Midrash su Levitico 22:4

1) (Vayikra 22:4) ("A man, a man, of the seed of Aaron the Cohein, if he is a leper or a zav (see section 15), of the holy things he shall not eat until he is clean. And one who touches anyone who is unclean through the dead; or a man from whom semen issues,") "the seed of Aaron": This tells me only of the seed of Aaron. Whence is Aaron himself derived (as subsumed in the prohibition)? From "if he is a leper or a zav." "of the holy things (terumah) he shall not eat until he is clean": (i.e., when the sun goes down,) but Israelites may eat ma'aser t'vulei yom (having immersed themselves in the daytime). Whence is it derived that Aaron and his sons (may eat ma'aser, t'vulei yom)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If Israelites, who may not eat of terumah (even) when the sun goes down, may eat of ma'aser t'vulei yom, then Aaron and his sons, who may eat of terumah when the sun goes down — how much more so may they eat of ma'aser t'vulei yom! Israelites, then, are derived (by implication) from the verse, and Aaron and his sons, a fortiori (as being permitted to eat ma'aser t'vulei yom.

1) Above (Vayikra 23:2), intercalation of the year is being spoken of, and here (Vayikra 22:4) sanctification of the month is being spoken of. If (the moon) were seen clearly, or witnesses came and testified (to that effect) before them (beth-din), and they were unable to proclaim "It is intercalated until it became dark — whence is it derived that it is intercalated? From "which you shall call (them) in their times." If you called them, they are My festivals. If not, they are not My festivals.

2) "until he is clean": I might think, until he immerses; it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:7) "And when the sun sets, he shall be clean." Just as his being clean below is with the setting of the sun, so, his being clean here.

3) "And one who touches anyone who is unclean through the dead": One who is unclean through the dead confers tumah only through touch (i.e., if a man or vessels touch him). "or a man from whom semen issues": This is a ba'al keri (one who had a nocturnal pollution. Whence is the toucher of semen to be included? From "or a man."

5) I might think that they would be liable for it (immediately if they ate the flesh in a state of tumah before the blood was sprinkled); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:3) "Every man who draws near." R. Elazar explains: Now is one who touches it liable? (Is he not liable only if he eats it, as it is written (Vayikra 22:4): "A man of the seed of Aaron, if he is a leper or a zav, shall not eat, etc."?) What, then, is the intent of "who draws near"? The intent is that there is no (tumah-kareth) liability for eating it until it has been made fit to be offered. How so? An offering that has permitters, (such as the devoted portions and the flesh, which are "permitted" by the sprinkling of the blood) — when its permitters have "drawn near" (And this is the sense of "Every man who draws near"). An offering that does not have "permitters," (such as the meal-offering of Cohanim, etc.) — when they are consecrated in a vessel (for the "eating" of the altar).

8) I might think that they would be liable for it (immediately if they ate the flesh in a state of tumah before the blood was sprinkled); it is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:3) "Every man who draws near." R. Elazar explains: Now is one who touches it liable? (Is he not liable only if he eats it, as it is written (Vayikra 22:4) "A man of the seed of Aaron, if he is a leper or a zav, shall not eat, etc."?) What, then, is the intent of "who draws near"? The intent is that there is no (tumah) liability for eating it until it has been made fit to be offered. How so? An offering that has permitters, (such as the devoted portions and the flesh, which are "permitted" by the sprinkling of the blood) — when its permitters have "drawn near" (And this is the sense of "Every man who draws near"). An offering that does not have "permitters" (such as the meal-offering of Cohanim, etc.) — when they are consecrated in a vessel (for the "eating" of the altar). "and his uncleanliness is upon him": bodily uncleanliness. I might think the uncleanliness of the flesh (of the offering is being referred to). It is, therefore, written (here) "and his uncleanliness is upon him" (and there, [Bamidbar 19:13] in respect to uncleanliness in entering the sanctuary) "and his uncleanliness is upon him," for an identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: Just as there, bodily uncleanliness is being referred to, so, here, bodily uncleanliness is being referred to, and not uncleanliness of the flesh. Rebbi says: "and his uncleanliness is upon him": Scripture speaks (here) of bodily uncleanliness, and not of uncleanliness of the flesh. R. Chiyya says: The offerings are written in the plural and cleanliness (tumatho) in the singular. How, then, must "tumatho" be understood? As referring to the tumah of his body and not to the tumah of the flesh (of the offerings). Others say: Scripture speaks of that from which tumah can depart (i.e., the man), as opposed to the flesh, from which tumah cannot depart.