Skip to Content
Parashat HaShavuaפרשת ויקראAliyah 3 — שלישי

פרשת ויקרא — שלישי (Aliyah 3)

Parashat Vayikra | Leviticus 2:7–2:16 | Aliyah 3 of 7

קלאוד על הפרשה

The third aliyah of Parashat Vayikra completes the Torah’s treatment of the mincha, the meal offering, moving from the deep-pan preparation (marcheshet) through a series of sweeping prohibitions and requirements that govern every offering placed upon the altar. What begins as a seemingly technical continuation of sacrificial procedure quickly opens into some of the most theologically resonant legislation in Leviticus. The marcheshet itself, as Rashi explains drawing on Menachot 63a, was a deep vessel in which the oil pooled rather than burning off, causing the mixture to bubble and “creep” — the very name of the vessel evoking the soft movement of the dough within it. This attention to the physical texture of the offering reminds us that the Torah’s sacrificial laws are not abstract ritual prescriptions but embodied acts, concerned with the sensory reality of what is placed before God.

The prohibition against leaven (se’or) and honey (devash) on the altar, stated in verse 11, stands as one of the more provocative laws of the sacrificial system. Leaven, which causes dough to rise through fermentation, and honey, which represents concentrated natural sweetness, are both agents of transformation — they alter the fundamental character of whatever they touch. The Ramban suggests that leaven symbolizes the evil inclination (yetzer ha-ra), the internal force that “puffs up” a person with pride, while honey represents excessive indulgence in physical pleasure. On this reading, the altar demands offerings in their most essential, unadorned state. Ibn Ezra notes that “devash” in this context may refer not only to bee honey but to the sweet juice of dates and other fruits, broadening the prohibition to encompass all forms of concentrated sweetness. Yet the Torah immediately qualifies: leaven and honey may be brought as a “korban reshit,” an offering of first products — the two loaves of Shavuot were leavened, and the bikkurim included figs and dates. They are acceptable as gifts to God; they simply may not ascend upon the altar in fire.

The requirement of salt on every offering, articulated in verse 13, introduces one of Scripture’s most enduring covenantal metaphors. The phrase “melach brit Elohekha” — “the salt of the covenant of your God” — elevates a common kitchen ingredient to the status of a theological symbol. Rashi, drawing on an aggadic tradition, traces this covenant back to the second day of Creation, when the lower waters were separated from the upper waters and given the consolation that they would one day be represented on the altar through salt and through the water libation ceremony of Sukkot. Salt preserves and purifies; it arrests decay and maintains integrity. Unlike leaven and honey, which transform and destabilize, salt fixes and endures. The covenant of salt thus represents the permanence and immutability of God’s relationship with Israel — a relationship that, like salt, does not spoil or change over time. Ibn Ezra offers a more practical reading: offering unsalted food would be an insult, as salt renders food fit for human consumption, and what is unfit for a person’s table should certainly not be placed on God’s altar.

The aliyah concludes with the mincha of bikkurim, the first-fruits meal offering identified by the Sages with the omer offering brought on the second day of Passover. This offering is made from barley — the humblest of grains — harvested while still green (aviv), parched in fire, and ground into groats (geres karmel). Rashi explains that “karmel” is a compound of “kar” (husk) and “mal” (full): the grain is processed while its husk is still full and moist, capturing the crop at its moment of emergence. There is a profound agricultural theology at work here. The omer offering marks the very beginning of the harvest season, and by requiring Israel to bring the first of the barley crop before consuming any new grain, the Torah insists that abundance begins with acknowledgment of its Source. The progression of this aliyah — from the mechanics of the deep pan, through the exclusion of leaven and honey, to the universal requirement of salt, and finally to the first-fruits offering — traces an arc from technique to theology, from the how of sacrifice to its deepest why.

Leviticus 2:7–2:16 · ויקרא ב:ז–ב:טז

פסוק ב:ז · 2:7

Hebrew:

וְאִם־מִנְחַ֥ת מַרְחֶ֖שֶׁת קׇרְבָּנֶ֑ךָ סֹ֥לֶת בַּשֶּׁ֖מֶן תֵּעָשֶֽׂה׃

English:

If your offering is a meal offering in a pan, it shall be made of choice flour in oil.

