ויקרא, פרק ד׳, פסוק ל״ב

When an individual seeks atonement for a misstep, the law provides choices, allowing for either a goat or a sheep. If a person chooses to bring a sheep, it must be a regular, one-year-old animal that is still small in its growth [העמק דבר]. Just as with the goat, this offering must be a flawless, unblemished female [אבן עזרא, ביאור שטיינזלץ].

The separation of the laws for goats and sheep into two distinct sections, rather than combining them into a single brief statement, serves a specific purpose. It introduces unique requirements for each species. For example, when offering a sheep, there is a specific obligation to offer the fat tail, a requirement that does not apply to a goat. Furthermore, the detailed repetition across these sections establishes fundamental rules for all sin offerings. These include the requirement to lean one's hands on the animal, the necessity to slaughter it and collect its blood specifically for the sake of a sin offering, and the strict obligation to perform the slaughter on the northern side of the altar [אור החיים].

Generally, sheep are mentioned before goats in biblical law. However, in this instance, the order is reversed. The primary approach among commentators is that this change teaches that both animals are entirely equal in status, allowing the individual to bring whichever he prefers. Still, several reasons are offered for the goat's prominence here. One perspective suggests that a goat is easily recognized by onlookers specifically as a sin offering, whereas a sheep might be mistaken for a standard burnt offering. This public recognition causes the sinner a degree of shame, which ultimately leads to complete forgiveness for his actions [מלבי״ם]. Another view sees deep symbolism in the animals themselves. A goat represents someone who actively rebelled against God and strayed from His path, while a sheep symbolizes a person who merely wandered off by mistake, caught in a moment of weakness. Highlighting the goat emphasizes the contrast between the sin offering of a regular individual and that of a community leader [רד צ הופמן].

Finally, the precise phrasing regarding the bringing of the offering hints at a practical scenario involving a lost animal. If a person sets aside an offering and it becomes lost, and he then designates a replacement before finding the original, he is permitted to bring either of the two animals. However, the exact wording dictates that he must bring only one of them, while the other is left to die. This strict limitation of a single offering remains in place even if the individual committed the exact same offense multiple times [תורה תמימה, מלבי״ם, אדרת אליהו].