[With regard to the presentation of] the blood from any of the sacrifices on the outer altar: as long as one makes one presentation of blood, atonement is generated.¹ Even with regard to a sin-offering, one presentation is of fundamental importance.² Making the remaining [three of] the four [required] presentations is [merely] the optimum manner of fulfilling the mitzvah, as [implied by Deuteronomy 12:27]: "The blood of your sacrifices shall you pour on the altar."³ notes that rather than use the method of exegesis stated in Zevachim 37b, the Rambam quotes a different prooftext. This follows a pattern demonstrated in several other places in the Mishneh Torah where the Rambam derives a concept from the apparent meaning of Biblical verses even though the traditional Rabbinic approach is to derive the idea from other sources. [One can infer that one] pouring of blood on the altar is of fundamental importance.

footnotes: ¹ Although there is a desired manner in which the blood from every sacrifice should be offered on the altar, that is merely the desired manner of fulfilling the mitzvah. After the fact, even one presentation of blood is sufficient. ² Rav Yosef Corcus explains that the Rambam's intent is that even if the priest did not present the blood of the sin-offering on the corners of the altar at all as required, but rather poured it on the wall of the altar, it is sufficient to bring atonement. ³ The Kessef Mishneh

Whenever [a priest] poured [blood] over the altar when he should have cast it upon it,⁴ the obligation is fulfilled, as [implied by the verse:] "The blood of your sacrifices shall you pour."

footnotes: ⁴ Casting blood on the altar refers to a situation where a priest stands slightly removed from the altar and casts the blood upon it powerfully. The blood of the burnt offerings, peace offerings, and guilt offerings are presented on the altar in this manner. Pouring the blood on the altar refers to a situation where the priest stands next to the altar and pours the blood gently upon it. The blood of firstborn offerings, tithe offerings, and Paschal sacrifices are presented in this manner.

With regard to all of the blood presented on the inner altar,⁵ 1:5. See ibid. 5:11 for a description of the manner in which the sacrifice was offered. if one of the presentations is lacking, the sacrifice does not bring atonement. Instead, all of them are integral for the atonement, for Scripture was precise with regard to their number, as [Leviticus 4:7, 17; 16:14] states: "seven times."

footnotes: ⁵ This refers to the bull and the goat offered on Yom Kippur and the other sin-offerings which are burnt rather than eaten that are mentioned in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot

If the owner died after one of the presentations of the blood of a sin-offering was made, the remainder of the presentations should be made after his death.⁶

footnotes: ⁶ If the owner of a sin-offering dies before even one presentation of the blood was made, the blood should not be presented (see Chapter 4, Halachah 1). If, however, one presentation was made, the sacrifice is fundamentally acceptable, as stated in Halachah 1. Hence the remainder of the presentations should also be made.

If, however, he made one presentation during the day, he should not make the [remaining] three at night.⁷ 56a) and hence should not be presented upon the altar. Hence, even though the sacrifice is acceptable, the remaining presentations should not be made.

footnotes: ⁷ For the blood is disqualified at sunset (Zevachim

If one made one [of the presentations of blood required to be made on] the inner altar on [that altar] and made the remainder on the outer [altar], he is liable for [karet] for offering [a sacrifice] outside its appropriate place.⁸ 19:13.

footnotes: ⁸ See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot

If [a priest] was sprinkling [the blood of a sacrifice⁹, "sprinkling," with regard to the sin-offering of a fowl and the sin-offerings whose blood is offered on the inner altar. on the altar] and his hand was cut off before the blood reached the space above the altar, the sprinkling of the blood is not acceptable.¹⁰ 15a.

footnotes: ⁹ The Torah uses the term haza'ah ¹⁰ For at the time the sprinkling is completed, the priest who performed it was no longer acceptable for Temple service, because of his physical blemish. Even though the blemish did not occur until after the priest completed his activity, the time when the blood reached the altar is most significant. See Zevachim

If one changed [the order] of corners¹¹ uses a different version. [of the altar on which the blood was presented when bringing] a sin-offering - whether for a sin-offering [whose blood] is offered on the inner altar¹² 5:12, 14, for a description of the presentation of the blood for these sacrifices. or a sin-offering [whose blood] is offered on the outer altar¹³:10 for a description of the presentation of the blood for these sacrifices. - [the sacrifice] is disqualified.¹⁴ If, however, [the order of the presentation of the blood] for other sacrifices is changed, [the sacrifices] are acceptable.

footnotes: ¹¹ Our translation is based on authoritative manuscripts and early printings. The standard published text of the Mishneh Torah ¹² See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot ¹³ See ibid. ¹⁴ Based on Halachah 10, it appears that the intent in this and the following halachah is that the meat of the sacrifice is unacceptable and may not be eaten. Nevertheless, the sacrifice itself is acceptable, since its blood has reached the altar.

If [the priest] presented the blood beyond the corner of the altar - whether for a sin-offering or for another offering and whether for the inner altar or for the outer altar - [the sacrifice] is unacceptable.

When blood that according to [the Torah's] command should have been presented above the midpoint of the altar¹⁵ 2:9, there was a scarlet band dividing the upper half of the altar from the lower half. Sin-offerings of animals (Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot 5:7) and burnt-offerings of fowl (ibid. 6:20) should be offered above the midpoint of the altar. was presented below it; if according to [the Torah's] command, it should have been presented below the midpoint of the altar,¹⁶ but it was presented above it; if [blood that] according to [the Torah's] command should have been presented inside [the Temple]¹⁷ 3:6), the Rambam states that this refers to blood presented on the inner altar, on the Parochet (the curtain separating between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies), and within the Holy of Holies itself. and was presented on the outer altar; if [blood that] should have been presented on the outer altar was presented in [the Temple]; or if blood that should have been presented on the outer [altar] was presented on the ramp in a place that is not opposite the foundation [of the altar],¹⁸ 57b; Zevachim 87a), after the fact, presenting the blood on it is considered equivalent to presenting it on the altar itself. [in all these instances,] the meat of the sacrifice is unacceptable.¹⁹ Nevertheless, the owners of the sacrifices receive atonement because of it, for its blood has reached the altar. Although it did not reach the proper place, it is as if it reached its [proper] place with regard to atonement. When does the above apply? When the person casting [the blood] is acceptable for Temple service. If, however, a person fit for Temple service received [the blood] and gave it to a person who is unacceptable and that unacceptable person presented [blood] that should have been presented above [the midpoint] of the altar below its midpoint, [blood] that should have been presented [on the] outer [altar] was presented inside [the Temple Sanctuary], [blood] that should have been presented inside [the Temple Sanctuary] was presented[on the] outer [altar], or one presented [the blood] on the ramp in a place that is not opposite the foundation [of the altar],²⁰ the meat of the sacrifice is not disqualified if [any of the sacrificial animal's] blood of life remains.²¹ Instead, an acceptable person should receive the remainder of the blood of life and cast it [on the altar] in its appropriate place.

footnotes: ¹⁵ As mentioned in Hilchot Beit HaBechirah ¹⁶ This refers to the blood of all other sacrifices. ¹⁷ In his Commentary to the Mishnah (Zevachim ¹⁸ The foundation of the altar did not surround the altar on its southern side, the place where the ramp was positioned. Rav Yosef Corcus explains that since the ramp is considered as equivalent to the altar in several contexts (see Menachot ¹⁹ Since the blood was not offered in its proper place, in this context, it is as if the sacrifice was disqualified and the meat cannot be eaten. Nevertheless, even if "the blood of life" remains, it may not be offered upon the altar again. The rationale is that since the blood reached the altar, atonement is granted and another sacrifice is not required. ²⁰ Although the Rambam does not mention all the instances that were mentioned in the first clause, they are all included in this ruling. ²¹ Since the casting of the blood is disqualified entirely because the person sprinkling it was unacceptable, it is as if it was not performed at all. Hence, if more "blood of life" remains, the sacrifice can be offered as if nothing had happened.

