Halakhah for Menachot 118:14
מאי הוי עלה אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק תניא מנחת חוטא ומנחת קנאות שנתן עליה לבונה מלקט את הלבונה וכשרה ואם עד שלא ליקט לבונתה חישב עליה בין חוץ לזמנו בין חוץ למקומו פסול ואין בו כרת
is not incurred.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For since the meal-offering is invalid by reason of the frankincense thereon the penalty for piggul cannot be incurred. V. supra 16b.');"><sup>15</sup></span> But if after he had picked off the frankincense<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And the meal-offering is valid once again. It is evident, therefore, that the sole reason why the addition of frankincense to the meal-offering does not render it absolutely invalid is that it can be picked off and so become valid once again.');"><sup>16</sup></span>
Sefer HaMitzvot
He prohibited us from offering frankincense in the offering of a sinner. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "neither shall he put any frankincense upon it" (Leviticus 5:11). And one who placed [it] is lashed. And the language of the Mishnah (Menachot 59b) is, "He is liable for the oil on its own, and for the frankincense on its own" - since they are two [distinct] negative commandments, without a doubt. And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in the fifth [chapter] of Menachot. (See Parashat Vayikra; Mishneh Torah, Sacrificial Procedure 12.)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sefer HaChinukh
To not put frankincense in the meal-offering of a sinner: To not put frankincense in this meal-offering of the poor sinner that we said, as it is stated (Leviticus 5:11), "nor shall he put frankincense on it." And the language of the Mishnah (Menachot 59b) is "And he is liable for the oil on its own and the frankincense on its own" - as they are two negative commandments, without a doubt. All the content of frankincense is like the content of oil that we wrote (Sefer HaChinukh 125) - there is no point in writing at length about it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy