Our Mishna on Amud Aleph discusses the various recipes and ingredients for the meal offerings.

“There are four types of meal offerings: those that require both oil and frankincense, those that require oil but not frankincense, those that require frankincense but not oil, and those that require neither frankincense nor oil.”

Mei Hashiloach (Vol. I, Bamidbar, Shlach) interprets these types of Menachos as representative of different states of character. Oil represents a high level of purity and holiness. Presumably, the metaphor stems from the clean, pure flame that it supports; and the flame on the lamp is a metaphor for the soul and the body. As it states in Mishle (20:27), “The lamp of God is the soul of a person” (see Targum and Ibn Ezra). The oil represents a person who has goodness and pure intent on the inside. On the other hand, the frankincense, which is sweet-smelling and affects the senses, represents character traits that are pleasing socially or meet an external requirement.

The four permutations of the meal offerings represent the four ways that a person can engage in life. The ideal, of course, is to be pure of heart and also to behave in a way that is socially pleasing. As it states in Avos (2:1): “Which is the correct path that a man should choose? One which is an honor to the person adopting it, and [on account of which] honor [accrues] to him from others.” This is the meal offering with oil and frankincense.

Less ideal is one who must take action that is based on purity of heart but does not go over well with people or brings other pain or consequences. This is the Mincha of oil without frankincense. Mei Shiloach says this is sometimes necessary. He cautions, though, the opposite is never acceptable - purity of heart alone, such as one who has good intentions but still breaks absolute rules of Torah. He cites the example of mekoshes (the one who gathers wood on Shabbos; Bamidbar 15:32), who had good intentions (as we shall see later) but broke the laws of Shabbos.

Then there are those who try to maintain social conformity but sacrifice or are lacking purity of heart. This is the meal offering that requires frankincense without the oil. Mei Shiloach says this is not acceptable but unfortunately does exist within the range of human behavior.

And finally, the worst of all is the character who is devoid of purity in heart and behaves in socially unacceptable ways. That is the meal offering without oil nor frankincense.

Mei Shiloach does not spell this out, but implied in his words is that each kind of meal offering atones for that particular kind of character, because otherwise why would the symbolism make sense?

The challenge then is how the each of whom typically can bring or is required to bring these menachos correspond to the tikun. Let’s take a look.

The first group, that has both oil and frankincense, consists of either public ritual sacrifices that are part of the daily service, priestly sacrifices, and voluntary offerings. That is easy enough to see how it corresponds to the pure-of-heart and socially honorable dimensions, since these are offerings coming from wholesome people or from the congregation, which collectively is wholesome.

The second group consists of oil but no frankincense, which are the menachos that go along with libations. We can say they represent those who are pure of heart, but sometimes you need to run against the sensibilities and conformity of the congregation because these meal offerings are connected directly to the sacrifices. Sacrifices are holy, like a zealot, and are there to serve God alone. Social considerations are less important.

The fourth group, which does not have oil nor frankincense, is also clearly connected to sacrifices related to sin and the Sotah ritual. (One other sacrifice is included in this group, and that is the two loaves brought on the festival of Shavuous. At first glance, it has nothing to do with a sinner. However, we will see tomorrow in our blog post Psychology of the Daf, Menachos 60, that the meal offering of Shavuous relates directly to the Sotah, so stay tuned.)

The third group is actually the most challenging. The meal offerings that have frankincense but do not have oil represent those who officially and erroneously care more about social conformity and pleasing people than staying true to what is in their heart, and to pure devotion to God. This was the group that Mei Shiloach said ruled as an always unacceptable calculation, and while one must strive to get along well in society, it cannot be at the expense of purity of obedience to God. Yet the sacrifice that is composed without oil but with frankincense is the show-bread on the Shulchan in the Beis HaMikdash. How does that correspond with such a sinful character?

Mei Shiloach says nothing about this, but I have a half-baked thought. Rashi (Vayikra 24:10) tells us that the “Son of the Egyptian” (who was punished for uttering a blasphemous curse) mocked the institution of the Show-Bread. He said: “Is it an honor to a king to eat nine-days-old bread?” Perhaps the Show-Bread was also socially non-conforming, in that it was unseemly to offer old bread (notwithstanding that it miraculously stayed fresh; Yoma 21b). This then represented a rebalancing and going against what is externally impressive in order to honor the inner purity.