[The following rules apply when] the blood of sacrificial animals becomes mixed between two types of blood²² or between two cups of blood.²³ If [the blood of sacrifices that require] one presentation [of blood] was mixed with [the blood of others that require] one presentation [of blood],²⁴ 5:17. one presentation should be made of the entire [mixture]. Similarly, if [the blood of sacrifices that require] four presentations [of blood was mixed] with [the blood of others that require] four presentations,²⁵ four presentations should be made of the entire [mixture]. If, [however, the blood of sacrifices that require] one presentation [of blood] was mixed with [the blood of others that require] two presentations that are four,²⁶ 5:6. one presentation should be made of the entire [mixture].²⁷ 8:10). And after the fact, it is sufficient to make one presentation of the blood of sacrifices that require more as stated in Halachah 1. Although in failing to make the four presentations required for a sin-offering, the priest is detracting from the Torah's commandments and that is also forbidden, he is not performing an act when doing so. If [blood that was] to be presented on the upper [half of the altar] became mixed with [blood that was] to be presented on the lower [half of the altar],²⁸ all [the blood] should be poured into the [waste] channel²⁹ 2:11. and the sacrifices are disqualified. Even if the remainder of [the blood from] a sin-offering³⁰ is mixed with the blood of a burnt-offering in which instance, all of the blood should be presented on the bottom of the altar, the entire [mixture] should be poured into the [waste] channel.³¹

footnotes: ²² Blood from two sacrificial animals were mixed into the same cup. ²³ The blood from two sacrificial animals was collected in separate cups, but it was forgotten in which cup the blood of each sacrificial animal was contained. ²⁴ E.g., the blood of a firstborn offering with the blood of a tithe offering or of a Paschal sacrifice. See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot ²⁵ Sin-offerings are the only sacrifices that require four presentations of blood on the altar. The Rambam is speaking about a situation in which the blood from one sin-offering was mixed with the blood from another. ²⁶ I.e., burnt-offerings, guilt-offerings, and peace-offerings whose blood is dashed on the northeast and southwest corners of the altar so that it will have been presented on all four sides as described in ibid. ²⁷ The rationale for this ruling is that it is forbidden to make more than one presentation of the blood that requires only one presentation, because doing so would be a violation of the prohibition of adding to the Torah's commandments (see Zevachim ²⁸ See the notes to Halachah 10. ²⁹ See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah ³⁰ I.e., this refers to the blood that remains after the presentations on the corners of the altar were completed. This blood should be poured out at the base of the altar. ³¹ For the blood of the burnt-offering should be dashed on the wall of the altar, while the remnants of the blood of the sin-offering should be poured directly on the altar's base. It should not be poured on the altar's wall, for that would be considered as an addition to the required number of presentations.

If [blood from a sin-offering³² became mixed with the remnants of the blood of a burnt-offering]³³ 81b. and [the priest] did not inquire [concerning the law], but instead presented some of the mixture on the upper portion [of the altar] and some on the lower portion, it is acceptable.³⁴ If he presented a portion on the upper [portion of the altar] and then inquired, he should present [the remainder] on the lower portion.³⁵ He is considered to have fulfilled his obligation for both [sacrifices].

footnotes: ³² Which must be presented on the upper half of the altar. ³³ Which should be poured on the altar's base. The definition of the halachah as speaking about such a situation is taken from the gloss of Rav Yosef Corcus, based on Zevachim ³⁴ As an initial preference, he should not have presented the blood on the upper portion of the altar as stated in the previous halachah. Once he did, however, we assume that some of the blood from the sin-offering was presented there, thus the entire mixture is considered as the remainder of the blood of both a sin-offering and burnt-offering. In both instances, the remainder should be poured on the base of the altar. ³⁵ I.e., on the altar's base. Once some of the mixture was presented on the upper half of the altar, the preferred course of action is to pour the entire mixture on the altar's base.

If blood that was required to be presented in the Temple building³⁶ became mixed with blood to be presented on the outer [altar], the entire [mixture] should be poured into the [waste] channel.³⁷ If he did not inquire and took the mixture of the blood and presented some in the Temple [building] and some outside - whether first he presented it inside and then he presented it outside or first he presented it outside and then he presented it inside - everything is acceptable.³⁸ When does the above apply? With regard to the blood [of the sacrifices that must] be presented on the outer [altar] with the exception of a sin-offering. If, however, the blood of a sin-offering that should be presented outside becomes mixed with the blood of a sin-offering that should be presented inside, it is acceptable [only] if one made the presentation outside and then made the presentation inside.³⁹ If, however, one made the presentation inside and then made the presentation outside, [the sacrifice whose blood was to be presented outside] is unacceptable. [The rationale is that] the blood of a sin-offering that was brought into the Temple building - even the blood of a sin-offering brought by an individual [whose meat] should be eaten⁴⁰ notes that from the standard published text of Zevachim 82a, it would appear that the concept is more obvious with regard to an individual sin-offering than a communal sin-offering. They assume that the Rambam had a different version of the text. - becomes forbidden, as [implied by Leviticus 6:23]: "Any sin-offering whose blood has been brought [into the Tent of Meeting... shall not be eaten]."⁴¹ [The above applies] provided [the blood] is brought in through the gate to the Temple Building, for the prooftext speaks of it being "brought," implying an ordinary manner of entrance.⁴² has as its root the word ba which means "come," leading to the inference the Rambam draws. See parallels in Hilchot Bi'at HaMikdash 3:19; Hilchot Tuma'at Tzara'at 16:5. If, however, it was brought in through a wicket⁴³ 4:6 with regard to the wickets leading to the Sanctuary. or through a window or the roof, it is not disqualified.⁴⁴

