Zevachim

‘As he did with the bullock’ refers to the bullock of the anointed priest;1 ‘the sin-offering’ refers to the goats of idolatry.2 You might think that I include the festival goats and new-moon goats.3 Therefore Scripture states, ‘[So shall he do] with this’.4 And what [reason] do you see for including the former and excluding the latter? Since the Writ intimates extension and intimates limitation, I include the former, which make atonement for the known transgression of a precept: while I exclude the latter, which do not make atonement for the known transgression of a precept.5 And [the priest] shall make atonement6 — even though he had not laid hands [on the bullock]: and it shall be forgiven to them7 — even though he had not poured out the residue.8 And what [reason] do you see for invalidating [the sacrifice] in the case of sprinklings and validating [it] in the case of laying on [of hands] and the residue?9 You can answer: I invalidate in the case of sprinklings, as they are indispensable elsewhere:10 while I validate in the case of laying on [of hands] and the residue, which are not indispensable in all [other] cases. implication that there too all the blood applications are essential. rites are not explained there; by making the present text refer to them, we learn that their rites are the same as those prescribed here. offender would not know at all (v. Shebu. 2a). laying hands or pouring out the residue at the base of the outer altar, leaves it valid? Perhaps you should reverse it.