The Torah introduces the last type of meal offering prepared in a vessel: the marcheshet, or deep pan. Unlike the flat griddle (machabat) mentioned earlier, this deep vessel allows oil to pool around the dough, producing a softer, more liquid mixture that appears to move or 'creep' as it cooks.
רש״יRashi
מרחשת. כְּלִי הוּא שֶׁהָיָה בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ, עָמֹק, וּמִתּוֹךְ שֶׁהִיא עֲמֻקָּה, שַׁמְנָהּ צָבוּר וְאֵין הָאוּר שׂוֹרְפוֹ, לְפִיכָךְ מַעֲשֵׂי מִנְחָה הָעֲשׂוּיִין לְתוֹכָהּ רוֹחֲשִׁין; כָּל דָּבָר רַךְ עַל יְדֵי מַשְׁקֶה נִרְאֶה כְּרוֹחֵשׁ וּמְנַעֲנֵעַ (ספרא):
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).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
מרחשת. מעשה מטוגן ויש מפרשם מגזרת רחש לבי והטעם בעבור שישמיע קול:
THE STEWING-PAN. Marcheshet (the stewing pan) means fried.16Contra other commentaries, I.E. does not believe that marcheshet (stewing pan) describes a utensil. It refers to a type of meal offering. I.E. renders our clause: And if your offering be a fried meal offering (minchah marcheshet). Some connect the word marcheshet to rachash (speaks) in My heart speaks (Ps. 45:2).17Translated according to I.E. Marcheshet is so called because it emits sounds.18When an oil-saturated mixture is fried, it emits sounds.

פסוק ב:ח · 2:8

Hebrew:

וְהֵבֵאתָ֣ אֶת־הַמִּנְחָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֧ר יֵעָשֶׂ֛ה מֵאֵ֖לֶּה לַיהֹוָ֑ה וְהִקְרִיבָהּ֙ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵ֔ן וְהִגִּישָׁ֖הּ אֶל־הַמִּזְבֵּֽחַ׃

English:

When you present to יהוה a meal offering that is made in any of these ways, it shall be brought to the priest who shall take it up to the altar.

This verse describes the procedure for presenting any of the previously mentioned meal offerings. The owner brings the offering to the priest, and the priest then brings it close to the southwest corner of the altar. Rashi carefully distinguishes each step: the owner presents it to the kohen, and the kohen positions it at the altar.
רש״יRashi
אשר יעשה מאלה. מֵאֶחָד מִן הַמִּינִים הַלָּלוּ: והקריבה. בְּעָלֶיהָ אל הכהן: והגישה. הַכֹּהֵן: והגישה אל המזבח. מַגִּישָׁהּ לְקֶרֶן דְּרוֹמִית מַעֲרָבִית שֶׁל מִזְבֵּחַ (זבחים ס"ג):
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).

פסוק ב:ט · 2:9

Hebrew:

וְהֵרִ֨ים הַכֹּהֵ֤ן מִן־הַמִּנְחָה֙ אֶת־אַזְכָּ֣רָתָ֔הּ וְהִקְטִ֖יר הַמִּזְבֵּ֑חָה אִשֵּׁ֛ה רֵ֥יחַ נִיחֹ֖חַ לַיהֹוָֽה׃

English:

The priest shall remove the token portion from the meal offering and turn it into smoke on the altar as an offering by fire, of pleasing odor to יהוה.

The priest removes the memorial portion (azkarah) from the meal offering and burns it on the altar as a fire offering of pleasing odor to God. Rashi identifies the azkarah as the kometz -- the fistful of flour scooped up by the priest, which represents the entire offering on the altar.
רש״יRashi
את אזכרתה. הִיא הַקֹּמֶץ:
את אזכרתה ITS MEMORIAL PORTION — this is the "fistful" (קמץ) (cf. Rashi on v. 2).

