When Even a Trace of Flour or Oil Is Missing the Meal-Offering Is Void

"Of its fine flour" (Leviticus 2:2) teaches that if it lacks even the smallest amount it is unfit. "And of its oil" teaches that if it lacks even the smallest amount it is unfit. And another teaching states: "And what is left over of the meal-offering" (Leviticus 2:3) comes to exclude a meal-offering that is itself deficient, one whose handful is deficient, and one from whose frankincense nothing was burned. Why do I need these two verses about deficiency? One teaches the case of a meal-offering that became deficient before the handful was taken: if the owner brings flour from his house and fills it up, yes, it is valid; if not, no. And one teaches the case of the remainder that became deficient between the taking of the handful and its burning, for even though one burns the handful upon them, those remainders are forbidden to be eaten. Ze'iri said: "what is left over" means the remainder, but not the remainder of the remainder. And Rabbi Yannai said: "of the meal-offering" means a meal-offering that already existed in full. As for the tenth of an ephah, a small lack of it invalidates the larger part. What is the reason? Scripture says "of its fine flour"; if it lacks even the smallest amount it is unfit. The oil and the flour each hold the other back from validity, as it says "of its fine flour and of its oil" and "of its crushed grain and of its oil" (Leviticus 2:15) implying both must be present, and here too it is written "of its crushed grain and of its oil," that both must be present; Scripture repeated the matter regarding them to make each indispensable. The handful and the frankincense each hold the other back, as it says "upon all its frankincense" (Leviticus 6:8) "that is upon the meal-offering."