## Zevachim Daf 103b

###### Zevachim 103b:1
[Zevachim 103b:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103b:1)

לֹא יְהוּ כֹּהֲנִים זַכָּאִין בְּעוֹרָהּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עוֹר הָעֹלָה״ מִכׇּל מָקוֹם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
I might have thought that **the priests have no right to its hide.** Therefore, **the verse states: “The hide of the burnt offering,”** to teach that **in any case** where the offering is not disqualified, the priests acquire its hide, even if it did not satisfy the owner’s obligation.


###### Zevachim 103b:2
[Zevachim 103b:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103b:2)

״עוֹר הָעֹלָה״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא עוֹר הָעוֹלָה, עוֹרוֹת קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים מִנַּיִן? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עוֹר הָעֹלָה אֲשֶׁר הִקְרִיב״. יָכוֹל שֶׁאֲנִי מְרַבֶּה אַף קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר ״עֹלָה״ – מָה עוֹלָה קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, אַף כֹּל קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
And from the phrase **“the hide of the burnt offering” I have** derived **only** that the priests acquire **the hide of the burnt offering. From where** do I derive that they acquire **the hides of** all **offerings of the most sacred order? The verse states: “The hide of the burnt offering which he has offered,”** which serves to include any offering that the priests sacrifice. If so, one **might** have thought **that I include even offerings of lesser sanctity.** Therefore, **the verse states: “Burnt offering,”** and not simply: Offering, to teach that **just as a burnt offering is an offering of the most sacred order, so too** the priests acquire the hides only of **all offerings of the most sacred order;** they do not acquire the hides of offerings of lesser sanctity.


###### Zevachim 103b:3
[Zevachim 103b:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103b:3)

רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר: ״עוֹר הָעֹלָה״ – אֵין לִי אֶלָּא הָעוֹלָה, עוֹרוֹת קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים מִנַּיִן? וְדִין הוּא: וּמָה עוֹלָה, שֶׁלֹּא זָכוּ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ – זָכוּ בְּעוֹרָהּ; קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים, שֶׁזָּכוּ בִּבְשָׂרָן – אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁזָּכוּ בְּעוֹרָן?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **Rabbi Yishmael says** there is a different derivation. From the phrase **“the hide of the burnt offering,” I have** derived **only** that the priests acquire the hide of **the burnt offering. From where** is it derived that they acquire **the hides of** all **offerings of the most sacred order? It is** based on **a logical inference: Just as** in the case of **a burnt offering, for which** the priests **do not acquire its meat,** the priests nevertheless **acquire its hide,** then in the case of **offerings of the most sacred order, for which** the priests **do acquire its meat, is it not logical that** they **acquire their hides?**


###### Zevachim 103b:4
[Zevachim 103b:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103b:4)

מִזְבֵּחַ יוֹכִיחַ – שֶׁזָּכָה בְּבָשָׂר וְלֹא זָכָה בְּעוֹר! מָה לְמִזְבֵּחַ – שֶׁכֵּן לֹא זָכָה בְּמִקְצָת; תֹּאמַר בַּכֹּהֲנִים – שֶׁזָּכוּ בְּמִקְצָת?! הוֹאִיל וְזָכוּ בְּמִקְצָת, זָכוּ בְּכוּלֵּיהּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One may counter: Let the **altar prove** that this is not a valid *a fortiori* inference, **as it acquires the meat, and** still **it does not acquire the hide.** One may respond: **What** is notable **about the altar?** It is notable **in that it does not acquire** hides **in any** instance. **Will you say** the *halakha* concerning the altar should teach the *halakha* **concerning** the **priests, who acquire** hides of **some of** the offerings, as the Torah explicitly grants them the hides of burnt offerings? Rather say: **Since** the priests **acquire** hides of **some of** the offerings, **they acquire** the hides of **all** offerings of the most sacred order.


###### Zevachim 103b:5
[Zevachim 103b:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103b:5)

רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: כׇּל עַצְמוֹ לֹא הוּצְרַכְנוּ אֶלָּא לְעוֹר הָעוֹלָה בִּלְבַד. שֶׁבְּכׇל מָקוֹם הָעוֹר מְהַלֵּךְ אַחַר הַבָּשָׂר.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **says:** There is no need to derive that hides of offerings of the most sacred order go to the priests. **We need** the verse **itself only to** teach that this is the *halakha* with regard to **the hide of the burnt offering. As** the Torah does not generally require that an offering be flayed, **in all** other **cases the hide** of the offering **follows the flesh** of the offering.