פסוק ב:י · 2:10

Hebrew:

וְהַנּוֹתֶ֙רֶת֙ מִן־הַמִּנְחָ֔ה לְאַהֲרֹ֖ן וּלְבָנָ֑יו קֹ֥דֶשׁ קׇֽדָשִׁ֖ים מֵאִשֵּׁ֥י יְהֹוָֽה׃

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.

Whatever remains of the meal offering after the kometz is burned belongs to Aaron and his sons. It is classified as kodesh kodashim -- most holy -- from the fire offerings of God. Ibn Ezra clarifies that 'his sons' refers to all subsequent generations of kohanim, not only Aaron's immediate children.
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
לאהרן ולבניו. אחריו והטעם לכהן המקריב כי כן כתוב על שתי המנחות:
AARON'S AND HIS SONS'. After him.19The generations that followed Aaron. That is, to the kohen who places it upon the fire, for Scripture states so with regard to the two meal offerings.20The meal offering baked on a griddle and the one baked in an oven.
אור החייםOr HaChaim
והנותרת וגו'. צריך לדעת למה כפל פסוק זה ב' פעמים, ואולי שיתבאר על דרך אומרם ז"ל (מנחות נח.) בכל המנחות שמותר לאכול שירי מנחות בדבש אבל אם החמיץ שיריה לוקה ודרשו (שם נה) ממה שאמר הכתוב לא תאפה חמץ חלקם פירוש גם חלקם ע"כ. ועדיין אני אומר דוקא על האפיה הוא לוקה אבל אם החמיצה ולא אפאה לא, לזה אמר הכתוב והנותרת וגו' כל המנחה אשר תקריבו לא תעשה חמץ פירוש אפילו שיריה. והגם שרז"ל (שם) דרשו מפסוק לא תאפה חמץ וסמיך ליה חלקם, מאותה דרשה אין לחייב על שיריה אלא על האפיה ולא על שאר מעשה, ובפסוק זה לבד לא יספיק לחייב על שיריה על כל פרט ופרט, והגם שדרשו שם בתורת כהנים אפיה בכלל היתה ולמה יצתה לומר לך מה אפיה מעשה יחידי וחייב עליו אף אני אביא כל מעשה יחידי, עדיין אני אומר דוקא קומצה ולא שיריה קא משמע לן והנותרת וגו'. עוד יתבאר על דרך אומרו בתורת כהנים והנותרת אף על פי שלא הומלחה, אף על פי שלא הוגשה, אף על פי שלא הקטיר כל לבונתה, מן המנחה פרט לשחסרה וכו'. ושלא הקטיר מלבונתה כלום. וכתב הראב"ד כי וא"ו וה"א ריבויא הוא לרבות הנזכר ע"כ. ואין דעתי משגת רבוי זה שיעורו, שאין משמעות לתיבה בהסיר וא"ו וה"א. ובעל קרבן אהרן פירש כי וא"ו לבד הוא דאייתר וגם על זה יש לגמגם. ועוד מנין לתנא לומר ג' רבויים מליחה והגשה וכל הלבונה, בשלמא מה שמעט ג' מהמנחה יש לדרוש כל דמיון שבמנחה לעכב מה שאין כן ריבוי אחד אין לנו להרבות הרבה פרטים: אכן נראה כי לצד שאמר הכתוב ג' מצות אלה המלחה והגשה והקטרת כל לבונתה מפוזרים בג' מקומות, הקטרת כל לבונתה כתבה בפרשת מנחת סולת, הגשה במנחת מרחשת, המלחה אחר תשלום זכרון כל דיני מנחות, ומצינו שאמר הכתוב והנותרת מן המנחה אחר זכרון מנחת סולת הגם שלא הוזכר בה הגשה הא למדת שאין הגשה מעכבת בה שהרי הגם שלא הוזכר בה הגשה אמר והנותרת וגו' לאהרן ובניו, והגם שאנו אומרים מדרשות סמיכות וא"ו האמורה בתחלת כל הפסקה והפסקה שיכוין הכתוב ליתן את האמור של זה בזה ואם כן גם ההגשה שנאמרה במנחת מרחשת צריכה להיות גם במנחת סולת וגו', ממה שכתב והנותרת באמצע המנחות גילה כי הלימוד אינו אלא לכתחלה אבל אינו מעכב ליפסול בשבילה, אבל כל הלבונה מעכב. ועוד מצינו שחזר הכתוב ואמר והנותרת וגו' אחר דין מנחת מרחשת ופסוק זה כל רואה יגיד שהוא עצמו נותר שהדברים ככתבן נאמרו למעלה, הא ודאי לא בא אלא לומר שבפרטי דינים הרשומים שם יספיק להיות הנותרת לאהרן וגו' ושם לא הוזכר הקטרת לבונה כל עיקר אלא הקומץ דכתיב והרים הכהן וגו' אזכרתה פירוש הקומץ ולא הוזכר לבונה הא למדת שעל זה בא הכתוב ללמד שהגם שלא הקטיר כל לבונה כרשום בפרשת מנחת סולת הנותרת לאהרן, והוא מאמר התנא והנותרת אף על פי שלא הוגשה אף על פי שלא הקטיר כל לבונתה, וקתני גם כן אף על פי שלא הומלחה כי ראינו שצוה אחר אומרו והנותרת לאהרן הא למדת שישנו השיריים בהיתר הגם שלא הומלחה:
