Study Yevamot folio 70B with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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 Pascha
The Talmud 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 R' Elazar, who said with regard to a verbal analogy available from only one side that
The Talmud 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 Talmud 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 ac
R' 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 Talmud asks: Say that the verse c