3RD Day Vayikra (Lev 2:7-11)

7 And if your offering is a grain offering cooked in a deep pan, it shall be made of fine flour with oil.

Menachot 74b:13

With regard to the three placements of oil in a pan grain offering and a deep pan grain offering, the Sages taught that the verse states: “And if your offering is a deep pan grain offering, it shall be made of fine flour with oil” (Lev 2:7). This teaches that it requires the placement of oil in an empty vessel, and the flour is added afterward. In addition, the term “your offering” in this verse and the term “your offering” (Lev 2:5), written with regard to the grain offering prepared in a pan, are understood to teach a verbal analogy:

Rashi

Cooked in a deep pan—This was a vessel used in the temple, a deep one, and because it was deep the oil in it was heaped up and the fire did not burn it, and therefore the grain offering cooked in it was, as it were, creeping. Every thing that is soft because of the liquid contained in it appears as though it were creeping and moving (Menachot 63a; Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d’Nedavah, Chapter 12 7).

11 No grain offering that you bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven, for you shall burn no leaven nor any honey as a food offering to the Lord.

Bekhorot 33b:15

And furthermore, one cannot draw parallels between the opinions of the two sources, as here the tanna’im disagree with regard to the exposition of certain verses, and there they disagree with regard to the exposition of certain other verses. As Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All of the Sages who disagree as to whether one may let the blood of the firstborn animal concede that one who leavens a grain offering after another had already leavened it is liable to receive lashes for the additional leavening, as it is written: “It shall not be baked with leaven” (Lev 6:10), and it is also stated: “No grain offering that you sacrifice to God shall be made with leaven” (Lev 2:11). This indicates that one is liable for every act of leavening performed on a grain offering.

Keritot 6a:16

And if one placed honey in the incense he has disqualified it, as it is stated: “For you shall burn no leaven nor any honey as a food offering to the Lord” (Lev 2:11). If he omitted any one of its spices he is liable to receive death at the hand of heaven. Rabbi Shimon says: The balm mentioned here is nothing other than a resin exuded from the balsam tree, not the bark of the tree itself. The Kersannah lye mentioned is not part of the ingredients of the incense itself, but it is necessary as one rubs the onycha in it so that the onycha should be pleasant. Likewise, the Cyprus wine is required as one soaks the onycha in it so that it should be strong. And urine is good for this purpose, but one does not bring urine into the temple because it is inappropriate.

Menachot 23b:11

The Gemara answers: There, the halakha of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Zeira, as Rabbi Zeira says that the verse teaches that nullification does not take place when remainders are intermingled with handfuls. He explains: The term burning is stated with regard to the handful removed from the grain offering (see Lev 2:2), as it is a commandment to burn the handful, and the term burning is stated with regard to the remainder of the grain offering (see Lev 2:11), as it is taught that it is prohibited to burn the remainder.

Menachot 55a:10

MISHNA: All the grain offerings that come as unleavened bread are to be kneaded with lukewarm water so that the dough will bake well, as only a small amount of oil is added. And one must watch over them to ensure that they do not become leaven while kneading and shaping them, and if a grain offering or even only its remainder becomes leaven, one violates a prohibition, as it is stated: “No grain offering that you bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven, as you shall burn no leaven nor any honey as a food offering to the Lord” (Lev 2:11). And one is liable to be flogged for kneading the grain offering, and for shaping it, and for baking it, if the grain offering becomes leaven.

Menachot 55b:1

“Be baked with leaven” (Lev 6:10). What is the meaning when the verse states this? Isn’t this requirement already stated earlier: “No grain offering that you bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven; as you shall burn no leaven nor any honey as a food offering to the Lord” (Lev 2:11)? Rather, the phrase “it shall not be baked with leaven” serves to teach a different halakha. Since the prohibition concerning leaven is first stated in general terms: Shall not be made with leaven, without specification, one might have thought that one who causes a grain offering to become leaven will be liable to receive only one set of lashes for all of his actions, i.e., kneading, shaping, and baking the dough. Therefore, the verse states: “it shall not be baked with leaven” which teaches that one who causes a grain offering to become leaven is liable separately for baking it, and for each stage of its preparation.

Menachot 55b:9

Rabbi Aptoriki said: That hermeneutic principle is not relevant here, because this is a case of a generalization and a detail that appear in the law distanced from one another, as the phrase: Shall not be made with leaven (Lev 2:11), is far from the expression: “It shall not be baked with leaven” (Lev 6:10). And for any instance of a generalization and a detail that appear in the law distanced from one another, one cannot derive a halakha from them by analyzing them as a generalization and a detail.

