Zevachim 103

מתני׳ כל שלא זכה המזבח בבשרה לא זכו כהנים בעורה שנאמר עלת איש עולה שעלתה לאיש

MISHNA: In the case of any burnt offering for which the altar did not acquire its flesh, e.g., if it was disqualified prior to the sprinkling of its blood, the priests did not acquire its hide, as it is stated with regard to the burnt offering: “And the priest that sacrifices a man’s burnt offering, the priest shall have to himself the hide of the burnt offering that he has sacrificed” (Leviticus 7:8), indicating that the priest acquires only the hide of a burnt offering that satisfied the obligation of a man.

עולה שנשחטה שלא לשמה אף על פי שלא עלתה לבעלים עורה לכהנים אחד עולת האיש ואחד עולת האשה עורותיהן לכהנים

Nevertheless, in a case of a burnt offering that was slaughtered not for its sake but for the sake of another offering, although it did not satisfy the obligation of the owner, its hide goes to the priests. In addition, although the verse states: “A man’s burnt offering,” in the case of both the burnt offering of a man and the burnt offering of a woman, their hides go to the priests.

עורות קדשים קלים לבעלים עורות קדשי קדשים לכהנים קל וחומר ומה אם עולה שלא זכו בבשרה זכו בעורה קדשי קדשים שזכו בבשרה אינו דין שיזכו בעורה אין מזבח יוכיח שאין לו עור בכל מקום

The hides of offerings of lesser sanctity belong to the owners; the hides of offerings of the most sacred order belong to the priests. The right of priests to hides of offerings of the most sacred order is derived via an a fortiori inference: If for a burnt offering, for which the priests do not acquire its flesh, as it is burned in its entirety, they acquire its hide, then for other offerings of the most sacred order, for which the priests acquire its flesh, is it not right that they should acquire its hide? And there is no room to contend that the altar will prove that this is not a valid inference, as it acquires the flesh of a burnt offering but not its hide, since it does not have the right to the hide of an offering in any place.

גמ׳ תנו רבנן עלת איש פרט לעולת הקדש דברי רבי יהודה רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר פרט לעולת גרים

GEMARA: The Sages taught in a baraita: The phrase “a man’s burnt offering” in the verse mentioned above serves to exclude the burnt offering of consecrated property, meaning that the priests do not acquire the hides of such offerings. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: The phrase serves to exclude the burnt offering of converts.

מאי פרט לעולת הקדש אמר רבי חייא בר יוסף פרט לעולה הבאה מן המותרות

The Gemara clarifies: What does Rabbi Yehuda mean when he says that the phrase serves to exclude the burnt offering of consecrated property? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef says: He means it serves to exclude a burnt offering that comes from property that was left over. For example, if an animal consecrated as a guilt offering remains alive after its owner has achieved atonement by sacrificing another animal, the owner must wait until it acquires a blemish and then sell it. The proceeds are used to purchase a communal gift offering, which is sacrificed when there are no other offerings to be burned on the altar (see Temura 20b). Because it is a communal offering, it is not considered a man’s burnt offering, and the priests therefore have no right to the hide.

הניחא למאן דאמר מותרות לנדבת ציבור אזלי אלא למאן דאמר מותרות לנדבת יחיד אזלי מאי איכא למימר

The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says: Leftover consecrated property goes toward communal gift offerings. But according to the one who says: Leftover consecrated property goes toward an individual’s gift offering, what can be said? As this is a man’s burnt offering, the priests should have a right to the hides.

כדאמר רבא העלה עולה ראשונה הכא נמי העלה עולה ראשונה

The Gemara answers: According to that opinion, the halakha is as Rava says: The verse states: “And the priest shall kindle wood on it every morning; and he shall lay the burnt offering in order upon it” (Leviticus 6:5). The verse states: “The burnt offering,” with the definite article, to teach that the daily burnt offering is the first burnt offering sacrificed each day in the Temple. Here too, the verse states: “The priest shall have to himself the hide of the burnt offering which he has offered,” to teach that the priest acquires the hide of a first burnt offering, i.e., an animal that was initially designated as a burnt offering, but not of a burnt offering purchased from proceeds left over from another offering.

רבי אייבו אמר רבי ינאי פרט למתפיס עולה לבדק הבית

Rabbi Aivu says that Rabbi Yannai says: Rabbi Yehuda’s statement can be interpreted differently. The phrase “a man’s burnt offering” serves to exclude a case of one who consecrates a burnt offering for Temple maintenance. Since the owner seeks to shift its ownership to the Temple, the priests have no right to its hides.

