Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Torah

AND HE SHALL POUR OIL UPON IT AND PUT FRANKINCENSE THEREON. 2. AND HE SHALL BRING IT TO AARON’S SONS. “This teaches that the pouring of the oil and the mingling of it together with the flour [of the meal-offering] is valid if done by a non-priest. TO AARON’S SONS THE PRIESTS; AND HE SHALL TAKE OUT HIS HANDFUL. From the taking of the handful [for the altar] and onwards is the duty of the priests.” This is the language of Rashi. Now we have to explain that the duty of the priests does not begin with the taking of the handful, for bringing the meal-offering near [to the altar] precedes the taking of the handful, and that too is invalid when done by a non-priest, as He said, and he shall present it unto the priest, and he shall bring it nigh unto the altar, and afterwards it says, and the priest shall remove from the meal-offering the memorial-part thereof,, Verse 9. which is the handful. Thus you see that it is the priest who brings the meal-offering near the altar, to the south-west corner thereof, and after that he removes the handful [to be burnt on the altar]. So also we have learned [in the Mishnah]: “The acts of laying hands upon the offering, the wavings, bringing [the meal-offering] near [to the altar], and removing the handful are performed by men and not by women.” In explanation thereof the Rabbis said [there in the Gemara]: “bringing near [can be performed only by men] because it is written, And this is the law of the meal-offering: the sons of Aaron shall bring it — the sons of Aaron but not the daughters of Aaron.” This being the case, the bringing near [of the meal-offering to the altar] is the duty of the sons of Aaron. But the intention of the Sages in saying: “From the taking of the handful and onwards is the duty of the priests” [as quoted by Rashi above], is to say that from this taking of the handful mentioned in this verse and onwards, is the duty of the priests, but not these things which Scripture mentioned here as preceding the taking of the handful, since He mentioned already in this section pouring the oil [and mingling it with the flour], putting the frankincense thereon and bringing it to the priest, and [the priest’s] removing the handful. However, bringing it near to the altar is not mentioned here, [but is stated further on in Seder Tzav 6:7] that all those things stated here before the taking of the handful — namely, pouring the oil and mingling it with the flour, and bringing it to the priest — are valid if done by a non-priest.

NO MEAL-OFFERING, WHICH YE SHALL BRING UNTO THE ETERNAL, SHALL BE MADE WITH LEAVEN. Here He prohibited the bringing of a meal-offering in leaven form. After that He said, Ye shall not ‘thaktiru’ (cause to ascend in fumes) either any leaven or honey, in order to prohibit the leavening of the handful and burning it upon the altar, this being included in the expression ye shall not cause to ascend in fumes … All terms of haktarah are expressions of burning aromatics, for druggists say 12:4. that honey would have been appropriate for the incense,. For since honey is mentioned in the verse, and honey would have improved the scent of the incense, Scripture uses a term which is applicable to the burning of aromatics. but the Torah prohibited it. Scripture states any of it in order to prohibit [leaven or honey] even as a part of it, that is to say, even in one half of the handful. Similarly, one is liable to the punishment of stripes for mixing [leaven or honey with the handful in such a way that it is not recognized], because Scripture included it in saying, for ye shall not cause to ascend in fumes ‘any’ leaven or ‘any’ honey, as is explained in Tractate Menachoth and in Tractate Pesachim. The reason why Scripture mentions here minchah hi [hei-vav-alef, which is the masculine third person pronoun], but it is read hi [hei-yod-alef, which is the equivalent feminine pronoun]. Ramban intends to explain why it is written in the masculine when the word minchah is in the feminine, and hence Scripture should have written minchah hi. [in the feminine] while it is written hu [in the masculine], and similarly in all places, [will be understood] from the section, Behold, I send a messenger before thee. (Abusaula). The implication is that here too one gender is included in the other, namely, the feminine hi in the masculine hu, as explained in the text. So also ‘ha’ishah hahi’ (that woman) [is written hahu in the masculine, while it is read hahi in the feminine], because the feminine is potentially included in the masculine. It is possible that the reason why we are forbidden to bring leaven and honey [upon the altar] is as the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] states in the Moreh Nebuchim, where he says that he found it written in their books that the custom among the idolaters was to offer all their meal-offerings only in leavened form, and to season all their sacrifices with honey; therefore He forbade bringing them on His altar. Our Rabbis have similarly said with reference to monuments [of one stone raised in order to sacrifice on it], that this was a favored mode of worship in the days of the patriarchs, and afterwards G-d hated it because [the Canaanites] had made it an ordinance of an idolatrous character, as He said, which the Eternal thy G-d hatheth. Concerning the reason why we were commanded to offer salt with every offering, [Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon] also said that it is because the idolaters rejected it and did not offer it at all to their idols; [therefore He commanded us to have salt in every offering]. It is possible that [we are commanded to offer salt because] it is not respectful that the food which is offered up to G-d should have no flavoring, being without salt, similar to that which is written, Present it now unto thy governor; will he be pleased with thee? That is why the Sages excluded wood and blood from the requirement of being offered with salt [since they are not edible]. Or it may be that there is in all these matters some secret hidden from us. In the case of leaven and honey Scripture speaks in the plural [for ‘ye’ shall not cause to ascend in fumes, either any leaven or honey] because it speaks to Aaron and his sons. After that it says, And every meal-offering of ‘thine’ shalt ‘thou’ season with salt, because it refers to him who brings the meal-offering, concerning whom it said at the beginning of the section, And if thy offering be a meal-offering of the stewing-pan; and the reason [why it refers to salting by the person who brings the offering, is because] it is valid if done by a non-priest, just as pouring the oil and mingling it with the flour are [as explained above in Verse 2]. Upon all thine ‘offering’ thou shalt offer salt (thine offering) is in the singular. Since this might be interpreted to refer only to the meal-offering mentioned in this verse, Ramban proceeds to explain that it means here “offerings” in the plural, for all offerings etc. means “upon all thine offerings” [in the plural], for all offerings have to be offered with salt, just as the meal-offering.

