Halakhah su Levitico 19:6

That He prohibited us from eating notar - and that is what is left over from the meat of consecrated items after the time assigned for their eating. But the prohibition about this is not explicit in the Torah. [However the punishment is explicit.] And that is His, may He be exalted, saying in Parashat Kedoshim about the sacrifice of the peace-offerings, "what is left over by the third day must be consumed with fire. If it should be eaten on the third day, etc. that person shall be excised" (Leviticus 19:6-8). Behold it is explicit that it is [punished] with excision if it was volitional. And if it was inadvertent, he is liable for a fixed sin-offering. So the punishment is written. However the prohibition is His statement about the inauguration-offerings - "it shall not be eaten because it is holy" (Exodus 29:33). And this reference, "it," is also including everything that was disqualified, such as notar - that it is not permissible to eat [it]. And one who transgressed and ate [it] is lashed. And in Meilah (Meilah 17b), they said about the language of the Mishnah, "Piggul (a sacrifice disqualified by its intention) and notar do not join together, on account of their being two separate categories" - they said, "That was only learned with regards to the ritual impurity of the hands, which is rabbinic. But with regards to the matter of eating, they do join together. As it is taught, 'Rabbi Eliezer says, "'It shall not be eaten because it is holy' - [this teaches that regarding] any consecrated food that has been disqualified, the verse comes to apply a negative commandment about its eating."'" And piggul and notar are among the disqualifications of consecrated foods. So therefore each one of them was forbidden from being eaten by His saying, "It shall not be eaten because it is holy." And it has already been explained that the punishment for notar is excision. (See Parashat Kedoshim; Mishneh Torah, Sacrifices Rendered Unfit 18.)

To not eat notar: To not eat notar - and that is what remains from the meat of consecrated animals, from a sacrifice that was brought according to its commanded [specifications] after the time that it is fit to eat from it, as it is stated about the inauguratory sacrifices (Exodus 29:33), "it shall not be eaten, they are holy." And the explanation came about this (Meilah 17b), "[It refers to] anything that is consecrated [that is] disqualified, to give a negative commandment on its eating." And this is hinted to by the verse, in its stating, "they are holy": This third person, which is "they," includes all that which is disqualified of the consecrated animals. But we should not learn from this that notar and pigul (sacrifices disqualified by the wrong thought) are considered one negative commandment, as they are two topics - as I have written above on the prohibition of pigul in the Order of Tsav (Sefer HaChinukh 144). And we found about them that two [different] verses came concerning the punishments, as it is written (Leviticus 7:18), "And if it is surely eaten, etc."; and it is written, after it, "and the soul that eats it will carry its iniquity" - and this carrying of iniquity is excision, as we learn from a comparison with notar. As here, it is written concerning notar (Leviticus 19:6-8), "and that which remains to the third day[...] is piggul, it is not acceptable. And one who eats them will carry his iniquity, since he profaned the holy of God, and excised, etc." And hence, even if the warning for both of them is from one verse, it is not made impossible because of this to consider them two [separate] negative commandments. And so did they say in Meilah 17b, "Pigul and notar do not combine because they are two topics, etc." - as it is explained there that there are things that do not combine and there are things that combine.