Makkot 18B

כל שבקדש פסול ⁠– בא הכתוב ליתן לא תעשה על אכילתו! הני מילי היכא דקודם פסולו חזי, הכא דקודם פסולו נמי לא חזי.

it is derived that with regard to any item that is sacrificial and disqualified for whatever reason, the verse comes to impose a prohibition upon its consumption. The Talmud explains: This matter applies only in a case where before its disqualification it was fit; here, it is a case where before its disqualification it was not fit either, and therefore the prohibition does not apply.

ולילקי נמי כאידך דרבי אליעזר. דתניא, רבי אליעזר אומר: כל שהוא ב״כליל תהיה״⁠ – ליתן לא תעשה על אכילתו! אין הכי נמי, ורבא ⁠– מהאי קרא קאמר.

The Talmud suggests: And let him also be flogged in accordance with the other statement of R' Eliezer, as it is taught in a baraita that R' Eliezer says: With regard to any item that is included in the mitzva: “It should be burned in its entirety” (Leviticus 6:16), the verse serves to impose a prohibition upon its consumption, as it is written: “It should be burned in its entirety; it should not be eaten” (Leviticus 6:16). The Talmud explains: Yes, it is indeed so that according to R' Shimon one is flogged for violating this prohibition as well, and Rava is saying that from this verse he is interpreting that it is derived that one is flogged with 5 sets of lashes according to R' Shimon.

אמר רב גידל אמר רב: (סימן כוזא) כהן שאכל מחטאת ואשם לפני זריקה ⁠– לוקה. מאי טעמא? דאמר קרא: ״ואכלו אתם אשר כפר בהם״, לאחר כפרה ⁠– אין, לפני כפרה ⁠– לא. לאו הבא מכלל עשה, לאו הוא.

§ Rav Giddel says that Rav says a statement about a priest [kohen] and another statement about a non-priest [zar]. Before proceeding, the Talmud provides a mnemonic for these statements: Kaf, vav, zayin, alef. Rav says: A priest who ate of a sin-offering or a guilt-offering before sprinkling their blood on the altar is flogged. What is the reason that he is flogged? It is as the verse states with regard to the inauguration offerings, whose halakhic status was like that of sin-offerings and guilt-offerings in that it was permitted only for priests to partake of their flesh: “And they should eat them, that with which they were atoned” (Exodus 29:33), from which it is inferred: After atonement, yes, they may eat the flesh of the offerings; before atonement, no, they may not eat it. And in Rav’s opinion, the status of a prohibition that stems from a positive mitzva is that of a prohibition, for which one is flogged.