Zevachim 205

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כל שלא זכה המזבח בבשרה לא זכו כהנים בעורה שנאמר (ויקרא ז, ח) עולת איש עולה שעלתה לאיש

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>WHENEVER THE ALTAR DOES NOT ACQUIRE ITS FLESH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' E.g., if the sacrifice is disqualified before the blood is sprinkled, so that it was never fit for the altar.');">¹</span> 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.

עולה שנשחטה שלא לשמה אע"פ שלא עלתה לבעלים עורה לכהנים אחד עולת האיש ואחד עולת האשה עורותיהן לכהנים

THE SKIN]:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. VII, 8.');">²</span> [THIS MEANS,] A BURNT-OFFERING WHICH COUNTS FOR A MAN.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">³</span>

עורות קדשים קלים לבעלים עורות קדשי קדשים לכהנים קל וחומר ומה אם עולה שלא זכו בבשרה זכו בעורה קדשי קדשים שזכו בבשרה אינו דין שיזכו בעורה אין מזבח יוכיח שאין לו עור בכל מקום:

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.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> ת"ר עולת איש פרט לעולת הקדש דברי ר' יהודה רבי יוסי בר' יהודה אומר פרט לעולת גרים

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?

מאי פרט לעולת הקדש אמר רבי חייא בר יוסף פרט לעולה הבאה מן המותרות

THE ALTAR DOES NOT REFUTE [THIS ARGUMENT], FOR IT DOES NOT ACQUIRE THE SKIN IN ANY INSTANCE.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁴</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>Our Rabbis taught: 'Any man's burnt-offering'; this excludes a burnt-offering of hekdesh:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Glos; the meaning is explained anon.');">⁵</span>

הניחא למ"ד מותרות לנדבת ציבור אזלי אלא למ"ד מותרות לנדבת יחיד אזלי מאי איכא למימר

these are the words of R'Judah. R'Jose son of R'Judah said: It excludes a proselyte's burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The skins of these do not belong to the priests.');">⁶</span>

כדאמר רבא העולה עולה ראשונה ה"נ העולה עולה ראשונה

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'.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">⁷</span> 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?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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?');">⁸</span>

רבי אייבו א"ר ינאי פרט למתפיס עולה לבדק הבית

- As Raba said [elsewhere], 'The burnt-offering' intimates, the first burnt-offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. Pes. 58b, Sonc. ed. p. 292.');">⁹</span> so here too' 'the burnt-offering' intimates, the first burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁰</span>

לא מיבעיא למ"ד קדשי בדק הבית תפסי מדאורייתא אלא אפילו למ"ד לא תפסי הני מילי בשר אבל עור תפיס

R'Aibu<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sh.M. emends: Ila.');">¹¹</span> said in R'Jannai's name: It excludes the case where one dedicates a burnt-offering to the Temple Repair:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹²</span>

וכן אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה פרט לעולה הבאה מן המותרות

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, it does seize the skin.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There are two views on the dedication of a sacrifice to Temple Repair (inferred from a discussion in Tem. ');">¹³</span> R'Nahman in Rabbah B'Abbuha's name also said: It excludes a burnt-offering derived from 'left-overs'.

א"ל רב המנונא לרב נחמן כמאן כרבי יהודה הא הדר ביה דתניא ששה לנדבה לעולה הבאה מן המותרות שלא יהו כהנים זכאין בעורה דברי רבי יהודה

Said R'Hamnuna to R'Nahman: With whom does that agree? with R'Judah?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Who maintains anon that the skin of left-overs is the priest's.');">¹⁴</span>

אמר לו רבי נחמיה ואמרי לה ר"ש אם כן ביטלת מדרשו של יהוידע הכהן דתניא זה מדרש דרש יהוידע הכהן (ויקרא ה, יט) אשם הוא אשם אשם לה' כל שבא משום חטאת ומשום אשם ילקח בו עולות הבשר לשם עורה לכהנים

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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' There were thirteen horn-shaped receptacles in the Temple for various funds. Six of these were for the purpose stated in the text.');">¹⁵</span>

א"ל אלא מר במאי מוקים לה א"ל מוקמינא ליה במקדיש נכסיו

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.

וכדרבי יהושע דתנן המקדיש נכסיו והיו בהן בהמות הראויות לגבי מזבח זכרים ונקבות ר"א אומר זכרים ימכרו לצורכי עולות נקבות ימכרו לצורכי זבחי שלמים ודמיהן יפלו עם שאר נכסים לבדק הבית

For it was taught:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Marginal emendation: we learnt.');">¹⁶</span> This teaching did Jehoiada the priest expound: It is a guilt-offering - he oweth a guilt-offering unto the Lord:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁷</span>

רבי יהושע אומר זכרים עצמם יקרבו עולות ונקבות ימכרו לצורכי שלמים ויביא בדמיהן עולות ושאר נכסים יפלו לבדק הבית

whatever comes in virtue of a sin-offering and a guilt-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">¹⁸</span> burnt-offerings are purchased therewith: the flesh belongs to the Lord,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' It is burnt on the altar.');">¹⁹</span>

ואפי' לרבי יהושע דאמר אדם חולק הקדישו הני מילי בשר אבל עור תפיס

while the skin belongs to the priests!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not to the Lord. Now, R. Judah did not answer this, which shews that he accepted it and retracted from his view.');">²⁰</span> - Said he to him:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. R. Nahman to R. Hamnuna.');">²¹</span>

רבי יוסי ברבי יהודה אומר פרט לעולת גרים אמר ליה רב סימאי בר חילקאי לרבינא אטו גר לאו איש הוא אמר ליה פרט לגר שמת ואין לו יורשים

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,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²²</span>

תנו רבנן עולת איש אין לי אלא עולת איש עולת גרים נשים ועבדים מנין ת"ל עור העולה ריבה

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²³</span>

אם כן מה תלמוד לומר עולת איש עולה שעלתה לאיש פרט לשנשחטה חוץ לזמנה וחוץ למקומה שלא יהו הכהנים זכאין בעורה

Now, even R'Joshua who maintains that a man divides his consecration,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁴</span> that is only in respect of the flesh,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the flesh of the animal belongs to the altar.');">²⁵</span>

יכול שאני מרבה שנשחטה שלא לשמה הואיל ולא עלתה לבעלים

but the skin is seized [with the sanctity of Temple Repair].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁶</span> R'Jose son of R'Judah said: It excludes a proselyte's burnt-offering'. Said R'Simai B'Hilkai to Rabina: then a proselyte not a man?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Surely he is included in, 'any man's burnt-offering'?');">²⁷</span> - It excludes, replied he, a proselyte who died without heirs.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">²⁸</span> Our Rabbis taught: 'Any man's burnt-offering': I know it only of a man s burnt-offering;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' That the skin belongs to the priests.');">²⁹</span> how do I know it of the burnt-offering of proselytes,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sh.M. (and apparently Rashi) delete 'proselyte.' Var. lec. heathens. - Sacrifices were accepted from non-Jews.');">³⁰</span> women, and slaves? Because it says, The skin of the burnt-offering,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 'Burnt-offering' is a repetition in the same verse.');">³¹</span> [which is] an extension. If so, why does it say, any man's burnt-offering? [It intimates,] a burnt-offering whic 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' 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.');">³²</span> one which was slaughtered under a different designation, [for] since it does not free its owner,