Midrash su Levitico 21:22

5) (Vayikra 6:11) ("Every male among the children of Aaron shall eat it. It is a statute forever for your generations of the fire-offerings of the L–rd. Whatever touches them shall become sanctified.") "Every male": to include those who are blemished. To what end? If for eating, this is already written (viz. Vayikra 21:22). If so, why is "Every male" written? To include those who are blemished for apportionment. "shall eat it": if it is fit, but not if it has become unfit. "It is a statute forever." — for the eternal house (the Temple). "For your generations" — to span the generations (for the second Temple and beyond). "of the fire-offerings of the L–rd": They may not eat it (even if it had been apportioned earlier) until after the fire-offering.

6) "Every male": to include all those with blemishes. Why need this be stated? If (to tell us that they are fit) for eating, this has already been stated (Vayikra 21:22), and if for apportionment, (that he receive a portion as one of the fit ones), this has already been stated (Vayikra 6:11, see Chapter 3:5 here). If so, why is "Every male" written? For (if it were not written) I might think that only those with passing blemishes (were permitted). Whence would I derive (for inclusion) even those with permanent blemishes? It is, therefore, written: "Every male among the Cohanim may eat." "it": one that is consecrated and not one that is unfit. "it is holy of holies": Why is this mentioned? I might think that (the vessels of) a sin-offering alone require scouring and rinsing. Whence do I derive the same for all offerings? From "holy of holies." I might think that the same holds true for terumah. It is, therefore, written ("may eat) it" — excluding terumah. These are the words of R. Yehudah. R. Shimon says: (Vessels of) higher order offerings require scouring and rinsing. (Those of) lower order offerings do not.

8) (Vayikra 21:22) "The bread of his G d, of the holy of holies, and of the holy he may eat.": If "holy of holies" is written, why is "holy" written; and if "holy" is written, why is "holy of holies" written? For if "holy of holies" were written, and not "holy," I would say that he (a Cohein with a blemish) may eat holy of holies, for there is an instance of "holy of holies" (a meal-offering on a small bamah), which is permitted to a non-Cohein; but he may not eat lower-order offerings. It must, therefore, be written "of the holy." And if "holy" were written, and not "holy of holies," I would say that he may eat of the first but not of the second. It must, therefore, be written both "of the holy of holies" and "of the holy."