footnotes: ³⁶ See Halachah 10. ³⁷ Because, as an initial preference, there is no satisfactory manner of presenting this blood. For the blood from the sacrifices that is required to be offered in the Sanctuary should not be offered on the outer altar. Conversely, the blood that is required to be offered on the outer altar should not be offered in the Sanctuary. ³⁸ For we assume that some of the blood for each sacrifice was presented in the appropriate manner. ³⁹ I.e., even after the fact, it is acceptable only in this manner. ⁴⁰ The Kessef Mishneh ⁴¹ Just as the sacrifice is forbidden to be eaten, the blood is forbidden to be presented on the altar. If, however, the blood was presented outside, the sacrifice is acceptable after the fact. The meat, however, is forbidden to be eaten. ⁴² The term huvah ⁴³ See Hilchot Beit HaBechirah ⁴⁴ For these are not the normal manner through which blood is brought into the Sanctuary.

When the blood from a bull brought [because of the violation of a law] forgotten [by the High Court] or from a goat brought [because of the violation of the prohibition against] idol worship⁴⁵ 1:16 and notes for a description of these sacrifices. which should be brought into the Sanctuary was brought to the Holy of Holies, it is disqualified. For this place is inward with regard to the appropriate place for this blood.⁴⁶ Similarly, with regard to the bull and the goat brought on Yom Kippur⁴⁷ 1:1; 4:1. whose blood is brought into the Holy of Holies, if the blood [of these offerings] was brought into the Holy of Holies and sprinkled there,⁴⁸ was then taken to the Sanctuary and afterwards, returned to the Holy of Holies, it is disqualified.⁴⁹ [The High Priest] should not complete the sprinkling [of the blood] in the Holy of Holies. Once he departs, he has departed.⁵⁰ 82b-83a) has a different understanding of the passage on which the Rambam's ruling was based and hence, objects. The Kessef Mishneh offers grounds to justify the Rambam's understanding. Similarly, if he completed the sprinklings in the Holy of Holies, then brought the blood into the Sanctuary and made some of the sprinklings [required there], then took [the blood] out of the Sanctuary and afterwards returned it, he should not complete the sprinklings in the Sanctuary. [The rationale is that] since the blood was taken out of its place, it became disqualified.⁵¹ 83a leaves this as an unresolved question, the Rambam should not rule that it is definitely disqualified. He explains that although one of the Sages considered it an unresolved issue, when the entire passage is considered, it would appear that it is not acceptable.

footnotes: ⁴⁵ See Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot ⁴⁶ I.e., just as blood that is required to be presented on the outer altar becomes disqualified if it is brought into the Sanctuary, blood that is to be presented on the inner altar, becomes disqualified when it is brought further inward, to the Holy of Holies. ⁴⁷ See Hilchot Avodat Yom HaKippurim ⁴⁸ But the required number of sprinklings were not completed. ⁴⁹ Just as the blood of an ordinary sin-offering is disqualified when taken out of the Temple Courtyard, so, too, the blood of these offerings is disqualified when taken out of the Holy of Holies before the sprinklings are completed. ⁵⁰ Even though the blood of this sacrifice will later be sprinkled in the Sanctuary as well, at the present time, the sprinklings should have been completed in the Holy of Holies. Since that was not done, taking the blood out disqualifies it.The Ra'avad (and similarly, Rashi in his commentary to Zevachim ⁵¹ The same rationale applies here as in the previous clause. Rav Yosef Corcus questions why the Rambam rules that the blood has been disqualified. Seemingly, since Zevachim

