Yevamot

which proves  that his master does not acquire his person  so that here also  his master does not acquire his person!  [The expression]  must consequently [have been written] for the purpose of the deduction. But is it  not free in one direction only,  while R. Eliezer  was heard to state [that an analogy between expressions of which only] one  is free  may be drawn, but may also be refuted!  — Since [the expressions]  are not required [for their own context]  one of them is allotted to the law  in respect of which the inference is made  and the other is allotted to the law from which the inference is made,  so that a word analogy is obtained which is free in both directions. Might  [not the deduction be made:]  As the paschal lamb is forbidden to an onan  so is terumah forbidden to an onan  — R. Jose son of R. Hanina replied: Scripture stated, 'There shall no common man,  I commanded you concerning its prohibition to the common man  but not concerning that of the onan. But might it be suggested: But not the uncircumcised!  Surely 'A sojourner and a hired servant'  was written.  And what reason do you see?  — It is logical to infer that the case of the uncircumcised is to be included, since  it involves the absence of an act  and that act is one affecting the man's own body; [the uncircumcised] is punishable by kareth;  the law  was in force before the Revelation;  and the [non]-circumcision of one's male children and slaves debars [one from eating of the paschal lamb].  On the contrary; the case of the onan should have been included,  since mourning is an ever- present possibility,  is common to men as well as to women, and no man has the power to cure himself of it!  — Those  are more in number. Raba said: Even if those  were not more in number, you could not suggest that uncircumcision, which is actually mentioned in respect of the Paschal lamb, should be excluded  while the mourning of an onan, which in the case of the paschal lamb itself was deduced from that of the tithe,  should be deduced from it. Might  [it not be said:]  As the [non]-circumcision of one's male children and slaves debars one from the eating of the paschal lamb, so should the [non]-circumcision of one's male children and slaves debar one from the eating of terumah! — Scripture stated, When thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof,  the [non]-circumcision of one's male children and slaves debars one from the eating thereof, of the Paschal lamb only; the [non]-circumcision of one's male children and slaves does not, however, debar one from the eating of terumah. If so,  [why not] say, But no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof  [also implies:] He may not eat 'thereof' only but may eat terumah!  — Surely it was written A sojourner and a hired servant.  And what reason do you see?  — It is only logical to include a man's own circumcision, since the act is performed on his own person and its neglect is punishable by kareth. On the contrary; the circumcision of one's male children and slaves should have been excluded because it may occur at any time! — The former restrictions are more in number. And if you prefer I might say that even if those were not more in number your suggestion could not be entertained; for is there anything which is not debarred by his own state of uncircumcision but is debarred by that of the other! Now that it has been said that the expression. 'Thereof,' was introduced for expository purposes. what  was the purpose of the text, There shall no alien eat of it?  — Only with regard to it