Yevamot 71A

משומדות פוסלת, ואין משומדות פוסלת במעשר.

that apostasy [meshumadut] disqualifies, as the term “stranger” in this context is understood to refer to a Jew whose conduct makes him estranged from God, and he is disqualified from eating the Paschal lamb, but apostasy does not disqualify one from eating tithe.

״כל ערל לא יאכל בו״ למה לי? בו אינו אוכל, אבל אוכל הוא במצה ומרור.

The Talmud asks further: If so, with regard to the phrase “from it” in the verse “No uncircumcised person should eat from it” (Exodus 12:48), which again emphasizes “from it” and not from another item, why do I need it? The Talmud answers: This teaches that only from it, the Paschal lamb, one who is uncircumcised may not eat, but he eats matza and bitter herbs. One who is uncircumcised is obligated to eat matza and bitter herbs on Passover, just like any other Jew.

ואיצטריך למכתב ״ערל״, ואיצטריך למכתב ״כל בן נכר״. דאי כתב רחמנא ״ערל״, משום דמאיס. אבל בן נכר, דלא מאיס ⁠— אימא לא. ואי כתב רחמנא ״כל בן נכר״, משום דאין לבו לשמים, אבל ערל, דלבו לשמים ⁠— אימא לא, צריכא.

The Talmud continues: And it was necessary for the Torah to write the prohibition with regard to an uncircumcised man, and it was necessary for the Torah to write a separate prohibition with regard to any stranger. As, if God had written only about an uncircumcised man, one might have thought that only for him is it prohibited to eat from the Paschal lamb because the foreskin is repulsive, but with regard to a stranger, who is not repulsive, say that it is not prohibited. And if God had written only about any stranger, one might have concluded that only for him is it prohibited to eat from the Paschal lamb because his heart is not directed toward Heaven due to his apostasy, but with regard to an uncircumcised man, whose heart is directed toward Heaven, and it is only on account of unavoidable circumstances that he has not undergone circumcision, say that there is no prohibition against his eating the Paschal lamb. Therefore, it is necessary to teach both cases.