זבחים קג

זבחים קג

מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל שֶׁלֹּא זָכָה הַמִּזְבֵּחַ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ – לֹא זָכוּ כֹּהֲנִים בְּעוֹרָהּ; שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עֹלַת אִישׁ״ – עוֹלָה שֶׁעָלְתָה לָאִישׁ.

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.

עוֹלָה שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים, עוֹרָהּ לַכֹּהֲנִים. אֶחָד עוֹלַת הָאִישׁ וְאֶחָד עוֹלַת הָאִשָּׁה, עוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן לְכֹהֲנִים.

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.

עוֹרוֹת קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לִבְעָלִים, עוֹרוֹת קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים לְכֹהֲנִים. קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה אִם עוֹלָה, שֶׁלֹּא זָכוּ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ – זָכוּ בְּעוֹרָהּ; קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, שֶׁזָּכוּ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּזְכּוּ בְּעוֹרָהּ?! אֵין מִזְבֵּחַ יוֹכִיחַ – שֶׁאֵין לוֹ עוֹר בְּכׇל מָקוֹם.

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.

גְּמָ׳ תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עֹלַת אִישׁ״ – פְּרָט לְעוֹלַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: פְּרָט לְעוֹלַת גֵּרִים.

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.

מַאי פְּרָט לְעוֹלַת הֶקְדֵּשׁ? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף: פְּרָט לְעוֹלָה הֲבָאָה מִן הַמּוֹתָרוֹת.

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.

הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: מוֹתָרוֹת לְנִדְבַת צִיבּוּר אָזְלִי; אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: מוֹתָרוֹת לְנִדְבַת יָחִיד אָזְלִי – מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר?

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.

כִּדְאָמַר רָבָא: ״הָעֹלָה״ – עוֹלָה רִאשׁוֹנָה; הָכָא נָמֵי, ״הָעֹלָה״ – עוֹלָה רִאשׁוֹנָה.

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.

רַבִּי אַיְיבוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: פְּרָט לְמַתְפִּיס עוֹלָה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת.

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.

לָא מִיבַּעְיָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת תָּפְסִי מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא; אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לָא תָּפְסִי – הָנֵי מִילֵּי בָּשָׂר, אֲבָל עוֹר תָּפֵיס.

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.

וְכֵן אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: פְּרָט לְעוֹלָה הֲבָאָה מִן הַמּוֹתָרוֹת.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הַמְנוּנָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: כְּמַאן, כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה?! הָא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ! דְּתַנְיָא: שִׁשָּׁה לִנְדָבָה – לְעוֹלָה הֲבָאָה מִן הַמּוֹתָרוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ כֹּהֲנִים זַכָּאִין בְּעוֹרָהּ. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

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.

אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אִם כֵּן, בִּיטַּלְתָּ מִדְרָשׁוֹ שֶׁל יְהוֹיָדָע הַכֹּהֵן! דְּתַנְיָא, זֶה מִדְרָשׁ דָּרַשׁ יְהוֹיָדָע הַכֹּהֵן: ״אָשָׁם הוּא אָשֹׁם אָשַׁם לַה׳״ – כׇּל שֶׁבָּא מִשּׁוּם חַטָּאת וּמִשּׁוּם אָשָׁם, יִלָּקַח בּוֹ עוֹלוֹת; הַבָּשָׂר לַשֵּׁם, עוֹרָהּ לַכֹּהֲנִים.

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.

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֶלָּא מָר בְּמַאי מוֹקֵים לַהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוֹקֵמְינָא לֵיהּ בְּמַקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו.

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.

וְכִדְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ; דִּתְנַן: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו וְהָיוּ בָּהֶן בְּהֵמוֹת הָרְאוּיוֹת לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: זְכָרִים יִמָּכְרוּ לְצוֹרְכֵי עוֹלוֹת, נְקֵבוֹת יִמָּכְרוּ לְצוֹרְכֵי זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים, וּדְמֵיהֶן יִפְּלוּ עִם שְׁאָר נְכָסִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת.

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.

רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: זְכָרִים עַצְמָם יִקָּרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת, וּנְקֵבוֹת יִמָּכְרוּ לְצוֹרְכֵי שְׁלָמִים וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶן עוֹלוֹת, וּשְׁאָר נְכָסִים יִפְּלוּ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת.

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.

וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּאָמַר אָדָם חוֹלֵק הֶקְדֵּישׁוֹ – הָנֵי מִילֵּי בָּשָׂר, אֲבָל עוֹר תָּפֵיס.

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.”

רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: פְּרָט לְעוֹלַת גָּרֵים. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב סִימַאי בַּר חִילְקַאי לְרָבִינָא: אַטּוּ גֵּר לָאו אִישׁ הוּא?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פְּרָט לְגֵר שֶׁמֵּת וְאֵין לוֹ יוֹרְשִׁים.

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.

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עֹלַת אִישׁ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עוֹלַת אִישׁ; עוֹלַת גֵּרִים נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עוֹר הָעֹלָה״ – רִיבָּה.

§ 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.

וְאִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עֹלַת אִישׁ״? עוֹלָה שֶׁעָלְתָה לְאִישׁ; פְּרָט לְשֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה חוּץ לִזְמַנָּהּ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמָהּ, שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים זַכָּאִין בְּעוֹרָהּ.

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.

יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ – הוֹאִיל וְלֹא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים,

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,

לֹא יְהוּ כֹּהֲנִים זַכָּאִין בְּעוֹרָהּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עוֹר הָעֹלָה״ מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

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.

״עוֹר הָעֹלָה״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עוֹר הָעוֹלָה, עוֹרוֹת קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עוֹר הָעֹלָה אֲשֶׁר הִקְרִיב״. יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אַף קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עֹלָה״ – מָה עוֹלָה קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, אַף כֹּל קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים.