והנותרת מן המנחה, As to what is left over from the meal-offering, etc. Why did the Torah repeat this verse twice both here and in verse 3? Perhaps we can understand this by referring to what we learned in Menachot 58. The Talmud states that all meal-offerings whose left-overs are permitted to be eaten may be consumed together with honey; if the left-overs had become leavened, however, a person eating same is guilty of Malkot 39 lashes with a strap. Menachot 55 derives this halachah from Leviticus 6,10: לא תאפה חמץ חלקם, "it (the meal-offering) shall not be baked with leaven even partially." If I did not have the word והנותרת, I would have argued that the culpability for eating it when it had become leavened would apply only if the meal-offering had already been baked with leaven, not if it had become leavened after having been baked. The word כל המנחה in that verse makes it plain that even if only the left-over of the meal-offering had become leavened, the same law of not consuming it applies and he who does so is culpable. Even though our sages there derived their halachah from the Torah writing the words לא תאפה חמץ immediately before the word חלקם, that exegetical use of the word would not have sufficed to make someone culpable for eating only the left-overs of a meal-offering which has become leavened; culpability was established only for the person who had actually baked such a meal-offering. Even eating from such left-over turned-leaven meal-offering could not be culpable unless there was some additional indication in the text of the Torah. Menachot 55 and Torat Kohanim stated that baking meal-offerings as chametz had been part of a general prohibition applying to all kinds of meal-offerings so that there was no need to mention this here specifically. If the Torah nonetheless wrote the prohibition here specifically, it served notice that just as baking is something performed by an individual, so any other activity connected with the meal-offering which is performed by an individual is equally prohibited on pain of the penalty of malkot. I believe that even after having learned this, the culpability would be limited to such activities as taking a Kometz, a partial fistful of the ingredients of the meal-offering, etc. Eating from the left-overs should not have been culpable. In order to make one culpable for eating left-over parts of a meal-offering which had become leavened the Torah had to write the word והנותרת in our verse. The ראב"ד writes that both the letter ו and the letter ה in the word והנותרת are unnecessary and therefore available for exegetical purposes. This is why we were able to derive the requisite laws for not eating from the left-over meal-offering which had become leavened. Torat Kohanim derives additional inclusions from the word והנותרת, such as that even though the meal-offering did not contain salt (a requirement for any sacrifice), did not have all its frankincense burnt up, or that its main component the kometz had not reached the altar at all, the left-over parts may be consumed by the priests. The words מן המנחה in our verse are restrictive, i.e. that if a basic ingredient was missing or none of the frankincense had been burnt up, the remains, נותרת, may not be consumed. To come back to the exegetical use the ראב"ד made of the extraneous letters ו and ה before the word נותרת, I do not agree that these letters may be used for the purpose suggested by the ראב"ד. If we were to omit those two letters, the word נותרת would not make any sense at all. The author of Korban Aharon felt that only the letter ו in that word is superfluous and may therefore be used exegetically to include something. I have my doubts even about this. Moreover, what is the source of the Torat Kohanim including the absence of the above-mentioned three additional requirements of the meal-offering as items considered non-essential? Whereas it is in the nature of a restrictive clause that the items excluded are thereby categorised as being מעכב, essential, it makes sense that the author uses the word מן המנחה as excluding the right to eat from the left-over parts if three items had been missing (any basic ingredient, none of the frankincense not having been burned up, and no kometz having been separated). This kind of reasoning is inadmissible when applied