Zevachim 103a — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

1.

Every

burnt offering

whose flesh did not merit the altar,

such as when a disqualification occurred in it before the sprinkling of the blood, and therefore the flesh of the burnt offering did not have an “occasion of permission” for the altar [for as long as the blood has not been sprinkled, the limbs of the burnt offering are not burned on the altar],

the priests did not merit its hide

of this burnt offering.

According to

what is stated [Leviticus 7]: “And the priest who offers the

burnt offering of a man,

the hide of the burnt offering that he offered shall belong to the priest;

to him it shall belong.” And we expound: only an

“offering”

such as this

that ascended

on the altar

for a man,

for the sake of the man who brought it, its hide shall belong to the priest who offers it. Excluded is a burnt offering that became disqualified, since it did not ascend for the man who brought it; the priests did not merit its hide.

2.

A burnt offering that was slaughtered not for its own sake

but for the sake of another offering,

even though it did not ascend for the owners

as an obligation, nevertheless

its hide

of the burnt offering is given

to the priests,

since the altar merited its flesh, and it ascended for the one who brought it as a voluntary offering.

3.

Whether a burnt offering

that

the man brought, or whether a burnt offering

that

the woman brought, their hides

are given

to the priests.

4.

The hides

of

lesser sanctified offerings

belong

to the owners.

For only with most sacred offerings did the Torah grant the priests their hides, and not with lesser sanctified offerings.

5.

The hides

of

most sacred offerings,

such as sin offerings and guilt offerings [in addition to the burnt offering, whose law concerning its hide has already been explained], are also given

to the priests,

and the matter is learned

by a kal va-chomer

from a burnt offering:

And if, with regard to a burnt offering, the priests did not merit

the

flesh,

for all of it is burned entirely upon the altar, nevertheless

they merited

the priests

its hide. With regard to most sacred offerings, with which the priests merited

the

flesh,

for the flesh of most sacred offerings [apart from the burnt offering] is eaten by male priests, is it not

certain that they should merit

the priests

its hide!?

6.

There is no

possibility of refuting the kal va-chomer with the claim that

the altar proves

it, and saying: Just as the altar merits only the flesh of the burnt offering, and the altar does not “merit” the hide of the burnt offering, which is given to the priests, so too I shall bring most sacred offerings: although the priests merit their flesh, they should not merit their hide.

For this is not a refutation, since what is true of the altar?

It has no hide anywhere.

For with no offering does the altar merit the hide, and therefore it is not a deficiency in its case that it does not “merit” the hide of the burnt offering. But as for the priests, who merit the hide of the burnt offering, as is explicit in the verse, it is a kal va-chomer that they should merit the hides of most sacred offerings.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

it is stated concerning the law of the hide: “And the priest who offers the

burnt offering of a man.”

And we exclude:

except for a “consecrated offering,”

for the Temple treasury does not give the hide of a “consecrated offering” [as will be explained below what this is] to the priests,

the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Judah says: “A

burnt offering of a man,”

except for the burnt offering of converts,

for its hide is not given to the priests. And later we refute this: Is a convert not a “man”?

And the Gemara discusses:

What

burnt offering did Rabbi Judah intend when he said

“except for a ‘consecrated offering’”?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef said: Except for a burnt offering that comes from the surplus

of a guilt offering. For we hold that the substitute of a guilt offering, or a guilt offering whose owners died, or a guilt offering whose owners obtained atonement through another guilt offering, can no longer be offered as a guilt offering. Rather, their law is that they graze in the flock until a defect occurs in them, and then they are sold, and with their proceeds voluntary burnt offerings are purchased. These offerings are called “maintenance of the altar.” They have no particular owners; rather, they are offered as communal offerings. The owners of the offering do not place their hands upon them. They are not called “the burnt offering of a man,” but “a consecrated offering,” and therefore their hides are not given to the priests.