לא מיבעיא למאן דאמר קדשי בדק הבית תפסי מדאורייתא אלא אפילו למאן דאמר לא תפסי הני מילי בשר אבל עור תפיס

The Gemara comments: It is not necessary to teach this halakha according to the one who says that consecration for Temple maintenance applies by Torah law to offerings already consecrated to the altar, as the animal in fact ceases to belong to the individual, and the priests clearly have no claim to its hide. Rather, even according to the one who says that it does not apply by Torah law, because the offering is already consecrated for the altar, this matter applies only to the meat; but as for the hide, the consecration for Temple maintenance applies and nullifies the priests’ claim to it.

וכן אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה פרט לעולה הבאה מן המותרות

The Gemara returns to the explanation of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef and comments: And so says Rav Naḥman that Rabba bar Avuh says: The phrase “a man’s burnt offering” serves to exclude a burnt offering that comes from property that was left over.

אמר ליה רב המנונא לרב נחמן כמאן כרבי יהודה הא הדר ביה דתניא ששה לנדבה לעולה הבאה מן המותרות שלא יהו כהנים זכאין בעורה דברי רבי יהודה

Rav Hamnuna said to Rav Naḥman: In accordance with whose statement is your opinion? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. But didn’t Rabbi Yehuda retract this statement? As it is taught in a baraita: The mishna in tractate Shekalim (6:5) states that the Temple had six collection boxes shaped like horns, for communal gift offerings. These funds would go toward burnt offerings that come from money that was left over. For example, if someone dedicated money to purchasing an offering, and after his purchase some of the sum remained, he would put it in these boxes. The halakha is that the priests have no right to the hide of such an offering. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

אמר לו רבי נחמיה ואמרי לה רבי שמעון אם כן ביטלת מדרשו של יהוידע הכהן דתניא זה מדרש דרש יהוידע הכהן אשם הוא אשם אשם לה׳ כל שבא משום חטאת ומשום אשם ילקח בו עולות הבשר לשם עורה לכהנים

Rabbi Neḥemya said to Rabbi Yehuda, and some say that Rabbi Shimon said to him: If so, you have nullified the interpretation of Jehoiada the priest. As it is taught in a mishna (Shekalim 6:6) that Jehoiada the priest taught this interpretation: The verse states: “It is a guilt offering; he is certainly guilty before the Lord” (Leviticus 5:19). The phrase “before the Lord” teaches that if any money comes on account of a sin offering or on account of a guilt offering, i.e., it is left over after their purchase, burnt offerings must be purchased with it, and their flesh must be burned on the altar to the Lord. But its hide shall go to the priests. Rabbi Yehuda did not respond, indicating that he conceded that the hides of such offerings go to the priests.

אמר ליה אלא מר במאי מוקים לה אמר ליה מוקמינא ליה במקדיש נכסיו

Rav Naḥman said to Rav Hamnuna: But how does the Master interpret the phrase: “A man’s burnt offering,” as meaning? Rav Hamnuna said to him: I interpret it as referring to one who consecrates all his property, including animals fit for burnt offerings. If these animals are later sacrificed as burnt offerings, the priests do not acquire the hides, since the offerings are consecrated property.

וכדרבי יהושע דתנן המקדיש נכסיו והיו בהן בהמות הראויות לגבי מזבח זכרים ונקבות רבי אליעזר אומר זכרים ימכרו לצורכי עולות נקבות ימכרו לצורכי זבחי שלמים ודמיהן יפלו עם שאר נכסים לבדק הבית

And this is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, as we learned in a mishna (Shekalim 4:7): If one consecrates his property without specifying the purpose, generally speaking, it goes toward Temple maintenance. But if among it were animals fit to be sacrificed on the altar, either male or female, then Rabbi Eliezer says: Animals that are fit for offerings must be sacrificed. Therefore, the male animals shall be sold for the purpose of burnt offerings to those who need to bring such offerings, and the female animals, which cannot be brought as burnt offerings, shall be sold for the purpose of peace offerings to those who need to bring such offerings. And because they were consecrated for Temple maintenance, their proceeds shall be allocated with the rest of the person’s property for Temple maintenance.

רבי יהושע אומר זכרים עצמם יקרבו עולות ונקבות ימכרו לצורכי שלמים ויביא בדמיהן עולות ושאר נכסים יפלו לבדק הבית

Rabbi Yehoshua says: The donor intended that all animals fit for sacrifice be brought as burnt offerings, and the rest of his property be given for Temple maintenance. Therefore, the males shall be sacrificed themselves as burnt offerings; and the females shall be sold for the purpose of being sacrificed as peace offerings, and he shall bring burnt offerings with their proceeds; and the rest of his property shall be allocated for Temple maintenance.

