Midrash su Levitico 24:9

What happened with K'tiha b. Salum? There was a Caesar who disliked the Jews, and he asked the advice of his officers: Should he who has a fibre in his foot cut it off and be at ease, or should he allow it to remain and be afflicted? And the advice of them all was, that he should cut it off and remain at rest. K'tiha, however, who was one of his officers, objected, saying: "First you cannot get rid of all the Jews, as it is written (Zech. 2, 10) For as the four winds of the heaven have I spread you abroad, saith the Lord. And secondly, your kingdom will be called a kingdom that kills its own subjects." The king then said: "Thy advice is good, but there is a law that he who obstructs the wish of the king, must be thrown into the furnace. When they took him to be slain, he said: "I bequeath all my property to R. Akiba and his colleagues." R. Akiba based his division on the following passage (Lev. 24, 9) And it shall belong to Aaron and to his sons, i.e., one-half for Aaron and one-half for his sons. A heavenly voice was then heard: "K'tiha b. Salum has a share in the world to come." Rabbi then wept and said: "Here we have a man who has bought his world in one moment, while another one has to work for it all his life." Antoninus served Rabbi; Adarchan (a Persian Prince) served Rab. When Antoninus departed, Rabbi lamented: "The bond [of friendship] is severed," and when Adarchan died, Rab lamented: "The bond [of friendship] is severed."

10) (Vayikra 24:9) ("And it shall be for Aaron and for his sons. And they shall eat it in a holy place; for holy of holies it is to him, of the fire-offerings of the L–rd, an everlasting statute.") "And it shall be for Aaron and for his sons. And they shall eat it in a holy place": This tells me why that its eating must be in a holy place. Whence do I derive the same for its kneading and its arrangement? From "And it shall be" (connoting extension of application). Whence do I derive that the kneading and arrangement of the two loaves must also be in a holy place? From "for holy of holies" (which is also the status of the two loaves). R. Yehudah says: All of their operations must be performed within. R. Shimon says: Always be accustomed to say: "The two loaves and the showbread are kasher in the azarah (the Temple court and are kasher in Beth Pagel (i.e., even outside the walls of Jerusalem).

11) ("for holy of holies) it (is to him"): If one of the loaves crumbles, they are all invalidated, ("it" connoting "in its complete state"). "to him": I might think, to him alone; it is, therefore, written "and for his sons." If "and for his sons," I might think, for his sons and not for him. It is, therefore, written "for Aaron and for his sons." If "for Aaron and for his sons," I would think, for all of them (equally). How is this to be resolved? For Aaron, without sharing (i.e., he selects his own half); and for his sons, with sharing (the half that is left). Just as Aaron eats without sharing, so, his sons (i.e., his descendants), the high-priests, eat without sharing. "of the fire-offerings of the L–rd": hey may not (eat it until after the fistful of frankincense has been burned. "an everlasting statute": for the eternal house (the Temple, and not for a bamah [a temporary altar], there being no meal-offering on a bamah.)