Zevachim 103b (קג:) — the Talmud in English

Since it did not accrue to the owners for the sake of fulfilling their obligation,

for the sake of obligation,

should the priests not be entitled to its hide?

The verse therefore states: “The hide of the burnt-offering”—in any event.

The superfluous wording comes to teach that although the burnt-offering did not accrue to anyone for the sake of fulfilling his obligation, nevertheless it is valid.

The beraita continues its exposition and cites several tannaitic interpretations concerning the giving of the hide to the priests in the case of the other offerings, apart from the burnt-offering:

a. It is stated:

“The hide of the burnt-offering.” I have derived only that the hide of the burnt-offering

is given to the priests;

from where are we to derive that the hides of offerings of the most sacred order

are also included? The verse states: “Which he offered,” indicating the hide of all offerings.

One might

therefore say:

I should include even

the hide of

offerings of lesser sanctity,

so that it too should be given to a priest?

The verse states: “Burnt-offering”—

just as a burnt-offering is an offering of the most sacred order, so too, all offerings referred to here are offerings of the most sacred order.

But not offerings of lesser sanctity, which are not similar to a burnt-offering.

b.

Rabbi Yishmael says:

It is stated:

“The hide of the burnt-offering.” I have derived only the hide of the burnt-offering; from where

do we know that the hides of offerings of the most sacred order are also given to the priests?

It is a matter of logical inference;

this can be derived by means of a kal va-chomer.

And if, in the case of a burnt-offering, in which the priests did not receive

the

flesh,

since the entire offering is burned, nevertheless

they received

the

hide,

in the case of offerings of the most sacred order, in which the priests received

the

flesh, is it not logically certain that they should receive the hide?

One might say:

The altar can refute this inference, for it received the flesh

of the burnt-offering and the sacrificial portions of offerings of the most sacred order that are burned upon the altar, and nevertheless

it did not receive the hide.

The response is:

What is distinctive about the altar? It did not receive

even

a partial share,

as no hide is offered upon the altar. Therefore, in the case of a burnt-offering as well, the altar does not receive the hide.

Can you say the same with regard to the priests, who received a partial share

of the hides—namely, the hide of a burnt-offering? Since they received a partial share of the hides [of burnt-offerings],

they should receive all

the hides of offerings of the most sacred order.

c.

Rabbi says: We needed the verse solely for the hide of the burnt-offering.

That is, we do not need to derive the law concerning the giving of the hide to a priest in the case of the other offerings from the burnt-offering. On the contrary, it was only with regard to a burnt-offering that the Torah needed to specify the law that its hide is given to a priest. But with regard to the other offerings, their law is known from the principle

that everywhere, the hide follows the flesh.

The law that applies to the flesh also applies to the hide.

The beraita explains and details the law stated by Rabbi, that everywhere, apart from a burnt-offering, the hide follows the flesh:

a.

Bulls that are burned,

such as the bull for an unwitting communal decision and the bull of the anointed priest,

and goats that are burned,

the sin-offering goats brought for an error resulting from an unwitting decision concerning the prohibition of idolatry,

are burned, and

likewise

their hides are burned together with them,

as it is stated: “And he shall burn the bull and its hide in fire.”

b.

A sin-offering, a guilt-offering, and communal peace-offerings

—the two lambs of the festival of Shavuot, which are the only communal peace-offerings—

are given

as a gift to a priest

as they are, with the hide and the flesh together. The priests do not need to remove the hides from them; rather, if

they wish,

the priests

remove them.

And if

they do not wish

to remove them,

they eat them with their hides on.

c.

Offerings of lesser sanctity

are given

to the owners. If the owners wish,

the owners

remove the hides; if they wish, they eat them with their hides on.

But

with regard to

a burnt-offering, it is stated:

“And he shall flay the burnt-offering and cut it into its pieces.”

It is evident from the verse that only the flesh and the sacrificial portions are placed upon the altar. But the hide, which the verse requires to be removed from the animal, cannot be placed upon the altar. For when the verse specifies the parts burned upon the altar, it requires that the hide be removed from them and does not mention burning the hide together with them. This indicates that the law of the hide differs from the law of the flesh. Therefore, the Torah needed to specify here the law of the hide of a burnt-offering, that it is given to a priest. For

one might

say that

the priests should not be entitled to its hide;

therefore

the verse states: “The hide of the burnt-offering that he offered shall belong to him.”

