Zevachim

the 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]1 which he hath offered.’2 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].3 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;4 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.5 Rabbi said: The text bears essentially only upon the skin of a burnt-offering.6 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.7 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.8 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],9 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:10 therefore it states, it shall be his:11 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. 12 MISHNAH. ALL SACRIFICES WHICH BECAME DISQUALIFIED: [IF THIS HAPPENED] BEFORE THEY WERE FLAYED, THEIR SKINS DO NOT BELONG TO THE PRIESTS.13 [IF IT OCCURRED] AFTER THEY WERE FLAYED, THEIR SKINS BELONG TO THE PRIESTS. SAID R. HANINA THE SEGAN OF THE PRIESTS:14 NEVER IN MY LIFE HAVE I SEEN SKIN GO OUT TO THE PLACE OF BURNING.15 R. AKIBA OBSERVED: WE LEARN FROM HIS WORDS THAT IF ONE FLAYS A FIRSTLING AND IT IS FOUND TO BE TEREFAH,16 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.17 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.18 Then consider the second clause:19 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.20 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’ text is required in respect of these. sacrificed, there seems no reason why they should not share in the skin of the burnt-offering. be his. ‘It shall be his’ is emphatic; implying his only, and not any other priest's. 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. 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.