The Handful Must Be All Fine Flour and the Priests Eat Only After the Fire

"His handful of fine flour" (Leviticus 2:2): one might think the handful itself should be fine flour while the rest may be ordinary meal; therefore Scripture says "of its fine flour." If "of its fine flour," one might think the handful and the sides should be fine flour while the rest may be meal; therefore Scripture says "of its fine flour," that all of it must be fine flour. "And of its oil," that all of it must be oil. "Of its fine flour and of its oil," that the flour must be mixed with the oil. "Of its fine flour," and not of the flour of its fellow offering; "of its oil," and not of the oil of its fellow, so that one may not bring two meal-offerings in a single vessel. From here they said: two meal-offerings that became mixed together before their handfuls were taken, if one can take a handful from each by itself they are valid, and if not they are unfit. "His handful of its fine flour and of its oil": if he took a handful and a pebble or a grain of salt or a speck of frankincense came up in his hand, it is unfit. "Of its fine flour and of its oil upon all its frankincense," that frankincense must be present at the moment of taking the handful. "Upon all its frankincense, and he shall burn," that he gathers the frankincense and brings it up to the fires. "And he shall burn" the handful, even though there are no remainders. If the handful became impure or was lost, one might think the priests may still eat the remainder. And it would follow by reasoning: in a case where the altar's power was weakened, with the two loaves and the showbread, the priests' power was strong; in a case where the altar's power is strong, with the handful, is it not right that the priests' power should be strong with the remainders? Therefore Scripture says "And what is left of the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and his sons, a most holy thing from the fire-offerings of the LORD" (Leviticus 2:3): they have a portion only after the giving of the fire-offerings. "Its memorial-portion": they are remembered by it, remembered in the handful, remembered in its frankincense. Rabbi Shimon said: "memorial-portion" is said here and "for a memorial" is said elsewhere (Leviticus 24:7); just as the memorial there is a full handful, so the memorial said here is a full handful. "And what is left of the meal-offering" even though it was not salted, even though it was not brought near, even though not all its frankincense was burned. "Of the meal-offering" excludes one that is itself deficient, one whose handful is deficient, and one from whose frankincense nothing was burned. "For Aaron and his sons": for Aaron first and afterward for his sons. For Aaron without division and for his sons with division. And just as Aaron the High Priest eats without dividing, so his sons who are High Priests eat without dividing. "For Aaron and his sons, a most holy thing," to permit the meal-offering of an Israelite. And from where had it been excluded? From the principle stated, "Every native shall do thus" (Numbers 15:13), that if one wishes to add he may add. Or perhaps the meal-offering of an Israelite should be given entirely to the fires, and how then would I uphold "and what is left of the meal-offering"? As referring only to that of converts, women, and slaves; therefore Scripture says "for Aaron and his sons, a most holy thing," to permit the meal-offering of an Israelite. I know only of their meal-offerings; from where do I learn their pinched bird-offerings? Rabbi Shimon said: I might read "a carcass or torn animal he shall not eat, to be defiled by it"; therefore Scripture says "for Aaron and his sons, a most holy thing," to permit the pinched bird-offering of an Israelite. I know only the pinched offering of an Israelite; from where the pinched offering of priests? Rabbi Shimon said: it follows by reasoning. In the place where Scripture permitted voluntary fine flour it forbade obligatory fine flour; in the place where it forbade a voluntary pinched offering, is it not right that an obligatory pinched offering should be forbidden? The pinched offering of an Israelite proves otherwise, for there it forbade the voluntary pinched offering and permitted the obligatory one. Just as it permitted the obligatory pinched offering of an Israelite because it permitted their obligatory fine flour, let us permit the obligatory pinched offering of priests, since it forbade their obligatory fine flour; therefore Scripture says "for Aaron and his sons, a most holy thing," to permit the pinched offering of priests. "From the fire-offerings of the LORD": they have a portion only after the giving of the fire-offerings.