זבחים 103 — Soncino English Talmud

¹MISHNAH. WHENEVER THE ALTAR DOES NOT ACQUIRE ITS FLESH, THE PRIESTS DO NOT ACQUIRE THE SKIN, FOR IT IS SAID, [AND THE PRIEST THAT OFFERETH] ANY MAN'S BURNT-OFFERING [EVEN THE PRIEST SHALL HAVE . . . THE SKIN]: [THIS MEANS,] A BURNT-OFFERING WHICH COUNTS FOR A MAN. IF A BURNT-OFFERING WAS SLAUGHTERED UNDER A DIFFERENT DESIGNATION, ALTHOUGH IT DOES NOT COUNT FOR ITS OWNER, ITS SKIN BELONGS TO THE PRIESTS. WHETHER [IT BE] A MAN'S BURNT-OFFERING OR A WOMAN'S BURNT-OFFERING, THE SKINS BELONG TO THE PRIESTS. THE SKINS OF LESSER SACRIFICES BELONG TO THEIR OWNERS. THE SKINS OF MOST SACRED SACRIFICES BELONG TO THE PRIEST, [AS CAN BE INFERRED] A MINORI: IF THEY ACQUIRE THE SKIN OF A BURNT-OFFERING, THOUGH THEY DO NOT ACQUIRE ITS FLESH; IS IT NOT LOGICAL THAT THEY ACQUIRE THE SKINS OF MOST SACRED SACRIFICES, WHEN THEY ACQUIRE THEIR FLESH? THE ALTAR DOES NOT REFUTE [THIS ARGUMENT], FOR IT DOES NOT ACQUIRE THE SKIN IN ANY INSTANCE. GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: ‘Any man's burnt-offering’; this excludes a burnt-offering of hekdesh: these are the words of R. Judah. R. Jose son of R. Judah said: It excludes a proselyte's burnt-offering. What is meant by, ‘This excludes a burnt-offering of hekdesh? — Said R. Hiyya b. Joseph: It excludes a burnt-offering derived from ‘left-overs’. That is well on the view that ‘left-overs were devoted to public sacrifices; but what can be said on the view that ‘leftovers’ were devoted to private sacrifices? — As Raba said [elsewhere], ‘The burnt-offering’ intimates, the first burnt-offering; so here too’ ‘the burnt-offering’ intimates, the first burnt-offering. R. Aibu said in R. Jannai's name: It excludes the case where one dedicates a burnt-offering to the Temple Repair: Now, on the view that the sanctity of Temple Repair seizes [it] by Scriptural law, there can be no question; but even on the view that it does not seize [it] [by Scriptural law], that applies only to the flesh, but it does seize the skin. R. Nahman in Rabbah b. Abbuha's name also said: It excludes a burnt-offering derived from ‘left-overs’. Said R. Hamnuna to R. Nahman: With whom does that agree? with R. Judah? Surely he retracted [from his view]? For it was taught: Six were for votive [offerings], [viz.,] for burnt-offerings brought from [the proceeds of] left-overs, the skins of which [burnt-offerings] did not belong to the priests: these are the words of R. Judah. Said R. Nehemiah — others say, R. Simeon — to him: If so, you have nullified the teaching of Jehoiada the Priest. For it was taught: This teaching did Jehoiada the priest expound: It is a guilt-offering — he oweth a guilt-offering unto the Lord: whatever comes in virtue of a sin-offering and a guilt-offering, burnt-offerings are purchased therewith: the flesh belongs to the Lord, while the skin belongs to the priests! — Said he to him: Then how does the Master explain it? — I explain it as referring to one who dedicates his property [to Temple Repair], he replied, and it is in accordance with R. Joshua. For we learnt: If one dedicates his property, amongst which were animals eligible for the altar, both males and females, — R. Eliezer said: The males must be sold for the purpose of burnt-offerings, and the females must be sold for the purpose of peace-offerings, whilst the money [obtained] for them, together with the rest of the estate, falls to the Temple Repair. R. Joshua said: The males themselves must be offered as burnt-offerings, and the females must be sold for the purpose of peace-offerings, and burnt-offerings be brought with the money [obtained] for them. Now, even R. Joshua who maintains that a man divides his consecration, that is only in respect of the flesh, but the skin is seized [with the sanctity of Temple Repair]. ‘R. Jose son of R. Judah said: It excludes a proselyte's burnt-offering’. Said R. Simai b. Hilkai to Rabina: Is then a proselyte not a man? — It excludes, replied he, a proselyte who died without heirs. Our Rabbis taught: ‘Any man's burnt-offering’: I know it only of a man s burnt-offering; how do I know it of the burnt-offering of proselytes, women, and slaves? Because it says, The skin of the burnt-offering, [which is] an extension. If so, why does it say, any man's burnt-offering? [It intimates,] a burnt-offering which has freed a man [of his obligation], and [thus] excludes one which was slaughtered [with the intention of sprinkling its blood] after time or without bounds, [teaching] that the priests have no rights in its skin. You might think that I include one which was slaughtered under a different designation, [for] since it does not free its owner,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ^ˢ^ᵗ^ᵘ^ᵛ^ʷ^ˣ^ʸ^ᶻ^ᵃᵃ^ᵃᵇ^ᵃᶜ^ᵃᵈ^ᵃᵉ^ᵃᶠ

^ᵃnote:E.g., if the sacrifice is disqualified before the blood is sprinkled, so that it was never fit for the altar.
