Leviticus 7:14

And of it he shall present one as a seperation before the Lord; the priest who sprinkleth the blood of the hallowed sacrifice shall have it.

he will give one of each Thus there are at least four cakes (but actually there are at least ten [Menaḥot 77b]).

AND OF IT HE SHALL PRESENT ONE OUT OF EACH OFFERING — one whole cake [for a heave-offering unto the Eternal]. Thus he takes as a heave-offering four cakes [and gives them to the priest].
But I wonder! When Scripture excluded [first-fruits] from the prohibition against burning leaven [on the altar], by stating, as an offering of first-fruits ye may bring them, 12. [which means that “the two loaves” of the Festival of Shevuoth were to be brought of leavened dough, as clearly mentioned further on in Scripture], why did it not say that [the ten leavened cakes of] the thanks-offering [are also an exception]? But this is not really a question. For Scripture states, and unto the altar they [i.e., leaven and honey] shall not come up for a sweet savor,, 12. and of the [forty] breads of the thanks-offering, none came up on the altar at all, for they require only waving., Verse 18), and such is the case also with the thanks-offering. So the question recurs: Why did Scripture not call attention to the exception of the breads of the thanks-offering? The Tur answers that Scripture called attention only to an obligatory offering, such being the case of “the two loaves” on the Festival of Shevuoth, but not to a thanks-offering, which is a freewill offering. See further my Hebrew commentary pp. 33-34. Even though in the case of the showbread He did say that one commits a transgression if one brought it in a leaven state’ (any) meal-offering, which ye shall bring unto the Eternal, shall not be made with leaven (above, 2:11), the word kol includes the showbread, that it too must not be leavened” (Menachoth 57 a). [although there too none of the loaves are burnt on the altar], that is because of the frankincense that was on it which was to the bread for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto the Eternal. But of the bread of the thanks-offering, nothing at all came up on the altar [hence the Torah permitted the ten loaves to be leavened]. Perhaps Scripture only had to mention that exception [as an offering of first-fruits ye may bring them], 12. because of the honey, since it was not clearly stated concerning the first-fruits [which were brought of “the seven kinds”] that they may be brought from honey [and it therefore had to be explicitly stated in that verse], and thus He also included leaven with it, saying of both of them, as an offering of first-fruits ye may bring them., 12. With reference to leaven, however, since it is clearly explained in its correct place [that the “two loaves” of the Festival of Shevuoth constitute an exception to the usual negative commandment], there was no need any more to mention it as an exception [when mentioning the general negative commandment], just as Scripture has not specified the exception to the rule about the Sabbath, when stating every one that profaneth it shall be put to death, [by saying] “except for the Service of the offerings” [which may be done on the Sabbath], or in the case of thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife, [by saying] “except for a brother’s childless wife” [whom he is to marry].. For various reasons the practice now established is to grant the widow chalitzah, and she is then free to marry.