A meal-offering without specifying. Otherwise, it should say: “When a person brings a meal-offering to Adonoy, if his offering shall be of fine flour,” and afterwards (v. 4): “And when you bring a meal-offering that has been baked in an oven,” as it does concerning the burntoffering (1:3): “If his offering is a burnt offering [of cattle],” [and afterwards (v. 10): “If his offering is from flocks of sheep,”] and then (v. 14): “[If his burnt-offering to Adonoy is] of fowl.” Rather, it must be that the reason it says in a definitive fashion is to convey that whoever says: I am obligated [to bring] a meal-offering without specifying [which one] must bring a fine-flour meal offering.

Which is the first. Rashi does not mean to say because it is the first [mentioned], for if so, one who volunteers to bring a burnt offering [without specifying] should have to bring specifically from cattle. Rather, this is what it means: He brings the fine flour meal-offering which is the first of the meal-offerings, and not from one of the other four meal-offerings that are from fine flour as well. Rashi gives the reason why the fine flour meal-offering is called the first, more than other meal-offerings, and says because its fistful is taken while it is [still] fine flour, but all the other four meal-offerings have their fistfuls taken only after they are baked. Although the halachah follows the view of the Sages (Menachos 104b) who said he [one who volunteers to bring a meal-offering without specifying] may bring from whichever [mealoffering] he wants, [nevertheless,] since this is closer to the verse’s plain meaning, Rashi’s way is to explain it this way even though it is not in accordance with the halachah.

But to exclude. Meaning: Each [mention of the word] “upon it” in Scripture is to include. Therefore, the Sages derived from the first inclusion “upon it” that he shall put the oil on all of the fine flour and mix thoroughly together. From the second “upon it,” which would now be an inclusion after an inclusion — and there is no inclusion after inclusion but to exclude — they derived that he should place the frankincense on part of the flour, and it is not required that he put it on all of the flour, for it does not need to be mixed thoroughly. Rather, he puts it on the fine flour in one place, and at the time of burning the fistful, he gathers the frankincense from there and burns both of them together.

From its flour and from its oil. I.e., since it is written: “He takes from there its fistful from its flour and from its oil,” we hear that the oil was mixed thoroughly with the fine flour, which excludes with regard to frankincense, where it is written: “With all its frankincense.” From this we hear that the frankincense is not taken as a fistful with the fine flour, because it is impossible to take all the frankincense with one fistful. Rather, after he takes the fistful [he gathers the frankincense].

Are valid when done by a non-kohein. Meaning: Rashi knows that “pouring” [is valid when done by a non-kohein] because it is written: “He shall pour oil upon it ... he shall bring it to the sons of Aharon.” Perforce, before he brings it to the kohein, he is permitted to put oil upon it, thus it implies that even a non-kohein may “pour.” “Mixing” also [can be done by a non-kohein] as demonstrated from what is written (v. 5) regarding a panbaked meal-offering: “mixed with oil,” and afterwards it is written (v. 6): “and pour oil on it.” Perforce, since the pouring is after the mixing, and since the pouring is valid with a non-kohein, as we explained, so certainly the mixing, which precedes the pouring, is valid if done by a non-kohein (Re”m). Rashi mentioned pouring and mixing but did not mention the placing of the frankincense and the bringing, which were mentioned explicitly in the verse, because he mentions a matter through which the meal-offering is done, which excludes placing [the frankincense] because the meal-offering is not done with it, for he gathers the frankincense from it afterwards, and similarly, the meal-offering is not done through the bringing [either] (Gur Aryeh).

Spilling out. מבצבץ is the translation of מבורץ; Rashi is explaining what is meant by מבורץ.

Three fingers. Meaning: with his two other fingers, which are the thumb and little finger, he would make it even, for he would wipe away from below with his little finger and with the thumb from above, so that it would not be overflowing.

And this is the meaning of a “fistful.” For in other languages a fistful is called what is inside of four fingers. But since the finger close to the little finger is called קמיצה in Hebrew, that which is inside the three fingers including the קמיצה finger is therefore called קומץ (fistful) (Gur Aryeh).

