Zevachim 103a (קג.) — the Talmud in English

Mishna:

1.

Every

olah

whose flesh did not confer a privilege upon the altar,

for example, if it became disqualified before the sprinkling of the blood, and therefore the flesh of the olah never had a “time of permissibility” for the altar [because as long as the blood has not been sprinkled, the limbs of the olah may not be burned on the altar]],

the priests do not receive its hide

of this olah.

Since

it is stated [Leviticus 7]: “And 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.” And we expound: Only an

“olah”

of this kind,

that ascended

upon the altar

for a person,

for the person who brought it, shall its hide belong to the priest who offers it. Excluded is an olah that became disqualified, since it did not ascend for the person who brought it; therefore the priests do not receive its hide.

2.

An olah that was slaughtered not for its own sake

but for the sake of another offering:

even though it did not fulfill the owner’s obligation,

nevertheless

its hide

of the olah is given

to the priests,

since the altar received its flesh, and it fulfilled the requirement of the one who brought it as a voluntary offering.

3.

Whether an olah

brought by

the man, or an olah

brought by

the woman, their hides

are given

to the priests.

4.

The hides

of

lesser sanctity

belong

to the owners.

For it is only with regard to most holy offerings that the Torah granted the priests their hides, but not with regard to offerings of lesser sanctity.

5.

The hides

of

most holy offerings,

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

to the priests,

and this is learned

by means of a kal va-chomer

from the olah:

If, in the case of an olah, the priests did not receive

the

flesh,

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

they received

the priests

its hide; in the case of most holy offerings, whose priests received

the priests

their flesh,

for the flesh of most holy offerings [other than an olah] is eaten by male members of the priesthood, is it

not logical that they should receive

the priests

their hides!?

6.

There is no

possibility of refuting the kal va-chomer by arguing that

the altar proves otherwise,

namely: Just as the altar receives only the flesh of the olah, and the altar does not “receive” the hide of the olah, which is given to the priests, so too I may infer that, although the priests receive the flesh of most holy offerings, they should not receive their hides.

For this is not a refutation, because what is there to say about the altar?

It has no hide anywhere.

For in no offering does the altar receive the hide; therefore, the fact that it does not “receive” the hide of the olah is not a deficiency on its part. But as for the priests, who receive the hide of the olah, as is explicit in the verse, it is certainly a kal va-chomer that they should receive the hides of most holy offerings.

Gemara:

The Sages taught:

With regard to the law of the hide, it is stated: “And the priest who offers the

“olah of a person.”

And we exclude:

except for an “olah of consecrated property,”

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

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Yosei ben Rabbi Yehuda says: “An

olah of a person,”

except for the olah of converts,

whose hide is not given to the priests. And below we challenge this: Is a convert not a “person”?

The Gemara analyzes:

What

olah did Rabbi Yehuda intend when he said

“except for an olah of consecrated property”?

Rabbi Hiyya bar Yosef said: He excludes an olah that comes from the surplus

of a guilt offering. It is established that the substitute for a guilt offering, or a guilt offering whose owner died, or a guilt offering whose owner achieved atonement through another guilt offering, may no longer be offered as a guilt offering. Rather, their law is that they graze in the herd until they develop a disqualifying defect, at which point they are sold, and with the proceeds voluntary olot are purchased. These olot are called “the summer offerings of the altar.” They have no particular owners, but are offered as communal offerings. The owners of the offering do not perform semikha upon them. They are not called “the olah of a person,” but “the olah of consecrated property”; therefore their hides are not given to the priests.

And we challenge:

That works

for this exclusion of an olah that comes from the surplus

according to the one who says [the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Elazar],

who hold in tractate Temura that

“the surplus”

of a guilt offering

goes to a communal voluntary offering,

namely, to the summer offerings of the altar, to offer those communal voluntary olot on the altar when the altar is idle, without the burning of other offerings. It is therefore appropriate to exclude the hide of the surplus from being given to a priest, since the surplus is not considered the olah of a person, but a communal offering.

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

who holds in tractate Temura

that “the surplus” goes to an individual’s voluntary offering,

meaning that the owner of the guilt offering himself brings an olah with the proceeds of the guilt offering, performs semikha upon it, and is called “the owner of the offering,”

what can be said?

According to him, it is impossible to exclude the surplus of a guilt offering from “the olah of a person,” since according to him the surplus does indeed have an owner and is properly called “the olah of a person”!

