Midras Imamat 19:8: Sifra & Vayikra Rabbah

2) — Now if (piggul) thought invalidates outside of its prescribed time, which (invalidation) obtains in a bamah (a temporary altar), should it also invalidate outside of its prescribed bound, which (invalidation) does not obtain in a bamah! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 19:7): "And if it is eaten on the third day, it is rejected (piggul); it shall not be accepted." Let this not be stated, (for it is already written here). If it is not needed for (piggul invalidation) outside of its time, learn it as applying to (piggul invalidation) outside of its place. I might think that it (piggul thought outside of its place) entails kareth liability); it is, therefore, written in respect to peace-offerings (Vayikra 7:18) ("And the soul that eats of it) shall bear its sin" — Outside of its time entails kareth, and not outside of its place. I might think that even one who slaughters for gentiles or for those who are tamei (to eat it or to offer up the devoted portions) should come under (Vayikra 7:18) "It shall not be accepted"; it is, therefore, written ("It shall not be accepted; he that offers) it." It (burning the devoted portions after they have become invalidated by piggul thought) comes under the interdict, but not slaughtering for gentiles or for those who are tamei.

2) Whence is it derived that our verse is speaking of (a Cohein) who has become tamei? "Profanation" is written here, and it is written elsewhere (Vayikra 22:9) (in respect to eating terumah). Just as "profanation" there refers to tumah, so, "profanation" here refers to tumah. And just as "profanation" there is punishable by death) at the hands of Heaven), so, "profanation" here is punishable by death. And just as for "profanation" there, there is (no) placation, so, for "profanation" here there is no placation. R. Yehudah says: It is written here "I am the L–rd," and, below, (Vayikra 22 verse 3) "I am the L–rd." Just as there, the context is kareth ("cutting off"), here, too, it is kareth.

3) I might think that one is in violation of "It shall not be accepted" only (for an offering) that was slaughtered outside of its time and place. Whence do I derive the same for one that was slaughtered at night, one whose blood was spilled out or went outside the (tabernacle) curtains, one (whose blood or devoted portions) was left overnight, one (whose devoted portions) went outside the azarah, one whose blood was received or sprinkled by those who are unfit, one whose blood was to be applied below (the red line on the altar), which was applied above, or the opposite; one (whose blood was to be applied inside (the sanctuary), which was applied outside, or the opposite; and a Pesach and a sin-offering, which were not offered as such (— Whence is it derived for all of these that if one transgressed and sacrificed them he receives stripes by reason of "It shall not be accepted")? From (the redundant) "it shall not be accepted" and "it shall not be reckoned." I might think that these entail kareth liability. It is, therefore, written ("He that offers) it." He (one who thinks to eat it outside of its time) and its eaters are subject to kareth, and not the others.