Midrash sobre Êxodo 29:34

3) I might think that one is in violation of "It shall not be accepted" only (for an offering) that was slaughtered outside of its time and place. Whence do I derive the same for one that was slaughtered at night, one whose blood was spilled out or went outside the (tabernacle) curtains, one (whose blood or devoted portions) was left overnight, one (whose devoted portions) went outside the azarah, one whose blood was received or sprinkled by those who are unfit, one whose blood was to be applied below (the red line on the altar), which was applied above, or the opposite; one (whose blood was to be applied inside (the sanctuary), which was applied outside, or the opposite; and a Pesach and a sin-offering, which were not offered as such (— Whence is it derived for all of these that if one transgressed and sacrificed them he receives stripes by reason of "It shall not be accepted")? From (the redundant) "it shall not be accepted" and "it shall not be reckoned." I might think that these entail kareth liability. It is, therefore, written ("He that offers) it." He (one who thinks to eat it outside of its time) and its eaters are subject to kareth, and not the others.

3) "it shall not be eaten; it shall be burned with fire": We know (from Scripture) as requiring burning only what is tamei and nothar (flesh left over from the offering) and a sin-offering whose blood entered within (the sanctuary). Whence do we derive the same for the other offerings? From (Shemoth 29:34): "And if anything is left over from the flesh of the miluim … until morning, you shall burn what is left over in fire." Let it not be written "what is left over in fire" (i.e., it is redundant). But (we must say, then, that) it is a binyan av (see Hermeneutical Principle 3) (the intent of which is that) all that is nothar (in all offerings) requires burning.

5) I might think that they were to be burned even if they had died (after they were separated as an offering) or had miscarried, (in which case the fetus was to be burned), or had become tamei outside (the azarah); it is, therefore, written (to counterindicate this) (Shemoth 29:34): "for it is holy" (excluding the latter, whose unfitness did not take place in "holiness.") R. Yehudah says: I might think that a bird sin-offering brought for a possibility (of its being required), and a suspended guilt-offering (in an instance where it became known to him that he had not sinned), and chullin (a non-consecrated animal that had been slaughtered in the azarah — (I might think) that they must be burned; it is, therefore, (to negate this) written (Shemoth 29:34): "for it is holy" (excluding the above).

7) R. Eliezer says: What became tamei by an av hatumah, whether inside or outside, is burned outside. What became tamei by a vlad hatumah, whether inside or outside, is burned inside. R. Akiva says: What became tamei outside, whether by an av hatumah or a vlad hatumah is burned outside. What became tamei inside, whether by an av hatumah or a vlad hatumah is burned inside. R. Eliezer says: "it shall not be eaten; in fire shall it be burned": The intent of Scripture is to add (violation of) a negative commandment (in addition to the positive "in fire shall be burned") for eating it.