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.

רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: ״עוֹר הָעֹלָה״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הָעוֹלָה, עוֹרוֹת קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים מִנַּיִן? וְדִין הוּא: וּמָה עוֹלָה, שֶׁלֹּא זָכוּ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ – זָכוּ בְּעוֹרָהּ; קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, שֶׁזָּכוּ בִּבְשָׂרָן – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁזָּכוּ בְּעוֹרָן?!

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?

מִזְבֵּחַ יוֹכִיחַ – שֶׁזָּכָה בְּבָשָׂר וְלֹא זָכָה בְּעוֹר! מָה לְמִזְבֵּחַ – שֶׁכֵּן לֹא זָכָה בְּמִקְצָת; תֹּאמַר בַּכֹּהֲנִים – שֶׁזָּכוּ בְּמִקְצָת?! הוֹאִיל וְזָכוּ בְּמִקְצָת, זָכוּ בְּכוּלֵּיהּ.

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.

רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: כׇּל עַצְמוֹ לֹא הוּצְרַכְנוּ אֶלָּא לְעוֹר הָעוֹלָה בִּלְבַד. שֶׁבְּכׇל מָקוֹם הָעוֹר מְהַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַבָּשָׂר.

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.

פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין – הֵן וְעוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן נִשְׂרָפִין עִמָּהֶן. חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם וְזִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִיבּוּר – מַתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן; רָצוּ – מַפְשִׁיטִין אוֹתָן, לֹא רָצוּ – אוֹכְלִין אוֹתָן עַל גַּבֵּי עוֹרָן. קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים – לַבְּעָלִים; רָצוּ – מַפְשִׁיטִין אוֹתָן, רָצוּ – אוֹכְלִין אוֹתָן עַל גַּב עוֹרָן.

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.

אֲבָל עוֹלָה נֶאֱמַר בָהּ: ״וְהִפְשִׁיט אֶת הָעֹלָה וְנִתַּח אֹתָהּ לִנְתָחֶיהָ״. יָכוֹל לֹא יְהוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים זַכָּאִין בְּעוֹרָהּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עוֹר הָעֹלָה אֲשֶׁר הִקְרִיב״.

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).

״לוֹ יִהְיֶה״ – פְּרָט לִטְבוּל יוֹם וּמְחוּסַּר כִּיפּוּרִים וְאוֹנֵן. שֶׁיָּכוֹל לֹא יִזְכּוּ בְּבָשָׂר – שֶׁהוּא לַאֲכִילָה, יִזְכּוּ בְּעוֹר – שֶׁאֵינוֹ לַאֲכִילָה; תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לוֹ יִהְיֶה״ – פְּרָט לִמְחוּסַּר כִּיפּוּרִים וּטְבוּל יוֹם וְאוֹנֵן.

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.

וְתַנָּא קַמָּא נָמֵי תִּיפּוֹק לִי מִדִּינָא! מִילְּתָא דְּאָתְיָא בְּקַל וְחוֹמֶר, טָרַח וְכָתַב לַהּ קְרָא.

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.

וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, הַאי ״אֲשֶׁר הִקְרִיב״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? פְּרָט לִטְבוּל יוֹם וּמְחוּסַּר כִּיפּוּרִים וְאוֹנֵן.

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.

וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִ״לוֹ יִהְיֶה״! רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: נֶאֱמַר בְּעוֹלֶה ״לוֹ יִהְיֶה״, וְנֶאֱמַר בְּאָשַׁם ״לוֹ יִהְיֶה״; מָה לְהַלָּן עַצְמוֹתָיו מוּתָּרִין, אַף כָּאן עַצְמוֹתָיו מוּתָּרִין.

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.

מוּפְנֵי; דְּאִי לָא מוּפְנֵי, אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְאָשָׁם שֶׁכֵּן בְּשָׂרוֹ מוּתָּר לוֹ; ״יִהְיֶה״ – קְרָא יַתִּירָא הוּא.

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.

מַתְנִי׳ כׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל קוֹדֶם לְהֶפְשֵׁיטָן – אֵין עוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן לַכֹּהֲנִים. לְאַחַר הֶפְשֵׁיטָן – עוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן לְכֹהֲנִים. אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים: מִיָּמַי לֹא רָאִיתִי עוֹר שֶׁיּוֹצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה.

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.

אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מִדְּבָרָיו לָמַדְנוּ, שֶׁהַמַּפְשִׁיט אֶת הַבְּכוֹר וְנִמְצָא טְרֵיפָה – שֶׁיֵּאוֹתוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּעוֹרוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אִין ״לֹא רָאִינוּ״ רְאָיָה, אֶלָּא יֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה.

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.

גְּמָ׳ כׇּל שֶׁלֹּא זָכָה הַמִּזְבֵּחַ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ – לֹא זָכוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּעוֹרָהּ, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּאַפְּשָׁטֵיהּ לְעוֹר קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה. מַנִּי? רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין הַדָּם מְרַצֶּה עַל הָעוֹר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ.

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.

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: כׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל קוֹדֶם הֶפְשֵׁיטָן – אֵין עוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן לְכֹהֲנִים. לְאַחַר הֶפְשֵׁיטָן – עוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן לְכֹהֲנִים. אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי, דְּאָמַר: ״הַדָּם מְרַצֶּה עַל הָעוֹר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ״. רֵישָׁא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, סֵיפָא רַבִּי?!

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?

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִדְּסֵיפָא רַבִּי הִיא, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי רַבִּי הִיא; וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי שֶׁאֵין הֶפְשֵׁט קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה.

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.

רָבָא אָמַר: מִדְּרֵישָׁא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, סֵיפָא נָמֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן; מַאי קוֹדֶם הֶפְשֵׁט

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,