The sacrificial system establishes a careful distribution of the animal portions between the altar, the priests, and the individuals bringing the offering. In the case of the burnt offering, the entire animal is consumed by the fire on the altar, leaving only a single gift for the officiating priests: the animal's hide.
Most commentators explain that this specific allocation requires special emphasis precisely because of the unique nature of the burnt offering. In sin and guilt offerings, the priests consume the meat, making it naturally understood that they also acquire the accompanying hide. Conversely, in peace offerings, the hide remains the property of the owner. Because the priests receive no meat from the burnt offering, one might mistakenly assume that the hide should either be burned on the altar or returned to the owner. Therefore, the law clarifies that the hide is awarded to the priests [רמב״ן, הטור הארוך, רלב״ג]. From this, a broader principle is derived: the hides of all most holy offerings are given to the priests, whereas the hides of lesser holy offerings remain with the owners [תורה תמימה, מלבי״ם].
Regarding exactly who receives this gift, one perspective suggests the hide is given specifically to the individual priest who performs the sacrificial service [אבן עזרא]. However, the primary approach among commentators is that the right is not limited to a single individual. Instead, the hides are distributed equally among the entire priestly watch working in the Temple on that given day [חזקוני, רש״ר הירש, פירושי רד״צ הופמן, ברכת אשר].
The law establishes clear boundaries regarding who is eligible to participate in this distribution. While the hide becomes the absolute personal property of the priest [ביאור יש״ר], priests who are temporarily unfit for service are strictly excluded. This includes a mourner prior to burying a relative, a priest who has immersed for purification but is awaiting sunset, and one who has not yet brought his final atonement offering. Since the hide is not meant for consumption, one might logically assume these priests could receive a share despite being forbidden from eating sacrificial meat. To counter this, the law dictates that only a priest currently fit to perform the sacrificial service may claim a portion of the hide [רש״י, מזרחי, שפתי חכמים, גור אריה]. Furthermore, the priests' right to the hide is only established after the offering has been executed properly and its blood dashed correctly, successfully fulfilling the owner's obligation. If the animal is found to be fatally diseased after slaughter, or if its blood is improperly spilled, the priests do not receive the hide [רבנו בחיי, רש״ר הירש].
Defining the sacrifice as a private individual's offering deliberately excludes burnt offerings belonging to the Temple treasury, as the hides of those communal offerings are sold to generate funds for Temple maintenance. This definition also excludes offerings brought by minors [נתינה לגר], as well as sacrifices invalidated by the improper intentions of the priest during slaughter, such as planning to process the offering at the wrong time or place. Once invalidated by such thoughts, the sacrifice is no longer considered the valid offering of the owner [תורה תמימה, מלבי״ם, רש״ר הירש].
Despite these specific exclusions, the parameters of the law are also broadened to include the burnt offerings of women, slaves, and converts. It even includes an offering that was mistakenly slaughtered for a different sacrificial purpose. Although an offering slaughtered for the wrong purpose does not fulfill the owner's religious obligation, it remains a valid sacrifice on the altar, and therefore its hide is still awarded to the priests [תורה תמימה, מלבי״ם]. Finally, the absolute nature of the priest's ownership yields an additional practical ruling beyond the hide itself: the bones of the animal burnt offering are permitted for personal benefit and may be fashioned into everyday utensils [תורה תמימה].