Midrash su Levitico 5:9

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.

10) (Vayikra 5:10) "And the second one he shall make a burnt-offering as prescribed": As prescribed for the sin-offering of a beast or as prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird, (that does not require sundering in its "pinching," viz. Vayikra 5:7) above)? (Vayikra 1:15) "And the Cohein shall bring it" (a bird burnt-offering — as distinct from the "pinching" of a bird sin-offering (Vayikra 5:8) —) distinguishes a burnt-offering from a sin-offering. For you could say "as prescribed for the sin-offering of a beast" — Just as the sin-offering of a beast comes from chullin (mundane monies, and not from monies of the second tithe), and (is sacrificed only in) the daytime, and (only with) the right hand, so (do these apply to) a bird burnt-offering. R. Yishmael says: "As prescribed" (means) as prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird, (which precedes [Vayikra 5:8]). Just as with the sin-offering of a bird — "opposite its nape," so with the burnt-offering of a bird, opposite its nape. R. Elazar b. R. Shimon says: As prescribed for the sin-offering of a bird. Just as with the sin-offering of a bird, he holds its head and its body and sprinkles (viz. Vayikra 5:9), so (does he do) with the burnt-offering of a bird. I might think that just as there (with the sin-offering of a bird), (only) one sign (is severed), here, too, (with the burnt-offering of a bird), (only) one sign should be severed. It is, therefore, (to negate this) written (in respect to the donative burnt-offering of a bird [Vayikra 1:15]): "And he shall bring it," (and not the prescribed burnt-offering of a bird — our case — with the severing of the two signs).

(Lev. 15:25:) AND WHEN A WOMAN HAS HAD A DISCHARGE OF BLOOD. Why a woman and not a man?⁵³Tanh., Lev. 5:9. Previously it applied to men and women. Thus it is stated (in Lev. 15:2): WHEN ANY MAN HAS A DISCHARGE ISSUING FROM HIS FLESH. R. Meir says: The man's uncleanness was more serious than the woman's uncleanness. Why? Because the uncleanness of women is a sign of children; however, that of a man is < a sign > of suffering. Thus it is stated (in vs. 3): AND THIS SHALL BE THE UNCLEANNESS {FROM} [IN] HIS DISCHARGE, WHETHER HIS FLESH RUNS WITH HIS DISCHARGE OR WHETHER HIS FLESH IS SEALED FROM HIS DISCHARGE,⁵⁴The next verses (4–12) stress just how contagious his discharge really is. < i.e. > something which is sealed and closed. Previously the men saw blood, until Rachel arose [and said] (in Gen. 31:35): FOR THE PERIOD OF WOMEN IS UPON ME. Then it was given to her. Therefore (in Exod. 15:25): AND WHEN A WOMAN HAS HAD A DISCHARGE OF BLOOD.