Midrash su Levitico 4:17

2) "Moses inquired, inquired": This is the goat of Rosh Chodesh (Nissan). I might think that all three were burned; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written "and, behold it was burned" — one was burned and not all three. What is the intent of "Moses inquired, inquired" — two inquiries: Why was this one burned and why were the others eaten (i.e., if you were concerned about aninuth for Nadav and Avihu, you should have burned all of them; and if not, you should have eaten all of them!) I would not know which was burned if it were not written (Vayikra 4:17): "and He has given it to you to forgive the sin of the congregation to make atonement for them." Which goat forgives the sin of the congregation? The Rosh Chodesh goat, as it is written (in that regard): "and one goat for a sin-offering to make atonement for you."

4) "And he shall slaughter the bullock before the L–rd" — in the north. It is written here (Vayikra 4:17): "before the parocheth," and elsewhere, (Vayikra 4:6): "before the parocheth." Just as "parocheth" there is "before the parocheth of the holiness" (i.e., in alignment with the staves of the ark), so, "parocheth" here is before the parocheth of the holiness.

(Bamidbar 19:3) "And you shall give it (the red heifer) to Elazar the Cohein": Scripture comes to teach us about the red heifer that it is processed by the adjutant high-priest. Know this to be so, (that it is processed by the adjutant high-priest), for Aaron was alive and Elazar burned the heifer. "and you shall give it": This one was processed by Elazar, and others (after this) were processed by the high-priest. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Yossi, R. Yehudah, R. Shimon, and R. Elazer b. Yaakov say: This one was processed by Elazar, and others, either by the high-priest or by a regular Cohein. "and he shall take it (outside the encampment"): And another (heifer) should not be taken out with it — whence they ruled: If it balked at being taken out, a black one (i.e., one with black hairs) should not be taken out with it (as an incentive for it to leave), so that they not say it was the black one that they slaughtered and not the red one, (or) that both of them were slaughtered. R. Yossi says: This is not the reason, but (it is) because it is written "and he shall take it out" — alone. "outside the encampment": to the mount of anointment (i.e., the Mount of Olives, east of Jerusalem, so that its blood be sprinkled opposite the door of the tent of the sanctuary.) "and he shall slaughter it": We are hereby apprised that if it became carrion in being slaughtered, it is unfit (to serve as a red heifer). "and he shall slaughter it": — whence they ruled: Two heifers are not to be slaughtered together (with a long knife). "and he shall slaughter it before him": that another slaughters and Elazar looks on. (And) Scripture apprises us about the heifer that (preoccupation with some other) work invalidates its slaughtering. "and Elazar the Cohein shall take": Why is this written? Is it not already written "And you shall give it to Elazar the Cohein"? Why repeat it? (To stress) the Cohein in his priesthood (i.e., in his priestly vestments.) "shall take of its blood with his finger": Its mitzvah is a mitzvah of the hand (i.e., he takes its blood in his hand and he sprinkles with his finger), and it is not a mitzvah of the (sprinkling) vessel. And this would follow, viz.: Since the log of the oil effects kashruth (for the leper to be cleansed for the eating of sanctified food), and the blood of the red heifer effects kashruth (for the ashes of the red heifer to cleanse), then if I have learned that the log of oil effects kashruth only via the hand, (viz. Vayikra 14:15), only via the hand (and not via a sprinkling vessel), then it follows that the blood of the red heifer, too, should effect kashruth only via the hand. You derive it from the log of oil, and I derive it from the blood of the burnt-offering (of the leper). — Would you say that? There is a difference (between your derivation and mine.) The log of oil requires seven sprinklings and the red heifer requires seven sprinklings. If you learn about the log of oil that it is kasher only with the hand, then the blood of the red heifer should be kasher only with the hand. But, where you are coming from, if there (vis-à-vis the guilt-offering) it is kasher only (by spilling the blood) from a vessel to the hand, then here, too, (it should be kasher only) from a vessel to the hand. It is, therefore, written "from its blood with his finger." Its mitzvah is a mitzvah of the hand, and it is not a mitzvah of the (sprinkling) vessel. "with his finger": the right finger (i.e., the index finger) of his right hand. You say the index finger of his right hand, but perhaps all of the fingers are valid. It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 14:16) "Then the Cohein shall dip his right finger, etc." Since "fingers" are written in the Torah unqualified, and in one instance Scripture specifies that it is only the "yemanith" of the "yemanith," so, all "fingers" of the Torah are "yemanith" — the most skillful ("meyumeneth") of the right hand (i.e., the index finger), which is more adapted for sprinkling than all of the other fingers. "and he shall sprinkle of its blood opposite the tent of meeting": that he direct his gaze to the door of the sanctuary when he sprinkles the blood. "and he shall sprinkle … opposite the tent of meeting": If the sanctuary were not set up or if the wind had furled the curtains the red heifer was not processed. "and he shall sprinkle of its blood opposite the tent of meeting": Why is this repeated? Is it not already written (Ibid.) "of its blood with his finger"? From (Ibid.) "seven times," I might understand seven sprinklings from one dipping. It is, therefore, written "of its blood seven times" — he returns to the blood seven times. "seven times": They (the sprinklings) are mutually inclusive (i.e., in the absence of one, the others are invalid.) For it would follow: Since "sprinklings" are written within (the sanctuary, on Yom Kippur), and "sprinklings" are written (re the red heifer), then just as I have learned of the inner sprinklings that they are mutually inclusive, so, the outer sprinklings should be mutually inclusive. — No, this may be true of the inner sprinklings, which effect atonement, wherefore they are mutually inclusive, as opposed to the outer sprinklings, which do not effect atonement, wherefore they should not be mutually inclusive. It is, therefore, written (here) "seven times," and there (of the inner sprinklings) "seven times before the L-rd." Just as there, they are mutually inclusive, here, too, they are mutually inclusive.