Midrasch zu Wajikra 4:33

3) (Vayikra 4:33): "And he shall place his hand on the head of the sin-offering" — to include for semichah: the sin-offering of the Nazirite, of the leper, and of the defiler of the sanctuary. "And he shall slaughter it as a sin-offering" — expressly as a sin-offering. (Vayikra 4:34): "And the Cohein shall take from the blood of the sin-offering" — expressly for a sin-offering. (Vayikra 4:35): "And the Cohein shall atone for him for his sin" — expressly for his sin. — whence they said: If (in sacrificing a sin-offering), he did not slaughter it, or receive (the blood), or bring it (on the altar), or sprinkle it — to that end — it is pasul.

Our Rabbis were taught: Four [depressive] cries did the Temple court utter: First, "Go forth from here ye sons of Eli who have defiled the Temple of God." The second cry the Temple court uttered, "Go forth from here Issachar, the man of the village Barkai, who honors himself but desecrated the holiness of God." What did he do? He used to wrap silk around his hands and perform the divine service. Again the Temple court cried: "Raise your heads, O ye gates and let Ishmael b. Piachi, disciple of Phineas, enter and serve as High-priest." Another cry the Temple court uttered: "Raise your heads, O ye gates, and let Jochanan, the son of Narbai, the disciple of Phinkai, enter and let him fill his stomach with the sacerdotal food of God." It is related of Jochanan, the son of Narbai, that he would consume three hundred calves in his meal, drink three hundred jars of wine, and devour forty Se'ahs of young pigeons as a dessert for his meal. It was related that never during the life of Jochanan, the son of Narbai, was any part [of the sacerdotal] meat left over. What was the end of Issachar, he of the village of Barkai? It is related that at one time the king and the queen had a dispute as to which meat was better; the king said that the meat of a kid is better and the queen said the meat of a sheep. So it was suggested that a decision should be given by the High-priest, who ought to know because of the sacrifices [of every kind] made every day. Thereupon he appeared before them. "If a kid were the best," said he, waving his hand, "it would be used for the daily sacrifices, [and not lambs which are to be used]." So the king said: "Because he showed no respect for the throne [in waving his hand so freely] his right hand shall be cut off." Isaachar, having bribed the executioner, had his left hand taken off, instead. When the king became aware of this, he ordered that the right hand be cut off also [thus Issachar lost both hands]. "Blessed be the Lord," remarked R. Joseph, "who caused Issachar, the man of the village Barkai, to receive his due recompense in this world." R. Ashi said: "Issachar, he of the village Barkai, never learned our Mishnah, for we are taught that R. Simon says: 'Lamb sacrifices are always preferable to other sacrifices of kids.' One might say so because lamb meat is better; therefore, after the kid offering is mentioned it is added (Lev. 4, 33) And if a lamb, etc. From this we infer that they are equal in taste." Rabina said: "He did not even read the Scripture, where it is written (Ib. 3, 2) If a sheep or a kid is his offering, i.e., if he wants to bring a lamb, he may do so; and if he wants to bring a kid he may do so."

9) "And he shall slaughter it": it, and not its exchange. And below, (Vayikra 4:33): "and he shall slaughter it": it, and not its offspring (that it bore after it had been set aside as a sin-offering). From here (i.e., using this as a point of departure) R. Shimon said: Five sin-offerings are consigned to death (i.e., incarcerated until they die): the offspring of a sin-offering, the exchange of a sin-offering, a sin-offering whose owner died, the sin-offering of one who has already received atonement (with a different sin-offering), and a sin-offering that has passed its first year. You cannot say "the offspring of a sin-offering" in respect to a communal offering, for the congregation does not bring a female (as an offering); and there is no "exchange of a sin-offering" with a communal offering, for the congregation does not bring an exchange; and there is no "sin-offering whose owner died" with a communal offering, for the congregation does not die. I might think that a communal sin-offering whose owners received atonement and one which passed its first year are to be consigned to death, but this is not so; for the non-explicit are to be derived from the explicit. Just as the explicit — the offspring of a sin-offering, the exchange of a sin-offering, and a sin-offering whose owner died — relate to an individual sin-offering and not a communal sin-offering, so a sin-offering "whose owner has received atonement" and one "which has passed its year" relate to an individual and not to a communal sin-offering.