Midrash su Levitico 22:12

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.

7) (Vayikra 22:12) ("And the daughter of a Cohein, if she will be (wed) to a man who is a zar, she, of the terumah of the holy things shall not eat.") "And the daughter of a Cohein, if she will be (wed) to a man who is a zar": This tells me only of a mamzer (a bastard). Whence do I derive (that the same applies) even (if she were wed) to (a Levite or an Israelite)? From "to a man who is a zar" (a non-priest). Whence is (the same derived) for a widow (wed) to a high-priest or a divorcée or one who had performed chalitzah (levirate refusal), who was (wed) to an ordinary Cohein? From "to a man" (including) the man who feeds her, (who in the above instances, is a zar [ineligible] to her.)

8) (Why is the verse needed to tell me this?) Does it not follow a fortiori, viz.: If an Israelite, whose cohabitation (with the daughter of a Cohein) does not disqualify her from the priesthood (i.e., an Israelite widow may marry a Cohein), still, it disqualifies her from terumah), then, a high-priest, whose cohabitation disqualified her from the priesthood (i.e., he renders her a challalah) — how much more so must his habitation disqualify her from terumah? — No, this may be so with an Israelite, who does not feed feed (terumah to) others (i.e., to his other wives, who are not daughters of a Cohein). Would you say the same for a high-priest, who does feed his other wives? (i.e., Even after she becomes a challalah, he is not disqualified from his priesthood.) Since he feeds others, his cohabitation should not disqualify her from terumah! It must, therefore, be written "to a man" (including) the man who feed her.