Zevachim 103b — the Talmud in English

Since it did not accrue to the owners

for fulfillment of their obligation,

should the priests not be entitled to its hide?

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

And the superfluous verse comes to teach that even though the burnt-offering did not accrue to anyone for fulfillment of his obligation, in any event it is valid.

And the beraita continues to expound, and brings several midreshei tannaim concerning the giving of the hide to the priests in the other offerings, apart from the burnt-offering:

A. It is stated:

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

that is given to the priests;

the hides of the most sacred offerings—from where [do we know this]? The verse says: “which he offered,”

which includes the hide of all the offerings.

One might

then say:

that I should include even

the hide of

lesser sacred offerings,

so that it too should be given to a priest?

The verse says: “burnt-offering”—

just as a burnt-offering is a most sacred offering, so too, all [are] most sacred offerings.

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

B.

Rabbi Yishmael says:

It is stated:

“The hide of the burnt-offering.” I have only the hide of the burnt-offering; the hides of the most sacred offerings—from where

do we know that they too are given to the priests?

And it is a logical inference,

this can be learned by a kal va-homer.

And just as a burnt-offering, in whose flesh

the priests

did not have a share,

since all of it is entirely burned, nevertheless

they had a share

in

its hide.

With regard to most sacred offerings, in whose flesh

the priests

had a share, is it not logically the case that they should have a share in their hide?

Lest you say:

The altar proves [otherwise], for it had a share in the flesh

of the burnt-offering and in the fats of the most sacred offerings that are sacrificed upon the altar, and nevertheless

it did not have a share in the hide.

Your answer is:

What is [unique] about the altar? That it did not have a share

even

in part,

for no hide at all is sacrificed upon the altar; therefore, also with regard to a burnt-offering, the altar does not acquire the hide.

But can you say this about the priests, who had a share

in some parts of the hide, in the hide of a burnt-offering, and since they had a share in some hides [in the burnt-offering],

they should have a share in all

the hides of the most sacred offerings.

C.

Rabbi says: We did not need [a verse] at all except for the hide of the burnt-offering alone.

That is to say, we do not have to learn the law of giving the hide to a priest in the other offerings from the burnt-offering; on the contrary, it was necessary for the Torah to specify the law of the hide only with regard to the burnt-offering. But with regard to the other offerings, we know the law of the hide according to the principle

that everywhere, the hide follows the flesh.

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

And the beraita explains and details the law stated by Rabbi: that everywhere, except for a burnt-offering, the hide follows the flesh:

A.

Burned bulls,

the bull for the unwitting decision and the bull of the anointed priest,

and burned goats,

the goats of the sin-offerings brought for an error arising from an unwitting decision concerning the law of idolatry,

they are burned, and

likewise

their hides are burned with them,

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

B.

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

—

are given

as a gift to a priest

as they are, the hide together with the flesh. The priests do not have to strip the hide from them; rather, if

they wish,

the priests

strip them.

And if

they do not wish

to strip them,

they eat them with their hide.

C.

Lesser sacred offerings

are given

to the owners. If they wish,

the owners

strip them; if they wish, they eat them with their hide.

But

with regard to

a burnt-offering, it is stated:

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

And it is demonstrated from the verse that only the flesh and the fats are placed upon the altar. But the hide, which the verse requires to be stripped from the animal, cannot be placed upon the altar. For when the verse specified the things burned upon the altar, the verse required the hide to be stripped from them, and did not mention burning the hide together with them. It follows that there is a difference between the law of the hide and the law of the flesh. Therefore, the Torah had to specify here the law of the hide of the 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 says: “The hide of the burnt-offering that he offered—it shall be his.”

And the beraita continues and brings another law concerning the giving of the hide to a priest:

It is stated concerning the hide of the burnt-offering: “The one who offers a man’s burnt-offering—

it shall be his,”

the verse excludes, through “it shall be his,” which refers to “the one who offers a man’s burnt-offering”—

except for

a priest who is

a tevul yom and an acute mourner,

for since he is not fit to offer an offering, he does not acquire the hide.

