Zevachim 206

לא יהו כהנים זכאין בעורה ת"ל עור העולה מ"מ

the skin does not belong to the priests. Therefore it says, 'the skin of the burnt-offering', [which implies,] a all events.'

עור העולה אין לי אלא עור העולה עורות קדשי קדשים מנין ת"ל עור העולה אשר הקריב יכול שאני מרבה אף קדשים קלים ת"ל עולה מה עולה קדשי קדשים אף כל קדשי קדשים

The skin of the burnt-offering': I know it only of the skin of a burnt-offering; how do I know it o the skin of most holy sacrifices? Because it says, ['the skin of the burnt-offering]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sh.M. deletes this.');">¹</span>

רבי ישמעאל אומר עור העולה אין לי אלא העולה עורות קדשי קדשים מנין ודין הוא ומה עולה שלא זכו בבשרה זכו בעורה קדשי קדשים שזכו בבשרן אינו דין שזכו בעורן

which he hath offered.'<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This is superfluous, and therefore intimates: all sacrifices which a priest offers.');">²</span> You might think that I include lesser sacrifices too: therefore it states, 'burnt-offering': as a burnt-offering most sacred sacrifice, so all most sacred sacrifices [are included].<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But not others.');">³</span>

מזבח יוכיח שזכה בבשר ולא זכה בעור מה למזבח שכן לא זכה במקצת תאמר בכהנים שזכו במקצת הואיל וזכו במקצת זכו בכוליה

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?

רבי אומר כל עצמו לא הוצרכנו אלא לעור העולה בלבד שבכל מקום העור מהלך אחר הבשר

It is inferred by logic. If the priests have a right to the skin of a burnt-offering, though they ha no right to its flesh, is it not logical that they have a right to the skin of [other] most sacred sacrifices, s that they have a right to their flesh?

פרים הנשרפין ושעירים הנשרפין הן ועורותיהן [נשרפין] עמהן חטאת ואשם וזבחי שלמי ציבור מתנה לכהן רצו מפשיטין אותן לא רצו אוכלין אותן ע"ג עורן קדשים קלים לבעלים רצו מפשיטין אותן רצו אוכלין אותן על גב עורן

Let the altar refute it, for it has a right to the flesh and has no right skin? As for the altar, that is because it has no right to part thereof;<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' As in the Mishnah: in no instance does the skin belong to the altar.');">⁴</span>

אבל עולה נאמר בה (ויקרא א, ו) והפשיט את העולה ונתח אותה לנתחיה יכול לא יהו הכהנים זכאין בעורה ת"ל (ויקרא ז, ח) עור העולה אשר הקריב

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' To the skin of all most sacred sacrifices.');">⁵</span> Rabbi said: The text bears essentially only upon the skin of a burnt-offering.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' And does not apply to or is not needed for any other sacrifices.');">⁶</span>

לו יהיה פרט לטבול יום (ומחוסר כיפורים) ואונן שיכול לא יזכו בבשר שהוא לאכילה יזכו בעור שאינו לאכילה ת"ל לו יהיה פרט למחוסר כיפורים וטבול יום ואונן

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.

ות"ק נמי תיפוק לי מדינא מילתא דאתיא בקל וחומר טרח וכתב לה קרא

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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., the priests are not bound to flay the animals first. Obviously then the skin is theirs together with the flesh, and no text is required in respect of these.');">⁷</span> 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.

