Reference for Yevamot 140:14

השתא דאמרת בו לדרשה הוא דאתא (שמות יב, מג) כל בן נכר לא יאכל בו למה לי בו

Raba said: Even if those<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' The restrictions of circumcision. ');">³⁶</span> were not more in number, you could not suggest that uncircumcision, which is actually mentioned in respect of the Paschal lamb, should be excluded<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'leave out' from the prohibition. ');">³⁷</span> while the mourning of an onan, which in the case of the paschal lamb itself was deduced from that of the tithe,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' v. infra 73a. ');">³⁸</span> should be deduced from it. Might<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Lit., 'if (you say)'. ');">³⁹</span> [it not be said:]<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since a word analogy has been established. ');">⁴⁰</span> 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 <i>terumah</i>! — Scripture stated, When thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 44, emphasis on thereof. ');">⁴¹</span> 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 <i>terumah</i>. If so,<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Since the expression 'thereof 'is made the basis of an exposition. ');">⁴²</span> [why not] say, But no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ibid. 48. ');">⁴³</span> [also implies:] He may not eat 'thereof' only but may eat <i>terumah</i>!<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Which, of course, would be contrary to the deduction supra. ');">⁴⁴</span> — Surely it was written A sojourner and a hired servant.<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' From which deduction was made that an uncircumcised person may not eat terumah. ');">⁴⁵</span> And what reason do you see?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' For including in the prohibition one's own circumcision and excluding that of one's sons and slaves. ');">⁴⁶</span> — 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 <i>kareth</i>. 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<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' BaH emends the following version by some transpositions and additions. ');">⁴⁷</span> was the purpose of the text, There shall no alien eat of it?<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' Ex. XII, 43. emphasis on the last word, [H] of it (E.V. thereof). ');">⁴⁸</span> — Only with regard to it<span class="x" onmousemove="('comment',' [H] (cf. supra n. 2), the Paschal lamb. ');">⁴⁹</span>

Jastrow