Midrasch zu Wajikra 4:20

5) (Vayikra 4:20): ("And he shall do with the bullock as he did with the bullock of the sin-offering (of the high-priest); so shall he do with this. And the Cohein shall make atonement for them and it shall be forgiven them.") "And he shall do … as he did … and he shall make atonement." Why is this mentioned? To "double" the sprinklings. To teach that if one (sprinkling) were lacking, he did nothing. This tells me only of the seven sprinklings (on the parocheth), failing (even one of) which, nothing has been done. For seven sprinklings are always categorical requirements. But whence do we derive that the same is true for the four applications (of blood on the inner altar)? From "so shall he do."

6) "And he shall do with the bullock": to include the Yom Kippur bullock. "As he did with the bullock": to include the bullock of the high-priest. "the sin-offering": to include the idolatry goats. — But perhaps I should include the festival goats (for the inner service and for burning)! It is, therefore, written (to exclude the festival goats): "so shall he do with this." Why do you see fit to include the idolatry goats and to exclude the festival goats? After Scripture includes, it excludes. I include the idolatry goats, which are brought for transgression of a known mitzvah (as is the bullock in our verse), and I exclude the festival goats, which are not brought for the transgression of a known mitzvah, (but for possible defilement of sanctuary and sacred objects).

7) "And the Cohein shall make atonement for them": even if they (the elders of beth-din) did not perform semichah. "and it shall be forgiven them": even if he did not pour the remnants of the blood (at the base of the outer altar.) Why do you see fit to make it kasher in (the absence of) semichah and (of pouring) the remnants of the blood, and pasul in (the absence of any of) the (seven) sprinklings? After Scripture includes, it excludes. Why do I make it kasher in (the absence of) semichah and (of pouring) the remnants of the blood? Because they are not categorical requirements for atonement (in other instances). And I make it pasul in (the absence of) sprinklings because they are categorical requirements for atonement (in other instances).