Midrash su Levitico 10:18

5) (Vayikra 10:18): "Behold, its blood was not brought within the sanctuary.": He had said to them: Perhaps some of its blood entered within (the sanctuary). For if the blood of an "outer" sin-offering enters within, it becomes unfit (viz. Vayikra 6:23). R. Yossi Haglili says: This tells us that if the blood of a sin-offering entered the holy of holies (kodesh kadashim) it becomes unfit. This tells me only of the holy of holies. Whence do I derive (the same for) the sanctuary? From "within the sanctuary (kodesh)."

6) (Vayikra 10:18): "You should have eaten it in the holy place" — whereby we are taught that it is to be eaten in the sanctuary. Whence is it derived that it is also to be burned in the sanctuary (if it became unfit)? From "achol (consume) tochlu (consume) it in the sanctuary" (— two "consumings," one for the mouth; the other, for the fire). I might think that even if it became tamei outside, it should be burned inside. It is, therefore, written ("You should have eaten) it" Just as it, "its tumah is inside and its burning is inside," so (the other), if its tumah is outside, its burning is outside.

8) R. Yossi Haglili says: This entire section ("it shall not be eaten, etc.") applies (not to a sin-offering, but) to (unfit) bullocks which are to be burnt and unfit he-goats which are to be burned, to add (violation of) a negative commandment for eating it, to teach that their unfit offerings are burned before the Temple. They asked him: Whence, then, is it to be derived that (an outer) sin-offering whose blood entered inside (the sanctuary) becomes unfit? He answered: From (Vayikra 10:18): "Behold, its blood was not brought into the sanctuary within. (You should have eaten it in the sanctuary," and not burned it, the implication being that if it had entered within, it, indeed, should have been burned.)