Le Lévitique 4:20 Commentaire : Rashi, Kli Yakar & Siftei Chakhamim

ועשה לפר AND HE SHALL DO WITH THE BULLOCK — with this bullock —כאשר עשה לפר החטאת AS HE DID WITH THE BULLOCK FOR A SIN-OFFERING – i. e. as is expressly set forth in the case of the bullock of the anointed priest. This statement thus serves to bring under the command of offering the fat portions the lobe of the liver and the two kidneys which are not expressly mentioned there but which are not expressly mentioned here; and it serves also to repeat the command referring to these rites, teaching thereby that if he (the anointed priest) omitted one of all the applications of the blood it (the sacrifice) becomes invalid (Sifra, Vayikra Dibbura d'Chovah, Chapter 6 5). Since we find in regard to blood which had to be placed on the outer altar, that if he places it there by one application alone he nevertheless effected atonement (cf. Mish. Zevachim 4:1), Scripture was compelled to intimate here that the omission of one application impedes the validity of the rite (Zevachim 39a).

“And he shall be forgiven.” The reason why the language of forgiveness is not mentioned regarding the anointed priest, as it is mentioned regarding the congregation, the leader, and the individual, is explained by Ramban as follows: Due to the priest’s high status, he will not be completely atoned for, because he is a messenger of the Lord of Hosts (Malachi 2:7), and his sin is too great to bear until he prays and beseeches his God. And Abarbanel wrote that what is said in the sin offering of the congregation, and they shall be forgiven, refers to both the priest and the congregation, including them together because both sinned in the matter of instruction by permitting what is forbidden.

This. Rashi adds the word “this” to the word “bullock” because if the first [sacrifice] was a goat or sheep, it would be correct to say, “He shall do to the bullock as he did to the goat or sheep.” It is not correct, however, to say, “He shall do to the bullock as he did to the bullock.” Because of this, Rashi added the word “this.” Also, it is not correct to say, “He shall do to this bullock as he did to the sin-offering bullock,” unless the word “first” is added [i.e., “as he did to the first sin-offering bullock]. For this reason, Rashi needs to say: “As explained in regard to the bullock of the anointed kohein, etc.” [which takes the place of the word “first.”] [Also,] so that we should not err and say perhaps it refers to another bullock, such as the bullock of Yom Kippur, although it has not yet been mentioned, Rashi therefore adds [“As explained in regard to the bullock of the anointed kohein, etc.” in place of] the word “first.”