## Zevachim Daf 103a ###### Zevachim 103a:1 [Zevachim 103a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103a:1) **מַתְנִי׳** כׇּל שֶׁלֹּא זָכָה הַמִּזְבֵּחַ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ – לֹא זָכוּ כֹּהֲנִים בְּעוֹרָהּ; שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״עֹלַת אִישׁ״ – עוֹלָה שֶׁעָלְתָה לָאִישׁ. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **MISHNA:** In the case of **any** burnt offering **for which the altar did not acquire its flesh,** e.g., if it was disqualified prior to the sprinkling of its blood, the **priests did not acquire its hide, as it is stated** with regard to the burnt offering: “And the priest that sacrifices **a man’s burnt offering,** the priest shall have to himself the hide of the burnt offering that he has sacrificed” (Leviticus 7:8), indicating that the priest acquires only the hide of **a burnt offering that satisfied** the obligation **of a man.** ###### Zevachim 103a:2 [Zevachim 103a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103a:2) עוֹלָה שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים, עוֹרָהּ לַכֹּהֲנִים. אֶחָד עוֹלַת הָאִישׁ וְאֶחָד עוֹלַת הָאִשָּׁה, עוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן לְכֹהֲנִים. **William Davidson Edition - English:** Nevertheless, in a case of **a burnt offering that was slaughtered not for its sake** but for the sake of another offering, **although it did not satisfy** the obligation **of the owner, its hide** goes **to the priests.** In addition, although the verse states: “A man’s burnt offering,” in the case of **both the burnt offering of a man and the burnt offering of a woman, their hides** go **to the priests.** ###### Zevachim 103a:3 [Zevachim 103a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103a:3) עוֹרוֹת קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים לִבְעָלִים, עוֹרוֹת קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים לְכֹהֲנִים. קַל וָחוֹמֶר: וּמָה אִם עוֹלָה, שֶׁלֹּא זָכוּ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ – זָכוּ בְּעוֹרָהּ; קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, שֶׁזָּכוּ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּזְכּוּ בְּעוֹרָהּ?! אֵין מִזְבֵּחַ יוֹכִיחַ – שֶׁאֵין לוֹ עוֹר בְּכׇל מָקוֹם. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **The hides of offerings of lesser sanctity** belong **to the owners; the hides of offerings of the most sacred order** belong **to the priests.** The right of priests to hides of offerings of the most sacred order is derived via **an *a fortiori*** inference: **If** for **a burnt offering, for which** the priests **do not acquire its flesh,** as it is burned in its entirety, **they acquire its hide,** then for other **offerings of the most sacred order, for which** the priests **acquire its flesh, is it not right that they should acquire its hide?** And **there is no** room to contend that the **altar will prove** that this is not a valid inference, as it acquires the flesh of a burnt offering but not its hide, **since it does not have** the right to the **hide** of an offering **in any place.** ###### Zevachim 103a:4 [Zevachim 103a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103a:4) **גְּמָ׳** תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עֹלַת אִישׁ״ – פְּרָט לְעוֹלַת הֶקְדֵּשׁ. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: פְּרָט לְעוֹלַת גֵּרִים. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **GEMARA:** **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The phrase **“a man’s burnt offering”** in the verse mentioned above serves **to exclude the burnt offering of consecrated** property, meaning that the priests do not acquire the hides of such offerings. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:** The phrase serves **to exclude the burnt offering of converts.** ###### Zevachim 103a:5 [Zevachim 103a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103a:5) מַאי פְּרָט לְעוֹלַת הֶקְדֵּשׁ? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר יוֹסֵף: פְּרָט לְעוֹלָה הֲבָאָה מִן הַמּוֹתָרוֹת. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara clarifies: **What** does Rabbi Yehuda mean when he says that the phrase serves **to exclude the burnt offering of consecrated** property? **Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef says:** He means it serves **to exclude a burnt offering that comes from** property that was **left over.