Surely it should be regarded as rejected!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is the text strongly supported by Tosaf. and for which there is MS. authority (v. Dik. Sof. a.l. n. 60) , and the interpretation is as follows: Why is it taught in our Mishnah and in the Baraitha quoted in the Gemara that the frankincense may be picked off from the meal-offering? But surely, once the meal-offering has had frankincense put upon it, it became invalid and so absolutely rejected as a meal-offering! How then can it become valid after it had once been made invalid? Cf. the similar question in Zeb. ');"><sup>17</sup></span> - Abaye answered, Scripture still refers to it as a sin-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. V, 11. It is still valid as a sin-offering even after it has had frankincense upon it.');"><sup>18</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.