Must be burned. Because you might think that the burning is only for the fistful, but the frankincense, which is not included in the taking of the fistful, is not included in the burning [either], therefore, it comes to inform us [otherwise].

A particle of frankincense. Meaning: Since a fistful that is lacking [in its minimum measurement] is invalid, perforce, if a grain of salt or a particle of frankincense came into his hand, in which case the fistful is lacking, it is invalid. [You might ask:] Why does Rashi reverse the order [of the verse]? He should explain first “his fistful” before he explains “Its frankincense and he shall burn.” [The answer is:] Because you might think that only fine flour and oil are burned, since they are [included] in [the taking of] the fistful, but its frankincense, which is not in the fistful, would not be burned. But now that he explains that although its frankincense is not in the fistful, nonetheless it is burned, if so, the words “his fistful” are extra, and it teaches that if a grain of salt or a particle of frankincense came into his hand, etc. (Gur Aryeh). We need not ask: How does Rashi know that the frankincense is burned? The answer is: Since it juxtaposes “and he shall burn” to “its frankincense,” perforce, even its frankincense is burned (Gur Aryeh). In the first chapter of Menachos (11a) Rashi raises a difficulty: Let it say [only] frankincense [may not be in the fistful] and I would know salt through a kal vachomer! The answer is: This is taught in the form of “not only this but even that”: If it taught [only] salt [is invalid], I might think specifically salt, for which the Torah does not clearly specify a place for salt is not put into the meal-offering, as it is added only at the top of the altar [invalidates the fistful], but regarding frankincense, which needs to be brought with the meal-offering from the beginning as well, I might think that if a grain of frankincense came into his hand it would be valid, therefore, it lets us know [that it is not] (Gur Aryeh).

Takes a portion first. Otherwise, why does it say, “Aharon and his sons”? Is he worse than his sons? Rather, it must mean that he takes a portion first, without a distribution.

After the [fire-]offerings. I.e., Aharon and his sons may have a portion of what remains of the meal-offering for eating only after the fistful was burned for the sake of Hashem and it becomes a fire-offering of Hashem.

Baked in an oven. [Rashi states this] for if he did not say clearly, but only said without specifying: “I am obligated to bring a meal-offering,” he brings a fine-flour offering, as stated above.

Or matzoh wafers. As it is written, “And when you bring an offering,” which implies a singular offering. Therefore, when it is written: “Matzohloaves ... and matzoh wafers,” the ו of ורקיקי is like או (or).

Our Rabbis disagree on their smearing. I.e., [the loaves] are specifically mixed [with oil] and [the wafers] are specifically smeared [with oil]. As a result, there is no place to ask what difference exists between them to the point that our Rabbis disagree on their smearing! However, from what is written in the verse: “matzoh-loaves ... mixed ... or matzoh wafers smeared...” there is no proof, because I might think that mixed and smeared is the same thing, but only that the term ‘mixed’ is appropriate for loaves and ‘smeared’ is appropriate for wafers. Therefore, Rashi explains [the loaves mixed and the wafers smeared]... The difference between mixing and smearing is that mixing is when they are still fine flour and the smearing is after the baking.

To permit oil of the second [or third pressing]. [You might ask:] Above, in Parshas Tetzaveh, it says (Shemos 27:20): “crushed for lighting,” and Rashi there explains: [oil from the second crushing is unfit for the menorah] but not for meal-offerings; for there even second oil is fit. If so, why do we need [the drashah here from] “in oil ... in oil”? The answer is: I might think that the verse that makes second oil valid is applicable only to meal-offerings [brought together with an animal sacrifice with the] wine-offerings, but for meal-offerings [brought] by themselves, mixed with oil or smeared with oil, [then oil from the second crushing] would be invalid. Therefore, we need the verse, “in oil ... in oil.” (Re”m). It seems that it comes to permit here even oil of the third [crushing], for I might think [since] for the lighting it requires clear oil, which is the first [crushing], then regarding meal-offerings it drops down only one level, i.e., even the second oil is valid. Thus, it lets me know that even third oil is valid here (Divrei Dovid).