###### Zevachim 103b:6
[Zevachim 103b:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103b:6)

פָּרִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין וּשְׂעִירִים הַנִּשְׂרָפִין – הֵן וְעוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן נִשְׂרָפִין עִמָּהֶן. חַטָּאת וְאָשָׁם וְזִבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵי צִיבּוּר – מַתָּנָה לַכֹּהֵן; רָצוּ – מַפְשִׁיטִין אוֹתָן, לֹא רָצוּ – אוֹכְלִין אוֹתָן עַל גַּבֵּי עוֹרָן. קָדָשִׁים קַלִּים – לַבְּעָלִים; רָצוּ – מַפְשִׁיטִין אוֹתָן, רָצוּ – אוֹכְלִין אוֹתָן עַל גַּב עוֹרָן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
For example, **bulls that are burned and goats that are burned** must be burned **themselves, and their hides burned with them,** as the Torah states explicitly (see Leviticus 4:11–12). **A sin offering, and a guilt offering, and a communal peace offering** are given as **a gift to the priest** (see Leviticus 7:7); if the priests **want,** they may **flay them** and use the hides, and if they **do not want** to use the hides, they may **eat** the offerings **together with their hides. Offerings of lesser sanctity** are given **to the owners;** if they **want,** they may **flay them** and use the hides, and if they **want,** they may **eat** the offerings **together with their hides.**


###### Zevachim 103b:7
[Zevachim 103b:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103b:7)

אֲבָל עוֹלָה נֶאֱמַר בָהּ: ״וְהִפְשִׁיט אֶת הָעֹלָה וְנִתַּח אֹתָהּ לִנְתָחֶיהָ״. יָכוֹל לֹא יְהוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים זַכָּאִין בְּעוֹרָהּ? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״עוֹר הָעֹלָה אֲשֶׁר הִקְרִיב״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**But with regard to a burnt offering it is stated: “And he shall flay the burnt offering, and cut it into its pieces”** (Leviticus 1:6). One **might** have thought that, because all the flesh of the burnt offering is burned on the altar, **the priests have no right to its hide.** Therefore, **the verse states:** “The priest shall have to himself **the hide of the burnt offering that he has sacrificed”** (Leviticus 7:8).


###### Zevachim 103b:8
[Zevachim 103b:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103b:8)

״לוֹ יִהְיֶה״ – פְּרָט לִטְבוּל יוֹם וּמְחוּסַּר כִּיפּוּרִים וְאוֹנֵן. שֶׁיָּכוֹל לֹא יִזְכּוּ בְּבָשָׂר – שֶׁהוּא לַאֲכִילָה, יִזְכּוּ בְּעוֹר – שֶׁאֵינוֹ לַאֲכִילָה; תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״לוֹ יִהְיֶה״ – פְּרָט לִמְחוּסַּר כִּיפּוּרִים וּטְבוּל יוֹם וְאוֹנֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The phrase “the priest **shall have to himself”** serves **to exclude** a priest **who immersed that day and** a priest **who has not yet** brought **an atonement** offering, **and an acute mourner,** i.e., meaning that they do not receive a share of the hides, just as they do not receive a share of the meat. **As** one **might** have thought that although these priests **will not acquire the meat,** this is **because it is for consumption,** and they are not permitted to partake of it; but **they will acquire the hide, because it is not for consumption.** Therefore, **the verse states: “Shall have to himself,” to exclude** a priest **who has not yet** brought **an atonement** offering, **and** a priest **who immersed that day, and an acute mourner.**


###### Zevachim 103b:9
[Zevachim 103b:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103b:9)

וְתַנָּא קַמָּא נָמֵי תִּיפּוֹק לִי מִדִּינָא! מִילְּתָא דְּאָתְיָא בְּקַל וְחוֹמֶר, טָרַח וְכָתַב לַהּ קְרָא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But let the first *tanna* also derive** the *halakha* **logically,** as Rabbi Yishmael did. Why did he cite a verse? The Gemara answers: Often when there is **a matter that can be derived through an *a fortiori*** inference, the **verse** nevertheless **takes the trouble and writes it** explicitly.


###### Zevachim 103b:10
[Zevachim 103b:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103b:10)

וְרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל, הַאי ״אֲשֶׁר הִקְרִיב״ מַאי עָבֵיד לֵיהּ? פְּרָט לִטְבוּל יוֹם וּמְחוּסַּר כִּיפּוּרִים וְאוֹנֵן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**And** as for **Rabbi Yishmael, what does he do with this** phrase: “The hide of the burnt offering **that he has sacrificed,”** from which the first *tanna* derives the *halakha*? He holds that it serves **to exclude** a priest **who immersed that day, and** a priest **who has not yet** brought **an atonement** offering, **and an acute mourner,** who do not receive a share in the hides.


###### Zevachim 103b:11
[Zevachim 103b:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103b:11)

וְתִיפּוֹק לֵיהּ מִ״לוֹ יִהְיֶה״! רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל לְטַעְמֵיהּ, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: נֶאֱמַר בְּעוֹלֶה ״לוֹ יִהְיֶה״, וְנֶאֱמַר בְּאָשַׁם ״לוֹ יִהְיֶה״; מָה לְהַלָּן עַצְמוֹתָיו מוּתָּרִין, אַף כָּאן עַצְמוֹתָיו מוּתָּרִין.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **But let** Rabbi Yishmael **derive** this *halakha* **from** the phrase: **“Shall have to himself,”** as does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. The Gemara explains: **Rabbi Yishmael** conforms **to his** line of **reasoning,** that the phrase teaches a different *halakha*. **As Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael:** It **is stated: “Shall have to himself”** (Leviticus 7:8), **with regard to a burnt offering, and** it **is stated:** “The priest that makes atonement, **he shall have to himself”** (Leviticus 7:7), **with regard to a guilt offering.** The following verbal analogy is derived from here: **Just as there,** after the blood of a guilt offering is presented, **its bones** become **permitted** to the priest for any use, since only the portions intended for consumption on the altar are sacrificed whereas the rest of the animal is given to the priests, **so too here,** with regard to a burnt offering, **its bones** that are not attached to the flesh and are therefore not intended for the altar **are permitted.**


###### Zevachim 103b:12
[Zevachim 103b:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103b:12)

מוּפְנֵי; דְּאִי לָא מוּפְנֵי, אִיכָּא לְמִיפְרַךְ: מָה לְאָשָׁם שֶׁכֵּן בְּשָׂרוֹ מוּתָּר לוֹ; ״יִהְיֶה״ – קְרָא יַתִּירָא הוּא.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
With regard to this verbal analogy the Gemara comments: It must be that those terms **are free,** i.e., superfluous in their context and therefore available for the purpose of establishing a verbal analogy. **As, if they are not free,** the verbal analogy **can be refuted** as follows: **What** is notable **about a guilt offering?** It is notable **in that its meat is permitted** to the priests, unlike the flesh of a burnt offering, which is burned upon the altar, and perhaps this is why the bones of a guilt offering are also permitted. Since the phrase: **“Shall have it to himself,” is a superfluous** term in each **verse,** the analogy stands, because a verbal analogy based on free terms cannot be refuted logically.


###### Zevachim 103b:13
[Zevachim 103b:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103b:13)

**מַתְנִי׳** כׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל קוֹדֶם לְהֶפְשֵׁיטָן – אֵין עוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן לַכֹּהֲנִים. לְאַחַר הֶפְשֵׁיטָן – עוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן לְכֹהֲנִים. אָמַר רַבִּי חֲנִינָא סְגַן הַכֹּהֲנִים: מִיָּמַי לֹא רָאִיתִי עוֹר שֶׁיּוֹצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**MISHNA:** If **any offerings** of the most sacred order **were disqualified prior to their flaying, their hides do not** go **to the priests;** rather, they are burned together with the flesh in the place of burning. If they were disqualified **after their flaying, their hides** go **to the priests. Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, said: In** all **my days, I never saw a hide going out to the place of burning.**