ורבי ישמעאל האי אשר הקריב מאי עביד ליה פרט לטבול יום ומחוסר כיפורים ואונן

But of the burnt-offering it is said, And he shall flay the burnt-offering, and cut it i its pieces.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lev. I, 6. Scripture does not state at this stage what is done with the skin.');">⁸</span> You might thus think that the priests do not acquire its skin; therefore it states, 'even the pries shall have to himself the skin of the burnt-offering which he hath offered'; and this excludes a tebul yom, [one who lacks atonement],<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Rashak omits bracketed words.');">⁹</span>

ותיפוק ליה מלו יהיה רבי ישמעאל לטעמיה דאמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי ישמעאל נאמר בעולה לו יהיה ונאמר באשם לו יהיה מה להלן עצמותיו מותרין אף כאן עצמותיו מותרין

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:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' I.e., while they have no share in the flesh of other sacrifices, since they are not eligible to eat it when they are sacrificed, there seems no reason why they should not share in the skin of the burnt-offering.');">¹⁰</span>

מופני דאי לא מופני איכא למיפרך מה לאשם שכן בשרו מותר לו יהיה קרא יתירא הוא:

therefore it states, it shall be his:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The literal translation of the text quoted is, the skin of the burnt-offering which he hath offered is the priest's; it shall be his. 'It shall be his' is emphatic; implying his only, and not any other priest's.');">¹¹</span> which excludes one who lacks atonement, a tebul yom, and an onen.

<big><strong>מתני׳</strong></big> כל הקדשים שאירע בהן פסול קודם להפשיטן אין עורותיהן לכהנים לאחר הפשיטן עורותיהן לכהנים אמר רבי חנינא סגן הכהנים מימי לא ראיתי עור שיוצא לבית השריפה

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].

אמר רבי עקיבא מדבריו למדנו שהמפשיט את הבכור ונמצא טריפה שיאותו הכהנים בעורוו חכמים אומרים אין לא ראינו ראיה אלא יצא לבית השריפה:

Now, how does R'Ishmael utilise this text, 'which he hath offered'? - I 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.

<big><strong>גמ׳</strong></big> כל שלא זכה המזבח בבשרה לא זכו הכהנים בעורה ואע"ג דאפשטיה לעור קודם זריקה מני רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון היא דאמר אין הדם מרצה על העור בפני עצמו

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' superfluous text.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Supra ');">¹²</span>

אימא סיפא כל הקדשים שאירע בהן פסול קודם הפשיטן אין עורותיהן לכהנים לאחר הפשיטן עורותיהן לכהנים אתאן לרבי דאמר הדם מרצה על העור בפני עצמו רישא רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון סיפא רבי

<big><b>MISHNAH: </b></big>ALL SACRIFICES WHICH BECAME DISQUALIFIED: [IF THIS HAPPENED] BEFORE THEY WERE FLAYED, THEIR SKINS DO NOT BELONG TO THE PRIESTS.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' But are burnt together with the flesh.');">¹³</span> [IF IT OCCURRED] AFTER THEY WERE FLAYED, THEIR SKINS BELONG TO THE PRIESTS.

אמר אביי מדסיפא רבי היא רישא נמי רבי היא ומודה רבי שאין הפשט קודם זריקה

SAID R'HANINA THE SEGAN OF THE PRIESTS:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' V. p. 401, n. 4.');">¹⁴</span> NEVER IN MY LIFE HAVE I SEEN SKIN GO OUT TO THE PLACE OF BURNING.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. after it was flayed.');">¹⁵</span>

רבא אמר מדרישא ר"א ברבי שמעון סיפא נמי ר"א בר"ש מאי קודם הפשט

R'AKIBA OBSERVED: WE LEARN FROM HIS WORDS THAT IF ONE FLAYS A FIRSTLING AND IT IS FOUND TO BE TEREFAH,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though this disqualification occurred before it was even slaughtered.');">¹⁶</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since it was disqualified before it was flayed.');">¹⁷</span> <big><b>GEMARA: </b></big>[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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' If the flesh becomes disqualified after the animal is flayed, so that the sprinkling does not 'propitiate' on behalf of 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.');">¹⁸</span> Then consider the second clause:<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Sc. the present MISHNAH:');">¹⁹</span> 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.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Though the blood does propitiate on behalf of the skin by itself, he admits that it is very rare for the skin to be by 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.');">²⁰</span> 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'