NEITHER SHALT THOU SUFFER THE SALT OF THE COVENANT OF THY G-D TO BE LACKING FROM THY MEAL-OFFERING. “For a covenant was established with salt as far back as the six days of Creation, for the lower waters [i.e., those of the oceans] were promised that they would be offered upon the altar in the form of salt, and [also as water] at the libation of water, on the Festival of Tabernacles.” (Rejoicing of the Drawing of the Water). This is Rashi’s language, and it is a homiletic exposition of the Sages. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra interpreted it in line with the plain meaning of Scripture as follows: “I have brought you into a covenant and made you swear that you would not offer a saltless offering, nor shall it [i.e., a saltless offering] be eaten, because it is a mark of contempt.” Now since salt is the covenant of the offerings, Scripture made this accord the pattern for all such agreements, saying of the gifts given to priests and the dynasty of David that they are [an everlasting] covenant of salt, meaning that they are as everlasting as the covenant of salt of the offerings. There, however, Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained: “A covenant of salt — a covenant decreed, it being of the root, a fruitful land into a salt waste, since a salt waste is as if it has been decreed [upon it that nothing should grow therein].” But there is no sense to his words. Now it seems to me that since Scripture here states, the covenant of thy G-d, and does not say “the covenant of the Eternal,” which would have been in consonance with the language of the section and the way all the offerings are mentioned [throughout Scripture], or did not say, “the covenant of the Eternal thy G-d” — that the reason for this is because salt is derived from water, and it is through the power of the sun which shines upon it that it becomes salt. Now the nature of water is that it soaks into the earth and makes it bring forth and bud; but after it becomes salt it destroys every place and burns it, that it is not sown, nor beareth. Since a covenant is inclusive of all attributes, water and fire come into it, and unto her shall come the former dominion — the Kingdom of G-d, just like salt which seasons all foods and helps to preserve them, but destroys them when they are over-saturated with it. Thus salt is like the covenant. It is for this reason that Scripture states, Ought ye not to know that the Eternal, the G-d of Israel, gave the kingdom over Israel to David forever, even to him and to his sons by a covenant of salt forever? For this too is the attribute of David. Therefore He says in connection with the offerings, it is an everlasting covenant of salt, for the covenant is “the salt of the world,” and by virtue of it [the world] exists or may be destroyed. I have already taught you to understand from our words in other places the meaning of these three words, brith olam hi (it is a perpetual covenant).

V’IM (AND IF) THOU BRING A MEAL-OFFERING OF FIRST-FRUITS. “The word im (if) here has the meaning of ki (when), for the bringing [of this meal-offering of the first-fruits] is not a voluntary matter, since Scripture speaks here of the meal-offering of the new barley, which is obligatory. Similarly, ‘V’im’ (and if) the Jubilee of the children of Israel shall be [means ‘when’ the Jubilee will be — for it is bound to come].” This is Rashi’s language. The correct interpretation is that He used the expression im (if) because He is not commanding the performance now of this precept [namely bringing the meal-offering of the new barley], and He is thus saying: “When you offer a meal-offering baked on the griddle you shall do it in such-and-such a way; and if you offer a meal-offering of the stewing-pan, you shall make it in another way; and if the meal-offering you will bring will be the one of first-fruits, you should do it in this manner.” Thus the word im is here to be understood in its literal sense [namely, “if”]. Then the meaning of the verse, ‘V’im’the Jubilee of the children of Israel shall be is as follows: [The heads of the fathers’ houses of the tribe of Manasseh] said to Moses: “Even ‘if’ the children of Israel will inherit the Land forever, and will be privileged to sanctify the year of the Jubilee, the inheritance [of Zelophchad] will not return to us” [because his daughters might marry men from other tribes, which would cause the land to be transferred to other tribes]. It is also possible that He is stating: “And if you bring a meal-offering of the first-fruits, you shall do it in this prescribed way,” as if He were to say, “if the Eternal your G-d will bring you into the Land, and you will reap the harvest thereof and bring the meal-offering of the first-fruits, you shall do it in such-and-such a manner;” for G-d always mentions the inheritance of the Land to them conditionally, just as He said, For if ye shall diligently keep all this commandment … then will the Eternal drive out all these nations from before you, and so also in many places.