1) (Vayikra 2:2) ("And he shall bring it to the sons of Aaron, the Cohanim, and he [the Cohein] shall take, etc."): (It could have been written "vehevi" ("And he shall bring.") Why "veheviah"? ("And he shall bring it")? That he not bring it by halves. So that if he said: "I vow to bring a meal-offering of two issaron," he should not bring it in two vessels but in one. "to the sons of Aaron" — even if they are very many (i.e., they can apportion the various services among themselves.) And thus is it written (Mishlei 14:28): "In the multitude of the people is the King's glory." "the Cohanim": We are hereby taught that kemitzah (the taking of the fistful) is the mitzvah of the priesthood. (non-Cohanim may not perform it.) (For without the exclusion clause I would reason:) Does it not follow (that kemitzah does not require a Cohein)? viz.: If shechitah, for which "north" was required, a Cohein was not required, kemitzah, for which north was not required, how much more so should a Cohein not be required! — This argument is refuted by melikah, which does not require "north," yet does require a Cohein. — No, this may be true of melikah because it requires the altar, as opposed to kemitzah, which does not require the altar. And since it does not require the altar, it should not require a Cohein. It is, therefore, written: "… the Cohanim, and he (the Cohein) shall take the fistful" — kemitzah is the mitzvah of the priesthood. 2) I might think that it is a mitzvah for a Cohein to take the fistful, but that if a non-Cohein does so it is also kasher; it is, therefore, written (Mishlei 14:9): "And the Cohein shall lift from the meal-offering its remembrance" (i.e., the fistful") — to stipulate that if a non-Cohein does so it is pasul. 3) "and he shall take a fistful": one fistful for (a meal-offering of) one issaron; one fistful for sixty issaron. — Or, one fistful for one issaron; sixty fistfuls for sixty issaron I reason: (A meal-offering) requires kemitzah and it requires frankincense. Just as with frankincense, one fistful (of frankincense) for (a meal-offering of) one issaron; one fistful for sixty issaron — so, kemitzah: one fistful for one issaron; one fistful for sixty issaron. 4) Or, go in this direction: (A meal-offering) requires kemitzah, and it requires oil. Just as with oil, one log for one issaron; sixty log for sixty issaron — so, with kemitzah: one fistful for one issaron; sixty fistfuls for sixty issaron! 5) Let us see what it (the fistful) is most like. We derive a thing (the fistful), which is entirely burnt, from a thing (frankincense), which is entirely burnt. And this is not countermanded by oil, which is not entirely burnt, (most of it being eaten by the Cohanim). Or, go in this direction: We derive something (the fistful), (the absence of) a small amount of which invalidates its (extant) preponderant amount, from something (oil), (the absence of) a small amount of which does not invalidate its (extant) preponderant amount; it is, therefore, written "and he shall take a fistful" (the connotation of which is) one fistful for sixty issaron. "and he shall take a fistful from there" — from wherever the stranger (i.e., the donor) is standing (in the azarah). Ben Betheira says: Whence is it derived that if he took the fistful with his left hand, he puts it back (in the vessel) and takes it again with his right hand? From "from there" — from where he had taken it before. 6) "his full fistful": I might think it should be flowing over; it is, therefore, written (to negate this) (Vayikra 6:8): "in his fistful." If "in this fistful," I might think he can take the fistful with his fingertips (and that they need not reach his palm); it is, therefore, written: "his full fistful." How is this done? He bends three fingers over his palm (and bunches the flour in). And with a machvath or a marchesheth (baked meal-offerings, that do flow over [see Vayikra 2:5 and Vayikra 2:7]), he "erases" (the overflow) with his thumb from above and with his little finger from below. 7) "his full fistful" soleth (fine flour). I might think that the place of the kemitzah must be soleth and the rest may be kemach (first flour); it is, therefore, written: "from soleth." I might then think that the place of the kemitzah and the sides must be soleth and the rest may be kemach. It is, therefore written: "from its soleth" — it must be all soleth; "and from its oil" — it must be all oil. 8) "from its soleth and from its oil" — the soleth must be mixed with oil. Another rendering: "from its soleth" — If the soleth were missing any amount (short of an issaron) it is pasul. "and from its oil" — If the oil were missing any amount (short of a log), it is pasul. 9) "from its soleth": not from the soleth of its neighbor (offering); "and from its oil": not from the oil of its neighbor — that he not bring two meal-offerings in one vessel — whence it was ruled: Two meal-offerings from which fistfuls were not taken, which got mixed up with each other — If he can take a fistful from each independently, they are kasher; if not, they are pasul. 10) "his fistful from its soleth and from its oil": If in taking the fistful there came up in his hand a pebble or a grain of salt or of frankincense, it is pasul. "from its soleth and from its oil, aside from all of its frankincense" There must be frankincense there (on the meal-offering) at the time of the kemitzah. "aside from all of its frankincense and he shall smoke": He picks the (grains of) frankincense (from the meal-offering, places it on the fistful in the vessel) and offers it on the fire (of the altar). 11) "and he shall smoke" the fistful, even in the absence of the remainder (i.e., if the remainder were lost before the smoking). If the fistful became unclean or were lost, I might think that the Cohanim could (still) eat the remainder, and (I could adduce) a kal vachomer to that effect, viz.: If in an instance where the "power of the altar" is weak — that of the two breads and the show bread, (of which the altar receives nothing) — the power of the Cohanim is strong (i.e., they receive these breads), then, in an instance where the power of the altar is strong — that of the fistful — how much more so should the power of the Cohanim be strong with the remainder (i.e., they should be able to eat it) (even if the share of the altar is lacking)! (To negate this) it is written (Ibid. 3): "And what is left over from the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and for his sons from the fire-offerings of the L–rd." They have no portion in it until the fistful has been smoked. 12) (Vayikra 2:2): "its remembrance" (the fistful): The owners are "remembered" (for good) thereby (i.e., by its presentation to the altar), by (the smoking of) the fistful, and by (the smoking of) the frankincense. R. Shimon says: "remembrance" is mentioned here, and "remembrance" is mentioned elsewhere (in reference to the show bread [Vayikra 24:7]). Just as the "remembrance" here is a full fistful, so, the "remembrance" there.
Sifra Nedavah Section 9
Tap any verse to see what it echoes — and start a chain or echo from it.