- Activities which prove that a slave has been freed – e.g., marrying a free woman, wearing tefillin
Rebbe said: עבד שנשא את בת חורין בפני רבו – A slave who marries a free woman in the presence of his master, יצא לחירות – he goes free, because his master would not have allowed this if he had not previously freed him. This seems to be contradicted by the majority opinion in a Baraisa: הכותב שטר אירוסין לשפחתו – One who writes a document of kiddushin to his slave woman, Rebbe Meir holds she is married, but the Chachomim say she is not married, presumably because they do not consider the act of marriage sufficient proof that he previously freed her!? Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak ultimately answers that the Baraisa is speaking where he said: צאי בו והתקדשי בו – Go out free with [this kiddushin document] and become married to me with it. Clearly, he has not previously freed her, and the Tannaim dispute if the expression of marriage in the document includes the prerequisite emancipation. Rebbe Yehoshua ben Levi said: עבד שהניח תפילין בפני רבו יצא לחירות - A slave who put on tefillin in his master’s presence, he goes free because the master would not otherwise allow this demonstration of freedom (a slave is exempt from tefillin). When this is contradicted by a Baraisa, the Gemara clarifies it means when the master himself put the tefillin onto his slave.
- Ameimar’s opinion that an ownerless slave is without remedy: Two versions
(1) Ameimar said: המפקיר עבדו – One who is mafkir his slave, אותו עבד אין לו תקנה – that slave has no remedy to marry. He explains that once the master monetarily disowned him, איסורא הוא דאיכא גביה – only regarding prohibition to marry Jews is he in [the master]’s domain, and he cannot “free” this dominion in a slave he does not monetarily own. (2) Another version of Ameimar is quoted: המפקיר עבדו ומת – One who is mafkir his slave and dies, אותו העבד אין לו תקנה – that slave has no remedy. Here, he explains that although the master ordinarily could free the prohibitory status without owning the slave monetarily, but this dominion which only pertains to prohibitions cannot be inherited by his heirs. Thus, they cannot free him. The Gemara concludes that the halachah does not follow Ameimar.
- The master’s admission opposed by the slave’s admission
A Baraisa states: האומר עשיתי פלוני עבדי בן חורין – One who says, “I made Ploni, my slave, into a free man,” והוא אומר לא עשאני – and [the slave] says, “He did not make me free,” חיישינן שמא זיכה לו ע"י אחר – we presume that he transferred [the גט שחרור] to [the slave] through another person, who acquired it on the slave’s behalf (who was not aware of it). כתבתי ונתתי לו – If he said, “I wrote and gave him aגט שחרור, והוא אומר לא כתב לי ולא נתן לי – and [the slave] said, “He did not write for me and did not give me one,” which he certainly would know, he is not free, because הודאת בעל דין כמאה עדים דמי – the admission of a litigant is tantamount to a hundred witnesses and is accepted without question. Although the master admitted to the contrary, we assume he erred in thinking that the slave received a גט שחרור from him. The same two cases apply to one who confesses to have gifted a field to a second person.