וקמץ, “he shall scoop three fingers full;” this is the first part of the procedure that only the priests were allowed to perform. The procedures mentioned up until this point, i.e. the pouring of oil, the adding of frankincense to the flour before handing the mass to the priest could be performed by the owner/donor, even if he was not a priest. There is only one step in the procedure prior to the scooping up by the priest of three fingers full of the mixture, that also necessitated a priest, and this was the presentation of the mass at the southwestern corner of the altar.

כל המנחה אשר תקריבו לה' לא תעשה חמץ, “Any meal-offering that you present to Hashem must not be made of or contain anything leavened.” This is the initial prohibition not to add any leavening to the meal offering. It is followed by a second warning that even after the priest has already scooped up the three fingers full of the meal, it must not be allowed to become leavened before being burned up, i.e. לא תקטירו ממנו אשה לה'. Concerning the rationale of why both leavening and honey are forbidden to be part of this type of offering, Maimonides writes that it was the custom of the pagans to prepare all their offerings of this type containing leavening and some honey. (Moreh Nevuchim 3,46); once such materials symbolized a pagan practice, they became forbidden as an offering to the Eternal G’d. This is also the reason why private altars, known as מצבה were forbidden Seeing that the pagans never used salt in their offerings to their deities, the Torah insisted that we must always add some salt to our offerings. This was in spite of the fact that during the period of the patriarchs, private altars bearing the name מצבה were welcome in the eyes of Hashem. Some commentators hold that the prohibition of leaven and honey derives from the fact that the kometz had to be complete, and that, had it contained any leaven or honey, the priest’s hands would have retained some of it, or the air holes in the dough would have reduced the required of amount of meal.

לא תקטירו ממנו, “you must not burn up from it.” The reason why the Torah again uses the plural mode is that both Aaron and his sons were included in this prohibition.

קרבן ראשית תקריבו אותם, “You shall offer them as a first-fruit offering.” Rashi explains that for the presenting of the two loaves on the festival of Shavuot of the first wheat harvest, leavened loaves were in order, though on the altar no leavened products were to be presented. It was also in order to bring to the Temple honey as part of the first ripe dates of the season. The Torah writes a special dispensation for this in Leviticus The common denominator of these two offerings is that both are described as בכורים, “first fruit offerings.”

וכל קרבן מנחה במלח תמלח, “and you are to add a portion of salt to every meal-offering.” The reason why the Torah again reverted to the singular mode is that the command is directed at the owners presenting the offering to the priest as their deputy. You will recall that at the beginning of this paragraph, (verse 7) when speaking of מנחת מרחשת, a meal offering in a deep pan, the Torah had also used the singular mode. The reason is that the adding of the salt is something permitted to be done by the ordinary Israelite who is not a priest. The same rule applies here as it does to the pouring and mixing of the oil of the meal offering.

לא תשבית מלח ברית אלוקיך, “You must not discontinue adding the salt representing the covenant with the Lord your G’d from all your offerings.” Rashi explains that the covenant referred to is one made with the universe ever since the conclusion of the six days of creation, when the “lower” waters were assured by G’d that some of them would be presented on the Holy Altar on the festival of Sukkot as libations accompanied by salt. Ibn Ezra writes that the reason for the presence of salt is that G’d concluded a covenant with Israel that they would not offer something that is תפל, tasteless (as anything which is devoid of salt). It would be considered insulting to present such an offering. Nachmanides writes that seeing that salt has become a constituent covenant as far as sacrifices are concerned, it has become the basic symbol of all covenants. This surfaces in connection with the various gifts, primarily by the farmers, allocated by the Torah to the priests. The concept also resurfaces as a corollary to the Davidic dynasty, which will endure in a manner similar to that of the covenant governing the use of salt in the sacrifices. It is possible that salt is an integral part of the waters of the oceans, in the sense of being a natural process, seeing that G’d’s attribute אלוקים instead of Hashem is associated with it. It may have been distilled into solids due to the warming power of the sun’s rays. Water, by definition, is meant to irrigate the earth to enable it to be worked agriculturally. Once he earth has been contaminated by salt, it ceases to be a potential life-giver. In fact it destroys everything planted in its vicinity. [We observe a similar phenomenon in the earth surrounding the area from which volcanic gases escape. Ed.] Seeing that salt displays such negative influences, the Torah stresses its use in connection with the sacrifices where the presence of salt makes the flesh of the animals tasty. Assuring the endurance of the dynasty of King David throughout the generations, it is a similar promise of something positive, and salt is associated with this to demonstrate that we perceive of salt as something positive.

ואם תקריב מנחת בכורים, “When you bring a meal-offering of the first (grain) etc.” Rashi states that the meaning of the word אם here is the same as the meaning of the word כי, “when,” as opposed to when the same word is conditional and means “if.” Nachmanides writes that the justification for using this word at this juncture, [although every time the Torah used this introductory word thus far in our chapter it meant “if,” Ed.] is the fact that first ripe specimens of any of the seven categories of produce qualifying for the commandment of בכורים, are not immediately capable of being performed as one has to await the time when nature enables us to harvest such fruit. The word refers to the previous paragraph in which the meal offering in a deep pan had been discussed. The rules applying to that meal offering also apply to the offering of bikkurim consisting of grain products. Nachmanides explains in similar fashion the use of the word אם where it prefaces some of the legislation of the Jubilee year (Numbers 36,4) It cannot be translated there as “if,” as the Jubilee will occur every 50 years and is not subject to man’s whims. The verse speaks of the time after the Israelites will have taken possession of their homeland. The Torah promises that as long as the Jewish people will observe that legislation the land will remain their ancestral possession. Another approach to the meaning of the word ואם here, could be simply: “if” the Lord will bring you to the land and you will in due course reap your harvest and bring the first fruit offerings, then you shall do so in the manner here described. Inheritance of the land of Israel is always described as conditional on our observing the relevant legislation pertaining to the earth of that land. Failure to observe this legislation will result in our expulsion from that land.