ויקרא, פרק ד׳, פסוק כ׳

When a community inadvertently commits a transgression, the required communal Sin Offering is directly linked to the personal sacrifice of the High Priest. Through a careful comparison between these two offerings, precise instructions emerge regarding the sacrificial service, alongside profound insights into the nature of divine forgiveness and the heavy burden of leadership. The instructions for the communal bull mirror those of the High Priest's personal offering. The primary approach among commentators is that this repetition serves to reveal essential details omitted from the communal instructions. Specifically, it dictates that the fat, the lobe of the liver, and the two kidneys must be burned on the altar, exactly as performed for the anointed priest [רש"י, ביאור יש"ר]. Furthermore, the emphatic repetition regarding how the service is performed highlights the critical nature of the blood application. Unlike sacrifices offered on the outer altar, where a single application of blood suffices for atonement, offerings brought into the inner sanctuary demand absolute precision. If the priest misses even a single required application of blood, the entire offering is invalidated [רש"י, שפתי חכמים, תורה תמימה]. This principle extends to other sacrifices brought into the inner sanctuary, such as the bull on the Day of Atonement, while excluding specific festival offerings [תורה תמימה, מלבי"ם].

A conceptual difficulty arises regarding the instruction to perform the service exactly as the High Priest did for his own offering. It is entirely possible that a High Priest never sinned and therefore never actually brought a personal Sin Offering. If so, how can the service be modeled after an action that never occurred? One perspective suggests that a divine command is considered an action in its own right, meaning the priest acts in accordance with what God commanded to be done [פרדס יוסף]. Another approach explains that the High Priest recites the Torah portion of his offering daily, and this verbal recitation is credited to him as if he had physically brought the sacrifice [חתם סופר].

The culmination of the sacrificial process promises both atonement and forgiveness, two distinct concepts. Atonement is the physical act performed by the priest, functioning as a covering and concealment of the sin through the application of blood. However, the priest lacks the power to grant actual forgiveness. Forgiveness is the complete eradication of the sin from reality, a direct result of the priest's service but an act performed exclusively by God [הכתב והקבלה, מלבי"ם, רד"צ הופמן]. The dual mention of atonement and forgiveness also establishes a clear boundary between critical and non-critical elements of the service. While the blood applications are absolutely mandatory, secondary actions like pressing hands upon the animal's head or pouring leftover blood at the altar's base do not prevent forgiveness if omitted [תורה תמימה, מלבי"ם, אדרת אליהו]. Additionally, this process teaches that the entire procedure of atonement and confession must take place during the day, not at night [תורה תמימה].

A striking contrast exists between the communal offering and the High Priest's personal offering. The community is explicitly promised forgiveness, yet the passage detailing the High Priest's personal sacrifice completely omits any mention of forgiveness. One approach views this through the lens of leadership and education. When a spiritual leader sins, his actions cause others to stumble. While the sacrifice atones for the physical act, the negative impression and poor example remain, preventing absolute and immediate forgiveness [כלי יקר]. Another perspective links the leader's fate directly to his followers. A High Priest who issues an erroneous ruling cannot achieve complete atonement until the community that followed his error is also atoned. Therefore, his forgiveness is only finalized when the public brings their communal offering [העמק דבר]. Conversely, some view this omission simply as a matter of logical deduction. If a single offering successfully secures forgiveness for an entire congregation, it is inherently obvious that the High Priest's personal offering will secure forgiveness for him, making an explicit promise unnecessary [רד"צ הופמן].