to inclusions, however. If at all, the extraneous word והנותרת could serve as including only a single item as non-essential in the מנחה and its absence therefore not prohibiting the priests from consuming the left-overs. Perhaps the consideration which motivated the author of the Torat Kohanim in this instance was the fact that the three מצות which he categorized as non-esential based on the extraneous word והנותרת are scattered throughout the text. They appear in different paragraphs. The need to burn up all the frankincense appears in connection with the מנחת סלת in 2,2. The need to offer the meal-offering on the altar appears in the paragraph of מנחת מרחשת, 2,8. The need to add salt to the meal-offering appears at the end of the meal-offering legislation in 2,13. It is remarkable that the legislation about what may be done with the נותרת, the left-over of the meal-offering, is not recorded at the end of the meal-offering legislation but already at the end of the first paragraph (2,3), even though the requirement for the meal-offering to be offered on the altar had not yet been mentioned. Clearly, this implies that the offering of the meal-offering on the altar is not something we have to consider as relevant to the rules applicable for eating the left-overs. We pointed out earlier (page 945) that when a new paragraph commences with the letter ו, this establishes a connection to the laws recorded in the previous paragraph and vice versa. Accordingly, the need to present the meal-offering on the altar which is written in the following paragraph which commenced with the word ואם should also govern the rules of the נותרת legislation. The fact that the legislation dealing with the left-overs is written in the middle of the total meal-offering legislation instead of at the end makes it clear that the requirement to present the meal-offering on the altar is only לכתחילה, i.e. an initial requirement, it is not so essential a requirement that its omission would invalidate the right to eat of the left-overs. On the other hand, omission of the burning up of any of the frankincense would invalidate the right of the priests to eat the left-overs of the meal-offerings. We find also that the Torah repeats the line והנותרת once more at the end of the paragraph dealing with the מנחת מרחשת (verse 10). Anyone reading this verse can see immediately that it is quite superfluous (except for exegetical purposes), as everything written therein has already been written in 2,3. Clearly, the reason for writing this verse is to teach us that compliance with the rules laid down in this paragraph (2,5-2,13) is enough to entitle Aaron and his sons to partake of the left-overs of such meal-offerings. There is no mention in that paragraph of frankincense altogether. The only major requirement written there is the קמץ, the partial fistful of the mixture containing the meal and oil of which the Torah says in verse 8 that "the priest shall take off from the meal-offering the memorial part thereof," i.e. the קמץ. Failure of the Torah to mention the לבונה, frankincense, in that paragraph persuaded the Torat Kohanim to deduce that even if not all of it had been burned up the priests could still consume the left-overs. This is why the author said: "even if it had not been brought on the altar, and even if not all its frankincense had been burned up, the right to eat the left-overs has not been jeopardised. The author adds his comment about the salting of the offering seeing that this requirement also appeared only at the end of the entire legislation, i.e. much later than the permission given to Aaron and his sons to partake of the left-overs of the meal-offering. [This "left-over" probably amounted to 90% of the mixture from which the קמץ was placed on the altar. Ed.]