And the verse had to exclude them from their entitlement to the hides of the offering because

one might

say that only

they will not have a share

in the eating of the flesh of the sacred offerings, if they were a tevul yom or an acute mourner during the day,

in

the eating of

the flesh

of the sacred offerings even in the evening, after the tevul yom had already become pure or after the acute mourning of 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

will have a share in the hide,

when it is distributed to all the members of the watch, because

the hide is not designated

for

eating,

and there is no deficiency on account of their being an acute mourner or a tevul yom.

The verse therefore says,

for this reason the verse had to say

“it shall be his”—except for one lacking atonement, a tevul yom, and an acute mourner.

Since they are not fit to offer on that day, they do not acquire the hide, even when the hides are distributed to all the members of the watch, although at that time they are pure and fit.

And now the Gemara discusses the words of the beraita:

And the first tanna also,

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

Let him derive it from the law,

from a kal va-homer from a burnt-offering, that the hides of most sacred offerings are given to a priest, as Rabbi Yishmael learned!?

And the Gemara explains: Indeed, the first tanna could have learned this by a kal va-homer, and even so he learned it from the words of the verse, for he maintains that this is the way of the verses:

that a matter which comes,

a matter that is learned

by a kal va-homer,

even so

the verse takes the trouble to write it,

even though the law could have been learned by a kal va-homer.

And the Gemara continues to discuss:

And Rabbi Yishmael—this

verse, “the hide of the burnt-offering

which he offered,”

from which the first tanna learned that the hides of most sacred offerings are given to a priest,

what does he do with it?

For according to Rabbi Yishmael, this verse is superfluous, since he learns this law from a kal va-homer.

And the Gemara explains: Rabbi Yishmael learns from this verse to exclude

except for a tevul yom, one lacking atonement, and an acute mourner,

who have no share in the hides.

And we raised the question: And according to Rabbi Yishmael, why does he need to learn from “the hide of the burnt-offering” to exclude a tevul yom and an acute mourner?

Let him derive it from “it shall be his,”

as Rabbi learned from there, above, to exclude a tevul yom and an acute mourner.

And we answered:

Rabbi Yishmael

follows

his own reasoning,

for he expounds “it shall be his” for another exposition—

As Rabbi Yohanan said in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: It is stated concerning the hide of a

burnt-offering,

“burnt-offering,”

“which he offered to a priest,

it shall be his.” And it is stated

concerning a

guilt-offering,

“the priest who atones with it,

it shall be his.”

And we learn by a gzera shava:

Just as there,

with regard to a guilt-offering,

its bones are permitted

to benefit from them, to make utensils from them, for 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.

And the Gemara explains: This gzera shava must be

available,

free for deriving from it. That is, everything that the Torah wrote these words for is only for the teaching of the gzera shava, and not for another teaching. Therefore, it is impossible to refute such a gzera shava.

For if it is not available,

and another law is learned from these words,

there is room to refute

the gzera shava [for a gzera shava that is not available can be refuted]:

What is [unique] about a guilt-offering? Its flesh is permitted,

and therefore its bones too are permitted. But can you say this about a burnt-offering, whose flesh is forbidden, and therefore its bones too should be forbidden?

And why is this verse available? Because

“it shall be his” is a superfluous verse.

For the verse could have said, “the hide of the burnt-offering that he offered to a priest,” and stopped. Since the verse added and said “it shall be his,” it follows that it was written in order to learn by a gzera shava from a guilt-offering that it is permitted to benefit from the bones of a burnt-offering.

Therefore, Rabbi Yishmael had to learn from “the hide of the burnt-offering” to exclude an acute mourner and a tevul yom, while the verse “it shall be his” remains superfluous to make the gzera shava an available gzera shava, so that it cannot be refuted.

Mishna:

All the sacred offerings,

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

in which a disqualification occurred before

their hides were stripped from them,

their hides are not

given

to the priests,

but are burned together with the flesh.

And if the disqualification occurred

after they were stripped, their hides

are given

to the priests.

