Q&A: A Question About One Side That Is Difficult on Both Sides
A Question About One Side That Is Difficult on Both Sides
Question
In Zevachim 34a: “The Rabbis taught: If one designated a burnt offering as a sin offering, and it was offered as a burnt offering, he has fulfilled his obligation. If one designated a sin offering as a burnt offering, and it was offered as a sin offering, he must take another animal from his herd, and this one grazes until it develops a blemish. This is the principle: if it remained at its level of sanctity, it is sanctified; if it descended from its level of sanctity, it is not sanctified.” This works out according to the one who says that a sin offering has lesser sanctity. But according to the one who says that a sin offering has greater sanctity, what can be said? Rav Dimi said: They established levels within sanctity; both are indeed of greater sanctity, but the burnt offering is above the sin offering. And there in Tosafot, s.v. “They established levels,” they wrote: “And the same is true also according to the one who says that a sin offering has lesser sanctity: they established levels within sanctity, for both the sin offering and the burnt offering are offerings of the highest sanctity, and the burnt offering is above the sin offering, and that is why it is called lesser.” My question is: if in any case, according to everyone, they established levels within sanctity, then why did the Talmud raise the question specifically on the view that says a sin offering has lesser sanctity?
Answer
That is introduced only in the answer. You cannot challenge the question on the basis of the answer. After the answer—that they established levels within sanctity—it becomes clear that in fact, for this issue, there is no difference between whether the sin offering is of lesser or greater sanctity.
Discussion on Answer
That is a different question, unrelated to this discussion. In any case, that point has to be understood. The Talmud apparently understood that there is a hierarchy within offerings of the highest sanctity, but a hierarchy of a different kind.
Before the answer, without the idea of levels within sanctity, then how did the Talmud understand the opinion that a sin offering has lesser sanctity? After all, both the sin offering and the burnt offering are offerings of the highest sanctity, as Tosafot wrote?