And we refute:

That works

for this exclusion of a burnt offering that comes from surplus

according to the one who says [the Sages, who dispute Rabbi Elazar],

who hold in tractate Temura that

“surplus”

of a guilt offering

goes to the communal offering,

that is, to the maintenance of the altar, to offer those communal voluntary burnt offerings on the altar when the altar is idle from the burning of other offerings. It is then well that the hide of the surplus is excluded from being given to a priest, because the surplus is not considered the burnt offering of a man, but communal offerings.

But according to the one who says [Rabbi Elazar],

who holds in tractate Temura

that “surplus” goes to the individual offering,

so that the owner of the guilt offering himself brings the burnt offering with the money of the guilt offering, and he places his hands upon it, and he is the one called “the owner of the offering,”

what is there to say?

According to him, it is impossible to exclude the surplus of a guilt offering from “the burnt offering of a man,” for according to him the surplus indeed has an owner, and the surplus is indeed called “the burnt offering of a man”!?

And the Gemara answers:

As Rava said,

just as Rava explained the words of the verse concerning the morning regular offering, “And he shall arrange upon it the burnt offering,” that this verse teaches that no offering may be offered in the morning before the morning regular offering has been offered, because the meaning of

“the burnt offering”

with the definite article is that the morning regular offering shall be

the first offering

in the order of the day’s offerings, and another offering may not precede it.

Here too,

in the matter before us, it is stated: “The hide of

the burnt offering

that he offered shall belong to the priest,” and it implies

the first offering,

which was initially designated for the sake of a burnt offering; then its hide is given to the priests. But not an offering that comes from the surplus of a guilt offering, for it is not considered “the first offering.” Therefore its hide is not given to the priests.

Rabbi Aibu said

in the name of

Rabbi Yannai:

This that we exclude, except for a “consecrated offering,” means

except for one who designates a burnt offering for the maintenance of the Temple,

who consecrated his burnt offering to the maintenance of the Temple, for its hide is not given to the priests.

And it is unnecessary according to the one who says

in tractate Temura that a burnt offering which one designated

for the sanctities of the maintenance of the Temple acquires

the sanctity of the maintenance of the Temple

by Torah law,

and it is forbidden to slaughter this burnt offering until it is redeemed from the maintenance of the Temple. Certainly its hide does not belong to the priests if it was slaughtered before it was redeemed, for it is not the burnt offering of a man, but a consecrated offering.

But even according to the one who says that it does not acquire,

that the sanctity of the maintenance of the Temple does not take hold of the burnt offering by virtue of

Torah law

but only by rabbinic enactment, nevertheless

these words apply to the flesh

of the burnt offering, upon which the sanctity of the maintenance of the Temple does not take hold by Torah law, for the sanctity of the maintenance of the Temple does not take hold upon the sanctity of the burnt offering, since the flesh ascends to the altar and it is not his to consecrate with the sanctity of the maintenance of the Temple.

But the hide

of the offering, which is not the property of the altar, for the hide is not offered upon the altar and the priests have not yet merited it,

does acquire

the sanctity of the maintenance of the Temple by Torah law, and with regard to this hide we do not call it “the burnt offering of a man,” but a consecrated offering.

And likewise Rabbi Nahman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha

in accordance with the view of Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef, that “except for a consecrated offering” means

except for a burnt offering that comes from the surplus.

He said to him,

Rabbi

Hamnuna to Rabbi Nahman:

It necessarily follows,

according to whom

did you state your words, “except for a burnt offering that comes from the surplus”? —

According to Rabbi Judah,

who said below that its hide does not belong to the priests!

But this is difficult:

he retracted it,

for Rabbi Judah retracted his words and held that its hide is indeed given to the priests, as is demonstrated by

that which was taught:

In the Temple there were thirteen “trumpets” [boxes made in the form of a shofar, whose mouths were narrow and which widened farther in], and into these boxes they placed money; on each one it was written what the money was intended for.

Of the thirteen trumpets, seven trumpets were designated for specific matters,

and

the other

six

trumpets, served

for voluntary offerings, for a burnt offering that comes from the surplus, whose hide the priests are not entitled to;

rather, the Temple treasury sells the hide and brings with its proceeds a burnt offering for the maintenance of the altar,

the words of Rabbi Judah.

