Zevachim 80
אמין שבאצבע בדם שיהא בדם שיעור טבילה מעיקרא וטבל ולא מספג
<br> if there is a wart on the finger it is fit. 'In the blood' [teaches] that there must be sufficient blood for dipping at the outset. 'And he shall dip' [teaches] but not sponge up. Now it is necessary to write both 'and he shall dip' and 'in the blood'. For if the Divine Law wrote, 'and he shall dip' [only], I would say, even where there is insufficient for dipping in the first place; therefore the Divine Law wrote, 'in the blood'. And if the Divine Law wrote 'in the blood' [only], I would say [that] he may even sponge it up; therefore the Divine Law wrote, 'and he shall dip'.
ואיצטריך למכתב בדם דאי כתב רחמנא וטבל הוה אמינא אע"ג דליכא שיעור טבילה מעיקרא כתב רחמנא בדם
What is the purpose of the altar of sweet incense? - [To teach] that if the altar had not been consecrated by sweet incense, [the priest] did not sprinkle. <br>
ואי כתב רחמנא בדם ה"א אפי' מספג כתב רחמנא וטבל
It was taught in accordance with R. Papa: 'Thus shall he do...as he did': why does Scripture say, 'with the bullock'? - To include the bullock of the Day of Atonement in respect of all that is prescribed in this passage: that is Rabbi's view. Said R. Ishmael: It follows a fortiori: if rites [of diverse sacrifices] were assimilated to each other even where the sacrifices are not the same, Surely rites are assimilated to each other where the sacrifices are the same. What then does Scripture intimate by [the phrase] 'with the bullock'? This refers to the bullock brought for the community's unwitting transgression; while [the other] 'with the bullock' refers to the bullock of the anointed priest. <br>
מזבח קטרת סמים למה לי שאם לא נתחנך המזבח בקטורת הסמים לא היה מזה
The Master said: 'If where the sacrifices are not assimilated to each other'. To what does 'the sacrifices are not assimilated to each other' allude? Shall we say, to the bullock of the Day of Atonement and the goat of the Day of Atonement? Then [the argument] can be refuted: as for these, [their rites are similar] because their blood enters the innermost sanctum! Rather, it alludes to the community's bullock for unwitting transgression and the goats [sacrificed] on account of idolatry. But [here too the argument] can be refuted: As for these, [their rites are the same] because they make atonement for the violation of a known precept? Rather, it alludes to the community's bullock for unwitting transgression and the he-goat of the Day of Atonement, and this is what he means: If where the sacrifices are not the same, since one is a bullock and the other is a goat, yet the rites are alike as far as what is prescribed in their case is concerned, then where the sacrifices are the same, this one being a bullock and the other being a bullock, it is surely logical<br>