Study Yevamot folio 46A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
Text Excerpt
גוי גופא לא קני ליה, מאי דקני ליה הוא דמקני ליה לישראל, וכיון דקדם וטבל לשם בן חורין — אפקעיה לשעבודיה.
His previous non-Jew owner did not have ownership of the slave’s body, since a non-Jew is unable to have ownership of another’s body; rather, he had rights to only the slave’s labor. And only that which he owned in him was he able to sell to the Jew. Therefore, before immersion, the Jew had rights to only the slave’s labor, but not ownership of his body, and therefore, once the slave preempted his owner and immersed for the sake of conversion to make him a freeman, he abrogates his master’s lien upon him.
כדרבא, דאמר רבא: הקדש, חמץ ושחרור — מפקיעין מידי שעבוד.
The Talmud notes: This explanation is in accordance with the opinion of Rava, as Rava said: Consecration of an item to the Temple, the prohibition of leavened bread taking effect upon a leavened food, and the emancipation of a slave abrogate any lien that exists upon them.
מתיב רב חסדא: מעשה בבלוריא הגיורת שקדמו עבדיה וטבלו לפניה, ובא מעשה לפני חכמים, ואמרו: קנו עצמן בני חורין. לפניה — אין, לאחריה — לא!
Rav Ḥisda raised an objection from a baraita: There was an incident involving Beloreya the female convert in which her slaves preempted her and immersed before her own immersion for her own conversion. And the details of the incident came before the rabbis, and they said: The slaves acquired themselves and became freemen. Rav Ḥisda explains how the baraita poses a challenge: The baraita implies that only because the slaves immersed before her, while she was still a non-Jew, that yes, they became freemen; however, had they immersed after her, i.e., after she had already converted, then no, they would not have become freemen. The reason for this is presumably that upon her conversion she attains the rights to her slaves’ bodies, and therefore their immersion for the sake of becoming freemen would be ineffective. However, this contradicts the Talmud’s explanation above that when a Jew gains ownership of a slave from a non-Jew, he has a right to only the slave’s labor.