Obj. 6:  Further, if none but slain animals were offered in sacrifice to God, it seems that it mattered not how they were slain.  Therefore it was unfitting that the manner of immolation should be determined, especially as regards birds (Lev. 1:15, seqq.).

Obj. 7:  Further, every defect in an animal is a step towards corruption and death.  If therefore slain animals were offered to God, it was unreasonable to forbid the offering of an imperfect animal, e.g. a lame, or a blind, or otherwise defective animal.

Obj. 8:  Further, those who offer victims to God should partake thereof, according to the words of the Apostle (1 Cor. 10:18):  “Are not they that eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?” It was therefore unbecoming for the offerers to be denied certain parts of the victims, namely, the blood, the fat, the breastbone and the right shoulder.

Objection 9:  Further, just as holocausts were offered up in honor of God, so also were the peace-offerings and sin-offerings.  But no female animals was offered up to God as a holocaust, although holocausts were offered of both quadrupeds and birds.  Therefore it was inconsistent that female animals should be offered up in peace-offerings and sin-offerings, and that nevertheless birds should not be offered up in peace-offerings.

Objection 10:  Further, all the peace-offerings seem to be of one kind.  Therefore it was unfitting to make a distinction among them, so that it was forbidden to eat the flesh of certain peace-offerings on the following day, while it was allowed to eat the flesh of other peace-offerings, as laid down in Lev. 7:15, seqq.

Objection 11:  Further, all sins agree in turning us from God.  Therefore, in order to reconcile us to God, one kind of sacrifice should have been offered up for all sins.

Objection 12:  Further, all animals that were offered up in sacrifice, were offered up in one way, viz. slain.  Therefore it does not seem to be suitable that products of the soil should be offered up in various ways; for sometimes an offering was made of ears of corn, sometimes of flour, sometimes of bread, this being baked sometimes in an oven, sometimes in a pan, sometimes on a gridiron.

Objection 13:  Further, whatever things are serviceable to us should be recognized as coming from God.  It was therefore unbecoming that besides animals, nothing but bread, wine, oil, incense, and salt should be offered to God.

Objection 14:  Further, bodily sacrifices denote the inward sacrifice of the heart, whereby man offers his soul to God.  But in the inward sacrifice, the sweetness, which is denoted by honey, surpasses the pungency which salt represents; for it is written (Ecclus. 24:27):  “My spirit is sweet above honey.”  Therefore it was unbecoming that the use of honey, and of leaven which makes bread savory, should be forbidden in a sacrifice; while the use was prescribed, of salt which is pungent, and of incense which has a bitter taste.  Consequently it seems that things pertaining to the ceremonies of the sacrifices have no reasonable cause.