The Gemara answers:

As Rava said,

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

“the olah”

with the definite article is that the morning tamid olah shall be

the first olah

in the order of the day’s offerings, and no other offering may precede it,

so too here,

in our case, it is stated: “The hide of

the olah

that he offered shall belong to the priest,” and this indicates

the first olah,

one that was originally designated as an olah offering; only its hide is given to the priests. But an olah that came from the surplus of a guilt offering is not considered “the first olah”; therefore its hide is not given to the priests.

Rabbi Aivu said

in the name of

Rabbi Yannai:

This exclusion of “the olah of consecrated property” means

except for one who designates an olah for the repair of the Temple,

who consecrated his olah offering for the repair of the Temple; its hide is not given to the priests.

And it is unnecessary according to the one who says

in tractate Temura that an olah that was designated

for the sanctity of the repair of the Temple acquires

the sanctity of the repair of the Temple

by Torah law,

and it is forbidden to slaughter this olah until it is redeemed from the repair of the Temple. Certainly, if it was slaughtered before it was redeemed, its hide does not belong to the priests, since it is not the olah of a person but the olah of consecrated property.

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

that the sanctity of the repair of the Temple does not take hold of the olah by virtue of

Torah law

but only by rabbinic decree, nevertheless

this applies to the flesh

of the olah offering, upon which the sanctity of the repair of the Temple does not take hold by Torah law. The sanctity of the repair of the Temple cannot take hold of the sanctity of the olah, since the flesh ascends to the altar and is not his property to consecrate with the sanctity of the repair of the Temple.

But the hide

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

does acquire

the sanctity of the repair of the Temple by Torah law. With regard to this hide, we do not apply the phrase “the olah of a person,” but rather “the olah of consecrated property.

And likewise Rav Naḥman said in the name of Rabbah bar Avuha

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

except for an olah that comes from the surplus.

He said to him,

challenged

Rav Hamnuna to Rav Naḥman:

You must have said your statement, “except for an olah that comes from the surplus,”

according to whom

did you say it?

According to Rabbi Yehuda,

who says below that its hide does not go to the priests!

But this is difficult:

He retracted his view,

for Rabbi Yehuda retracted his statement 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 “shofar-shaped collection boxes” [boxes made in the form of a shofar, whose mouths were narrow and widened farther down], and money was placed into these boxes. Each one had written upon it the purpose for which the money was intended.

Of the thirteen collection boxes, seven were designated for specific purposes,

and

these

six

remaining boxes were used

for voluntary offerings, for an olah that comes from the surplus, whose hide the priests are not entitled to,

but the Temple treasury sells the hide and purchases an olah for the summer offerings of the altar with its proceeds,

the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Neḥemya said to

Rabbi Yehuda,

and some say

that

Rabbi Shimon

was the one who said to Rabbi Yehuda:

If so,

according to your view, that the priests are not entitled to the hide and the Temple treasury receives it,

you have nullified

the

teaching

of

Jehoiada the priest.

As we learned

in tractate Shekalim:

This is the exposition expounded by Jehoiada the priest.

It is stated concerning the sin offering of uncertain guilt:

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

Apparently, there is a contradiction between the beginning of the verse and its continuation. At the beginning it says, “It is a guilt offering,” indicating that the law of a sin offering of uncertain guilt is like that of a definite guilt offering. 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.” But at the end of the verse it says, “A guilt offering to the Lord,” indicating that the sin offering of uncertain guilt is entirely for the Lord, like an olah, and not like a definite guilt offering, whose flesh belongs to a priest.

Rather, it must be said that the verse means to say:

Everything that comes on account of a sin offering,

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

and

everything that comes

on account of a guilt offering,

namely, the redemption money of guilt offerings that are sent out to graze, such as a guilt offering whose owner died or whose owner achieved atonement through another offering, which graze in the herd until they develop a disqualifying defect and are then redeemed for money—

with all this money

olot shall be purchased,

and the olot shall be treated as follows:

The flesh

of the olah shall be offered entirely

to the Lord,

as is the law of an olah. This is the meaning of “a guilt offering to the Lord,” that it is entirely for the Lord.

And

the

hide

of the olah shall be given

to the priests.

This is the meaning of “It is a guilt offering,” since a guilt offering is given to the priests.

Rav Hamnuna proves from the fact that Rabbi Yehuda did not respond to those who questioned him that Rabbi Yehuda retracted his view and held that even the hide of an olah that comes from the surplus is given to the priests!

Rav Naḥman said to him,

Rav Hamnuna:

But master, how do you establish it,

how do you explain what we learned above, “except for the olah of consecrated property”?

