Sotah

He next salts [the handful of flour] and sets it upon the fire'; for it is written: And every oblation of thy meal-offering shalt thou season with salt.  'When the handful has been offered, the remainder may be eaten'. Whence is this? — For it is written: And the priest shall burn the memorial of it etc.,  and it is written: And that which is left of the meal-offering shall be Aaron's and his sons'.  'When the handful has been offered etc.' — this  is differently explained by two teachers; for it has been reported: From what time does the taking of the 'handful' render the eating of the remainder permissible? R. Hanina says: When the fire takes hold of it; R. Johanan said: When the fire burns the greater part of it. 'And the priests are allowed to mix it with wine, oil and honey' — for what reason? The text states: By reason of the anointing,  i.e., as a mark of eminence, in the same manner as kings take their food. 'And are only forbidden to make it leaven'; for it is written: It shall not be baked with leaven, their portion  — R. Simeon b. Lakish says: [It means] that even their portion must not be baked with leaven. WITH ALL OTHER MEAL-OFFERINGS etc. But do all other meal-offerings  require oil and frankincense? Behold, there is the meal-offering of the sinner concerning which the All-Merciful said: He shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon!  — This is what he intends: All other meal-offerings require oil and frankincense, and consist of wheat in the form of fine flour; but the meal-offering of the sinner, although it does not require oil and frankincense, consists of wheat in the form of fine-flour; the meal-offering of the 'omer, although it consists of barley, requires oil and frankincense and is in the form of groats; but this one [of the suspected woman] does not require oil and frankincense, and consists of barley in the form of coarse flour. It has been taught: R. Simeon said: It is right that the meal-offering of a sinner should require oil and frankincense, so that a sinner should not gain;  why, then, are they not required? That his offering should not be luxurious. It is also right that an ordinary sin-offering  should require drink-offerings, so that a sinner should not gain; why, then, are they not required? That his offering should not be luxurious. The sin-offering of a leper, however, and his trespass-offering do require drink-offerings because they are not due to sin. But that is not so; for, behold R. Samuel b. Nahmani said in the name of R. Jonathan: On account of seven faults does the plague of leprosy occur etc.!  — In this case he received atonement [of his sin] by the plague  he suffered; and when he brings an offering, it is only to allow him to participate in what is holy.  According to this conclusion, the sin-offering of a Nazirite should require drink-offerings, since it is not due to a sin! He holds with R. Eliezer ha-Kappar who said: A Nazirite is also a sinner. RABBAN GAMALIEL SAYS, AS etc. It has been taught: Rabban Gamaliel  said to the Sages: Learned men, permit me to explain this allegorically.