פסוק ב:יא · 2:11

Hebrew:

כׇּל־הַמִּנְחָ֗ה אֲשֶׁ֤ר תַּקְרִ֙יבוּ֙ לַיהֹוָ֔ה לֹ֥א תֵעָשֶׂ֖ה חָמֵ֑ץ כִּ֤י כׇל־שְׂאֹר֙ וְכׇל־דְּבַ֔שׁ לֹֽא־תַקְטִ֧ירוּ מִמֶּ֛נּוּ אִשֶּׁ֖ה לַֽיהֹוָֽה׃

English:

No meal offering that you offer to יהוה shall be made with leaven, for no leaven or honey may be turned into smoke as an offering by fire to יהוה.

The Torah prohibits leaven and honey from being burned on the altar as a fire offering. No meal offering may be made with leaven, and no form of sweetness may ascend in smoke. Rashi explains that 'honey' here encompasses any sweet fruit juice, not only bee honey, while Ibn Ezra notes the view that it refers specifically to date honey.
רש״יRashi
וכל דבש. כָּל מְתִיקַת פְּרִי קְרוּיָה דְּבַשׁ:
וכל דבש [YE SHALL NOT CAUSE TO ASCEND IN FUMES] ANY HONEY – Any sweet juice of a fruit is called "honey").
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
שאור. הוא המחמיץ גם כן הדבש ורבים אמרו שפירושו דבש תמרים וכן כל ארץ זבת חלב ודבש ויש להם כדמות ראיה בספר עזרא:
LEAVEN. Se'or refers to leaven. It is the same case with honey. Some say that our verse speaks of date honey. The same is true whenever Scripture speaks of a land flowing with milk and honey. There is what appears to be proof of their opinion in the Book of Ezra.21The reference is probably to II Chron. 31:5, viz., the children of Israel gave in abundance the first-fruits of corn, wine and oil, and honey, and all the increase of the field. The latter seems to place honey among the produce of the field. Others say that the reference is to Neh. 10:36.

פסוק ב:יב · 2:12

Hebrew:

קׇרְבַּ֥ן רֵאשִׁ֛ית תַּקְרִ֥יבוּ אֹתָ֖ם לַיהֹוָ֑ה וְאֶל־הַמִּזְבֵּ֥חַ לֹא־יַעֲל֖וּ לְרֵ֥יחַ נִיחֹֽחַ׃

English:

You may bring them to יהוה as an offering of choice products;*choice products Exact meaning of Heb. re’shith uncertain. but they shall not be offered up on the altar for a pleasing odor.

Although leaven and honey may not be burned on the altar, they may be brought as a korban reshit -- an offering of first products. Rashi identifies the leavened offering as the two loaves of Shavuot, which were baked as chametz, and the honey offering as the bikkurim (first fruits) that included figs and dates. These reach the Temple but do not go up on the altar itself.
רש״יRashi
קרבן ראשית תקריבו אתם. מַה יֵּשׁ לְךָ לְהָבִיא מִן הַשְּׂאוֹר וּמִן הַדְּבַשׁ? קָרְבַּן רֵאשִׁית — שְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם שֶׁל עֲצֶרֶת הַבָּאִים מִן הַשְּׂאוֹר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר חָמֵץ תֵּאָפֶינָה (ויקרא כ"ג), וּבִכּוּרִים מִן הַדְּבַשׁ, כְּמוֹ בִּכּוּרֵי תְּאֵנִים וּתְמָרִים (מנחות נ"ח):
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).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
קרבן ראשית תקריבו אותם לה׳‎. כטעם שתים שני עשרונים המונפים לפני השם בחג השבועות וזה פירוש לה׳‎ אף על פי שהם קדש לה׳‎ הם למאכל הכהן:
AS AN OFFERING OF FIRST-FRUITS YE MAY BRING THEM UNTO THE LORD. As the two wave-loaves of two tenth parts of an ephah which were waved before God on the festival of Shavu'ot (Lev. 23:17). The meaning of unto the Lord is, even though they are holy unto the Lord they are food for the kohen.

פסוק ב:יג · 2:13

Hebrew:

וְכׇל־קׇרְבַּ֣ן מִנְחָתְךָ֮ בַּמֶּ֣לַח תִּמְלָח֒ וְלֹ֣א תַשְׁבִּ֗ית מֶ֚לַח בְּרִ֣ית אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ מֵעַ֖ל מִנְחָתֶ֑ךָ עַ֥ל כׇּל־קׇרְבָּנְךָ֖ תַּקְרִ֥יב מֶֽלַח׃ {ס}        

English:

You shall season your every offering of meal with salt; you shall not omit from your meal offering the salt of your covenant with God; with all your offerings you must offer salt.

