The Resident the Hired Worker and the Uncircumcised at the Passover Table

"A resident" (Exodus 12:45) refers to one acquired as a permanent acquisition; "and a hired worker" refers to one acquired for a fixed term of years. One might say: let the verse state only "resident." Why must it also say "hired worker"? If one acquired permanently is forbidden to eat the Passover offering, is it not logical that one acquired only for a term of years should certainly be forbidden? Were it written that way, I would have said "resident" means one acquired for a term of years; therefore, when it says "and a hired worker," the hired worker comes and teaches about the resident, that he is one acquired as a permanent acquisition. Rabbi Ishmael says: From where do we know that an uncircumcised man is forbidden to eat of the priestly portion (terumah)? It is a matter of logic. If the Passover offering, which is permitted to non-priests, is forbidden to the uncircumcised, then terumah, which is forbidden to non-priests, should certainly be forbidden to the uncircumcised. No: if you say so of the Passover offering, regarding which one is liable for the laws of refuse-intention (piggul), leftover (notar), and impurity, will you say the same of terumah, regarding which one is not liable for those? Scripture therefore teaches "resident and hired worker" here and "resident and hired worker" there (Leviticus 22:10), forming a verbal analogy [gezeira shava, linking the two texts]: just as with the "resident and hired worker" stated regarding the Passover offering the uncircumcised may not eat, so too with the "resident and hired worker" stated regarding terumah the uncircumcised may not eat. "He shall not eat of it" (Exodus 12:45). Of it he does not eat, but he may eat of the unleavened bread and the bitter herbs.