ואפילו לרבי יהושע דאמר אדם חולק הקדישו הני מילי בשר אבל עור תפיס

Rav Hamnuna explains: And even according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, who says that a person divides his consecrated property, as he rules that the animals are themselves sacrificed while the other property is given for Temple maintenance, this statement applies specifically to the flesh, which is fit to be burned on the altar; but as for the hide, which is not, the fund for Temple maintenance acquires it from the outset, and the priests therefore have no right to it. This is the halakha that Rabbi Yehuda derives from the phrase “a man’s burnt offering.”

רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר פרט לעולת גרים אמר ליה רב סימאי בר חילקאי לרבינא אטו גר לאו איש הוא אמר ליה פרט לגר שמת ואין לו יורשים

The baraita states: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: The phrase “a man’s burnt offering” serves to exclude the burnt offering of converts. The priests do not acquire the hides of such offerings. Rav Simai bar Ḥilkai said to Ravina: Is that to say that a convert is not included in the category of a man? Ravina said to him: Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, meant that the verse serves to exclude the burnt offering of a convert who died and has no heirs. The offering has no owner, and therefore the priests do not acquire its hide.

תנו רבנן עלת איש אין לי אלא עולת איש עולת גרים נשים ועבדים מנין תלמוד לומר עור העלה ריבה

§ The Sages taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And the priest that offers a man’s burnt offering, the priest shall have to himself the hide of the burnt offering that he has sacrificed” (Leviticus 7:8). From this verse I have derived the halakha only with regard to a man’s burnt offering, i.e., that of a born-Jewish male. From where is the same derived with regard to the burnt offering of converts, women, or Canaanite slaves? The verse states: “The hide of the burnt offering,” and it thereby included these as well.

ואם כן מה תלמוד לומר עלת איש עולה שעלתה לאיש פרט לשנשחטה חוץ לזמנה וחוץ למקומה שלא יהו הכהנים זכאין בעורה

And if so, why must the verse state: “A man’s burnt offering”? It serves to teach that the priests acquire the hide only of a burnt offering that satisfied the obligation of a man, i.e., to exclude a burnt offering that was slaughtered with the intention of consuming it beyond its designated time or outside its designated area and was thereby disqualified. The verse teaches that the priests have no right to the hide of such an offering.

יכול שאני מרבה שנשחטה שלא לשמה הואיל ולא עלתה לבעלים

One might have thought that I include a burnt offering that was not slaughtered for its own sake but for the sake of another offering. Since it does not satisfy the obligation of the owner,

לא יהו כהנים זכאין בעורה תלמוד לומר עור העלה מכל מקום

I might have thought that the priests have no right to its hide. Therefore, the verse states: “The hide of the burnt offering,” to teach that in any case where the offering is not disqualified, the priests acquire its hide, even if it did not satisfy the owner’s obligation.

עור העלה אין לי אלא עור העולה עורות קדשי קדשים מנין תלמוד לומר עור העלה אשר הקריב יכול שאני מרבה אף קדשים קלים תלמוד לומר עלה מה עולה קדשי קדשים אף כל קדשי קדשים

And from the phrase “the hide of the burnt offering” I have derived only that the priests acquire the hide of the burnt offering. From where do I derive that they acquire the hides of all offerings of the most sacred order? The verse states: “The hide of the burnt offering which he has offered,” which serves to include any offering that the priests sacrifice. If so, one might have thought that I include even offerings of lesser sanctity. Therefore, the verse states: “Burnt offering,” and not simply: Offering, to teach that just as a burnt offering is an offering of the most sacred order, so too the priests acquire the hides only of all offerings of the most sacred order; they do not acquire the hides of offerings of lesser sanctity.

רבי ישמעאל אומר עור העלה אין לי אלא העולה עורות קדשי קדשים מנין ודין הוא ומה עולה שלא זכו בבשרה זכו בעורה קדשי קדשים שזכו בבשרן אינו דין שזכו בעורן

The baraita continues: Rabbi Yishmael says there is a different derivation. From the phrase “the hide of the burnt offering,” I have derived only that the priests acquire the hide of the burnt offering. From where is it derived that they acquire the hides of all offerings of the most sacred order? It is based on a logical inference: Just as in the case of a burnt offering, for which the priests do not acquire its meat, the priests nevertheless acquire its hide, then in the case of offerings of the most sacred order, for which the priests do acquire its meat, is it not logical that they acquire their hides?

מזבח יוכיח שזכה בבשר ולא זכה בעור מה למזבח שכן לא זכה במקצת תאמר בכהנים שזכו במקצת הואיל וזכו במקצת זכו בכוליה

One may counter: Let the altar prove that this is not a valid a fortiori inference, as it acquires the meat, and still it does not acquire the hide. One may respond: What is notable about the altar? It is notable in that it does not acquire hides in any instance. Will you say the halakha concerning the altar should teach the halakha concerning the priests, who acquire hides of some of the offerings, as the Torah explicitly grants them the hides of burnt offerings? Rather say: Since the priests acquire hides of some of the offerings, they acquire the hides of all offerings of the most sacred order.

רבי אומר כל עצמו לא הוצרכנו אלא לעור העולה בלבד שבכל מקום העור מהלך אחר הבשר

Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: There is no need to derive that hides of offerings of the most sacred order go to the priests. We need the verse itself only to teach that this is the halakha with regard to the hide of the burnt offering. As the Torah does not generally require that an offering be flayed, in all other cases the hide of the offering follows the flesh of the offering.

פרים הנשרפין ושעירים הנשרפין הן ועורותיהן [נשרפין] עמהן חטאת ואשם וזבחי שלמי ציבור מתנה לכהן רצו מפשיטין אותן לא רצו אוכלין אותן על גבי עורן קדשים קלים לבעלים רצו מפשיטין אותן רצו אוכלין אותן על גב עורן

For example, bulls that are burned and goats that are burned must be burned themselves, and their hides burned with them, as the Torah states explicitly (see Leviticus 4:11–12). A sin offering, and a guilt offering, and a communal peace offering are given as a gift to the priest (see Leviticus 7:7); if the priests want, they may flay them and use the hides, and if they do not want to use the hides, they may eat the offerings together with their hides. Offerings of lesser sanctity are given to the owners; if they want, they may flay them and use the hides, and if they want, they may eat the offerings together with their hides.

אבל עולה נאמר בה והפשיט את העלה ונתח אתה לנתחיה יכול לא יהו הכהנים זכאין בעורה תלמוד לומר עור העלה אשר הקריב

But with regard to a burnt offering it is stated: “And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into its pieces” (Leviticus 1:6). One might have thought that, because all the flesh of the burnt offering is burned on the altar, the priests have no right to its hide. Therefore, the verse states: “The priest shall have to himself the hide of the burnt offering that he has sacrificed” (Leviticus 7:8).

לו יהיה פרט לטבול יום ומחוסר כיפורים ואונן שיכול לא יזכו בבשר שהוא לאכילה יזכו בעור שאינו לאכילה תלמוד לומר לו יהיה פרט למחוסר כיפורים וטבול יום ואונן

The phrase “the priest shall have to himself” serves to exclude a priest who immersed that day and a priest who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and an acute mourner, i.e., meaning that they do not receive a share of the hides, just as they do not receive a share of the meat. As one might have thought that although these priests will not acquire the meat, this is because it is for consumption, and they are not permitted to partake of it; but they will acquire the hide, because it is not for consumption. Therefore, the verse states: “Shall have to himself,” to exclude a priest who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and a priest who immersed that day, and an acute mourner.

ותנא קמא נמי תיפוק לי מדינא מילתא דאתיא בקל וחומר טרח וכתב לה קרא

The Gemara asks: But let the first tanna also derive the halakha logically, as Rabbi Yishmael did. Why did he cite a verse? The Gemara answers: Often when there is a matter that can be derived through an a fortiori inference, the verse nevertheless takes the trouble and writes it explicitly.

ורבי ישמעאל האי אשר הקריב מאי עביד ליה פרט לטבול יום ומחוסר כיפורים ואונן

And as for Rabbi Yishmael, what does he do with this phrase: “The hide of the burnt offering that he has sacrificed,” from which the first tanna derives the halakha? He holds that it serves to exclude a priest who immersed that day, and a priest who has not yet brought an atonement offering, and an acute mourner, who do not receive a share in the hides.

ותיפוק ליה מלו יהיה רבי ישמעאל לטעמיה דאמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי ישמעאל נאמר בעולה לו יהיה ונאמר באשם לו יהיה מה להלן עצמותיו מותרין אף כאן עצמותיו מותרין

The Gemara challenges: But let Rabbi Yishmael derive this halakha from the phrase: “Shall have to himself,” as does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yishmael conforms to his line of reasoning, that the phrase teaches a different halakha. As Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: It is stated: “Shall have to himself” (Leviticus 7:8), with regard to a burnt offering, and it is stated: “The priest that makes atonement, he shall have to himself” (Leviticus 7:7), with regard to a guilt offering. The following verbal analogy is derived from here: Just as there, after the blood of a guilt offering is presented, its bones become permitted to the priest for any use, since only the portions intended for consumption on the altar are sacrificed whereas the rest of the animal is given to the priests, so too here, with regard to a burnt offering, its bones that are not attached to the flesh and are therefore not intended for the altar are permitted.

