[If] a sacrifice became invalid before it was skinned, its hide is not [given] to the priests; [if it became invalid] after it was skinned, its hide is [given] to the priests. Rabbi Chanina Segan HaKohanim said: In my life I never saw a hide [be taken] out [of the Temple precincts] to be burned. Rabbi Akiva said: From his statement we learn that [if] one skins a <i>Bechor</i> [first-born offering] which was [then] found to be a <i>Terefah</i> [an animal with a mortal condition such that it would die within one year], the priests should still benefit from its hide. And the Sages say: [The statement of] "we never saw" is no proof; rather [the hide] goes out to the place of burning.
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
אין עורותיהן לכהנים – but rather they are burned with their hides.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim
All sacrifices which became disqualified, before they were flayed, their hides do not belong to the priests. After they were flayed, their hides belong to the priests. When sacrifices are disqualified, they cannot be eaten. The question in our mishnah is what to do with the hides when the priests do not get the flesh. If the sacrifice was disqualified before the animal was flayed, then the hide does not belong to the priest. In this case the disqualification renders the hide disqualified as well. If the disqualification takes place after the hide has already been removed, then it does not affect the status of the hide, which goes to the priest.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
לא ראיתי עור יוצא לבית השריפה – after it was flayed, if it was found to be an animal with a condition that would cause it to die within twelve months (i.e., it was found to have been torn by another animal or with a congenital defect or afflicted with a severe organ disease, even though that this disqualification was in it prior to the flaying, but it was not recognized until after it was flayed.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim
Rabbi Hanina vice-chief of the priests said: Never in my life have I seen a hide go out to the place of burning. Rabbi Hanina was the vice-chief of the priests, and hence his testimony of what occurred in the Temple is first-hand. Rabbi Hanina claims that he never saw a hide go out to be burned in the place of burning, which is what would have to be done to a hide if it was disqualified from going to either the priest or the owner. Rather, the always went to the priests (or to the owners in the case of less holy sacrifices). This line is an interesting interpolation of actual Temple practice into abstract rabbinic law concerning what is supposed to happen in the Temple. As I have stated many times, the rabbis’ laws are not simply recordings of what actually happened in the Temple. Rather, they are based mostly on rabbinic interpretation of the Torah and rabbinic application of legal principles. These interpretations and principles are occasionally mixed in with traditions about what actually happened in the Temple. Very rarely do we have a priest actually tell us what he saw in the Temple. And here, when a priest of priestly and rabbinic authority does testify, it seems to contradict what was stated above, for according to the previous halakhah, if the disqualification occurred before the animal was flayed, the hide must be burned.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
שהמפשיט את הבכור ונמצא טריפה – Rabbi Akiba comes to tell us that even if it was a firstling with a blemish/physical defect that was ritually slaughtered in the country on its blemish, and the Biblical verse did not permit it other than through eating, as it is written (Deuteronomy 15:21-22): [“But if it has a defect, lameness or blindness, any serious defect, you shall not sacrifice it to the LORD your God.] Eat it in your settlements, [the impure among you no less than the pure, just like the gazelle and the deer],” but if it died, its hide is forbidden and it requires burial, and it comes to teach us that where its being afflicted with a severe organ disease/congenital defect/torn by another animal was not recognized until after it was flayed, its ritual slaughter is permitted and its hide is flayed, as if its blood was sprinkled/tossed in the Temple.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim
Rabbi Akiva said: we learn from his words that if one flays a firstling and it is found to be terefah, the priests have a right to its hide. Rabbi Akiva attempts to derive a halakhah from Rabbi Hanina’s testimony. If a firstling was slaughtered, whether in the Temple as a sacrifice when it does not have a blemish, or outside the Temple when it is blemished, and it is found to be a terefah, an animal with an internal flaw such that it cannot be eaten, the priests receive the hide. Were it not for Rabbi Hanina’s testimony, we would have thought that the hide should have been burned.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
יאותו הכהנים בעורו – [the priests may make use of its hide] and it is not burned.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
English Explanation of Mishnah Zevachim
But the sages say: “I have never seen” is not proof: rather, it [the hide] must go forth to the place of burning. The other rabbis discount Rabbi Hanina’s testimony as being valueless. The fact that he didn’t see something occur does not mean that it did not actually occur. Perhaps there was a hide burned at the burning place and not given to the priests but that this did not occur while Rabbi Hanina was serving in the Temple. Hence, the law cannot be based on his testimony, rather if the disqualification occurs before the animal is flayed, the priests do not receive the hide, as was stated in section one.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
אין לא ראיתי ראיה – for perhaps it did not happen during his life that he would find [the animal’s] severe organ disease/congenital defect/torn by another animal until after it was flaying, and if it happened, and he burned it, he didn’t see it.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Bartenura on Mishnah Zevachim
אלא יצא לבית השריפה – since but prior to the flaying he came. But the Halakha is according to Rabbi Akiba regarding a firstling with a blemish/physical defect when a specialist permitted it. But not if a specialist did not permit it. But the Halakha is according to the Sages regarding a pure firstling, that the flesh [requires] burial and hide [requires] burning.