Menachot 56b:2

The Gemara discusses similar cases, including examples involving grain offerings. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: All of the Sages who disagree as to whether one may let the blood of a firstborn animal whose blood circulation is constricted concede that one who leavens a grain offering after another had already leavened it is liable to receive lashes for the additional leavening, as it is written: “No grain offering that you bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven” (Lev 2:11), and it is also stated: “It shall not be baked with leaven” (Lev 6:10). This indicates that one is liable for every act of leavening performed on a grain offering.

Menachot 57a:8

The Gemara returns to discussing the prohibition against leavening a grain offering. The Sages taught in a baraita: Concerning the deep-pan grain offering, the verse states: “No grain offering that you bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven, for any leaven nor any honey, you shall not burn any of it as a food offering to the Lord” (Lev 2:11). The term “grain offering” is apparently superfluous, and therefore the baraita explains: If the verse had stated only: Nothing that you shall bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven, I would say: I have derived only that the handful removed from the grain offering for burning on the altar alone is included in the prohibition: “Shall not be made with leaven,” as only the handful is burned on the altar.

Menachot 57a:13

Rav Mari raises another dilemma concerning the leavening of a grain offering. If a priest leavened a grain offering while standing at the top of the altar, what is the halakha? The Gemara clarifies the possibilities: The Merciful One states in the law: “No grain offering that you bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven” (Lev 2:11), which indicates that this prohibition applies only to a grain offering that has not yet been brought to the Lord, i.e., to the altar. And therefore, as this grain offering has already been brought to the top of the altar, even though it has not yet been burned, perhaps it is not included in the prohibition.

Menachot 57b:13

The baraita answers: The verse states: “For any leaven nor any honey, you shall not burn any of it as a food offering to the Lord” (Lev 2:11). The extra term “of it” teaches that any item that has already had some part of it burned in the fire on the altar is included in the prohibition: Do not burn, stated in that verse explicitly with regard to honey and leaven.

Menachot 57b:18

And what is the reason that Rabbi Elazar says that one who brings up parts to the ramp is exempt? As the verse states: “For any leaven nor any honey, you shall not burn any of it as a food offering to the Lord. As an offering of first produce you may bring them to the Lord, but they shall not be offered on the altar for a pleasing aroma” (Lev 2:11-12).

Menachot 58a:5

The Gemara asks: And may the two loaves not be sacrificed as communal gift offerings? But isn’t it taught in a baraita with regard to the verse: “As any leaven nor any honey, you shall not burn any of it” (Lev 2:11): If it is stated: “Any leaven,” why is it stated: “Any honey”? And if it is stated:  “Any honey,” why is it stated: “Any leaven”? In other words, why is it necessary for the verse to repeat the inclusive term “any,” from which it is derived that offering an insufficient quantity of honey or leaven is included in the prohibition? The baraita answers: Both of these terms had to be stated, because there is a halakha that applies to leaven that is not applicable to honey, and there is another halakha that applies to honey that is not applicable to leaven.

Menachot 58b:3

The Gemara discusses another dispute between Abaye and Rava on this topic: It was stated: With regard to one who offers up a mixture made of leaven and of honey on the altar, Rava says: He is flogged with four sets of lashes for this act, as the verse: “As any leaven nor any honey, you shall not burn any of it as a food offering to the Lord” (Lev 2:11), includes four separate prohibitions. He is flogged one set due to the prohibition against sacrificing leaven, and he is flogged a second set due to the prohibition against sacrificing honey, and he is flogged a third set due to the prohibition against sacrificing mixtures of leaven, and he is flogged a fourth set due to the prohibition against sacrificing mixtures of honey.

Menachot 84b:2

Rabba sat in the study hall and stated this halakha. Rabbi Aḥa bar Abba raised an objection to Rabba from a baraita: The law refers to the two loaves offering as: “A first offering to the Lord” (Lev 2:11), which indicates that it is to be the first of all the grain offerings that come from the new crop. And similarly the verse states with regard to the Feast of Weeks: “On the day of the firstfruits, when you offer a grain offering of new grain to the Lord” (Num 28:26). By designating the two loaves as “new,” the verse indicates that they should be brought from the first of the new crop.

Menachot 106b:2

Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, said: The priest does not burn the oil as an offering but burns it for the sake of wood, i.e., not as a sacrificial rite, in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer. As it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Eliezer says: The verse states: “No grain offering that you bring to the Lord shall be made with leaven, for you shall burn no leaven nor any honey as a food offering to the Lord. As an offering of firstfruits you may bring them to the Lord, but they shall not be offered on the altar for a pleasing aroma” (Lev 2:11-12). This verse indicates that you may not offer up leaven and honey as a pleasing aroma, i.e., as an offering. But you may offer up leaven and honey and other substances for the sake of wood, not as an offering.

Rashi

Nor any honey—Any sweet juice of a fruit is called “honey.”