Midrasch zu Wajikra 16:5

1) (Vayikra 16:5) ("And from the congregation of the children of Israel he shall take two he-goats for a sin-offering and one ram for a burnt-offering.") "And from the congregation of the children of Israel": They must be from (i.e., are funded by) the community. "he shall take two he-goats": The minimum of he-goats is two. Why, then, is it written "two"? That they be alike (in all respects). And whence is it derived that even if they are not alike, they are (nevertheless) valid? From "he-goat" (Vayikra 16:9); "he-goat" (Vayikra 16:10), (connoting de facto validity with) any he-goat.

2) "and one ram for a burnt-offering": Rebbi said: The "one ram" mentioned here is the same as that mentioned in Bamidbar (Bamidbar 29:9). R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: They are two rams, one mentioned here, and one in Bamidbar. (Vayikra 16:6) "And Aaron shall present the bullock of the sin-offering which is his.": He shall not bring it from community (funds). I might think that he does not bring it from the community because it does not atone for the community, but that he may bring it from his fellow Cohanim, whom it does atone for. It is, therefore, written again "which is his" (Vayikra 16:11). I might think he should not bring it ab initio, but if he did, it is valid. It is, therefore, written again (Vayikra 16:11) "which is his." (Vayikra 16:6) "and he shall make atonement for himself and for his household. This is verbal atonement. But perhaps (it is speaking of) atonement through (the sprinkling of) the blood. (This cannot be, for) it "atonement" is written here, and it is written in respect to the (sent-away) he-goat. Just as the "atonement" there is verbal confession, so the "atonement" of the bullock is verbal.

3) Or, if you wish, this can be derived from "And Aaron shall present the bullock of the sin-offering which is his, and he shall make atonement for himself and for his household" — and the bullock has not yet been slaughtered. (It is obvious, then, that verbal atonement is intended.)