** For example, if an animal consecrated as a guilt offering remains alive after its owner has achieved atonement by sacrificing another animal, the owner must wait until it acquires a blemish and then sell it. The proceeds are used to purchase a communal gift offering, which is sacrificed when there are no other offerings to be burned on the altar (see *Temura* 20b). Because it is a communal offering, it is not considered a man’s burnt offering, and the priests therefore have no right to the hide. ###### Zevachim 103a:6 [Zevachim 103a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103a:6) הָנִיחָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: מוֹתָרוֹת לְנִדְבַת צִיבּוּר אָזְלִי; אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: מוֹתָרוֹת לְנִדְבַת יָחִיד אָזְלִי – מַאי אִיכָּא לְמֵימַר? **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara asks: **This works out well according to the one who says: Leftover** consecrated property **goes toward communal gift** offerings. **But according to the one who says: Leftover** consecrated property **goes toward an individual’s gift** offering, **what can be said?** As this is a man’s burnt offering, the priests should have a right to the hides. ###### Zevachim 103a:7 [Zevachim 103a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103a:7) כִּדְאָמַר רָבָא: ״הָעֹלָה״ – עוֹלָה רִאשׁוֹנָה; הָכָא נָמֵי, ״הָעֹלָה״ – עוֹלָה רִאשׁוֹנָה. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara answers: According to that opinion, the *halakha* is **as Rava says:** The verse states: “And the priest shall kindle wood on it every morning; and he shall lay **the burnt offering** in order upon it” (Leviticus 6:5). The verse states: “The burnt offering,” with the definite article, to teach that the daily burnt offering is the **first burnt offering** sacrificed each day in the Temple. **Here too,** the verse states: “The priest shall have to himself the hide of **the burnt offering** which he has offered,” to teach that the priest acquires the hide of **a first burnt offering,** i.e., an animal that was initially designated as a burnt offering, but not of a burnt offering purchased from proceeds left over from another offering. ###### Zevachim 103a:8 [Zevachim 103a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103a:8) רַבִּי אַיְיבוּ אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי: פְּרָט לְמַתְפִּיס עוֹלָה לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **Rabbi Aivu** says that **Rabbi Yannai says:** Rabbi Yehuda’s statement can be interpreted differently. The phrase “a man’s burnt offering” serves **to exclude** a case of **one who consecrates a burnt offering for Temple maintenance.** Since the owner seeks to shift its ownership to the Temple, the priests have no right to its hides. ###### Zevachim 103a:9 [Zevachim 103a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103a:9) לָא מִיבַּעְיָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר: קׇדְשֵׁי בֶּדֶק הַבַּיִת תָּפְסִי מִדְּאוֹרָיְיתָא; אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְמַאן דְּאָמַר לָא תָּפְסִי – הָנֵי מִילֵּי בָּשָׂר, אֲבָל עוֹר תָּפֵיס. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara comments: **It is not necessary** to teach this *halakha* **according to the one who says** that **consecration for Temple maintenance applies by Torah law** to offerings already consecrated to the altar, as the animal in fact ceases to belong to the individual, and the priests clearly have no claim to its hide. **Rather, even according to the one who says** that it **does not apply** by Torah law, because the offering is already consecrated for the altar, **this matter** applies only to the **meat; but** as for the **hide,** the consecration for Temple maintenance **applies** and nullifies the priests’ claim to it. ###### Zevachim 103a:10 [Zevachim 103a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103a:10) וְכֵן אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן אָמַר רַבָּה בַּר אֲבוּהּ: פְּרָט לְעוֹלָה הֲבָאָה מִן הַמּוֹתָרוֹת. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The Gemara returns to the explanation of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef and comments: **And so says Rav Naḥman** that **Rabba bar Avuh says:** The phrase “a man’s burnt offering” serves **to exclude a burnt offering that comes from** property that was **left over.** ###### Zevachim 103a:11 [Zevachim 103a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103a:11) אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב הַמְנוּנָא לְרַב נַחְמָן: כְּמַאן, כְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה?! הָא הֲדַר בֵּיהּ! דְּתַנְיָא: שִׁשָּׁה לִנְדָבָה – לְעוֹלָה הֲבָאָה מִן הַמּוֹתָרוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ כֹּהֲנִים זַכָּאִין בְּעוֹרָהּ. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **Rav Hamnuna said to Rav Naḥman: In accordance with whose** statement is your opinion? It is **in accordance with** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehuda.