והכהן המקריב את עולת איש הדין הזה נוהג בכל הקדשים ואמר הכתוב עולה והוא הדין לחטאת ואשם הנזכרים למעלה ואין זבחי השלמים כן ולכך הזכיר הכתוב משפט הכהנים באמצע הקרבנות קודם שידבר בשלמים ומדרשו בתורת כהנים (פרק ט ב) אין לי אלא עולה עורות קדשי קדשים מנין תלמוד לומר אשר הקריב או יכול שאני מרבה עורות קדשים קלים תלמוד לומר עולה מה עולה מיוחדת קדשי קדשים יצאו קדשים קלים ועל דרך הפשט לא הוצרך לומר כן בחטאת ואשם שהם מתנות הכהונה והכהנים זוכים בבשר וזוכים בעור אבל בעולה הוצרך לומר שיזכו בעור וזהו מדרשו של רבי שאמר כל עצמנו לא הוצרכנו אלא לעור העולה שבכל מקום העור מהלך אחר הבשר בתורת כהנים (פרק ט ד) ובזבחים (קג): AND THE PRIEST THAT OFFERETH ANY MAN’S BURNT-OFFERING, EVEN THE PRIEST SHALL HAVE TO HIMSELF THE SKIN OF THE BURNT-OFFERING. This law applies to all offerings, and although Scripture mentions only the burnt-offering, it holds good of the sin-offering and guilt-offering mentioned above.74Above, Verse 1 (the guilt-offering) and 6:18 (the sin-offering). Such is not the case, however, in reference to the peace-offerings [the skin of which belongs to the owner]; therefore Scripture mentioned the law of the priests’ due in the middle of the offerings, before it speaks of the peace-offerings [further on in Verses 11-21].
The interpretation of the Rabbis as found in the Torath Kohanim is as follows:75Torath Kohanim, Tzav 9:2. “[From the verse here] I know only that the skin of the burnt-offering [belongs to the priest]. Whence do I know that the same law applies to the skins of [the other] most holy offerings? Scripture therefore says, that offereth. Or perhaps I might think that I am to include [also] the skins of the offerings which are holy to a lesser degree [such as the peace-offering etc.]; Scripture therefore says, burnt-offering, thus teaching that just as the burnt-offering is distinguished by being of the most holy degree of offerings, [so also this law holds good of all most holy offerings], thus excluding those which are holy in a minor degree.”
By way of the plain meaning of Scripture, it was not necessary to state this law [that the skin of the animal belongs to the priest] in connection with the sin-offering and guilt-offering, since they are part of the gifts given to the priests,76Numbers 18:9. and the priests thus are entitled to the meat and also the skin, but in the case of the burnt-offering [where the priests do not receive any of the meat, since it is wholly burnt on the altar], it was necessary for Scripture to say that they do acquire the skin. This is the interpretation of Rabbi [Yehuda Hanasi] who says,77Zebachim 103 b. “Essentially we need this verse only for the skin of the burnt-offering [to teach that it belongs to the priest], since the skin always follows the meat”78“The bullocks which are burnt and the he-goats which are burnt [outside the camp], their skins are burnt with them, as it is said, and they shall burn in fire their skins, and their flesh (further, 16:27) (Torath Kohanim, Tzav 9:5). Hence the Torah had to explain that the burnt-offering is different; but in the case of the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, it was not necessary to mention that the skin belongs to the priest, for since he acquired the right to the meat, the skin naturally came with it. [and here Scripture tells us that it is not to be burnt with the meat]. So also is it explained in the Torath Kohanim.78“The bullocks which are burnt and the he-goats which are burnt [outside the camp], their skins are burnt with them, as it is said, and they shall burn in fire their skins, and their flesh (further, 16:27) (Torath Kohanim, Tzav 9:5). Hence the Torah had to explain that the burnt-offering is different; but in the case of the sin-offering and the guilt-offering, it was not necessary to mention that the skin belongs to the priest, for since he acquired the right to the meat, the skin naturally came with it.