Yevamot

— The idolater has no title to the person [of the slave]  and he can transfer to the Israelite only that which is his. And [the slave], since he forestalled him and performed ritual ablution for the purpose of acquiring the status of a freed man, has thereby cancelled the obligations of his servitude, in accordance with the ruling of Raba. For Raba stated: Consecration,  leavened food  and manumission  cancel a mortgage. R. Hisda raised an objection: It happened with the proselyte Valeria  that her slaves forestalled her and performed ritual ablutions  before her. And when the matter came before the Sages they decided that the slaves had acquired the status of freed men.  [From here it follows that] only if they performed ablution before her,  but not if after her!  — Raba replied: 'Before her' they acquire their emancipation whether the object of their bathing had, or had not been specified;  'after her' emancipation is acquired only when the object had been specified,  but not when it had not been specified. R. Iwya said: What has been taught  applies only to one  who buys  from an idolater; but the idolater himself  may well be acquired;  for it is written in Scripture, Moreover from the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them may ye buy:  you may buy of them but they may not buy of you, nor may they buy of one another.  'But they may not buy of you'. — What can this refer to? If it be suggested [that it refers] to one's manual labour, may not an idolater, [it may be asked,] buy an Israelite to do manual labour? Surely it is written, Or to the offshoot of a stranger's family,  and a Master said that by 'stranger's family' an idolater was meant?  Consequently it must refer to his person;  and the All Merciful said, 'You may buy of them,  even their persons'. R. Aha objected: It  might be said [to refer to acquisition] by means of money and ritual ablution!  — This is a difficulty. Samuel said: He  must be firmly held  while he is in the water;  as [was done with] Menjamin, the slave of R. Ashi who wished to perform ritual ablution,  and was entrusted to Rabina and R. Aha son of Raba. 'Note', [R. Ashi] said to them, 'that I shall claim him from you'.  They put a chain  round his neck, and loosened it and again tightened it. They loosened it in order that there might be no interposition.  They then tightened it again in order that he might not forestall them and declare,  'I perform the ablution in order to procure thereby the status of a freed man'. While he was raising his head from the water they placed upon it a bucket full of clay and told him, 'Go, carry it to your master's house. R. Papa said to Raba: The master must have observed the men of Papa b. Abba's house who advance sums of money on people's accounts in respect of their capitation taxes,  and then force them into their service. Do they,  when set free, require a deed of emancipation or not? He replied: Were I now dead I could not have told you of this ruling. Thus said R. Shesheth: The surety for these people  is deposited in the king's archive, and the king has ordained that whosoever does not pay his capitation tax shall be made the slave of him who pays it for him. R. Hiyya b. Abba once came to Gabla  where he observed Jewish women who conceived from proselytes who were circumcised but had not performed the required ritual ablution;  he also noticed that idolaters were serving  Jewish wine and Israelites were drinking it,  and he also saw that idolaters were cooking lupines and Israelites ate them;  but he did not speak to them on the matter at all. He called, however, upon R. Johanan who instructed him: Go and announce that their children are bastards; that their wine is forbidden as nesek wine;  and that their lupines are forbidden as food cooked by idolaters, because  they  are ignorant of the Torah. 'That their children are bastards', R. Johanan ruling in accordance with his view. For R. Hiyya b. Abba stated in the name of R. Johanan: A man cannot become a proper proselyte unless he has been circumcised and has also performed ritual ablution; when, therefore, no ablution has been performed he is regarded as an idolater; and Rabbah b. Bar Hana stated in the name of R. Johanan that if an idolater or a slave cohabited with the daughter of an Israelite the child [born from such a union] is a bastard. 'That their wine is forbidden as nesek wine', because a nazirite  is told, 'Keep away; go round about; approach not the vineyard'. 'That their lupines are forbidden as food cooked by idolaters, because they are ignorant of the Torah'. [Would their lupines have been] permitted if the men had been acquainted with the Torah? Surely R. Samuel b. R. Isaac stated in the name of Rab, 'Any foodstuff that may be eaten raw does not come under the prohibition of food cooked by idolaters', and since lupines cannot be eaten raw the prohibition of food cooked by idolaters should apply!  — R. Johanan holds the view as expressed in a second version. For R. Samuel b. R. Isaac stated in the name of Rab, 'Whatever is not served on a royal table as a dish to be eaten with bread is not subject to the prohibition of food cooked by idolaters The reason, therefore,  is because they were ignorant of the Torah;  for had they been acquainted with the Torah [their lupines would have been] permitted. Our Rabbis taught: 'If a proselyte was circumcised but had not performed the prescribed ritual ablution, R. Eliezer said, 'Behold he is a proper proselyte; for so we find that our forefathers  were circumcised and had not performed ritual ablution'. If he performed the prescribed ablution but had not been circumcised, R. Joshua said, 'Behold he is a proper proselyte; for so we find that the mothers  had performed ritual ablution but had not been circumcised'. The Sages, however, said, 'Whether he had performed ritual ablution but had not been circumcised or whether he had been circumcised but had not performed the prescribed ritual ablution, he is not a proper proselyte, unless he has been circumcised and has also performed the prescribed ritual ablution. Let R. Joshua also infer from the forefathers, and let R. Eliezer also infer from the mothers! And should you reply  that a possibility  may not be inferred from an impossibility,  surely [it may be retorted] it was taught: R. Eliezer said, 'whence is it deduced that the paschal lamb  of later generations  may be brought from hullin  only? Those in Egypt were commanded to bring  a Paschal lamb and those of later generations were commanded to bring a Paschal lamb; as the Paschal lamb spoken of in Egypt could be brought from hullin  only, so may also the paschal lamb which had been commanded to later generations be brought from hullin only'. Said R. Akiba to him, 'may a possibility be inferred from an impossibility!'  The other replied. 'Although an impossibility, it is nevertheless a proof of importance and deduction from it may be made'!  — But