Midrash sobre Levítico 22:11

1) (Vayikra 22:11) ("And a Cohein, if he acquire a soul, the acquisition of his money, he may eat of it, and one that is born in his house — they may eat of his bread.") Whence is it derived that if a Cohein marries a woman and acquires (gentile) servants (as opposed to Hebrew servants, whose body he does not acquire) — whence is it derived that they eat terumah? From "And a Cohein, if he acquire a soul, the acquisition. His acquisition" — Even the acquisition of his acquisition eats.

1) (Vayikra 22:13) ("And the daughter of a Cohein, if she be widowed or divorced, and she have no seed, then she shall return to the house of her father in her maidenhood. From the bread of her father she may et, but no non-priest may eat of it.") If we learned [Vayikra 22:12] (that the mother eats on the strength of the "seed") in respect to terumath hakodshim (the breast and the thigh), why need it be stated [Vayikra 22:11] in respect to kodshim (terumah)? And if it is stated in respect to "kodshim," why need it be stated in respect to "terumah"? For there obtains with kodshim what does not obtain with terumoth, and with terumoth what does not obtain with kodshim. Kodshim are permitted to a zar and terumoth are not permitted to a zar. Kodshim are liable for piggul, nothar, and tamei, and terumoth are not. So that because there obtains with terumah what does not obtain with kodshim, and with kodshim what does not obtain with terumoth, both must be stated.

2) I might think that even if he bought a Hebrew servant he eats terumah; it is, therefore, written ("his) money" — to exclude a Hebrew servant, who is not (the acquisition of his) money (see above).