Midrash su Levitico 7:5

2) Now where is it excluded (from such application, that we need a verse to include it)? — Because it is written (in respect to the guilt-offering of a leper (Vayikra 14:13): "For, as the sin-offering, so is the guilt-offering to the Cohein," (I would think that just as the blood of a sin-offering is applied above (with the Cohein's finger on the corners of the altar), so, the blood of this (guilt-offering); it is, therefore, written, (to negate this,) "the law of the guilt-offering" (including the guilt-offering of the leper). (Vayikra 7:2) ("In the place where they slaughtered the burnt-offering shall they slaughter the guilt-offering; and its blood shall he sprinkle on the altar roundabout.") "and its blood shall he sprinkle": All guilt-offerings, including that of a leper, are herein subsumed, for the application of their blood below (the red line). Whence do we derive that if the blood of a guilt-offering became intermixed with that of peace-offerings (both being applied below the red line) it is (still) to be sprinkled (for whichever he desires)? From "holy of holies … and its blood shall he sprinkle." I might think that the same applied if they became interchanged when alive; it is, therefore, (to negate this,) written "it (is holy of holies," i.e., it must be specially designated by type). What, then, can he do? He lets them graze until they sustain a blemish, after which he sells them and offers a higher priced animal as one type, (guilt-offering or peace-offering, as he chooses), and a higher priced animal as the other type, making up the difference (between higher priced and lower priced) from his pocket, (for either guilt-offering or peace-offering could have been higher priced originally). R. Shimon says: If a guilt-offering became interchanged with a peace-offering, both are to be slaughtered in the north (of the altar, as per the stringency of a guilt-offering); one, as a guilt-offering; the other, as a peace-offering; and each is to be eaten according to the more stringent of them (the guilt-offering, which is eaten for a day and a night). They said to him: But do not peace-offerings require waving (viz. Shemoth 29:26), and guilt-offerings not require waving? He said to them: What of it? Let him wave the guilt-offering! They answered: Offerings, (in this case, peace-offerings,) are not brought to "the house of unfitness" (i.e., By doing this you are opening the door to the invalidation of peace-offerings).

4) (Vayikra 7:5) ("And the Cohein shall smoke them upon the altar, a fire-offering to the L–rd; it is a guilt-offering.")

(Lev. 19:2:) YOU SHALL BE HOLY. Why? (Ibid., cont.:) BECAUSE I< , THE LORD YOUR GOD, > AM HOLY; for I have made you cling to my loins, as stated (in Jer. 13:11): FOR, AS THE GIRDLE CLINGS UNTO ONE'S LOINS, < SO I HAVE MADE ALL THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND ALL THE HOUSE OF JUDAH CLING TO ME, SAYS THE LORD >.¹⁶Tanh., Lev. 7:5. The Holy One said to them, < i.e., > to Israel, I am not like flesh and blood. With a king of flesh and blood, mortals have no right to be called by his name. You yourself know that, when someone wants to accuse¹⁷Gk.: kategorein. his fellow, he calls him Augustus¹⁸Lat.: Augusta. The text should read Augustus. See Jastrow, s.v., Agusta (‘GWST’). so-and-so; and there is no life for him. But Israel is called by the name of the Holy One. He is called God; and he has called Israel gods, as stated (in Ps. 82:6): I SAID: YOU ARE GODS. He is called wise, as stated (in Job 9:4): ONE WISE OF HEART AND MIGHTY IN STRENGTH; and he has called Israel wise, as stated (in Deut. 4:6): SURELY THIS GREAT NATION IS A WISE AND UNDERSTANDING PEOPLE. God is called beloved, as stated (in Cant. 5:10): MY BELOVED IS BRIGHT AND RUDDY; and he has called them beloved, as stated (Cant. 5:1): EAT, FRIENDS, AND DRINK TO EXCESS, BELOVED ONES. He is called chosen, as stated (in Cant. 5:15): STATELY (literally: CHOSEN) AS THE CEDARS; and he has called them chosen, as stated (in Deut. 7:6): [THE LORD YOUR GOD] HAS CHOSEN YOU. He is called pious, as stated (in Jer. 3:12): FOR [I] AM PIOUS, SAYS THE LORD; and he has called them pious, as stated (in Ps. 50:5): GATHER TO ME, MY PIOUS ONES. He is called holy, as stated (in Is. 6:3): HOLY, HOLY, HOLY IS THE LORD OF HOSTS; and he has called Israel holy, [as stated (in Lev. 19:2): YOU SHALL BE HOLY.] The Holy One said: In this world you have been called holy, but in the world to come (according to Is. 4:3): AND IT SHALL COME TO PASS THAT THE ONE WHO IS LEFT IN ZION AND WHO REMAINS IN JERUSALEM SHALL BE CALLED HOLY.

5) R. Eliezer says: "a fire-offering" — consigned to the fire; "a guilt-offering": even though he did not place his hands upon it. ("it is) a guilt-offering": I might think (that it is valid) even if he did not slaughter it to that end. It is, therefore, written "it" (— only if it were intended as such.)

6) R. Eliezer says: A sin-offering comes for a sin, and a guilt-offering comes for a sin. Just as a sin-offering not intended as such is unfit, so a guilt-offering not intended as such is unfit.

7) Whence is it derived that the guilt-offering brought for (cohabitation with) a betrothed Canaanite maidservant, shifchah charufah (Vayikra 19:20) should be bought only with silver shekalim? From (Vayikra 5:19) "ashom asham" (the connotation of which is that the valuation of all guilt-offerings is to be in silver shekalim). I might think that I also include the guilt-offering of a Nazirite and of a leper. It is, therefore, written (to negate this) (Vayikra 7:5) "It (is a guilt-offering.") And why do you see fit to include the shifchah charufah guilt-offering and to exclude that of a Nazirite and of a leper? — After Scripture includes, it excludes. I include the shifchah charufah guilt-offering, which (as in the above) is a ram, and I exclude that of the Nazirite and the leper, which is not a ram.

7) They said to him (in refutation): No, this may be so with a sin-offering, whose blood is placed above, but not with a guilt-offering, whose blood is placed below. He countered: This is refuted by the Pesach offering, whose blood is placed below, (and even so,) if he did not slaughter it as such, it is unfit.

They countered: This may be so because it has a set time. He countered: Non-intention invalidates a sin-offering because it is written of it "It," and non-intention invalidates a Pesach because it is written of it "It" — and of a guilt-offering, too, it is written "It"! They countered: Of a Pesach and a sin-offering it is written "It" in respect to slaughtering, but in respect to a guilt-offering it is written "It" after the smoking of the devoted portions, and even if they were not smoked, it is kasher! Why, then, is it written "It"? It is sacrificed, but its exchange is not sacrificed.