Midrash su Levitico 6:10

1) (Vayikra 6:10) ("It shall not be baked with leaven. Their portion have I given it of My fire-offerings; it is holy of holies, as the sin-offering and as the guilt-offering.") "It shall not be baked with leaven": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 2:1) "It shall not be made of leaven," I would think that there was one negative commandment for all of them (i.e., for all of the operations that go into making it); it is, therefore, written: "It shall not be baked with leaven." Baking was in the category (of "It shall not be made of leaven.") Why did it leave that category (to be singled out here)? So that it serve as the basis for a comparison, viz.: Just as baking is characterized by its being a particular act and subject to liability in and of itself, so I include its kneading, its rolling and all of its particular acts as being subject to individual negative commandments in and of themselves.

2) "for Aaron and for his sons, holy of holies" — to permit the (remainders of the) meal-offerings of Israelite men. Now why should I (think to) exclude them (Israelite men, that I need a verse to include them)? It is written (Bamidbar 15:13): "All the native-born (men) shall do thus with these, to offer a fire-offering, a sweet savor to the L–rd." (Is the intent of the verse that) if he wishes to bring (libations [independent of the offering]) he may do so? Or (is its intent) that (the remainder of the) meal-offerings of (native-born) Israelite men be offered upon the fire (and not be eaten by the Cohanim, [the verse to be rendered: "All the native-born (men) shall do thus (as they do with the libation meal-offering) with these (gift meal-offerings), to offer (the remainder as) a fire-offering, etc."])? And how would I understand "And what is left from the meal-offering shall be for Aaron and for his sons"? As referring to (the meal-offerings) of proselytes, women, and bondsmen (and not to those of native-born Israelite men); it is, therefore, written: "for Aaron and for his sons, holy of holies" — to permit the (remainders of) meal-offerings of Israelite men (to be eaten by Cohanim).

2) "Their portion have I given it of My fire-offerings": They are permitted to take of it only what is left over from the fire (i.e., they are not permitted to apportion the meal-offering among themselves until after consigning the fistful to the fire. This tells me only of this instance. Whence do I derive the same for all offerings, (that they are not to be apportioned until their devoted portions have been burned)? From "It is holy of holies." I might think that what has become unfit must also be apportioned; it is, therefore, written ("Their portion have I given) it" — one that is fit, and not one that is unfit. I might think that if it were apportioned (before the burning of the fistful) it becomes unfit; it is, therefore, written "it (is holy of holies") — it remains in its state of holiness.