^ᵇnote:Lev. VII, 8.
^ᶜnote:I.e., its owner has fulfilled his obligation thereby. Only of such does the skin belong to the priest.But if it is disqualified (v. n. 8, p. 496), its owner must bring another.
^ᵈnote:You might say, Let the altar refute this argument, for the altar acquires the flesh of the burnt-offering but not its skin; similarly, then, the priests may acquire the flesh of most sacred sacrifices, but not their skins. This analogy, however, is faulty, for the altar has no right to the skin of any sacrifice, whereas the skins of burnt-offerings belong to priests.
^ᵉnote:V. Glos; the meaning is explained anon.
^ᶠnote:The skins of these do not belong to the priests.
^ᵍnote:When a guilt-offering cannot be sacrificed, e.g., its owner died, it is left to graze until it is blemished. Then it is redeemed, and a burnt-offering is purchased with the redemption-money. This burnt-offering is sacrificed when there is a scarcity of other sacrifices (hence it was known as the sacrifice for ‘the altar's summer fruit’), and ranks as a public sacrifice; hence it was not ‘any man's burnt-offering’, and its skin did not belong to the priests.
^ʰnote:E.g., the heir of the dead man would bring it as a private sacrifice: why then should the skin not belong to the priest?
^ⁱnote:V. Pes. 58b, Sonc. ed. p. 292.
^ʲnote:The def. art. in ‘the priest shall have the skin of the burnt-offering’ intimates that a particular one is meant, viz., an animal consecrated as such in the first place. A ‘left-over’, however, was originally consecrated for something else.
^ᵏnote:Sh.M. emends: Ila.
^ˡnote:Lit., ‘one causes a burnt-offering to be seized (with sanctity) for the Temple Repair.’ — ‘Temple Repair’ is a technical term, denoting a thing dedicated for any Temple use except a sacrifice. This animal itself must be sacrificed.
^ᵐnote:There are two views on the dedication of a sacrifice to Temple Repair (inferred from a discussion in Tem. 32a bottom, b): (i) This animal is seized with the sanctity of Temple Repair by Scriptural law. Consequently it must be redeemed (the redemption money going to the Temple Repair), and then sacrificed. On this view the skin is certainly not the priest's, for it is not ‘the burnt-offering of any man’, but one which belongs to Temple Repair. (ii) By Scriptural law this animal cannot be ‘seized’ with any other sanctity, since it already belongs to God. Yet even this view applies only to the flesh of the offering, which belongs to the altar; but as the skin does not belong to the altar in any case, it is ‘seized’ with the sanctity of Temple Repair, and does not belong to the priest.
^ⁿnote:Who maintains anon that the skin of left-overs is the priest's.
^ᵒnote:There were thirteen horn-shaped receptacles in the Temple for various funds. Six of these were for the purpose stated in the text.
^ᵖnote:Marginal emendation: we learnt.
^ᵠnote:Lev. V, 19. E.V. he is certainly guilty before the Lord. The present rendering, which gives the sense as it is understood here, viz., that the guilt-offering belongs to the Lord, contradicts Lev. VII, 7 q.v., and the text proceeds to reconcile the two verses.
^ʳnote:I.e., if the animals so dedicated cannot be offered as such for any reason; thus they are left-overs. They are left to graze until they are blemished, when they are redeemed, and other animals purchased for sacrifices, as explained.
^ˢnote:It is burnt on the altar.
^ᵗnote:But not to the Lord. Now, R. Judah did not answer this, which shews that he accepted it and retracted from his view.
^ᵘnote:Sc. R. Nahman to R. Hamnuna.
^ᵛnote:If one consecrates an animal fit for the altar to Temple Repair, the animal must be sacrificed. Hence these animals must be sold to those who need them for sacrifices. This selling constitutes redemption, for R. Eliezer holds that everything consecrated for Temple Repair must be redeemed, if it cannot be used itself for that purpose, and the money goes to that fund.
