Halakhah for Menachot 118:3
בזמן חדש והני נפישן
- The former is the more plausible since there is written, Any one.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. supra p. 349, n. 7.');"><sup>5</sup></span> <big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>[A MAN IS] LIABLE BECAUSE OF THE OIL BY ITSELF AND BECAUSE OF THE FRANKINCENSE BY ITSELF.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., if he put either oil or frankincense upon the sinner's meal-offering or upon the meal-offering of jealousy.');"><sup>6</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