Apparently his master does not acquire his body and thereby effect a change in his personal status; rather, he remains a Jew in every sense. Here too, then, with regard to the Paschal lamb, his master does not acquire his body as a slave, and so he is obviously obligated in the mitzva of the Paschal lamb. Rather, the phrase is superfluous and was written only to be available to teach a different matter.

The Gemara poses a question: And yet there is still a difficulty: The verbal analogy is available from only one side, as only the phrase with regard to the Paschal lamb is superfluous in its context, and we heard Rabbi Elazar, who said with regard to a verbal analogy available from only one side that one can derive from it, and one can also refute it logically if there is reason to distinguish between the two cases. Since there are grounds here for differentiating between the two halakhot in this case, why is the verbal analogy upheld?

The Gemara answers: Since the phrase “a sojourner and a hired servant” is not needed for its own matter, there are two superfluous terms, and one may cast one superfluous term on the halakha with regard to which it is learned that teruma may not be eaten by one who is uncircumcised, and one may cast the other one on the halakha with regard to the Paschal lamb that teaches this, and in this manner it is like a verbal analogy that is available from both sides, which cannot be refuted.

The Gemara raises a question: There is a principle that there cannot be half a verbal analogy. Consequently, if this verbal analogy is accepted, the following halakha that can be derived by way of the same analogy should be accepted as well: Just as with regard to the Paschal lamb, one who is an acute mourner, i.e., whose relative died that same day and has not yet been buried, is prohibited from eating it, so too, with regard to teruma, an acute mourner should be prohibited from eating it, but in fact this is not the case.

Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina said: The verse states: “No foreigner may eat of the holy thing” (Leviticus 22:10), which indicates: A disqualification stemming from foreignness I told you prevents one from eating teruma, but not a disqualification based on acute mourning. The Gemara asks: Say that the verse comes to teach that a disqualification stemming from foreignness prevents one from eating teruma, but not a disqualification based on a priest’s lack of circumcision, and so it should be permitted for an uncircumcised priest to partake of teruma. The Gemara answers: Isn’t it written with regard to both teruma and the Paschal lamb: “A sojourner and a hired servant”? From this it is derived by way of a verbal analogy that it is prohibited for an uncircumcised priest to eat teruma.

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include an uncircumcised priest in the prohibition against eating teruma and exclude an acute mourner? Perhaps just the opposite is true. The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that lack of circumcision should be included and should prevent a priest from eating teruma, as the halakhot governing an uncircumcised man are stringent in several respects, as alluded to by the following mnemonic of key words: Acts; karetim; the divine word; the slave. The Gemara spells out these stringencies: An uncircumcised man lacks the act of circumcision, and this act is performed on his body; the failure to perform circumcision is punishable by karet; circumcision existed before the divine word was spoken at Mount Sinai, as the mitzva of circumcision had already been given to Abraham; and the lack of circumcision of one’s male children and slaves precludes one’s eating the Paschal lamb, as is explicitly stated in the Torah (Exodus 12:48).

The Gemara counters: On the contrary, acute mourning should be included and should prevent a priest from eating teruma, as acute mourning is also subject to several stringencies: It is relevant at any time after the death of a close relative, unlike circumcision, which is performed only once in a lifetime; it applies to both men and women, unlike circumcision, which is restricted to men; and it is not in the mourner’s power to render himself fit until after the deceased is buried, unlike an uncircumcised man, who can render himself fit at any time by undergoing circumcision. The Gemara responds: Even so, these arguments for including an uncircumcised priest in the prohibition are more numerous.

Rava said: Even without the rationale that these arguments are more numerous, you still could not say that the verbal analogy renders it prohibited for an acute mourner to eat teruma. As, is it possible to say that we should leave out the lack of circumcision from the prohibition against eating teruma even though it is written explicitly with regard to the Paschal lamb itself, and learn the halakha that acute mourning is included in the prohibition by way of a verbal analogy from the Paschal lamb when this halakha that an acute mourner is barred from bringing the Paschal lamb is never stated explicitly? As the prohibition against acute mourning with respect to the Paschal lamb itself we learn only from the halakha governing tithes.

The Gemara raises another question: If the verbal analogy is valid, then the following halakha that can be derived by way of the same analogy should be accepted as well: Just as with regard to the Paschal lamb, the lack of circumcision of one’s male children and slaves prevents one from eating of the offering until he ensures that all of the male members of his household have been circumcised, so too, with regard to teruma, the lack of circumcision of one’s male children and slaves should prevent one from partaking of teruma. However, in reality this is not the halakha.

The Gemara rejects this argument: The verse states with regard to the Paschal lamb: “When you have circumcised him, then he shall eat from it” (Exodus 12:44). The words “from it” teach that the lack of circumcision of one’s male children and slaves prevents one from eating the Paschal lamb, but the lack of circumcision of one’s male children and slaves does not prevent one from eating teruma, if he himself is eligible to eat it.

The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, that the words “from it” come to exclude any other case, say a similar exposition with regard to the uncircumcised. As it is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb: “No uncircumcised person shall eat from it” (Exodus 12:48), indicating that “from it,” the Paschal lamb, an uncircumcised man may not eat, but he may eat from teruma. The Gemara answers: Isn’t it written with regard to both teruma and the Paschal lamb: “A sojourner and a hired servant”? From this it is derived by way of a verbal analogy that an uncircumcised priest may not partake of teruma.

The Gemara asks: And what did you see that led you to include an uncircumcised priest in the prohibition against eating teruma, and not one whose male children and slaves have not been circumcised? The Gemara answers: It stands to reason that one’s own lack of circumcision should be included and should preclude his eating teruma, as an uncircumcised man lacks an act that is performed on his own body, and the failure to perform circumcision is punishable by karet. The Gemara counters: On the contrary, the lack of circumcision of one’s male children and slaves should be included and should preclude a priest’s eating teruma, as it is relevant at any time, since whenever one has a male child or slave under his authority he is commanded to circumcise him.

The Gemara answers: These arguments for including one’s own circumcision in the prohibition are more numerous. And if you wish, say: Even without the rationale that these arguments are more numerous, you still could not say that the verbal analogy comes to include in the prohibition against eating teruma one whose male children or slaves have not been circumcised. As, is there anything that his own lack of circumcision does not preclude him from doing but the lack of circumcision of others does preclude him from doing? Rather, it must be that the verbal analogy comes to teach that the priest’s own lack of circumcision precludes his eating teruma, while that of his male children and slaves does not.

The Gemara poses a question: Now that you have said that the phrase “from it” used in this context comes for an exposition and serves to exclude other cases, with regard to the phrase “from it” in the verse “No stranger shall eat from it” (Exodus 12:43), why do I need it? The Gemara answers: This, too, teaches that it is only from it, eating the Paschal lamb,