The skin of the burnt offering - It is most likely that the skins of the sin-offering and the trespass-offering also fell to the lot of the officiating priest.

The priest shall have to himself the skin - Bishop Patrick supposes that this right of the priest to the skin commenced with the offering of Adam, "for it is probable," says he, "that Adam himself offered the first sacrifice, and had the skin given him by God to make garments for him and his wife; in conformity to which the priests ever after had the skin of the whole burnt-offerings for their portion, which was a custom among the Gentiles as well as the Jews, who gave the skins of their sacrifices to their priests, when they were not burnt with the sacrifices, as in some sin-offerings they were among the Jews, see Leviticus 4:11. And they employed them to a superstitious use, by lying upon them in their temples, in hopes to have future things revealed to them in their dreams.

Of this we have a proof in Virgil, Aen. lib. vii., ver. 86-95.

" - huc dona sacerdos

Cum tulit, et caesarum ovium sub nocte silenti

Pellibus incubuit stratis, somnosque petivit;

Multa modus simulncra videt volitantia miris,

Et varias audit voces, fruiturque deorum

Colloquio, atque imis Acheronta affatur Avernis.

Hic et tum pater ipse petens responsa Latinus

Centum lanigeras mactabat rite bidentes,

Atque harum effultus tergo stratisque jacebat

Velleribus. Subita ex alto vox reddita luco est."

First, on the fleeces of the slaughter'd sheep

By night the sacred priest dissolves in sleep,

continued...

And the priest that offereth any man's burnt offering,.... In which the flesh was wholly burnt, and nothing of it remained to requite the priest for his trouble, as in other offerings:

even the priest shall have to himself the skin of the burnt offering, which he hath offered; in some cases the skin itself was burnt, and then he could have nothing, see Leviticus 4:11 but in others the skin was reserved for the priest. There seems to be an emphasis upon the phrase "to himself", and may signify, that though in other things other priests might partake with him, yet not in this; and so Maimonides (z) observes, that the skin was not given to every priest, but to him that offered the sacrifice; and elsewhere (a) he says, the skins of light holy things are the owner's, but the skins of the most holy things are the priest's. And some have thought this law has some respect to the case of Adam, and is agreeable thereunto; who having offered sacrifice according to divine directions given him, had coats made for him and his wife of the skins of the slain beasts; and it was usual with the Heathen priests to have the skins of the sacrifices, and in which they slept in their temples and others also were desirous of the same, in order by dreams or otherwise to get knowledge of things future; See Gill on Amos 2:8.

(z) In Misn. Challah, c. 4. sect. 9. (a) In Misn. Zebachim, c. 12. sect. 3.

In the case of the burnt-offering, the skin of the animal was to fall to the lot of the officiating priest, viz., as payment for his services. הכּהן is construed absolutely: "as for the priest, who offereth - the skin of the burnt-offering which he offereth shall belong to the priest" (for "to him"). This was probably the case also with the trespass-offerings and sin-offerings of the laity; whereas the skin of the peace-offerings belonged to the owner of the animal (see Mishnah, Sebach. 12, 3). - In Leviticus 7:9, Leviticus 7:10, the following law is laid down with reference to the meat-offering, that everything baked in the oven, and everything prepared in a pot or pan, was to belong to the priest, who burned a portion of it upon the altar; and that everything mixed with oil and everything dry was to belong to all the sons of Aaron, i.e., to all the priests, to one as much as another, so that they were all to receive an equal share. The reason for this distinction is not very clear. That all the meat-offerings described in ch. 2 should fall to the sons of Aaron (i.e., to the priests), with the exception of that portion which was burned upon the altar as an azcarah, followed from the fact that they were most holy (see at Leviticus 2:3). As the meat-offerings, which consisted of pastry, and were offered in the form of prepared food (Leviticus 7:9), are the same as those described in Leviticus 2:4-8, it is evident that by those mentioned in Leviticus 2:10 we are to understand the kinds described in Leviticus 2:1-3 and Leviticus 2:14-16, and by the "dry," primarily the קלוּי אביב, which consisted of dried grains, to which oil was to be added (נתן Leviticus 2:15), though not poured upon it, as in the case of the offering of flour (Leviticus 2:1), and probably also in that of the sin-offerings and jealousy-offerings (Leviticus 5:11, and Numbers 5:15), which consisted simply of flour (without oil). The reason therefore why those which consisted of cake and pastry fell to the lot of the officiating priest, and those which consisted of flour mixed with oil, of dry corn, or of simple flour, were divided among all the priests, was probably simply this, that the former were for the most part offered only under special circumstances, and then merely in small quantities, whereas the latter were the ordinary forms in which the meat-offerings were presented, and amounted to more than the officiating priests could possibly consume, or dispose of by themselves.

And the priest that offereth any man's burnt offering, even the priest shall have to himself the skin of the burnt offering which he hath offered.

8. the priest shall have to himself the skin of the burnt offering which he hath offered-All the flesh and the fat of the burnt offerings being consumed, nothing remained to the priest but the skin. It has been thought that this was a patriarchal usage, incorporated with the Mosaic law, and that the right of the sacrificer to the skin of the victim was transmitted from the example of Adam (see on [37]Ge 3:21).

7:1-10 In the sin-offering and the trespass-offering, the sacrifice was divided between the altar and the priest; the offerer had no share, as he had in the peace-offerings. The former expressed repentance and sorrow for sin, therefore it was more proper to fast than feast; the peace-offerings denoted communion with a reconciled God in Christ, the joy and gratitude of a pardoned sinner, and the privileges of a true believer.