레위기 4:4의 미드라쉬

1) (Vayikra 4:4): "And he shall bring (the bullock to the door of the tent of meeting."): even after Yom Kippur (i.e., Yom Kippur does not atone for those liable for categorical sin-offerings and guilt-offerings). "bullock": he brings a bullock and not an alternate (offering [i.e., a she-goat], as a [lay] individual may.)

2) For does it not follow (without the exclusion clause that he may bring an alternate), viz.: If the (lay) individual, whose offering for (unwitting sin) in respect to all the mitzvoth [i.e., a she-lamb] is not the same as his offering on Yom Kippur (i.e., the "dispatched" he-goat), (yet) his offering for all the mitzvoth is the same as his offering for the "distinct" mitzvah (that of idolatry, for which he brings a she-goat, [in that he may also bring for all mitzvoth a she-goat as an alternate for the she-lamb]) — the high-priest, whose offering for all the mitzvoth (i.e., a bullock) is the same as his offering on Yom Kippur — how much more should it follow that his offering for all the mitzvoth be the same as his offering for the "distinct" mitzvah (i.e., that he should be permitted to bring a she-goat as an alternate for the bullock)! — This is refuted by (the instance of) the nassi, whose offering for all mitzvoth (a he-goat) is the same as his offering on Yom Kippur, in spite of which his offering for all mitzvoth is not the same as his offering for the "distinct" mitzvah (i.e., he was not permitted to bring for all mitzvoth a she-goat as an alternate for the he-goat).

3) Here, too, then, do not wonder that the high-priest, even though his offering for all the mitzvoth is the same as his offering on Yom Kippur, still, his offering for all mitzvoth is not the same as his offering for the "distinct" mitzvah (and no exclusion clause is needed to tell us that he may not bring an alternate.) But, I might think that "And he shall bring" implies that he may bring an alternate; it is, therefore, written "bullock" — he brings a bullock and not an alternate.

4) (Vayikra 4:4): "And he shall place his hand on the head of the bullock" — to include the Yom Kippur bullock as requiring semichah. Now dos this not follow (without the inclusion clause), viz.: If this (offering), which does not require two confessions, and does not require "Ana" (I pray you, etc.", but only one confession, for his sin, at the time of semichah) — the Yom Kippur bullock, which does require two confessions (one for him alone, and one for him and his brother priests), and does require "Ana" — how much more so should it require semichah! — No, it may be so in this case, where the offering is for an ascertained sin, as opposed to the Yom Kippur bullock, where the offering is not for an ascertained sin (but for a possible one). And since this is the case, I might think that it does not require semichah; it is, therefore, written: "And he shall place his hand on the head of the bullock" — to include the Yom Kippur bullock as requiring semichah. "And he shall slaughter the bullock before the L–rd" — in the north (as all other sin-offerings).

(Lev. 12:6): AND WHEN THE DAYS OF HER PURIFICATION ARE FULFILLED, FOR EITHER A SON OR FOR A DAUGHTER, SHE SHALL BRING A LAMB IN ITS FIRST YEAR FOR A BURNT OFFERING…. Why does she bring an offering?²¹Tanh., Lev. 4:4. Our masters have said: She screams a hundred times when she sits on the birthing chair, < since there are > ninety-nine < chances > for death and one for life.²²Exod. R. 46:2; Lev. R. 27:7; Tanh., Lev. 8:11; PRK 9:6. And when the pangs arrive for her, she vows that she will never favor her husband < with sexual intercourse > again. She therefore brings an offering,²³Because of the impetuous oath. So Nid. 31:b. as stated (ibid.): SHE SHALL BRING A LAMB IN ITS FIRST YEAR….

(Gen. 34:1:) NOW LEAH'S DAUGHTER DINAH… WENT OUT. R. Hiyya bar Abba said: The male is always attributed to the wife, and the female, to the husband.⁵⁷See Tanh. (Buber), Lev. 4:4; Tanh., Lev. 4:3. Then why is this < daughter > attributed to her mother? Because her pregnancy was originally male. However, when Leah had borne six < sons >, Billah, two, and Zilpah, two, for a total of ten; then she prayed on behalf of < the barren > Rachel, and < the child > in her womb became female.⁵⁸See above, 7:19; Ber. 60a; Gen. R. 72:6. Ber. 60a explains that Jacob could have no more than twelve sons and that, therefore, if Leah’s seventh child were a son, there would only be one son left for Rachel to have. Then Rachel would not even be equal to one of the handmaidens. For that reason, she was attributed to her mother. (Gen. 34:1:) NOW LEAH'S DAUGHTER DINAH … WENT OUT.