Midrash su Deuteronomio 12:27

3) (Vayikra 6:19) ("The Cohein that offers it as a sin-offering shall eat it. In a holy lace shall it be eaten, in the court of the tent of meeting.") "The Cohein that offers it as a sin-offering shall eat it": with the exclusion of one who immersed in the daytime (and is not clean until the evening, and one lacking atonement, and a mourner. "it": a fit (offering) and not one that is unfit, (such as one that went out of the azarah or became tamei). "it": an offering whose blood was applied above (the upper half of the altar), and not one whose blood was applied below. — Now where are you coming from (to assume that it would be fit if its blood were placed below)? — Because it is written (Devarim 12:27): "And the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled on the altar of the L–rd your G d, and the flesh you shall eat," I would assume that a sin-offering whose blood was applied on the lower half was fit. And how would I satisfy "on the horns of the altar"? As being a mitzvah (but not a categorical requirement). For I would think that just as it requires four applications (of blood on the horns of the altar), but if he made (only) one application it atones, so, it would require the application of blood above, but if he did so below it would be fit. And does this not follow, viz.: Blood is applied below (the red line, in the instance of a bird sin-offering, (Vayikra 5:9): "And he shall sprinkle from the blood of the sin-offering on the wall of the altar," which is expounded to be the lower wall), and blood is applied above (the red line, in the instance of beast sin-offering, where "horns" is written). Just as (it is derived by exegesis) that if what was to be applied below was applied above, there is no atonement, so, if what was to be applied above, was applied below, there is no atonement. But (this could be countered, viz.:) Why does the lower applied above not atone? Because none of it is to be offered up above. Would you then say (because of this) that the higher applied below does not atone — when part of it is offered below! (So that "it" is required to tell us that it does not atone.) — But this would be countered by the instance of the inner (blood), part of which is offered outside, notwithstanding which if it (the inner blood) was offered outside, it would not atone. (So, the question returns: Why is the "it" exclusion necessary?) (Because it could be countered) Why is it that if the inner blood is applied outside it does not atone? Because the inner altar does not complete the process of atonement, whereas with the higher blood, since the horns do complete the process of atonement, I would say that if it were placed below, it would be fit; it is, therefore, written (to negate this): "it" — an offering whose blood was applied above, and not one whose blood was applied below.

5) It was said in the name of R. Yishmael: It is written (Bamidbar 18:17): But the bechor (the first-born) of an ox, or the bechor of a sheep, or the bechor of a goat, you shall not redeem. They are consecrated. Their blood shall you sprinkle upon the altar and their fat shall you smoke.": This teaches us that a bechor requires blood and fats upon the altar. Whence do we derive the same for ma'aser and pesach? From (Devarim 12:27): "And the blood of your sacrifices shall be spilled on the altar of your G d (first), and (then) the flesh shall you eat." This tells me only of their blood. Whence do I derive (the same for) their fat? From (Vayikra 3:16): "all the fat for the L–rd."

7) From this it was ruled: If the limb of a Paschal offering projected beyond the wall (the permitted bound), he cuts until he reaches the bone and strips (the flesh) until he reaches the joint, wherefrom he frees it and cuts it off, (it being forbidden to break the bone of a Paschal offering). And with (other) offerings, he chops it off at any place (including the bone), breaking the bone not being interdicted in the others.