If the blood of an [ordinary] sin-offering⁵² was received in two cups and one of them was taken outside, the one that remained inside is acceptable and the sprinklings may be performed.⁵³ If, [by contrast,] one [of the cups] was taken into the Sanctuary and sprinkled there, even the one left outside is disqualified, as [implied by the prooftext] : "whose blood has been brought in," i.e., even if only a portion of its blood was brought in to the Sanctuary to bring about atonement, it is disqualified.

footnotes: ⁵² That should be offered on the outer altar. ⁵³ For as long as a portion of the blood of a sin-offering is offered in the appropriate manner, it is acceptable. Although the blood that was taken out is disqualified, it does not disqualify the blood that remains.

[The following rules apply when] the blood of an [ordinary] sin-offering was taken into [the Sanctuary] to achieve atonement, but nothing was done and instead, he took it out without sprinkling it inside. If he brought it in unknowingly, [the blood] remains acceptable and should be sprinkled outside, for nothing to achieve atonement was done in the Sanctuary.⁵⁴ If he brought it in intentionally, it is disqualified.⁵⁵ and Rav Yosef Corcus note that this ruling appears to contradict Zevachim 36a. The Kessef Mishneh concludes that although the Rambam's ruling can be reconciled with the passage, the resolution still leaves certain points that require explanation.

footnotes: ⁵⁴ Implied is that if it was sprinkled inside, even unknowingly, it is disqualified. ⁵⁵ Even if it was not sprinkled inside. The Kessef Mishneh

If the sin-offering itself was brought into the Sanctuary,⁵⁶ 92b). it is acceptable, because [the prooftext] mentions "whose blood was brought in," [i.e., it is the blood] and not the meat [that disqualifies it].

footnotes: ⁵⁶ Even after the animal was slaughtered and before its blood was received (Zevachim

When a sin-offering of a fowl moved in its death throes and entered the Sanctuary, it is acceptable.⁵⁷

footnotes: ⁵⁷ This law is mentioned because of the contrast to the law that follows. The prooftext above speaks of a sacrifice being disqualified because its blood was "brought into" the Temple Sanctuary. In this instance, the fowl was not brought in, but rather entered on its own.

If the blood of a sin-offering of a fowl was taken into the Sanctuary in its neck,⁵⁸ there is an unresolved doubt whether its neck is considered a receptacle [which would disqualify the sacrifice].⁵⁹

footnotes: ⁵⁸ I.e., the fowl was slaughtered, but the neck was held upright instead of allowing the blood to flow out into a receptacle. ⁵⁹ For when the blood of a sin-offering is brought into the Temple sanctuary in a utensil, it is disqualified, as stated in Halachah 13.

If the blood of a sin-offering of a fowl⁶⁰ was spilled⁶¹ and then collected,⁶² 7:6. The question is whether collecting the blood in a receptacle disqualifies the sacrifice or not, i.e., when the Torah stated that the blood of a sin-offering of a fowl should be presented directly on the altar was that granting permission (but not negating, presenting it from a receptacle) or stating that it must be presented in this manner (see Zevachim 92b). there is an unresolved question: Does the receptacle disqualify the blood or not? Therefore the fowl should be burnt⁶³ states that this also applies to the situation mentioned in Halachah 19. like all the sin-offerings of fowl concerning which there are unresolved doubts. ⁶⁴

footnotes: ⁶⁰ With regard to a parallel situation concerning a sin-offering of an animal, see Chapter 1, Halachah 25. ⁶¹ Unto the floor of the Temple Courtyard. ⁶² Into a receptacle. The blood of a fowl should be squeezed from the neck of the animal unto the altar directly as stated in Hilchot Ma'aseh HaKorbanot ⁶³ The Kessef Mishneh ⁶⁴ See Chapter 7, Halachah 10.