מופני דאי לא מופני איכא למיפרך מה לאשם שכן בשרו מותר לו יהיה קרא יתירא הוא

With regard to this verbal analogy the Gemara comments: It must be that those terms are free, i.e., superfluous in their context and therefore available for the purpose of establishing a verbal analogy. As, if they are not free, the verbal analogy can be refuted as follows: What is notable about a guilt offering? It is notable in that its meat is permitted to the priests, unlike the flesh of a burnt offering, which is burned upon the altar, and perhaps this is why the bones of a guilt offering are also permitted. Since the phrase: “Shall have it to himself,” is a superfluous term in each verse, the analogy stands, because a verbal analogy based on free terms cannot be refuted logically.

מתני׳ כל הקדשים שאירע בהן פסול קודם להפשיטן אין עורותיהן לכהנים לאחר הפשיטן עורותיהן לכהנים אמר רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים מימי לא ראיתי עור שיוצא לבית השריפה

MISHNA: If any offerings of the most sacred order were disqualified prior to their flaying, their hides do not go to the priests; rather, they are burned together with the flesh in the place of burning. If they were disqualified after their flaying, their hides go to the priests. Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, said: In all my days, I never saw a hide going out to the place of burning.

אמר רבי עקיבא מדבריו למדנו שהמפשיט את הבכור ונמצא טריפה שיאותו הכהנים בעורו וחכמים אומרים אין לא ראינו ראיה אלא יצא לבית השריפה

Rabbi Akiva said: From the statement of Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, we learned that in a case where one flays the firstborn offering, and the animal is later discovered to have a wound that would have caused it to die within twelve months [tereifa], the halakha is that the priests may derive benefit [sheye’otu] from its hide. And the Rabbis say: The claim: We did not see, is no proof; rather, if after flaying it is discovered that the animal was unfit before it was flayed, the hide goes out to the place of burning.

גמ׳ כל שלא זכה המזבח בבשרה לא זכו הכהנים בעורה ואף על גב דאפשטיה לעור קודם זריקה מני רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון היא דאמר אין הדם מרצה על העור בפני עצמו

GEMARA: The previous mishna (103a) teaches: In the case of any burnt offering for which the altar did not acquire its flesh, e.g., if it was disqualified prior to the sprinkling of its blood, the priests did not acquire its hide. The mishna does not state any qualification, indicating that this is the halakha even if the priest flayed the hide before the sprinkling of the blood on the altar. The Gemara posits: Whose opinion is this? It is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says: The blood does not effect acceptance of the hide by itself; i.e., it effects acceptance of the hide only together with the flesh. Since the flesh is disqualified and the sprinkling does not effect its acceptance, the sprinkling does not effect acceptance for the hide either.

אימא סיפא כל הקדשים שאירע בהן פסול קודם הפשיטן אין עורותיהן לכהנים לאחר הפשיטן עורותיהן לכהנים אתאן לרבי דאמר הדם מרצה על העור בפני עצמו רישא רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון סיפא רבי

The Gemara challenges: Say the latter clause, i.e., the mishna here: If any offerings of the most sacred order were disqualified prior to their flaying, their hides do not go to the priests. If they were disqualified after their flaying, their hides go to the priests. This indicates that once the hides are flayed, they go to the priests even if the flesh was disqualified before the sprinkling of the blood. If so, we arrive at the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who says: The blood effects acceptance of the hide, i.e., renders the hide permitted to the priests, by itself. Can it be that the former clause of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, and the latter clause is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi?

אמר אביי מדסיפא רבי היא רישא נמי רבי היא ומודה רבי שאין הפשט קודם זריקה

Abaye said: Since the latter clause is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, it must be that the former clause is also the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And although Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that in principle the priests should acquire the hides if they are removed before the flesh is disqualified, in any case Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi concedes that the flaying is not done before the sprinkling. Since the offering cannot be disqualified before the hide is removed, practically speaking, the priests will never acquire the hides unless the altar acquires the flesh, as taught in the former clause.

רבא אמר מדרישא רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון סיפא נמי רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון מאי קודם הפשט

Rava said: On the contrary, since the former clause is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, it must be that the latter clause is also the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon. When the mishna states that the priests acquire the hides if the flesh was disqualified after the flaying, it must mean that the flesh was disqualified after the sprinkling. Therefore, what does the mishna mean by the phrase: Before flaying,