###### Zevachim 103b:14
[Zevachim 103b:14](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103b:14)

אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא: מִדְּבָרָיו לָמַדְנוּ, שֶׁהַמַּפְשִׁיט אֶת הַבְּכוֹר וְנִמְצָא טְרֵיפָה – שֶׁיֵּאוֹתוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּעוֹרוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים: אֵין ״לֹא רָאִינוּ״ רְאָיָה, אֶלָּא יֵצֵא לְבֵית הַשְּׂרֵיפָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabbi Akiva said: From the statement of** Rabbi Ḥanina, the deputy High Priest, **we learned that** in a case where **one flays the firstborn** offering, **and** the animal is later **discovered to have a wound that would have caused it to die within twelve months [*tereifa*],** the *halakha* is **that the priests may derive benefit [*sheye’otu*] from its hide. And the Rabbis say:** The claim: **We did not see, is no proof; rather,** if after flaying it is discovered that the animal was unfit before it was flayed, the hide **goes out to the place of burning.**


###### Zevachim 103b:15
[Zevachim 103b:15](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103b:15)

**גְּמָ׳** כׇּל שֶׁלֹּא זָכָה הַמִּזְבֵּחַ בִּבְשָׂרָהּ – לֹא זָכוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים בְּעוֹרָהּ, וְאַף עַל גַּב דְּאַפְּשָׁטֵיהּ לְעוֹר קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה. מַנִּי? רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אֵין הַדָּם מְרַצֶּה עַל הָעוֹר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**GEMARA:** The previous mishna (103a) teaches: 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.** The mishna does not state any qualification, indicating that this is the *halakha* **even if** the priest **flayed the hide before** the **sprinkling** of the blood on the altar. The Gemara posits: **Whose** opinion is this? **It is** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says: The blood does not effect acceptance of the hide by itself;** i.e., it effects acceptance of the hide only together with the flesh. Since the flesh is disqualified and the sprinkling does not effect its acceptance, the sprinkling does not effect acceptance for the hide either.


###### Zevachim 103b:16
[Zevachim 103b:16](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103b:16)

אֵימָא סֵיפָא: כׇּל הַקֳּדָשִׁים שֶׁאֵירַע בָּהֶן פְּסוּל קוֹדֶם הֶפְשֵׁיטָן – אֵין עוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן לְכֹהֲנִים. לְאַחַר הֶפְשֵׁיטָן – עוֹרוֹתֵיהֶן לְכֹהֲנִים. אֲתָאן לְרַבִּי, דְּאָמַר: ״הַדָּם מְרַצֶּה עַל הָעוֹר בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ״. רֵישָׁא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, סֵיפָא רַבִּי?!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara challenges: **Say the latter clause,** i.e., the mishna here: If **any offerings** of the most sacred order **were disqualified prior to their flaying, their hides do not** go **to the priests.** If they were disqualified **after their flaying, their hides** go **to the priests.** This indicates that once the hides are flayed, they go to the priests even if the flesh was disqualified before the sprinkling of the blood. If so, **we arrive at** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, **who says: The blood effects acceptance of the hide,** i.e., renders the hide permitted to the priests, **by itself.** Can it be that **the former clause** of the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,** and **the latter clause** is in accordance with the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi?


###### Zevachim 103b:17
[Zevachim 103b:17](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103b:17)

אָמַר אַבָּיֵי: מִדְּסֵיפָא רַבִּי הִיא, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי רַבִּי הִיא; וּמוֹדֶה רַבִּי שֶׁאֵין הֶפְשֵׁט קוֹדֶם זְרִיקָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Abaye said: Since the latter clause** is the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi, it must be that **the former clause is also** the opinion of **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi. **And** although Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that in principle the priests should acquire the hides if they are removed before the flesh is disqualified, in any case **Rabbi** Yehuda HaNasi **concedes that** the **flaying is not** done **before** the **sprinkling.** Since the offering cannot be disqualified before the hide is removed, practically speaking, the priests will never acquire the hides unless the altar acquires the flesh, as taught in the former clause.


###### Zevachim 103b:18
[Zevachim 103b:18](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/103b:18)

רָבָא אָמַר: מִדְּרֵישָׁא רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, סֵיפָא נָמֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן; מַאי קוֹדֶם הֶפְשֵׁט

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rava said:** On the contrary, **since the former clause** is the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,** it must be that **the latter clause is also** the opinion of **Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.** When the mishna states that the priests acquire the hides if the flesh was disqualified after the flaying, it must mean that the flesh was disqualified after the sprinkling. Therefore, **what** does the mishna mean by the phrase: **Before flaying,**