When [a priest] received the blood of a sin-offering in four cups and made one presentation [on the altar] from each cup, the remainder of all four cups is poured on the altar's base, as [Leviticus 4:30] states: "And all of its blood shall be poured [on the base of the altar]." If he made all four presentations from one cup, the remnants of that cup should be poured on the altar's base and the other cups poured in the drainage canal.⁶⁵ 57b derives this from the fact that Leviticus 4:30 states: "Its blood should be poured on the altar's base," implying that there are times when all of its blood is not poured there.

footnotes: ⁶⁵ Since they were set aside as separate entities, but blood was not presented on the altar from them, they are not considered as the remnants of the blood presented and hence should not be poured on the altar's base. Yoma

When blood falls into water or into ordinary blood,⁶⁶ it should not be sprinkled on the altar. If it was sprinkled, it is disqualified.⁶⁷ 77b). When water fell into blood in a receptacle, if it has the appearance of blood, it is acceptable. If wine or ordinary blood fell into it, we make an assessment [as follows]: Were it to have been water would there have been enough to nullify the blood in the receptacle to the extent that it would no longer have the appearance of blood, he should not sprinkle from [the mixture]. If there would not have been enough to nullify its appearance, he should sprinkle from it.⁶⁸ 14:6; Hilchot Metamei Mishkav UMoshav 2:6.

footnotes: ⁶⁶ I.e., blood from an animal that was not offered as a sacrifice. ⁶⁷ This applies even if it has the appearance of blood. For every drop of blood that falls into the mixture is nullified as it falls in. Thus it is considered as if there is never a majority of blood (Zevachim ⁶⁸ See parallels to the above in Hilchot Shechitah

When the blood of sacrificial animals becomes mixed with the blood of animals that are disqualified from the altar or with the blood of sacrificial animals that were disqualified because of unsatisfactory ritual slaughter, the entire mixture should be poured into the drainage canal.⁶⁹). Even if all the cups [of blood] were offered aside from one, it should be poured into the drainage canal and all of those offerings are unacceptable. If the [life-]blood [of a sacrificial animal] became mixed with blood concentrated [in the limbs],⁷⁰). [the mixture] should be poured into the drainage canal.⁷¹). If, [however,] one did not ask and presented [the blood on the altar], [the sacrifice] is acceptable.

footnotes: ⁶⁹ In contrast to the instances mentioned in the previous halachah, in this instance even if the amount of the unacceptable blood is not sufficient to nullify the acceptable blood, the sacrifice is disqualified. Among the explanations given for the distinction is that the previous halachah describes mixtures that were made with ordinary blood and it is uncommon for ordinary blood to be found in the Temple Courtyard. Hence there was no need for a Rabbinic decree to serve as a safeguard. This halachah, by contrast, speaks of mixtures that could frequently occur in the Temple. Hence lest the mixture also be permitted even when the unacceptable blood could nullify the ordinary blood, our Sages were strict and disqualified all mixtures (Kessef Mishneh ⁷⁰ Blood that flows slowly after the majority of the animal's blood has already been discharged. See the Rambam's Commentary to the Mishnah (loc. cit. ⁷¹ Here also, our Rabbis saw the need for a safeguard, because this is a common situation (Kessef Mishneh

If one cast the organs and fats offered on the altar, the limbs of burnt-offerings, the handfuls [of meal offered on the altar], the frankincense, or the meal-offerings that are to be burnt on the [altar's] pyre after they were consecrated in a sacred utensil, whether by hand⁷² or with a utensil, whether with one's right hand or with one's left hand, they are acceptable.

footnotes: ⁷² Rav Yosef Corcus notes that the Rambam's ruling here directly contradicts his ruling in Chapter 11, Halachah 6, which states that a handful of meal that is presented on the altar by hand is disqualified. He states that although the Rambam's ruling can be resolved with difficulty, the explanations appear forced.

When wine or water was poured [on the altar as a libation] with a bowl, the hin measure,⁷³ 1:17-18. or another sacred utensil, it is acceptable. If they were poured with an ordinary vessel or by hand, they are unacceptable.

footnotes: ⁷³ This was one of the measures that were used in the Temple, as stated in Hilchot K'lei HaMikdash

When one arranged the limbs [of a burnt-offering] or the handful [of meal from a meal-offering] and then arranged the logs for the altar's pyre above them⁷⁴ or arranged them at the side of the limbs, there is an unresolved doubt whether this is considered as the typical way of having them consumed by fire or not.⁷⁵ Therefore as an initial preference, one should not offer them in this manner, but if one did, it is acceptable.

footnotes: ⁷⁴ Instead of placing them above the logs. ⁷⁵ More precisely, it is obviously not the ordinary way of offering these substances. The question is whether the departure from the norm is great enough to disqualify them or not.