Every meal offering must be salted, and the Torah commands that the 'salt of the covenant of your God' must never be absent. This requirement extends beyond meal offerings to all sacrifices. Rashi traces the 'covenant of salt' to Creation itself, when the lower waters were promised representation on the altar through salt and the water libation of Sukkot. Ibn Ezra offers a simpler explanation: unsalted food is unfit to eat, and offering it would be disrespectful to God.
רש״יRashi
מלח ברית. שֶׁהַבְּרִית כְּרוּתָה לַמֶּלַח מִשֵּׁשֶׁת יְמֵי בְּרֵאשִׁית, שֶׁהֻבְטְחוּ הַמַּיִם הַתַּחְתּוֹנִים לִקָּרֵב בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ בַּמֶּלַח וְנִסּוּךְ הַמַּיִם בֶּחָג: על כל קרבנך. עַל עוֹלַת בְּהֵמָה וָעוֹף וְאֵמוּרֵי כָּל הַקָּדָשִׁים כֻּלָּן (מנחות כ'):
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).
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
ברית אלהיך. הכנסתיך בברית והשבעתיך שלא תקריב תפל ולא יאכל כי הוא דרך בזיון:
THE COVENANT OF THY GOD. God caused you to enter the covenant and made you swear that you would not offer anything which is unsalted and inedible, for that is an insult.22To God.

פסוק ב:יד · 2:14

Hebrew:

וְאִם־תַּקְרִ֛יב מִנְחַ֥ת בִּכּוּרִ֖ים לַיהֹוָ֑ה אָבִ֞יב קָל֤וּי בָּאֵשׁ֙ גֶּ֣רֶשׂ כַּרְמֶ֔ל תַּקְרִ֕יב אֵ֖ת מִנְחַ֥ת בִּכּוּרֶֽיךָ׃

English:

If you bring a meal offering of first fruits to יהוה, you shall bring new ears parched with fire, grits of the fresh grain, as your meal offering of first fruits.