Rabbi Nehemiah said to

Rabbi Judah,

and some say

that

Rabbi Shimon

was the one who said to Rabbi Judah:

If so,

according to your view, that the priests are not entitled to its hide, but the Temple treasury merits it,

you have nullified

the

interpretation

of

Jehoiada the priest.

As we learned

in tractate Shekalim:

This is the interpretation expounded by Jehoiada the priest:

It is stated in the section concerning a conditional guilt offering:

“It is a guilt offering. It is a guilt offering to the Lord.”

And apparently there is a contradiction between the beginning of the verse and its continuation. For at the beginning of the verse it says, “It is a guilt offering,” implying that the law of a conditional guilt offering is like the law of a definite guilt offering. And a guilt offering is given to a priest, as it is stated, “Like the sin offering, so is the guilt offering; one law applies to them.” Whereas at the end of the verse it says, “A guilt offering to the Lord,” implying that the conditional guilt offering is entirely for the Lord, like a burnt offering, and not like a definite guilt offering, whose flesh belongs to the priest.

Rather, it is necessarily necessary to say that the intention of the verse is to say:

Everything that comes because of a sin offering,

that is, money left over from what a person designated for a sin offering,

and

everything that comes

because of a guilt offering,

that is, the redemption money of guilt offerings that go to grazing, such as a guilt offering whose owners died or whose owners obtained atonement through another offering, which graze in the flock until a defect occurs in them, and they are then redeemed for money —

With all this money

burnt offerings shall be purchased,

and the following shall be done with the burnt offerings:

The flesh

of the burnt offering shall all be offered entirely

for the sake of Heaven,

as is the law of a burnt offering. This is what is stated, “A guilt offering to the Lord,” for all of it is for the Lord.

And

the

hide

of the burnt offering shall be given

to the priests.

This is what is stated, “It is a guilt offering,” for a guilt offering is given to the priests.

And Rabbi Hamnuna proves from the fact that Rabbi Judah did not answer anything to those who questioned him that Rabbi Judah retracted his position and held that even with regard to a burnt offering that comes from the surplus, its hide is given to the priests!

Rabbi Nahman said to him,

Rabbi

Hamnuna: Rather, master, in what do you establish it,

in what does he establish that which we learned above, “except for a consecrated offering”?

Rabbi Hamnuna said to him:

I

establish it,

I establish that which we learned, “except for a consecrated offering,”

with one who consecrates

his

property, and in accordance with Rabbi Joshua.

As we learned

in the Mishna in tractate Shekalim [4:7]:

One who consecrates his property

for the maintenance of the Temple, and there were

among them animals fit

to be offered

upon the altar,

and among these animals there were

males and females.

Rabbi Eliezer says: The animals that are

males

shall be sold

for the needs of burnt offerings.

The treasurer of the Temple treasury shall sell them to one who needs to offer a burnt offering. And the treasurer is required to sell them specifically for the needs of burnt offerings, for although the one who consecrated them consecrated them for the maintenance of the Temple, we hold that “anything fit for the altar never leaves the authority of the altar.”

And

the animals that are

females —

shall be sold for the needs of peace offerings,

to one who needs to offer specifically a peace offering [because a burnt offering does not come from a female].

And their proceeds,

the money that the Temple maintenance treasury receives for selling the males and females,

together with the rest of the property

that the person consecrated,

shall fall to the maintenance of the Temple.

Rabbi Joshua says: The males

themselves

shall be offered as burnt offerings,

for the sake of the one who consecrated them, since the intention of the one who consecrated them, despite having consecrated them without specification and not having said that he was consecrating them for a burnt offering, was to offer on the altar that which is fit for it.

And the females

shall not themselves be offered as peace offerings, because the intention of the one who consecrated them was to consecrate something that is entirely a burnt offering for the Lord, whereas peace offerings are not entirely for the altar; therefore

they shall be sold

the females

for the needs of peace offerings, and with their proceeds he shall bring burnt offerings,

which are entirely for the Lord, and this was the intention of the one who consecrated them.