The beraita continues and cites an additional halakha concerning the giving of the hide to a priest:

With regard to the hide of a burnt-offering it is stated: “The one who offers a person’s burnt-offering—

to him shall it belong,”

the verse’s expression “to him shall it belong,” referring to “the one who offers a person’s burnt-offering,” excludes

a

priest who is

a tevul yom or an onen,

since he is not fit to offer an offering and therefore is not entitled to the hide.

The verse needed to exclude them from their right to the hides of the offering because

one might

say that only

priests would not be entitled

to the flesh of offerings if they had been a tevul yom or an onen during the day,

for

eating

the flesh

of sacrificial offerings even in the evening, after the tevul yom had become pure or after the state of aninut following the day of death had ended, since

it,

the flesh, was designated

for eating,

and they were not fit to eat it during the day; therefore they lost their right to eat it even after they became fit to eat it.

But

nevertheless

they would be entitled to the hide

when it was distributed among all the members of the priestly watch, because

the hide is not designated

for

eating,

and their being an onen or a tevul yom does not pose an impediment.

The verse therefore states,

that for this reason the verse had to say

“to him shall it belong”—excluding one lacking atonement, a tevul yom, and an onen.

Since they are not fit to offer on that day, they are not entitled to the hide even when the hides are distributed among all the members of the priestly watch, despite the fact that at that point they are pure and fit.

The Gemara now discusses the words of the beraita:

But the first tanna also—

why does he need to derive from the verse that the hides of offerings of the most sacred order are given to a priest?

Let him derive it from the logical inference,

from a kal va-chomer based on a burnt-offering, as Rabbi Yishmael derived it!?

The Gemara explains: Indeed, the first tanna could have derived this by means of a kal va-chomer, but nevertheless he derived it from the words of the verse, for he holds that this is the way of the verses:

a matter that is derived

by means of a

kal va-chomer,

nevertheless

the verse took the trouble to write it,

even though the law could have been derived by means of a kal va-chomer.

The Gemara continues its discussion:

And Rabbi Yishmael, what does he do with this

verse, “The hide of the burnt-offering

that he offered,”

from which the first tanna derived that the hides of offerings of the most sacred order are given to a priest?

What does he do with it?

According to Rabbi Yishmael, this verse is superfluous, since he derives this law by means of a kal va-chomer.

The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yishmael derives from this verse the exclusion of

a tevul yom, one lacking atonement, and an onen,

who have no share in the hides.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: And according to Rabbi Yishmael, why does he need to derive from “the hide of the burnt-offering” the exclusion of a tevul yom and an onen?

Let him derive it from “to him shall it belong,”

as Rabbi derived from there above to exclude a tevul yom and an onen.

We answer:

Rabbi Yishmael

follows

his own reasoning,

as he interprets “to him shall it belong” homiletically for another purpose—

As Rabbi Yoḥanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: It is stated with regard to the hide of a

burnt-offering,

“burnt-offering:

which he offered to the priest,

to him shall it belong.” And it is stated

with regard to a

guilt-offering:

“The priest who effects atonement with it,

to him shall it belong.”

And we derive by means of a gzera shava:

Just as there,

with regard to a guilt-offering,

its bones are permitted

to benefit from and to make utensils from, since even the flesh of the guilt-offering is permitted to the priests,

so too here,

with regard to a burnt-offering,

its bones are permitted.

The Gemara explains: This gzera shava must be

available,

set aside for deriving a ruling from it. That is, everything the Torah wrote these words for was solely for the purpose of the gzera shava, and not for another derivation. Therefore, such a gzera shava cannot be refuted.

For if it were not available

and another law were derived from these words,

there would be grounds to refute

the gzera shava [since a gzera shava that is not set aside may be refuted]:

What is distinctive about a guilt-offering? Its flesh is permitted,

and therefore its bones are also permitted. Can you say the same with regard to a burnt-offering, whose flesh is forbidden, and therefore whose bones should also be forbidden?

And why is this verse considered available? Because

“to him shall it belong” is a superfluous verse.

The verse could have said, “The hide of the burnt-offering that he offered to the priest,” and stopped there. Since the verse added the words “to him shall it belong,” this indicates that they were written in order to derive by means of a gzera shava from the guilt-offering that it is permitted to benefit from the bones of a burnt-offering.

Therefore Rabbi Yishmael needed to derive from “the hide of the burnt-offering” the exclusion of an onen and a tevul yom, while the verse “to him shall it belong” remained superfluous, so that the gzera shava would be set aside and could not be refuted.

Mishna:

With regard to all sacrificial offerings,

a burnt-offering, a sin-offering, and a guilt-offering,

in which a disqualifying factor occurred before

their hides were removed,

their hides are not

given

to the priests,

but are burned together with the flesh.

