Zevachim

MISHNAH. WHENEVER THE ALTAR DOES NOT ACQUIRE ITS FLESH,1 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]:2 [THIS MEANS,] A BURNT-OFFERING WHICH COUNTS FOR A MAN.3 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.4 GEMARA. Our Rabbis taught: ‘Any man's burnt-offering’; this excludes a burnt-offering of hekdesh:5 these are the words of R. Judah. R. Jose son of R. Judah said: It excludes a proselyte's burnt-offering.6 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’.7 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?8 — As Raba said [elsewhere], ‘The burnt-offering’ intimates, the first burnt-offering;9 so here too’ ‘the burnt-offering’ intimates, the first burnt-offering. 10 R. Aibu11 said in R. Jannai's name: It excludes the case where one dedicates a burnt-offering to the Temple Repair:12 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.13 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?14 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:15 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:16 This teaching did Jehoiada the priest expound: It is a guilt-offering — he oweth a guilt-offering unto the Lord:17 whatever comes in virtue of a sin-offering and a guilt-offering,18 burnt-offerings are purchased therewith: the flesh belongs to the Lord,19 while the skin belongs to the priests!20 — Said he to him:21 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,22 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.23 Now, even R. Joshua who maintains that a man divides his consecration,24 that is only in respect of the flesh,25 but the skin is seized [with the sanctity of Temple Repair].26 ‘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?27 — It excludes, replied he, a proselyte who died without heirs.28 Our Rabbis taught: ‘Any man's burnt-offering’: I know it only of a man s burnt-offering;29 how do I know it of the burnt-offering of proselytes,30 women, and slaves? Because it says, The skin of the burnt-offering,31 [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 include32 one which was slaughtered under a different designation, [for] since it does not free its owner, disqualified (v. n. 8, p. 496), its owner must bring another. 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. 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. animal consecrated as such in the first place. A ‘left-over’, however, was originally consecrated for something else. technical term, denoting a thing dedicated for any Temple use except a sacrifice. This animal itself must be sacrificed. 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. stated in the text. 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. graze until they are blemished, when they are redeemed, and other animals purchased for sacrifices, as explained. 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. 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. for the altar. then is what we exclude above. 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. the priest — this is preferable.