אמר אביי חטאת קרייה רחמנא רבא אמר הא מני חנן המצרי הוא דלית ליה דחויין
Raba said, This represents the view of Hanan the Egyptian who does not consider anything as absolutely rejected. For it was taught: Hanan the Egyptian says, Even though the blood is still in the bowl he may, without casting lots, bring another goat and pair it with the other.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Where the Scapegoat had died before the blood of the goat that was to be offered unto the Lord on the Day of Atonement had been sprinkled, the latter is by no means rejected as invalid so as to necessitate the bringing anew of two goats and to cast lots over them, but rather this blood becomes fit again for its purpose as soon as another goat is brought as a Scapegoat, v. Yoma 63b.');"><sup>19</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.
