Midrash su Levitico 22:25

“That the sun has tanned me,” Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya the Great: It is written: “For My people have performed two evils” (Jeremiah 2:13). Did they not forsake many more [than two commandments]? Rather, it teaches that they performed one that is as severe as two, as they prostrated themselves to idols while exposing themselved toward the Temple. That is what is written: “He brought me to the inner courtyard of the House… [twenty-five men, their backs toward the Sanctuary of the Lord and their faces to the east…to the sun]” (Ezekiel 8:16). Just as you say: “Their corruption is in them, a blemish is in them” (Leviticus 22:25).
Another matter, “that the sun has tanned me,” because I prepared horse-drawn chariots for the sun, as it is written: “He abolished the horses that the kings of Judah had designated for the sun, from going to the House of the Lord” (II Kings 23:11). ²⁰⁵The kings of Judah had horse-drawn chariots rush toward the rising sun as a form of honor and worship.

12) (Vayikra 22:25) ("And from the hand of a gentile you shall not present the bread of your G d of all these, for their corruption is in them; a blemish is in them; they will not be acceptable for you.") Whence is it derived that shekalim (coins for communal offerings) are not accepted from idolators? From "And from the hand of a gentile you shall not present the bread of your G d." This tells me only of daily offerings, which are called "bread," as it is written (Bamidbar 28:2) "My offerings, My bread for My fires." Whence do I derive the same for the other communal offerings? From "of all these." Whence is it derived that females are subject to (the interdict against) sterilization? From "for their corruption is in them; a blemish is in them." R. Yehudah says: "in them" (masculine) — Females are not subject to (the interdict against) sterilization. "for their corruption is in them; they will not be acceptable." We are hereby taught that they do not effect acceptance (i.e., atonement).

(Ibid. 13) "All the native-born shall thus do, etc.": From here we learn that libations can be donated. How much? Three logs, (which suffice for a lamb). And whence is it derived that if he wishes to add he may do so? From "shall do." I might think he can decrease; it is, therefore, written "thus." From here it was derived: One is not to donate two or five, (which do not [exactly] suffice for anything), but he may donate three or four or six or above, (which do [exactly] suffice for something). Variantly: What is the intent of "All the native-born, etc."? Because it is written (Vayikra 22:25) "And from the hand of a gentile you shall not present (as a sacrifice) the bread of your G-d of all these (blemished animals)" — These you do not accept (from gentiles), but you do accept unblemished animals. After we have learned that a gentile may bring a burnt-offering, I can now conclude: An Israelite brings a burnt-offering and a gentile brings a burnt-offering. Can I also conclude: Just as an Israelite brings libations, so, a gentile brings libations? It is, therefore, written "All the native-born shall thus do these (libations)" — An Israelite brings libations, but a gentile does not. I might, then, think that his burnt-offering does not require libations; it is, therefore, written "shall thus do" (to bring libations) — whence they ruled: If a gentile sent his burnt-offering from abroad and sent libations along with it, his own are used; and if not they are to be brought by the congregation.