Zevachim 39b (לט:) — the Talmud in English

“As he did for the bull” -

this is the bull of the anointed kohen,

the one mentioned in the preceding passage. Since the verse did not repeat the law of its blood applications, it teaches here that omitting one of them invalidates the offering. [Here the Gemara expounds the word “for the bull,” since “as he did” was already expounded above].

“The sin-offering”: these are the goats for idolatry,

whose law is like that of the bull for an unwitting decision of the court. They are included here with regard to sprinkling on the curtain and on the golden altar, and with regard to burning them outside the three camps, since these laws were not stated in their own passage.

One might think that I should include even

the

goats of the Festivals and the goats of the New Moons,

and that the blood of these too should be applied inside, and that they should be burned? The Torah therefore says: “So shall he do

for it”: he shall do this for this one, but not for another!

What did you see that led you to include these,

the goats for idolatry,

and exclude these,

the goats of the Festivals and of the New Moons

?

Once

we find that

the verse included

on one side

and excluded

on one side,

I include these

the goats for idolatry, so that their law will be like that of the bull for an unwitting decision of the court, because

they

atone for a known mitzva transgression,

one known to the sinner, who knew that he had transgressed it, just as the bull for an unwitting decision of the court likewise comes for a known mitzva transgression.

And I exclude

these,

the

goats of the Festivals and of the New Moons, so that they will not be equated with the bull for an unwitting decision of the court, since

they do not

atone for a known mitzva transgression.

For they come to atone for the defilement of the Sanctuary and its sacred offerings, for one who entered the Sanctuary while impure, but did not know before entering that he had become impure, and even after leaving he did not know that he had entered while impure; they therefore do not resemble the bull for an unwitting decision of the court with regard to its atonement.

“And he shall effect atonement

for them, the kohen”

even though the elders did not perform semikha

by placing their hands on the head of the bull, as they had been commanded there in the passage.

“And it shall be forgiven

them”

even though he did not place

the

remainder

of the blood at the base of the outer altar. This exposition was necessary, because one might have said: Since the verse repeated that omitting any of its applications invalidates the offering, perhaps the same should also be said with regard to the remainder; therefore the verse excludes it.

And

what did you see that led you to invalidate

when he omitted

the sprinklings, and validate when he omitted

the

placing of the hands and the pouring of the remainder?

You say: I invalidate

when he omitted

the sprinklings

because

they invalidate

everywhere,

as is explained below with regard to the red heifer and the offering of one afflicted with tzara'at,

and I validate

when he omitted

the placing of the hands and

the pouring of the

remainder, for their

omission

does not invalidate everywhere,

since placing of the hands never invalidates, and, according to everyone, pouring the remainder in the case of an outer sin-offering does not invalidate.