Sifra Nedavah Chapter 15

¹1) (Vayikra 2:14): ("Groats of the fresh ear [karmel]) you shall offer (the meal-offering of your bikkurim"): Why repeat this? (It is already mentioned in the beginning of the verse.) Because it is written "karmel," I might think the mitzvah is to bring only rach mal (see Vayikra 2:8) above). Whence do I derive that if he did not find rach mal he may bring it dry? From "you shall offer the meal-offering of your bikkurim" (in any event). It is a mitzvah to bring it from the harvest (i.e., from the standing grain). Whence do I derive that if he did not find this he may bring it from the (sheaves) in the loft? From "you shall offer the meal-offering of your bikkurim" — in any event. ²2) "the meal-offering of your bikkurim": I might think this is an individual offering, (but) it is written here "bikkurim," and, elsewhere, (in respect to the two loaves, Vayikra 23:17): "bikkurim." Just as "bikkurim" there are a communal offering, so, bikkurim here. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Shimon says: I might think this is an individual offering, but (this is negated by) its being written (Vayikra 23:14): "And you shall bring the omer, the first (grain) of your harvest, to the Cohein." If you say that this (in our verse) is an individual offering, and that is a communal offering, this cannot be. For if this is "bikkurim to the L–rd," then that is not the first of the harvest; and if that is the first of the harvest, then this is not "bikkurim to the L–rd." (Note:) Things omitted here (in connection with the omer offering [e.g., "waving" and the permitting of chadash (the new crop)] are written there. ³3) (Vayikra 2:15): "And you shall put oil upon it": oil upon it, and not upon the show bread. For (if not for the exclusion) would it not be a kal vachomer (that oil should be put upon the show bread, viz.:) If the libation meal-offering, which does not require frankincense, requires oil — the show bread, which does require frankincense, how much more so should it require oil! It is, therefore, written: "upon it" — oil upon it, but not upon the show bread.... ⁴4) ("and you shall put frankincense upon it"): upon it, and not upon the libation meal-offering. For (if not for the exclusion) would it not be a kal vachomer (that frankincense should be put upon the libation meal-offering, viz.:) If the show bread, which does not require oil, requires frankincense — the libation meal-offering, which does require oil, how much more so should it require frankincense! It is, therefore, written "frankincense upon it," but not upon the libation meal-offering. ⁵5) ("It is) a meal-offering" — to include the meal-offering of the eighth day (of the consecration of the tabernacle) as requiring frankincense. "it" — to exclude the two loaves from the requirement of oil and frankincense. ⁶6) Does it not follow by kal vachomer (that the two loaves should be excluded from oil and frankincense? i.e., Why is "it" needed to exclude them from both? Why not just exclude them from either oil or from frankincense, and I would know by kal vachomer that they are excluded from the other, viz.:) If they are excluded from oil, which obtains with the libation meal-offering, would I not exclude them from frankincense, which does not obtain with the libation meal-offering? If they are excluded from frankincense, which obtains with the show bread, would I not exclude them from oil, which does not obtain with the show bread? — No, by this reasoning (I would derive just the opposite conclusion, viz.:) If they are excluded from oil, which does not obtain with the show bread, should they be excluded from frankincense, which does obtain with the show bread! If they are excluded from frankincense, which does not obtain with the libation meal-offering, should they be excluded from oil, which does obtain with the libation meal-offering! It is, therefore, written "it," to exclude the two loaves from the requirement of oil and frankincense.