Zevachim 79
מתן ארבע מנין ת"ל כן יעשה מ"ש מתן ז' דכתיבן וכפילן מתן ד' נמי כתיבן וכפילן
'How do we know [it] of the four applications? Because it is written, so shall he do'. Why do the seven applications differ? [presumably] because they are prescribed and reiterated? Then the four applications too are prescribed and reiterated? - Said R. Jeremiah: This is necessary only according to R. Simeon. For it was taught: In the upper section 'horns' is written, [where] horn [would suffice] [which implies] two, and in the lower section 'horns' is written [instead of] horn, which implies four: this is R. Simeon's view. R. Judah said: It is unnecessary, [for] surely it says, [which] is in the tent of meeting, [intimating,] upon all which is mentioned in the tent of meeting. <br>
א"ר ירמיה לא נצרכא אלא לר"ש דתניא למעלה אומר קרן קרנות שתים למטה הוא אומר קרן קרנות ארבע דברי ר"ש
Now, how does R. Judah employ [the text], so shall he do? He requires it for what was taught: As we have not learnt about laying on [of hands] and the residue of the blood in the case of the bullock of the Day of Atonement, whence [then] do we know it? From the text, So shall he do. But have we not learnt [it] of the bullock of the Day of Atonement? Surely you said, '"with the bullock" refers to the bullock of Atonement Day.' - It is necessary: You might think that it applies only to a service which is indispensable for atonement; but as for a service which is not indispensable for atonement, I would agree that it is not so. Hence he informs us [otherwise].
ר' יהודה אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר באהל מועד על כל האמור באהל מועד ורבי יהודה כן יעשה מאי עביד ליה
Now, how does R. Simeon employ this [phrase] 'in the tent of meeting'? - He utilises it [as teaching] that if the ceiling of the hekal was broken, [the priest] did not sprinkle. And the other? - [He deduces it] from 'which is'. And the other? - He does not interpret 'which is' [as having a particular significance].
מיבעי ליה לכדתניא לפי שלא למדנו לפר יוה"כ לסמיכה ושירי הדם מנין ת"ל כן יעשה
Abaye said: According to R. Judah too [the text] is required. You might think that it is analogous to laying [hands] and [pouring out] the residue of the blood, which are not indispensable in spite of being prescribed and reiterated; so you might argue that the four applications too are indispensable. Hence [the text] informs us [that it is not so].
ולפר יוה"כ לא למדנו הא אמרת לפר זה יוה"כ
[The Master said:] '"With the bullock" refers to the bullock of the Day of Atonement.' In respect of which law? if [to intimate] that [the four applications] are essential, it is obvious, [since] 'statute' is written in connection with it? - Said R. Nahman b. Isaac: This is necessary only on R. Judah's view, for he maintained: 'Statute' is written only in reference to the rites performed in the white vestments, within [the inner Sanctuary], [and it teaches] that if one rite was [wrongly] performed before another, [the High Priest] has done nothing; but as for the rites performed in the white vestments without,if not performed in correct order, what he has done is done. Then I might argue, since their [prescribed] order is not indispensable, the sprinklings too are not indispensable. Hence [the text] informs us [otherwise].
איצטריך סד"א הני מילי עבודה דמעכבא כפרה אבל עבודה דלא מעכבא כפרה אימא לא קמ"ל
To this R. Papa demurred: Can you say so? Surely it was taught: And he shall make an end of atoning for the holy place, [and the tent of meeting, and the altar]: if he atoned, he made an end; while if he did not atone, he did not make an end: this is R. Akiba's view. Said R. Judah to him: Why should we not interpret: If he made an end, he atoned, while if he did not make an end, he did not atone? Rather said R. Papa: It is required only in respect of [deductions from] the eth and [those relating to] the blood and the dipping. 'Eth': R. Aha b. Jacob said: That is required only to teach that