^ʷnote:R. Joshua holds that when a man consecrates property without defining it, whatever is fit for the altar is meant to be sacrificed itself, and not redeemed. But at the same time, the whole of it must be for the altar, just as the whole of anything consecrated to Temple Repair belongs to the Temple Repair Fund. Consequently, males are sacrificed as burnt-offerings on behalf of the person who consecrated them, and not sold to another. Females, however, cannot be similarly sacrificed as peace-offerings, since only a portion of peace-offerings belong to the altar. Therefore they are sold for peace-offerings, and with the money males for burnt-offerings are bought, and the rest of the estate falls to Temple Repair.
^ˣnote:I.e., though he does not specify, he intends each thing for whatever it is fit, whether for the Temple Repair Fund or for the altar.
^ʸnote:I.e., the flesh of the animal belongs to the altar.
^ᶻnote:Since skin could be consecrated to the Temple Repair Fund, it belongs to it now too, and not to the priests. This then is what we exclude above.
^ᵃᵃnote:Surely he is included in, ‘any man's burnt-offering’?
^ᵃᵇnote:An ordinary Jew cannot be without an heir, since he must have some relation, however distant. A proselyte, however, loses all relationship with his pre-conversion relations, and so may die without a legal heir. Hence the animal does not belong to ‘any man’ when it is sacrificed.
^ᵃᶜnote:That the skin belongs to the priests.
^ᵃᵈnote:Sh.M. (and apparently Rashi) delete ‘proselyte.’ Var. lec. heathens. — Sacrifices were accepted from non-Jews.
^ᵃᵉnote:‘Burnt-offering’ is a repetition in the same verse.
^ᵃᶠnote:Among those whose skin does not belong to the priests. Var. lec. exclude — sc. from those whose skins belong to the priest — this is preferable.

²the skin does not belong to the priests. Therefore it says, ‘the skin of the burnt-offering’, [which implies,] at all events. ‘The skin of the burnt-offering’: I know it only of the skin of a burnt-offering; how do I know it of the skin of most holy sacrifices? Because it says, [‘the skin of the burnt-offering] which he hath offered.’ You might think that I include lesser sacrifices too: therefore it states, ‘burnt-offering’: as a burnt-offering is a most sacred sacrifice, so all most sacred sacrifices [are included]. R. Ishmael said: ‘The skin of the burnt-offering’: I know it only of the skin of a burnt-offering. How do I know it of the skin of most sacred sacrifices? It is inferred by logic. If the priests have a right to the skin of a burnt-offering, though they have no right to its flesh, is it not logical that they have a right to the skin of [other] most sacred sacrifices, seeing that they have a right to their flesh? Let the altar refute it, for it has a right to the flesh and has no right to the skin? As for the altar, that is because it has no right to part thereof; but in the case of priests who have a right to part thereof, you must say: since they have a right to part, they have a right to the whole. Rabbi said: The text bears essentially only upon the skin of a burnt-offering. For in every instance the skin follows the flesh. [Thus:] the bullocks that are to be burnt and the goats that are to be burnt are burnt and their skin with them. The sin-offering, guilt-offering, and public peace-offerings are the priestly dues: if they wish, they can flay them; if they do not so desire, they can consume them together with their skin. Lesser sacrifices belong to their owners: if they desire, they can flay them; if they do not desire, they can eat them together with the skin. But of the burnt-offering it is said, And he shall flay the burnt-offering, and cut it into its pieces. You might thus think that the priests do not acquire its skin; therefore it states, ‘even the priest shall have to himself the skin of the burnt-offering which he hath offered’; and this excludes a tebul yom, [one who lacks atonement], and an onen. For you might think that these have no right to the flesh, which is eaten, but they have a right to the skin, which is not eaten: therefore it states, it shall be his: which excludes one who lacks atonement, a tebul yom, and an onen. Now, let the first Tanna too deduce it by logic? — That which may be inferred a fortiori. Scripture takes the trouble of writing it [explicitly]. Now, how does R. Ishmael utilise this text, ‘which he hath offered’? — It excludes a tebul yom, one who lacks atonement, and an onen. But let him deduce that from ‘it shall be