And the rest of the property shall fall to the maintenance of the Temple.

Concerning those males, which Rabbi Joshua said are offered as burnt offerings, Rabbi Judah said above: “The burnt offering of a man, except for a consecrated offering.” In these offerings the hide is not given to the priests, since the intention of the owners was to consecrate for the burnt offering only the flesh that is burned for the Lord, and not the hide, which is not burned for the Lord. Therefore, the intention of the one who consecrated them was that the hide remain for the maintenance of the Temple and not be given to the priests according to the law of the hide of a burnt offering.

And the Gemara adds and says:

And even according to Rabbi Joshua, who says, “A person divides his consecration,”

for it is explained in this Mishna that according to Rabbi Joshua, although the one who consecrated his entire property consecrated it without specification for the maintenance of the Temple, and did not specify that he was consecrating the animals for burnt offerings and the rest of the property for the maintenance of the Temple, nevertheless we say that his intention was that whatever is fit for the altar would be offered on the altar, and whatever is not fit for the altar would be for the maintenance of the Temple. If so, one might have said that according to Rabbi Joshua, although he consecrated without specification, his intention was to divide his unspecified consecration, and to consecrate the males offered as burnt offerings upon the altar with the full sanctity of a burnt offering; his intention was not at all to consecrate them for the maintenance of the Temple, not even their hides, but his entire intention was that they be sanctified with the sanctity of the altar for burnt offerings, and that the sanctity of the maintenance of the Temple not take hold of them at all, so that their law would be like that of other burnt offerings, whose hides belong to the priests —

Nevertheless, even according to his words, it can be said:

These words

that Rabbi Joshua holds that a person divides his consecration apply only with regard to

flesh,

that which is fit for the altar is offered on the altar and he did not consecrate it for the maintenance of the Temple.

But the hide,

which is given to the priests, Rabbi Joshua agrees concerning it that his intention is that with regard to the hide it

acquires

the sanctity of the maintenance of the Temple, like his other property, and the hide is not given to the priests.

We learned above:

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Judah says: “A

burnt offering of a man,”

except for the burnt offering of converts.

Rabbi Simai bar Hilkai said to Ravina: Is it so

that

a convert is not a “man”?

And why is he excluded from the burnt offering of a man!?

He said to him:

This that we exclude, except for the burnt offering of a convert, means

except for the burnt offering of a convert who died and has no heirs.

For then, since there are no heirs to the burnt offering that this convert consecrated, it is excluded from the burnt offering of a man, so that its hide is not given to the priests.

The Sages taught: “The burnt offering of a man”—I have only the burnt offering of a man,

whose hide is given to the priests.

The burnt offerings of women and slaves— from where

do we know that their hides too are given to the priests?

The verse says: “The one who offers the burnt offering of a man, the hide of the burnt offering that he offered shall belong to the priest; to him it shall belong.” The verse could have said, “The hide that he offered shall belong to the priest; to him it shall belong.” Rather, the verse added the words

The verse states: “The priest who offers the olah of a person, the hide of the olah that he offered shall belong to the priest; it shall be his.” The verse could have said, “The hide that he offered shall belong to the priest; it shall be his.” Instead, the verse redundantly states

“the hide of the burnt offering,” and included

in this verse the burnt offerings of women and slaves.

And the beraita continues and explains:

If so, what does “the burnt offering of a man” come to teach?

Since “man” is not literal, for the burnt offerings of women and slaves were also included?

Rather, the verse teaches that only a

burnt offering that ascended for a man

has its hide given to the priests.

Except for a

burnt offering

that was slaughtered

with a thought of pigul, intending to sprinkle its blood or burn it

outside its designated time,

for this offering is pigul.

And

likewise, if the burnt offering was slaughtered with the thought of sprinkling its blood or burning it

outside its designated place,

for the offering is disqualified,

so that the priests shall not be entitled to its hide.

Could I exclude

olah

that was slaughtered not for its sake,

for even though it is valid, nevertheless,#+#+#+#+