is taken. Rashi explains that this verse establishes a general rule: all baked meal offerings must be broken into pieces. The concluding phrase 'mincha hi' (it is a meal offering) serves a limiting function, excluding certain types from the requirement of having oil poured over them after preparation.
רש״יRashi
פתות אתה פתים. לְרַבּוֹת כָּל הַמְּנָחוֹת הַנֶּאֱפוֹת קֹדֶם קְמִיצָה לִפְתִיתָה (שם ע"ה): ויצקת עליה שמן מנחה הוא. לְרַבּוֹת כָּל הַמְּנָחוֹת לִיצִיקָה; יָכוֹל אַף מִנְחָה מַאֲפֵה תַּנּוּר כֵּן, תַּ"ל עָלֶיהָ; אוֹצִיא אֶת הַחַלּוֹת וְלֹא אוֹצִיא אֶת הָרְקִיקִין, תַּ"ל הִוא (שם):
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).
Navigation
Last updated on