"and you shall circumcise him; then shall he eat of it": his master. We are hereby apprised that (non-) circumcision of his servants prevents him from eating the Pesach (Passover) offering. This tells me only of the circumcision of his servants. Whence do I derive (the same for) the circumcision of his (own) males? It is derived by analogy, viz.: It is written here "then," and elsewhere, (Ibid. 48, in respect to a proselyte), "then." Just as there, the circumcision of his (the proselyte's) males is referred to, here, too, the circumcision of one's males is understood (as a prerequisite for his offering of the Pesach.) And just as here, the (non-) circumcision of his servants (prevents him from eating the Pesach), so, there, (in respect to a proselyte, the same obtains.)