Rabbi Hanina, deputy of the priests, said: In all my days I have never seen a hide

that was stripped from the animal while it was

going 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 his words

of Rabbi Hanina

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

even if the disqualification of tereifa had been present before the stripping of the hide, since the disqualification became known only after the hide had been stripped,

they shall benefit,

they shall enjoy

the priests’ benefit from its hide.

Since the hide was stripped before its disqualification became known, Rabbi Hanina, deputy of the priests, maintains that its hide is given to the priests [and the Gemara will explain why the tanna specified a firstborn].

And the Sages say: “I have never seen” is not

what Rabbi Hanina said

a proof.

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

Rather,

the Sages maintain that since the disqualification had already been present before the stripping,

it went to the place of burning.

Gemara:

It was stated in the preceding Mishna:

Any [offering] whose flesh the altar did not acquire.

That is, a disqualification occurred in the flesh of the offering before the sprinkling,

the priests did not acquire its hide.

And the Mishna did not distinguish between a disqualification occurring in the flesh before the hide was stripped from the flesh and one occurring after the hide was stripped.

And

it follows that

even though he stripped its hide before the sprinkling,

and the hide had been removed from the flesh, and the flesh became disqualified, and only afterward the blood was sprinkled, nevertheless the priests did not acquire its hide.

And the Gemara asks:

Whose [opinion is this],

in accordance with whose opinion does this Mishna proceed? It must be

in accordance with Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, who said

below:

the blood does not effect acceptance for the hide

that was stripped from the flesh

by itself.

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 was standing by itself and was not on the flesh; and the hide does not leave the status of misuse of consecrated property to become permitted to the priests.

But this is difficult:

Let us say the latter clause,

that which is stated in our Mishna:

All the sacred offerings in which a disqualification occurred before they were stripped—their hides are not for the priests.

But if the disqualification occurred

after they were stripped,

when the flesh became disqualified the hides were standing by themselves,

their hides

are given

to the priests.

And it follows that this is so even if the disqualification occurred before the sprinkling.

And if so,

we arrive

at the law of the latter clause, which must proceed according to the opinion of

Rabbi, who said

below:

the blood effects acceptance for the hide by itself

[when the hide was stripped from the flesh before the disqualification occurred in the flesh]. It follows that even if the disqualification occurred in the flesh before the sprinkling, nevertheless the sprinkling of the blood permits the hide alone and removes it from the status of misuse of consecrated property, even if the blood did not effect acceptance for the flesh.

And if so, these two Mishnayot contradict one another. For

the first clause

is according to the opinion of

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon,

whereas

the latter clause

is according to the opinion of

Rabbi,

as the Gemara will explain where their opinions were mentioned.

And the Gemara brings two answers, one by Abaye and the other by Rava:

Abaye said: Since the latter clause

of the Mishna is according to the opinion of

Rabbi, the first clause too

is according to the opinion of

Rabbi. And

there is no contradiction between the first clause and the latter clause. For although, if it happened that they stripped the hide before the sprinkling and the offering became disqualified after the stripping, Rabbi maintains that the priests acquired its hide, nevertheless

Rabbi concedes that there is no stripping,

that is, they do not ordinarily strip the hide

before the sprinkling,

because it is forbidden to delay the blood for a long time until after the stripping of the hide.

Therefore, what is stated in the first clause of the Mishna, “Any [offering] whose flesh the altar did not acquire, the priests did not acquire its hide,” refers to the usual situation, namely, when they did not strip the hide before the sprinkling, for the ordinary sprinkling is before the stripping. But if it actually happened that they stripped the hide before the sprinkling, then according to the first clause too the priests acquire its hide, in accordance with Rabbi’s view, that the sprinkling of the blood effects acceptance for the hide that had been removed and stood by itself, even without its effecting acceptance for the flesh! Rather, the Mishna did not speak of such a situation because it is uncommon.

Rava said: Since the first clause

of the Mishna is according to the opinion of

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon,

it is,

the latter clause too

is according to the opinion of

Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon

is.