** But **didn’t** Rabbi Yehuda **retract** this statement? **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: The mishna in tractate *Shekalim* (6:5) states that the Temple had **six** collection boxes shaped like horns, **for** communal **gift** offerings. These funds would go **toward burnt offerings that come from** money that was **left over.** For example, if someone dedicated money to purchasing an offering, and after his purchase some of the sum remained, he would put it in these boxes. The *halakha* is **that the priests have no right to the hide of** such an offering. This is **the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.** ###### Zevachim 103a:12 [Zevachim 103a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103a:12) אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, וְאָמְרִי לַהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן: אִם כֵּן, בִּיטַּלְתָּ מִדְרָשׁוֹ שֶׁל יְהוֹיָדָע הַכֹּהֵן! דְּתַנְיָא, זֶה מִדְרָשׁ דָּרַשׁ יְהוֹיָדָע הַכֹּהֵן: ״אָשָׁם הוּא אָשֹׁם אָשַׁם לַה׳״ – כׇּל שֶׁבָּא מִשּׁוּם חַטָּאת וּמִשּׁוּם אָשָׁם, יִלָּקַח בּוֹ עוֹלוֹת; הַבָּשָׂר לַשֵּׁם, עוֹרָהּ לַכֹּהֲנִים. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **Rabbi Neḥemya said to** Rabbi Yehuda, **and some say** that **Rabbi Shimon** said to him: **If so, you have nullified the interpretation of Jehoiada the priest. As it is taught** in a mishna (*Shekalim* 6:6) that **Jehoiada the priest taught this interpretation:** The verse states: **“It is a guilt offering; he is certainly guilty before the Lord”** (Leviticus 5:19). The phrase “before the Lord” teaches that if **any** money **comes on account of a sin offering or on account of a guilt offering,** i.e., it is left over after their purchase, **burnt offerings must be purchased with it,** and their **flesh** must be burned on the altar **to the Lord.** But **its hide** shall go **to the priests.** Rabbi Yehuda did not respond, indicating that he conceded that the hides of such offerings go to the priests. ###### Zevachim 103a:13 [Zevachim 103a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103a:13) אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֶלָּא מָר בְּמַאי מוֹקֵים לַהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מוֹקֵמְינָא לֵיהּ בְּמַקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו. **William Davidson Edition - English:** Rav Naḥman **said to** Rav Hamnuna: **But how does the Master interpret** the phrase: “A man’s burnt offering,” as meaning? Rav Hamnuna **said to him: I interpret it** as referring **to one who consecrates** all **his property,** including animals fit for burnt offerings. If these animals are later sacrificed as burnt offerings, the priests do not acquire the hides, since the offerings are consecrated property. ###### Zevachim 103a:14 [Zevachim 103a:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103a:14) וְכִדְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ; דִּתְנַן: הַמַּקְדִּישׁ נְכָסָיו וְהָיוּ בָּהֶן בְּהֵמוֹת הָרְאוּיוֹת לְגַבֵּי מִזְבֵּחַ, זְכָרִים וּנְקֵבוֹת – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: זְכָרִים יִמָּכְרוּ לְצוֹרְכֵי עוֹלוֹת, נְקֵבוֹת יִמָּכְרוּ לְצוֹרְכֵי זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים, וּדְמֵיהֶן יִפְּלוּ עִם שְׁאָר נְכָסִים לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **And** this is **in accordance with** the opinion **of Rabbi Yehoshua, as we learned** in a mishna (*Shekalim* 4:7): If **one consecrates his property** without specifying the purpose, generally speaking, it goes toward Temple maintenance. **But** if **among it were animals fit to** be sacrificed on the **altar,** either **male or female,** then **Rabbi Eliezer says:** Animals that are fit for offerings must be sacrificed. Therefore, the **male** animals **shall be sold for the purpose of burnt offerings** to those who need to bring such offerings, and the **female** animals, which cannot be brought as burnt offerings, **shall be sold for the purpose of peace offerings** to those who need to bring such offerings. **And** because they were consecrated for Temple maintenance, **their proceeds shall be allocated with the rest of** the person’s **property for Temple maintenance.** ###### Zevachim 103a:15 [Zevachim 103a:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103a:15) רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: זְכָרִים עַצְמָם יִקָּרְבוּ עוֹלוֹת, וּנְקֵבוֹת יִמָּכְרוּ לְצוֹרְכֵי שְׁלָמִים וְיָבִיא בִּדְמֵיהֶן עוֹלוֹת, וּשְׁאָר נְכָסִים יִפְּלוּ לְבֶדֶק הַבַּיִת. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **Rabbi Yehoshua says:** The donor intended that all animals fit for sacrifice be brought as burnt offerings, and the rest of his property be given for Temple maintenance. Therefore, the **males shall be sacrificed themselves** as **burnt offerings; and** the **females shall be sold for the purpose of** being sacrificed as **peace offerings, and he shall bring burnt offerings with their proceeds; and the rest of** his **property shall be allocated for Temple maintenance.** ###### Zevachim 103a:16 [Zevachim 103a:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103a:16) וַאֲפִילּוּ לְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּאָמַר אָדָם חוֹלֵק הֶקְדֵּישׁוֹ – הָנֵי מִילֵּי בָּשָׂר, אֲבָל עוֹר תָּפֵיס. **William Davidson Edition - English:** Rav Hamnuna explains: **And even according to** the opinion of **Rabbi Yehoshua, who says** that **a person divides his consecrated** property, as he rules that the animals are themselves sacrificed while the other property is given for Temple maintenance, **this statement** applies specifically to the **flesh,** which is fit to be burned on the altar; **but** as for the **hide,** which is not, the fund for Temple maintenance **acquires** it from the outset, and the priests therefore have no right to it. This is the *halakha* that Rabbi Yehuda derives from the phrase “a man’s burnt offering.” ###### Zevachim 103a:17 [Zevachim 103a:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103a:17) רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: פְּרָט לְעוֹלַת גֵּרִים. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב סִימַאי בַּר חִילְקַאי לְרָבִינָא: אַטּוּ גֵּר לָאו אִישׁ הוּא?! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: פְּרָט לְגֵר שֶׁמֵּת וְאֵין לוֹ יוֹרְשִׁים. **William Davidson Edition - English:** The *baraita* states: **Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says:** The phrase “a man’s burnt offering” serves **to exclude the burnt offering of converts.** The priests do not acquire the hides of such offerings. **Rav Simai bar Ḥilkai said to Ravina: Is that to say** that **a convert is not** included in the category of **a man?** Ravina **said to him:** Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, meant that the verse serves **to exclude** the burnt offering of **a convert who died and has no heirs.** The offering has no owner, and therefore the priests do not acquire its hide. ###### Zevachim 103a:18 [Zevachim 103a:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103a:18) תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עֹלַת אִישׁ״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עוֹלַת אִישׁ; עוֹלַת גֵּרִים נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עוֹר הָעֹלָה״ – רִיבָּה. **William Davidson Edition - English:** § **The Sages taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states: “And the priest that offers **a man’s burnt offering,** the priest shall have to himself the hide of the burnt offering that he has sacrificed” (Leviticus 7:8). From this verse **I have** derived the *halakha* **only** with regard to **a man’s burnt offering,** i.e., that of a born-Jewish male. **From where** is the same derived with regard to **the burnt offering of converts, women, or** Canaanite **slaves? The verse states: “The hide of the burnt offering,”** and it thereby **included** these as well. ###### Zevachim 103a:19 [Zevachim 103a:19](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103a:19) וְאִם כֵּן, מָה תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עֹלַת אִישׁ״? עוֹלָה שֶׁעָלְתָה לְאִישׁ; פְּרָט לְשֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה חוּץ לִזְמַנָּהּ וְחוּץ לִמְקוֹמָהּ, שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים זַכָּאִין בְּעוֹרָהּ. **William Davidson Edition - English:** **And if so, why** must **the verse state: “A man’s burnt offering”?** It serves to teach that the priests acquire the hide only of **a burnt offering that satisfied** the obligation **of a man,** i.e., **to exclude** a burnt offering **that was slaughtered** with the intention of consuming it **beyond its** designated **time or outside its** designated **area** and was thereby disqualified. The verse teaches **that the priests have no right to the hide of** such an offering. ###### Zevachim 103a:20 [Zevachim 103a:20](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103a:20) יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה שֶׁנִּשְׁחֲטָה שֶׁלֹּא לִשְׁמָהּ – הוֹאִיל וְלֹא עָלְתָה לַבְּעָלִים, **William Davidson Edition - English:** One **might** have thought **that I include** a burnt offering **that was not slaughtered for its own sake** but for the sake of another offering. **Since it does not satisfy** the obligation **of the owner,**