Midrash su Levitico 22:10

A sojourner and a hired servant shall not eat thereof, no matter who owns him (ibid., v. 45). A sojourner refers to an alien who is not an idolater, but who commits other forbidden acts. A hired servant alludes to one who serves idols. Hence, just as the words a sojourner and a hired servant, etc., mentioned in the chapter on the paschal lamb disqualify an uncircumcised man from eating the paschal lamb, so does the phrase A sojourner and a hired servant used with reference to the terumah teach us that an uncircumcised man is disqualified from eating the terumah (the priest’s share of the crop).

10) R. Shimon said: The halachah is according to Ben Naness, but not the rationale. For everything mentioned in Bamidbar was offered in the desert, and what is mentioned in Vayikra was not offered in the desert. And when they come to Eretz Yisrael, both were offered, as it is written (Vayikra 22:10) "When you come to the land … then you shall bring." Why do I say that lambs are to be offered (even) without bread? Because the lambs "permit" themselves (with the sprinkling of their blood and the offering of their devoted portions). And there is no bread without lambs, for there is no one to permit them, (it being forbidden to eat the bread until the lambs are offered up).

16) If the lesser (transgression), (touching a sheretz and then eating ma'aser sheni) is mentioned, why mention the graver (touching a dead body) (i.e., why not derive one from the other?) For if the lesser were mentioned and not the graver, I would say that for the lesser he is liable (only) for (transgression of) a negative commandment, and for the graver, for death. Therefore, the graver must be mentioned (as not being liable to death, but only for transgression of a negative commandment). And if the graver were mentioned and not the lesser, I would say that for the graver he was liable (for transgression of a negative commandment), but for the lesser he was not liable at all. Therefore, both the graver and the lesser must be mentioned. (Vayikra 22:10) ("And every zar [a non-priest] shall not eat the holy thing [terumah]; the tenant of a Cohein and his hired man shall not eat the holy thing.") "zar": I might think that "zar" refers to a "mamzer" (a bastard). Whence do I derive that it denominates even a Levite, even an Israelite? From "every zar." "shall not eat": "eating" is not less than the size of an olive. "the holy thing": Just as "the holy thing" stated elsewhere (Devarim 26:13) refers to "the holy things of the boundary" (i.e., terumah and ma'aser, which may be eaten within the entire boundary of Eretz Yisrael [as opposed to "the holy things of the altar," which may be eaten only in Jerusalem]), so "the holy thing" stated here refers to "the holy things of the boundary."