הוי רבוי אחר רבוי ואין רבוי אחר רבוי אלא למעט this is one amplificatory expression after another, one in the context of the oil and the other in the context of the frankincense. And there is a principle that one amplificatory expression after another serves only to restrict. Consequently, the placement of frankincense on any amount of a meal offering of a sinner disqualifies the meal offering.
ואיכא דאמרי אמר רב יצחק בר יוסף בעי רבי יוחנן נתן משהו שמן על גבי כזית מנחה מהו מי בעינן שימה כנתינה או לא תיקו And there are those who say there is a different version of the discussion: Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef says that Rabbi Yoḥanan raises a dilemma: If one placed oil of any amount on top of an olive-bulk of a meal offering of a sinner, what is the halakha? The Gemara clarifies: Since the Torah states with regard to oil: “He shall place no oil upon it,” whereas with regard to frankincense it states: “Neither shall he give any frankincense upon it,” do we require that the placing of the oil must be like the giving of the frankincense, which must be an olive-bulk, or not? No answer was found, and therefore the Gemara states that the dilemma shall stand unresolved.
נתן שמן על שיריה ת"ר (ויקרא ה, יא) לא ישים עליה שמן ולא יתן יכול בשני כהנים § The mishna teaches: If one placed oil on the remainder of a meal offering of a sinner or a meal offering of jealousy brought by a sota, he does not violate a prohibition. Concerning this, the Sages taught in a baraita: When the verse states: “He shall place no oil upon it, neither shall he give any frankincense upon it,” one might have thought that this separation into two distinct prohibitions applies only where two priests perform these actions, one of whom places oil on the meal offering while the other puts frankincense. Perhaps in this case each of them is separately liable to receive lashes, but if one priest put both oil and frankincense on a meal offering, one might have thought he receives only one set of lashes.
תלמוד לומר עליה בגופה של מנחה הכתוב מדבר ולא בכהן Therefore, the verse states: “Upon it,” with regard to both the oil and the frankincense, which indicates that the verse is speaking of the meal offering itself, and it is not referring to the priest who performs the service. Since both prohibited actions can be performed on the same meal offering, an individual who does both is liable to receive two sets of lashes.
יכול לא יתן כלי על גבי כלי ואם נתן פסל תלמוד לומר עליה בגופה של מנחה הכתוב מדבר: Furthermore, one might have thought this verse means one may not even place a vessel containing oil or frankincense on top of a vessel that contains the meal offering, and that if one placed such a vessel on the meal offering he has thereby disqualified it. Therefore, the verse states “upon it,” which indicates that the verse is speaking about the meal offering itself. One may not place oil or frankincense on the meal offering itself, but it is not prohibited to place a vessel containing oil or frankincense upon a vessel that contains the meal offering.
מתני׳ יש טעונות הגשה ואין טעונות תנופה הגשה ותנופה תנופה ולא הגשה לא תנופה ולא הגשה MISHNA: There are four categories of meal offerings: Those that require bringing near, a rite that requires the priests to carry the offering in their hands and bring it near the southwest corner of the altar, but do not require waving; those that require both bringing near and waving; those that require waving but not bringing near; and those that require neither waving nor bringing near.
ואלו טעונות הגשה ואין טעונות תנופה מנחת הסולת והמחבת ומרחשת והחלות והרקיקין מנחת כהנים ומנחת כהן משיח מנחת נכרים מנחת נשים ומנחת חוטא The mishna elaborates: And these are the meal offerings that require bringing near but do not require waving: The fine-flour meal offering; the meal offering prepared in a pan; the meal offering prepared in a deep pan; the meal offering baked in an oven, which can be brought in the form of loaves or in the form of wafers; the meal offering of priests; the meal offering of the anointed priest; the meal offering of gentiles; a meal offering brought by women; and the meal offering of a sinner.
רבי שמעון אומר מנחת כהנים ומנחת כהן משיח אין בהן הגשה לפי שאין בהן קמיצה וכל שאין בהן קמיצה אין בהן הגשה: Rabbi Shimon says: The meal offering of priests and the meal offering of the anointed priest do not require bringing of the meal offering near to the altar, due to the fact that there is no removal of a handful in their sacrifice, and there is a principle that with regard to any meal offering where there is no removal of a handful in their sacrifice, there is also no bringing near.
גמ׳ אמר רב פפא כל היכא דתנן עשר תנן מאי קמ"ל GEMARA: Rav Pappa stated a principle with regard to all the mishnayot in tractate Menaḥot: Anywhere that we learned in a mishna that one brings a meal offering, we learned that one must bring ten items of the same type, either loaves or wafers. The Gemara asks: What is Rav Pappa teaching us?
לאפוקי מדרבי שמעון דאמר מחצה חלות ומחצה רקיקין יביא קמ"ל דלא The Gemara explains: This statement of Rav Pappa serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: One who takes a vow to bring a meal offering baked in an oven must bring ten items. If he wishes he may bring ten loaves or ten wafers, and if he wishes he may bring half of them as loaves and the other half as wafers. Rav Pappa teaches us that the tanna of the mishna maintains that one may not do so; all ten must be of the same type.
מנא הני מילי דתנו רבנן אילו נאמר (ויקרא ב, ח) והבאת אשר יעשה מאלה לה' והקריבה אל הכהן והגישה הייתי אומר אין לי שטעון הגשה אלא קומץ בלבד § The mishna teaches that the first tanna and Rabbi Shimon disagree about whether the meal offering of priests and the meal offering of the anointed priest require the ritual of bringing near. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? The Gemara answers: As the Sages taught in a baraita: A verse discussing the meal offering prepared in the pan states: “And you shall bring the meal offering that is made of these to the Lord, and it shall be drawn near to the priest, and he shall bring it near to the altar” (Leviticus 2:8). If the verse had stated only: And you shall bring that which is made of these to the Lord and it shall be drawn near to the priest and he shall bring it near to the altar, omitting the words: The meal offering, I would say: I have derived only that the handful that is sacrificed on the altar alone requires bringing near.
מנחה מנין תלמוד לומר מנחה מנחת חוטא מנין תלמוד לומר את המנחה From where is it derived that this halakha applies to the entire meal offering? The verse states the superfluous term: “The meal offering,” which indicates that one must bring the entire meal offering to the altar prior to the removal of the handful. The baraita further asks: From where is it derived that this halakha applies to the meal offering of a sinner? The verse states: “The meal offering.” The addition of the definite article serves to include the meal offering of a sinner.
ודין הוא נאמר הכא The baraita raises a difficulty: Why is a verse necessary to teach that the requirement of bringing near applies to the meal offering of a sinner? But this halakha is capable of being derived by logical inference. The baraita elaborates: The procedure of bringing a meal offering is stated here, in the context of the meal offering of a sinner,