his’? — R. Ishmael is consistent with his view. For R. Johanan said on R. Ishmael's authority: ‘It shall be his’ is said in connection with a burnt-offering, and ‘it shall be his’ is said in connection with a guilt-offering: as there its bones are permitted, so here too its bones are permitted. This must be redundant, for if it is not redundant, it can be refuted: as for a guilt-offering, that is because its flesh is permitted! ‘It shall be his’ is a superfluous text. MISHNAH. ALL SACRIFICES WHICH BECAME DISQUALIFIED: [IF THIS HAPPENED] BEFORE THEY WERE FLAYED, THEIR SKINS DO NOT BELONG TO THE PRIESTS. [IF IT OCCURRED] AFTER THEY WERE FLAYED, THEIR SKINS BELONG TO THE PRIESTS. SAID R. HANINA THE SEGAN OF THE PRIESTS: NEVER IN MY LIFE HAVE I SEEN SKIN GO OUT TO THE PLACE OF BURNING. R. AKIBA OBSERVED: WE LEARN FROM HIS WORDS THAT IF ONE FLAYS A FIRSTLING AND IT IS FOUND TO BE TEREFAH, THE PRIESTS HAVE A RIGHT TO ITS SKIN. BUT THE SAGES MAINTAIN: ‘I HAVE NEVER SEEN’ IS NOT PROOF: RATHER, IT [THE SKIN] MUST GO FORTH TO THE PLACE OF BURNING. GEMARA. [The preceding Mishnah teaches,] Whenever the altar does not acquire the flesh, the priests do not acquire the skin, [which implies,] even though the skin was stripped before the sprinkling [of the blood]. Who is the author of this? R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon, who maintained: The blood does not propitiate on behalf of the skin when it is by itself. Then consider the second clause: ALL SACRIFICES WHICH BECAME DISQUALIFIED: [IF THIS HAPPENED] BEFORE THEY WERE FLAYED, THEIR SKINS DO NOT BELONG TO THE PRIESTS; [IF IT OCCURRED] AFTER THEY WERE FLAYED, THEIR SKINS BELONG TO THE PRIESTS: this agrees with Rabbi, who maintained: The blood propitiates on behalf of the skin when it is by itself. Thus the first clause agrees with R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon, while the second clause agrees with Rabbi? — Said Abaye: Since the second clause agrees with Rabbi, the first clause too agrees with Rabbi; Rabbi however admits that flaying is not done before sprinkling. Raba said: Since the first clause agrees with R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon, the second clause too agrees with R. Eleazar b. R. Simeon. What however is meant by ‘before flaying’^ᵃᵍ^ᵃʰ^ᵃⁱ^ᵃʲ^ᵃᵏ^ᵃˡ^ᵃᵐ^ᵃⁿ^ᵃᵒ^ᵃᵖ^ᵃᵠ^ᵃʳ^ᵃˢ^ᵃᵗ^ᵃᵘ^ᵃᵛ^ᵃʷ^ᵃˣ^ᵃʸ^ᵃᶻ

^ᵃᵍnote:Sh.M. deletes this.
^ᵃʰnote:This is superfluous, and therefore intimates: all sacrifices which a priest offers.
^ᵃⁱnote:But not others.
^ᵃʲnote:As in the Mishnah: in no instance does the skin belong to the altar.
^ᵃᵏnote:To the skin of all most sacred sacrifices.
^ᵃˡnote:And does not apply to or is not needed for any other sacrifices.
^ᵃᵐnote:I.e., the priests are not bound to flay the animals first. Obviously then the skin is theirs together with the flesh, and no text is required in respect of these.
^ᵃⁿnote:Lev. I, 6. Scripture does not state at this stage what is done with the skin.
^ᵃᵒnote:Rashak omits bracketed words.
^ᵃᵖnote:I.e., while they have no share in the flesh of other sacrifices, since they are not eligible to eat it when they are sacrificed, there seems no reason why they should not share in the skin of the burnt-offering.
^ᵃᵠnote:The literal translation of the text quoted is, the skin of the burnt-offering which he hath offered is the priest's; it shall be his. ‘It shall be his’ is emphatic; implying his only, and not any other priest's.
^ᵃʳnote:Supra 86a q.v. notes. Thus he utilises ‘it shall be his’ for this purpose.
^ᵃˢnote:But are burnt together with the flesh.
^ᵃᵗnote:V. p. 401, n. 4.
^ᵃᵘnote:Sc. after it was flayed.
^ᵃᵛnote:Though this disqualification occurred before it was even slaughtered.
^ᵃʷnote:Since it was disqualified before it was flayed.
^ᵃˣnote:If the flesh becomes disqualified after the animal is flayed, so that the sprinkling does not ‘propitiate’ on behalf of the flesh, i.e., it does not render the flesh permitted, it does not propitiate on behalf of the skin either, i.e., it does not permit the skin to the priests.
^ᵃʸnote:Sc. the present Mishnah.
^ᵃᶻnote:Though the blood does propitiate on behalf of the skin by itself, he admits that it is very rare for the skin to be by itself when the blood is sprinkled, since the flaying is generally done afterwards, in order not to keep the blood so long. Hence the preceding Mishnah assumes that the skin was not stripped before the sprinkling. If, however, it was, the skin would belong to the priests, notwithstanding that the altar did not acquire its flesh.