What are the implicaions of "Kol ha'Minchah"?
Menachos, 57a #1: It comes to include in the Isur of Chametz, all Menachos (even Menachos from which a Kometz is not taken, such as a Minchah of a Kohen ? Torah Temimah).
Menachos 57a #2: From the very insertion of the words "Kol he'Minchah" we learn that the Isur Chametz extends to the Shirayim. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 50.
Seeing as even the Shirayim are included in the Isur of Chametz, why does the Torah add the words "asher Takrivu"?
What are the implications of the words "Asher Takrivu la'Hashem"?
What is the definition of "D'vash" in this context?
Why does the Torah forbid bringing Se'or (anything levened) and honey on the Mizbe'ach?
Ramban #1 and Moshav Zekenim (both citing Moreh Nevuchim): Because it was common among the Nochri priests to sacrifice their meal offerings in the form of Chametz and to mix honey in all their sacrifices. 1
Ramban #2 (23:17): Because the former represents Midas ha'Din 2 , and the latter, Midas Rachamim.
Moshav Zekenim #1 (citing the Rosh) and Ba'al ha'Turim: Because on the one hand, the Yeitzer ha'Ra is sour like yeast, 3 whilst on the other, it appears to a person sweet as honey. 4
Moshav Zekenim #2: The Kometz may not be Chaser. If there were Chametz or honey, the place of the holes would be missing. Also Lechem ha'Panim (must be Matzah, even though Kemitzah is not taken), in case people say that it is not two Esronim, just it rose because it is Chametz. Anything that requires oil 5 should not be Chametz, lest it raise the dough and people will say that it is not an Isaron. Of Lachmei Todah, 10 loaves are Chametz because they have no oil, and the owner eats them (there is no Kemitzah). Do not ask from Minchas Ma'afe Tanur - oil is added only after it is baked (so it does not rise more due to the oil). Chachamim 6 did not distinguish. Also Shtei ha'Lechem are Chametz (because they have no oil, and there is no Kemitzah). The Torah forbids to bake the leftovers [after Kemitzah, which Kohanim eat] as Chametz, lest part of the dough remain, and it says in Pesachim (30b) that a Kli in which Chametz is regularly kneaded, it is like Beis Se'or (it can ferment a dough put it in), because (Se'or) is very potent Chametz. Also here (if the Minchah was baked in the same Kli used to bake the leftovers Chametz), it would ferment the Minchah. Also, perhaps he would forget, and offer first. 7
Da'as Zekenim: Because all Korbanos must be salted, and yeast and honey do not go well with salt. 8
Similar to the Matzeivah (an altar made of one stone), which was favored in the time of the Avos, and which Hashem ultimately rejected (See Devarim 16:22), because it became a fixture with regard to idolatry (Ramban).
In fact, the very term 'Chametz' (even though the Torah here uses the word "Se'or" and not 'Chametz'), is a negative term, (like Chometz, in Bamidbar 6:3 and as in Tehilim, 71:4), and, since Korbanos come to bring about an appeasement between Hashem and Yisrael, it is not fitting to bring on the Mizbe'ach something that spoils the natural taste of food, or something that is extreme in its sweetness, such as honey - only things that are a combinations of the two, as the Midrash states 'Hashem combined the Midas ha'Rachamim with the Midas ha'Din and created the world. Refer also to 23:17:2:1
Which causes the dough to rise - which is symbolical of Ga'avah, in that it inflates a person's ego.
Which, in turn, is symbolical of Ta'avah. Indeed, the commentaries point out that the Gematriyah of 'D'vash' is equivalent to that of 'Ishah'. See also Oznayim la'Torah, who elaborates further.
Presumably, this is because a dough with water and oil rises more, and which becomes Chametz faster than one with only water (OC 462:2). (PF)
But this is a Torah law? Perhaps he means that the Torah did not distinguish. He must say similarly about a Kohen's Minchas Chotei, which has no Kemitzah according to the Chachamim (Menachos 6:1) and no oil. (PF)
Perhaps the text should read 'and he would ferment first (before Kemitzah).' (PF)
If salt is added to yeast, it kills it. Presumably, it similarly impairs Se'or (PF)
Having written "Lo Se'Aseh Chametz", why does the Torah repeat "ki Chol Se'or ... Lo Saktiru ... "?
Ramban: Because one of them prohibits bringing a Minchah that is Chametz, the other, making the Kometz Chametz and bringing it on the Mizbe'ach.
What do we learn from "Ki Chol Se'or ve'Chol Devash"?
Ramban (citing Menachos, 58a): It teaches us that a mixture of Chametz and one of honey are also prohibited. 1
See Torah Temimah, citing Menachos, 55a, who learns this from the word "Ki Chol".
Why does the Torah need to mention both Se'or and by D'vash?
Menachos, 58a: Because, since each one has a leniency that the other one does not - Se'or is permitted by the Sh'tei ha'Lechem and D'vash by the Shiyarim of the Menachos - we could not have learnt one from the other. 1
See Torah Temimah, note 57.
What are the implications of the word "lo Saktiru Mimenu"?
Why does the Torah add (the otherwise superfluous) words "Lo Saktiru ... Isheh la'Hashem"?
Ramban: To prohibit whatever is burned on the Mizbe'ach from being brought in the form of Chametz. 1
Menachos, 57b: The word "Isheh" teaches us that whoever brings on the Mizbe'ach - the Basar of a Chatas, an Asham, of Kodshei Kodshim or of Kodshim Kalim, or the Mosar ha'Omer the Sh'tei ha'Lechem or the Lecham ha'Panim. the Sheyarei Menachos, or Sheyarei Korban transgresses the La'av of "Lo Saktiru ... ".
From the Lashon "ve'li'Ketores ha'Samim" (Ramban).
Why does the Torah switch to the plural, when it writes "Lo Saktiru" and "Takrivu" in the following Pasuk, and back to the singular in Pasuk - "ba'Melach Timlach"?
Ramban and Moshav Zekenim: Because it is referring here to Aharon and his sons, mentioned in the previous Pasuk, whereas the following Pasuk refers to the owner of the Korban.