Ten loaves. As it is written in Parshas Tzav, regarding the breads of a thanksgiving offering (7:12): “loaves and matzoh wafers,” and it is written afterwards (v. 14): “From it, he shall bring one from each offering as separated portion (תרומה) to Adonoy.” And we learn [through a gezeirah shavah based on the words] תרומה תרומה: It is written here (ibid.): תרומה (separated portion), and it is written (Bamidbar 18:26) regarding the separation of a tenth from the Levites’ tithes (תרומת מעשר): “[You shall set aside from it] a separated portion (תרומה) [for Hashem, a tithe of the tithe].” Just as regarding the separated portion from the tithes (תרומת מעשר) it is written that it must be one out of ten, so too the separated portion [of the thanksgiving offering] here must be one out of ten. [Now,] if the loaves were less than ten or more than ten, a tenth of each offering would constitute a fraction of a loaf. The Torah requires, however, “one” of each type, i.e., it must be a whole loaf or whole wafer, not a fraction (Menachos 77b).

The fire burnt. I.e., it is not deep, but rather the pan’s bottom ‘floats up’ (צפין) close to the rim and the oil scattered towards the pan’s rim. An alternative interpretation: The middle of the pan’s floor, which is the place he would place the meal-offering, was raised from below to above, and protruded like our glass vessels. It was raised like a mount in its middle, and when they put the meal-offering on that place it seemed as if it floated (צפה), since it was a raised area.

Pouring, mixing. As it is written with regard to the pan-baked meal-offering (v. 5-6): “Mixed with oil ... and pour oil on it.”

And placing of oil in the vessel. As it is written with regard to the deep-pan meal-offering (v. 7): “With fine flour and oil you shall make it,” which refers to placing the oil in the vessel. This is before they are prepared, as it is written, “with fine flour and oil,” followed afterwards by, “you shall make it.” Next, we learn [a gezeirah shavah from the words קרבנך קרבנך]: “קרבנך (your offering)” stated above [regarding the pan-baked meal offering] from קרבנך stated below regarding the deep-pan meal-offering, and we apply what is stated by this to that, and what is stated by that to this. Therefore, all of them require pouring, mixing and placing of oil in the vessel before they are prepared. “Before they are prepared” means: Before anything is done with them at all. Although it says: “Mixed with oil... Break it into pieces” and only afterwards: “And pour oil on it,” and if so, perforce, after they were prepared he poured the oil on it! Rather, the explanation is [the oil is poured] before they are brought, [i.e., the flour is put into the vessel].

To include. Meaning: It is not the phrase “break it into pieces” that includes all the meal-offerings, for here, the phrase is not extra that it should include, as it is needed for itself. Rather, we derive it from the verse’s end, where it is written, “It is a meal-offering,” because “it is a meal-offering” is extra, to include all the meal-offerings in [the law of] breaking into pieces. [You might ask:] It is written “it,” which implies an exclusion! [The answer is:] “It” excludes the Two Loaves and the Show Bread from [the law that requires the] breaking into pieces.

Perhaps. That which they exclude a meal-offering baked in an oven from pouring, and [they exclude] the Two Loaves and the Show Bread from [the law] of breaking into pieces, is explained in פרק אלו מנחות (Menachos 75b), because pouring has two exclusions: “on it” and “it,” which excludes the [meal-offering] baked in an oven that has two types: loaves and wafers. Breaking into pieces, however, which has only one exclusion: “it,” excludes the Two Loaves and the Show Bread which need only one exclusion.

In any of [these] types. I.e., a meal-offering only needs to be presented to the altar if it is one of the types mentioned, which are the meal-offering of fine flour, baked in an oven, a pan, or a deep pan...

The owners. Not that the one who brings the offering should present it, as might be understood, for if so, why does it say “he shall being it to the kohein”? What does the kohein have to do with bringing it?

To the southwest corner. As it is written in Parshas Tzav (6:7): “He shall bring it ... before Adonoy, to the front of the altar.” We derive from what is written “before [Hashem]” that it means that the presenting needs to be towards the west side of the altar, which is opposite the Sanctuary entrance; this is [considered] before Hashem. Additionally, when it is written, “to the front of the altar,” it implies the southern side of the altar, where the ramp is located, because the entrance to the house is the front of the house. How can this be reconciled? Perforce, he presents it to the southwest corner of the altar.