The Torah introduces the meal offering of first fruits (minchat bikkurim), identified by the Sages as the omer offering of barley brought on the second day of Passover. The grain must be harvested while still green (aviv), parched with fire, and ground into groats (geres karmel). Rashi notes that 'if' here means 'when,' since this offering is obligatory, not voluntary.
רש״יRashi
ואם תקריב. הֲרֵי אִם מְשַׁמֵּשׁ בִּלְשׁוֹן כִּי, שֶׁהֲרֵי אֵין זֶה רְשׁוּת, שֶׁהֲרֵי בְּמִנְחַת הָעֹמֶר הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר שֶׁהִיא חוֹבָה, וְכֵן וְאִם יִהְיֶה הַיֹּבֵל וְגוֹ' (במדבר ל"ו): מנחת בכורים. בְּמִנְחַת הָעֹמֶר הַכָּתוּב מְדַבֵּר שֶׁהִיא בָּאָה אָבִיב — בִּשְׁעַת בִּשּׁוּל הַתְּבוּאָה, וּמִן הַשְּׂעוֹרִים הִיא בָּאָה, נֶאֱמַר כָּאן אָבִיב וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (שמות ט'), הַשְּׂעֹרָה אָבִיב: קלוי באש. שֶׁמְּיַבְּשִׁין אוֹתָהּ עַל הָאוּר בְּאַבּוּב שֶׁל קַלָּאִים, שֶׁאִלּוּלֵי כֵן אֵינָהּ נִטְחֶנֶת בָּרֵחַיִם, לְפִי שֶׁהִיא לַחָה: גרש כרמל. גְּרוּסָה בְּעוֹדָהּ לַחָה: גרש. גֶּרֶשׂ לְשׁוֹן שְׁבִירָה וּטְחִינָה, גּוֹרְסָהּ בְּרֵחַיִם שֶׁל גָּרוֹסוֹת, כְּמוֹ וַיַּגְרֵס בֶּחָצָץ (איכה ג'), וְכֵן גָּרְסָה נַפְשִׁי (תהילים קי"ט): כרמל. בְּעוֹד הַכַּר מָלֵא, שֶׁהַתְּבוּאָה לַחָה וּמְלֵאָה בְּקַשִּׁין שֶׁלָּהּ, וְעַל כֵּן נִקְרָאִים הַמְּלִילוֹת כַּרְמֶל, וְכֵן כַּרְמֶל בְּצִקְלוֹנוֹ (מלכים ב ד'):
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".
אבן עזראIbn Ezra
ואם תקריב מנחת בכורים. רבים אמרו שמלת אם חיוב ולפי דעתי כי אין צורך כי החיוב הוא ראשית בכורים ולא הבכורים והרוצה להביא מנחה מבכורים נדבה יביא: אביב. נקרא כן בעבור שהוא ראשון והוא מגזרת אב: גרש. טעמו ידוע וקרוב מגזרת גרסה נפשי ואם הוא בסמ״ך: כרמל. כמו וכרמל בצקלונו:
AND IF THOU BRING A MEAL-OFFERING OF FIRSTFRUITS.23Hebrew, bikkurim. To be understood here as the first grain. Many say that the word im (if) indicates an obligation.24They render and if thou bring a meal-offering of first-fruits as when you bring a meal offering of the first grain. See Rashi: "Im here has the meaning of ki (when), for this offering is not optional." Rashi believes that our verse deals with the omer (measure) of barley offered on the second day of Passover. This offering was obligatory. It was offered from the very first of the harvest. See Lev. 23:9-14. I believe that there is no need for this explanation, for there is an obligation to bring the first25The very first. of the grain26See Deut. 26:1-11. and not the first grain. One who wishes to bring a meal offering from the first grain27From the first grain harvest. as a free will offering may do so.28However, he is not obligated to do so. CORN IN THE EAR. Aviv (com in the ear) is so called because it is first.29Aviv thus means the first grain. It is related to the word av (father).30The father comes before the son. GROATS. The meaning of geres (groats) is known. It is close to being related to the word garesah (breaketh) in My soul breaketh (Ps. 119:20).31According to I.E. geres means broken grain. See Rashi: "geres means breaking or grinding." The latter is so even though the word garesah is spelled with a samekh.32And the word geres is spelled with a sin. FRESH EAR. The word karmel (fresh ear) is related to the word karmel (fresh ears) in and fresh ears of corn in his sack (II Kings 4:42).
אור החייםOr HaChaim
ואם תקריב וגו'. פירוש אם יהיה זמן הקרבת מנחת בכורים וגו', תקריב פירוש חובה כי חיוב מצוה זו בכל זמן, ובמקום זכרון תנאי הזמן אמר ואם:
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.

פסוק ב:טו · 2:15

Hebrew:

וְנָתַתָּ֤ עָלֶ֙יהָ֙ שֶׁ֔מֶן וְשַׂמְתָּ֥ עָלֶ֖יהָ לְבֹנָ֑ה מִנְחָ֖ה הִֽוא׃

English:

You shall add oil to it and lay frankincense on it; it is a meal offering.

פסוק ב:טז · 2:16

Hebrew:

וְהִקְטִ֨יר הַכֹּהֵ֜ן אֶת־אַזְכָּרָתָ֗הּ מִגִּרְשָׂהּ֙ וּמִשַּׁמְנָ֔הּ עַ֖ל כׇּל־לְבֹנָתָ֑הּ אִשֶּׁ֖ה לַיהֹוָֽה׃ {פ}

English:

And the priest shall turn a token portion of it into smoke: some of the grits and oil, with all of the frankincense, as an offering by fire to יהוה.

← Aliyah 2 — שני | Aliyah 4 — רביעי →

Back to Parashat Vayikra | Back to Parashat HaShavua

Last updated on
Aliyah 2 — שניAliyah 4 — רביעי