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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.''

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.

§ 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.

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.

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,