Midras Imamat 3:5: Sifra & Midrash Tanchuma Buber

1) Why mention (both) shelamim from cattle (Vayikra 3:1) and shelamim from the flock (Vayikra 3:6)? (Why not adduce one and understand the other from it?) For there obtains with cattle what does not obtain with the flock, and there obtains with the flock what does not obtain with cattle, (so that if only one were adduced, I would think it was that element which obtained with it which qualified it as shelamim.), viz.: Cattle (offerings) are (accompanied by) larger libations; flock (offerings) are (accompanied by) smaller libations (see Bamidbar 15). Flock (offerings) are abundant as communal (offerings); cattle (offerings) are (relatively) few. So that since there obtains with cattle what does not obtain with the flock, and with the flock what does not obtain with cattle, it is necessary to adduce (both) shelamim from the cattle and shelamim from the flock.

9) ("he shall remove it [yesirenah]. (Vayikra 3:5) And the sons of Aaron shall smoke it"): "yesir" ("he shall remove"): "the lobe," even if the kidneys are not there (after the receiving of the blood); "the kidneys," even if the lobe is not there; "yesirenah" — even one kidney, (which makes the other's absence more conspicuous).

10) (Vayikra 3:5) "and they shall smoke it," (Vayikra 3:11): "and he shall smoke" (Vayikra 3:16): "and he shall smoke them": Why the variations? "And they shall smoke it" — what is kasher, and not what is pasul; "And he shall smoke" — Fats (of one offering) may not be mixed with fats (of another); "and he shall smoke them" — all at the same time. It is written here: "a fire-offering," but not "bread"; and further (Vayikra 3:11): "bread," but not "a sweet savor"; and yet further (Vayikra 3:16): "a sweet savor," but not "to the L–rd." Whence do we derive that all of these elements apply to each instance? "fire-offering" (written in respect to each) indicates identity (for all of the elements).