Which Meal Offerings Require Oil and Frankincense

Yalkut Shimoni on Torah 457:1

"Your firstfruits" - the firstfruits of each and every individual, to say that it comes only from communal funds, the words of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Shimon says: It says here "firstfruits to the LORD," and it says elsewhere "firstfruits to the LORD"; just as the firstfruits stated elsewhere come from communal funds, so the firstfruits stated here come from communal funds. And if you say this one is from an individual's funds and the other from communal funds - you would say no: if this is "firstfruits to the LORD," then this omer is not the first of the harvest, and if it is the first of the harvest, then it is not "firstfruits to the LORD." The matters lacking here, Scripture stated elsewhere. "And you shall put oil upon it" (Leviticus 2:15) - oil upon it, and not oil upon the showbread. For one might think, is it not a logical argument: if the meal-offering of libations, which does not require frankincense, requires oil, then the showbread, which requires frankincense, surely should require oil? Scripture teaches "upon it" - oil upon it, and not oil upon the showbread. "Upon it" - frankincense, and not frankincense upon the meal-offering of libations. For one might think, is it not a logical argument: if the showbread, which does not require oil, requires frankincense, then the meal-offering of libations, which requires oil, surely should require frankincense? Scripture teaches "upon it" - frankincense upon it, and not frankincense upon the meal-offering of libations. "Meal-offering" - to include the eighth-day meal-offering for frankincense. "It" - to exclude the two loaves, that they require neither oil nor frankincense. The master said: "oil upon it, and not oil upon the showbread." But say rather: oil upon it, and not oil upon the priests' meal-offering? It stands to reason that the priests' meal-offering should be the one included, since it shares a tenth-measure, a vessel, being prepared outside, having a set form, requiring presentation, and being burned on the fire. On the contrary, the showbread should be included, since it is communal, an obligation, eaten by the impure, subject to disqualification, and offered on the Sabbath. It stands to reason from "a soul" (Leviticus 2:1). "It" excludes the two loaves. But is this not a logical argument? If I exclude them from oil, which applies to the libation meal-offering, shall I not exclude them from frankincense, which does not apply to the libation meal-offering? Scripture teaches "it" - to exclude the two loaves, which require neither oil nor frankincense.

Themes