The fistful. [Rashi knows this] because it is written above: “The kohein shall separate from the meal-offering,” and afterwards it is written: “its memorial portion and burn it on the altar...”

Sweet [juice] of a fruit. [Rashi knows this] from what it says next that they bring first fruit offerings from [honey of the first fruits of] dates and figs. If “all honey you shall not burn” refers to bee honey, what does it mean when it says afterwards “You shall bring them as a first fruit offering,” i.e., including honey? But, first fruits are not brought from bee honey! Rather, it must be that any sweet juice of a fruit is called honey. However, this raises a difficulty: Perhaps “all honey” comes to include date honey and bee honey! And [the verse] “You shall bring them as a first [fruit-]offering” refers to date honey alone and to sourdough, because when the Torah says honey without specifying it refers to dates. [The answer is:] Rashi derives this because Scripture should have said “all sourdough or honey,” which would imply that the word “all” refers to both. Since it is written “and all honey,” however, it includes another principle: Any sweet juice of a fruit is included (Rav Yaakov Trivash).

And the water-offering. I.e., water is brought to the altar by the means of salt because salt has its origins in water. Rashi mentions the example “water-offering” so that you will not pose the difficulty: If it was because of the promise made to the waters, it would be more appropriate that the waters themselves should go up on the altar and not salt. He answers, therefore, that the waters also go up on the altar with the water-offering. You might ask: If so, why are there two things — salt and the water-offering? It would be sufficient with the water-offering, which is preferable! The answer is: Salt and water are two opposite entities — water is liquid and salt is dry. Therefore, one does not make up for the other. You should comprehend these matters well: Why were these two chosen for the altar? Actually, this Midrash contains a concealed matter, which is that everything seeks to be elevated, [as it is said:] We raise up in matters of holiness and do not bring down. [At the time of Creation some of] the upper waters were separated from the upper waters and made into the lower waters, which is the reverse of the order of creation. Therefore, the waters would not agree to be separated until Hashem promised them they would be offered on the altar. In this way, they would acquire a high level by being elevated in an elevation of holiness. Furthermore, we find that Hashem chose only humble species for the altar, as the Sages said: Why did He choose the turtledoves and young pigeons? Because there is no species among the birds that is more pursued than these, and there is no species among the animals and beasts that is more pursued than the ox, sheep, and goat; and Hashem chose them. Also, in a number of places we find: This teaches you that Hashem uplifts anyone who humbles himself. Since the waters were separated to become the lower waters [and thereby humbled], they were promised that they would go up on the altar (Gur Aryeh). [Rashi mentions the water-offering on Sukkos] because he wishes to answer the question: Why was salt water privileged to be brought, more than fresh water? Therefore, he answers that without doubt the fresh water was privileged to be brought on Sukkos, [but even salt water was privileged as well]. The reason why salt water was brought with every offering but fresh water was brought only on Sukkos is because fresh water is representative of the righteous and salt water is representative of the evil-doers. We find that every fast and tefillah needs that evildoers be a part of the congregation. And the proof is from the חלבנה [galbanum, “spice with a bad odor, to teach us not to look with contempt at the sinners among Israel but to include them in our gatherings for fasts and prayers,” Rashi, Shemos 30:33], which is one of the eleven spices in the ketores. Therefore, the Torah honors the evil-doers so that they should repent, for the repentant sinner is greater than a completely righteous person (Divrei Dovid).

As meaning “when.” Then, I may explain it as being an obligation.

When there will be a jubilee year. [You might ask:] Above, at the end of Parshas Yisro (Shemos 20:22), Rashi cites only three [examples], and he does not bring this one. The answer is: Over there he explains according to the view of Rabbi Yishmael, but here he explains according to the view of Rabbi Shimon, who explains this phrase, “when there will be a jubilee year” as being obligatory.

Comes fresh. I.e., Rashi provides two signs [that it deals with the omer]. One is that it comes fresh, i.e., at the time when the crops ripen, which is the start of the harvest. Secondly, it comes from barley, as is derived from a gezeirah shavah from the words אביב אביב.

Kernels. I.e., the word כרמל is a compound word: כר מלא (full husk).