Rav Hamnuna said to him:

Rav Hamnuna:

I establish it,

I explain what we learned, “except for the olah of consecrated property,”

with regard to one who consecrates

his

property, in accordance with Rabbi Yehoshua.

As we learned

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

One who consecrates his property

for the repair of the Temple, and among it are

animals fit

to be offered

upon the altar,

and among these animals are

males and females.

Rabbi Eliezer says:

The animals that are

males

—

shall be sold for the purpose of olot. The Temple treasurer sells them to someone who needs to offer an olah. The treasurer must sell them specifically for the purpose of olot, because although the one who consecrated them consecrated them for the repair of the Temple, it is established that “whatever is fit for the altar never leaves the domain of the altar.”

And

the animals that are

females

—

shall be sold for the purpose of peace offerings, specifically to one who needs to offer a peace offering [since an olah is not brought from a female].

And their proceeds,

the money received by the Temple treasury for selling the males and females,

together with the rest of the property

that the person consecrated,

shall go to the repair of the Temple.

Rabbi Yehoshua says: The males

—

they themselves shall be offered as olot,

for the sake of the one who consecrated them, since although the person consecrated them without specification and did not say that he was consecrating them for an olah, his intention was to offer upon the altar whatever was fit for it.

And the females

— they themselves may not be offered as peace offerings, since the consecrator intended to consecrate something that would be entirely for the Lord, whereas peace offerings are not burned entirely on the altar. Therefore,

they shall be sold

the females

for the purpose of peace offerings, and with their proceeds he shall bring olot,

which are entirely for the Lord; that was the consecrator’s intention.

And the rest of the property shall go to the repair of the Temple.

Regarding those males, which Rabbi Yehoshua said are offered as olot, Rabbi Yehuda said above, “The olah of a person, except for the olah of consecrated property.” In these olot the hide is not given to the priests, since the owners intended to consecrate for the olah only the flesh that is burned for the Lord, and not the hide, which is not burned for the Lord. Therefore, the consecrator intended that the hide remain for the repair of the Temple and not be given to the priests as the hide of an olah.

The Gemara adds and says:

And even according to Rabbi Yehoshua, who said, “A person divides his consecration,”

for it is clear from this Mishna that according to Rabbi Yehoshua, although the consecrator consecrated all his property without specification for the repair of the Temple, and did not specify that he was consecrating the animals for olot and the rest of the property for the repair of the Temple, nevertheless we say that his intention was that whatever is fit for the altar would be offered upon the altar, while whatever is not fit for the altar would go to the repair of the Temple. If so, one might say that according to Rabbi Yehoshua, although he consecrated his property without specification, his intention was to divide his unspecified consecration: to consecrate the males offered as olot upon the altar with the full sanctity of an olah, and not at all to consecrate them for the repair of the Temple, not even their hides; rather, his entire intention was that they acquire the sanctity of the altar as olot, and that the sanctity of the repair of the Temple should not take hold of them at all, so that their law would be like that of other olot, whose hides go to the priests—

nevertheless, even according to his view, it can be said:

This applies

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

the flesh,

so that what is fit for the altar is offered upon the altar and is not consecrated for the repair of the Temple.

But the hide,

which is given to the priests, Rabbi Yehoshua agrees that his intention is that with regard to the hide

it acquires

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

We learned above:

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Yehuda says: “An

olah of a person,”

except for the olah of converts.

Rav Simai bar Ḥilqai said to Ravina: Is it so that

a

convert is not a “person”?

Why, then, is he excluded from the olah of a person!?

He said to him:

This exclusion of the olah of a convert means

except for a convert who died and left no heirs.

Since this convert’s olah has no heirs, it is excluded from the olah of a person, and its hide is not given to the priests.

The Sages taught: “The olah of a person”—I have only the olah of a person,

whose hide is given to the priests.

From where

do we know that the hide of

women’s and slaves’ olot is also given to the priests?

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 olah”; it includes

women’s and slaves’ olot.

The beraita continues and explains:

If so, what does the verse teach by saying “the olah of a person”?

Since “person” is not meant specifically, as women’s and slaves’ olot have also been included?

Rather, the verse teaches that only

an olah that ascended for a person

has its hide given to the priests.

Except for an

olah

that was slaughtered

with an intention of sprinkling its blood or burning it

outside its designated time,

so that this offering is piggul.

And

likewise, if the olah was slaughtered with the intention of sprinkling its blood or burning it

outside its designated place,

so that the offering is disqualified.

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

Could I exclude

an olah

slaughtered not for its sake,

which, although it is valid, nevertheless,