And if the disqualifying factor occurred

after their hides had been removed, their hides

are

given to the priests.

Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, said: In all my days I have never seen a hide

that had been removed from the animal

go out to the place of burning,

to be burned together with the offering that had become disqualified. Rather, the hide was given to the priests.

Rabbi Akiva said: From the words

of Rabbi Ḥanina

we learned that one who flays a firstborn animal and it is found to be a tereifa,

even if the defect making it a tereifa had existed before the hide was removed, since the defect was not discovered until after the hide had been removed,

it is fitting that

they benefit,

the priests, from its hide.

Since the hide was removed before the disqualifying factor was discovered, Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, holds that its hide is given to the priests [and the Gemara will explain why the tanna specifically mentioned a firstborn animal].

And the Sages say: The statement “I have never seen

one,” as Rabbi Ḥanina said,

is no proof.

Perhaps no such disqualification involving a tereifa discovered after the hide had been removed occurred in his days. And even if it did occur, perhaps they burned the hide and he did not know of it.

Rather,

the Sages hold that since the disqualifying factor had already existed before the hide was removed,

it goes to the place of burning.

Gemara:

It was stated in the previous Mishna:

“Any offering whose flesh was not entitled to the altar,”

that is, a disqualifying factor occurred in the flesh of the offering before the sprinkling,

“the priests are not entitled to its hide.”

The Mishna did not distinguish between a disqualifying factor that occurred in the flesh before the hide was removed from the flesh and one that occurred after the hide had been removed.

And

this indicates that

even if he removed the hide before the sprinkling,

so that the hide had been separated from the flesh, and the flesh became disqualified, and only afterward the blood was sprinkled, nevertheless the priests were not entitled to its hide.

The Gemara asks:

Whose

opinion does this Mishna follow? It must be

that of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who said

below:

The blood does not effect acceptance for the hide

that had been removed from the flesh

independently.

That is, if the flesh became disqualified and the blood does not effect acceptance for it, it likewise does not effect acceptance for the hide, even though the hide had been standing independently and was no longer attached to the flesh; the hide does not thereby leave the status of misuse of consecrated property and become permitted to the priests.

But this is difficult:

Consider the latter clause,

the statement in our Mishna:

“With regard to all sacrificial offerings in which a disqualifying factor occurred before their hides were removed, their hides are not given to the priests.”

But if the disqualifying factor occurred

after their hides had been removed,

so that when the flesh became disqualified the hides were standing independently,

their hides

are given

to the priests.

This indicates that even if the disqualifying factor occurred before the sprinkling.

If so,

we arrive

at the law of the latter clause, which must follow the opinion of

Rabbi, who said

below that

the blood effects acceptance for the hide independently

[when the hide was removed from the flesh before the disqualifying factor occurred in the flesh]. This indicates that even if the flesh became disqualified before the sprinkling, nevertheless the sprinkling of the blood permits the hide by itself and removes it from the status of misuse of consecrated property, even if the blood did not effect acceptance for the flesh.

If so, the two Mishnayot contradict one another. For

the first clause

follows the opinion of

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

whereas

the latter clause

follows the opinion of

Rabbi,

as the Gemara will explain where their respective opinions were stated.

The Gemara presents two resolutions, one from Abaye and the other from Rava:

Abaye said: Since the latter clause

of the Mishna follows the opinion of

Rabbi, the first clause also

follows the opinion of

Rabbi. And

there is no contradiction between the first and latter clauses. For although, if the hide happened to be removed before the sprinkling and the offering became disqualified after the hide was removed, Rabbi holds that the priests are entitled to its hide, nevertheless

Rabbi concedes that flaying is not performed,

that is, it is not customary to remove the hide

before the sprinkling,

because it is prohibited to delay the blood for an extended period until after the hide has been removed.

Therefore, the statement in the first clause of the Mishna, “Any offering whose flesh was not entitled to the altar, the priests are not entitled to its hide,” refers to the usual situation—namely, when the hide was not removed before the sprinkling, as ordinarily the sprinkling takes place before the hide is removed. But if it did in fact happen that the hide was removed before the sprinkling, then even according to the first clause the priests are entitled to its hide, in accordance with Rabbi’s opinion that the sprinkling of the blood effects acceptance for the hide when it is separated and standing independently, even when it does not effect acceptance for the flesh. The Mishna did not speak of such a case because it is uncommon.

Rava said: Since the first clause

of the Mishna follows the opinion of

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,

it follows that

the latter clause also

follows the opinion of

Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.

is.