טו ואזדו לטעמייהו דתניא
15 But that [the regular service of] the he-goat is not indispensable to the bullock, what does it mean? Would you say [it means] that if he sprinkled the blood of the bullock in the Hekal before the sprinkling of the he-goat within [the veil]?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., he performed rite (x) before rite (ix) , v. n. 1].');"><sup>10</sup></span> But surely Scripture says 'statute'!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which has reference to the rites performed within the Veil, and which implies an inflexible rule invalidating the irregularity of the service.');"><sup>11</sup></span> Rather must you say [it means that] if he sprinkled the blood of the bullock within, before the casting of the lots<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., he performed rite (vii) before (ii) .]');"><sup>12</sup></span> [it is valid]. Now since the order is not indispensable [is it not to be inferred that] the casting of the lots is not indispensable!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Hence there is one who holds that the casting of the lots is not indispensable. That contradicts the above statement that even R. Judah (and all the more R. Nehemiah) considers it indispensable.');"><sup>13</sup></span> - No, [it means that] he made the sprinkling of the blood of the bullock on the altar before sprinkling the blood of the he-goat in the Hekal<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [I.e., he performed rite (xii) before rite (xi) . The blood of the bullock here means that which he mixed with the blood of the he-goat.]');"><sup>14</sup></span> and this [teaching] is in accord with R'Judah, who says that anything done in the white garments outside [the Holy of Holies] is dispensable. But does it not state 'with regard to the sprinklings within'?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Whereas this irregularity in connection with the bullock concerned a service performed outside the Holy of Holies.');"><sup>15</sup></span> Rather: It is in accord with R'Simeon who holds the casting of the lots is dispensable. Or, if you like, say: Still I say it is in accord with R'Judah,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [And the irregularity consequently concerned rites (vii) and (ii) , v. p. 190, n. 5.]');"><sup>16</sup></span> and although the order of the service is not indispensable, the casting of the lots is indispensable. And they follow their own principle.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' This refers to the dispute of R. Judah and R. Simeon where he failed to make confession.');"><sup>17</sup></span> For it was taught: