תִּקַּנְתֶּם אֶת רַבּוֹ, וְאֶת עַצְמוֹ לֹא תִּקַּנְתֶּם; לִישָּׂא שִׁפְחָה – אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל, בַּת חוֹרִין – אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל.

You have remedied the situation of his master, who benefits fully from all his rights to the slave, but his own situation you have not remedied. How so? He is unable to marry a maidservant, as half of him is already free, and a free Jew may not marry a Canaanite maidservant. He is likewise unable to marry a free woman, as half of him is still a slave.

לִיבָּטֵיל? וַהֲלֹא לֹא נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם אֶלָּא לִפְרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לֹא תֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ״! אֶלָּא, מִפְּנֵי תִיקּוּן הָעוֹלָם כּוֹפִין אֶת רַבּוֹ וְעוֹשֶׂה אוֹתוֹ בֶּן חוֹרִין, וְכוֹתֵב לוֹ שְׁטָר עַל חֲצִי דָּמָיו. וְחָזְרוּ בֵּית הִלֵּל לְהוֹרוֹת כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי.

And if you say he should be idle and not marry, but isn’t it true that the world was created only for procreation, as it is stated: “He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18)? Rather, for the betterment of the world we force his master to make him a freeman, and the slave writes a bill to his master accepting his responsibility to pay half his value to him. And Beit Hillel ultimately retracted their opinion, to rule in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai that a half-slave must be set free.

״חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ שׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן״ כו׳. קָתָנֵי חֵרֵשׁ דּוּמְיָא דְּשׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן, מַה שּׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן – דְּלָאו בְּנֵי דֵעָה, אַף חֵרֵשׁ – דְּלָאו בַּר דֵּעָה הוּא. וְקָא מַשְׁמַע לָן כְּדִתְנַן: חֵרֵשׁ שֶׁדִּיבְּרוּ חֲכָמִים בְּכָל מָקוֹם – שֶׁאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ וְאֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר. הָא מְדַבֵּר וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ, שׁוֹמֵעַ וְאֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר – חַיָּיב.

§ The mishna taught: Except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor. The Gemara notes: By listing these three cases together the mishna is teaching that a deaf-mute is similar to an imbecile and a minor: Just as an imbecile and a minor are among those who are not of sound mind, so too the deaf-mute [ ḥeresh ] mentioned here is one who is not of sound mind. And this teaches us as we learned in a mishna ( Terumot 1:2): The ḥeresh , whom the Sages discussed everywhere, is one who does not hear and does not speak, and therefore his mind is not lucid. It can be inferred from this that one who speaks but does not hear and one who hears but does not speak are obligated in mitzvot like any other person.

תָּנֵינָא לְהָא, דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: הַמְדַבֵּר וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ – זֶהוּ חֵרֵשׁ. שׁוֹמֵעַ וְאֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר זֶהוּ אִלֵּם. זֶה וְזֶה הֲרֵי הֵן כְּפִקְּחִין לְכָל דִּבְרֵיהֶם.

The Gemara notes: We already learned this, as the Sages taught in the Tosefta ( Terumot 1:2): One who speaks but does not hear, this is a deaf person. One who hears but does not speak, this is a mute. Both this one and that one are in the same legal category as those who can see and hear with regard to all matters. This shows that the ḥeresh exempted by the Sages is one who neither hears nor speaks.

וּמִמַּאי דִּמְדַבֵּר וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ זֶהוּ חֵרֵשׁ, שׁוֹמֵעַ וְאֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר זֶהוּ אִלֵּם? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַאֲנִי כְחֵרֵשׁ לֹא אֶשְׁמָע וּכְאִלֵּם לֹא יִפְתַּח פִּיו״. וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא, כִּדְאָמְרִי אֱינָשֵׁי: אִישְׁתַּקֵּיל מִילּוּלֵיהּ.

The Gemara asks: And from where is it derived that one who speaks but does not hear is a deaf person, and one who hears but does not speak is a mute? As it is written: “But I am as a deaf man, I hear not; and I am as a dumb man [ illem ] who does not open his mouth” (Psalms 38:14). If you wish, say instead that this is as people say: His speech has been taken [ Ishtakeil Milulei ]; the term illem is an acronym for this phrase.

״מְדַבֵּר וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ שׁוֹמֵעַ וְאֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר חַיָּיב״. וְהָתַנְיָא: מְדַבֵּר וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ, שׁוֹמֵעַ וְאֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר – פָּטוּר!

The Tosefta taught that one who speaks but does not hear and one who hears but does not speak are obligated in mitzvot. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it taught in a baraita that one who speaks but does not hear and one who hears but does not speak are exempt?

אָמַר רָבִינָא וְאִיתֵימָא רָבָא: חַסּוּרֵי מִיחַסְּרָא, וְהָכִי קָתָנֵי: הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בָּרְאִיָּיה וּבַשִּׂמְחָה, חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ הַמְדַבֵּר וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ, שׁוֹמֵעַ וְאֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר, שֶׁפָּטוּר מִן הָרְאִיָּיה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁפָּטוּר מִן הָרְאִיָּיה – חַיָּיב בְּשִׂמְחָה. וְאֶת שֶׁאֵינוֹ לֹא שׁוֹמֵעַ וְלֹא מְדַבֵּר, וְשׁוֹטֶה וְקָטָן – פָּטוּר אַף מִן הַשִּׂמְחָה, הוֹאִיל וּפְטוּרִים מִכָּל מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה.

Ravina said, and some say it was Rava who said: The mishna is incomplete and is teaching the following: All are obligated in the mitzvot of appearance in the Temple and rejoicing during the pilgrim Festival by eating the sacrificial meat, except for a deaf person who speaks but does not hear and mute person who hears but does not speak, each of whom is exempt from the mitzva of appearance. And even though he is exempt from the mitzva of appearance, he is obligated in the mitzva of rejoicing. But one who does not hear and does not speak, and an imbecile and a minor, each of these is exempt even from rejoicing, since they are exempt from all the mitzvot mentioned in the Torah, as they are not of sound mind.

תַּנְיָא נַמִי הָכִי: הַכֹּל חַיָּיבִין בָּרְאִיָּיה וּבַשִּׂמְחָה – חוּץ מֵחֵרֵשׁ הַמְדַבֵּר וְאֵינוֹ שׁוֹמֵעַ, שׁוֹמֵעַ וְאֵינוֹ מְדַבֵּר – שֶׁפְּטוּרִין מִן הָרְאִיָּיה. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁפָּטוּר מִן הָרְאִיָּיה

That opinion is also taught in a baraita : All are obligated in the mitzva of appearance and in rejoicing, except for a deaf person who speaks but does not hear and one who hears but does not speak, as they are exempt from the mitzva of appearance. And even though they are exempt from the mitzva of appearance,