Study Yevamot folio 46A with parallel Hebrew-English text, traditional commentary, and modern study tools. Free access to Babylonian Talmud online.
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
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.
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 themse
To resolve the challenge Rava said: When the baraita says that because they immersed before her they acquired themselves, that is whether they immersed without a specified intention or whether they immersed with explicit intention to convert and become freemen. However, had they immersed after her,
Rav Avya said: They taught that one acquires only the rights to the slave’s labor only with regard to a Jew who purchased a slave from a non-Jew slave owner, but if a non-Jew sold his own body as a slave directly to a Jew, then the Jew acquires his body.