Chagigah 2b — the Talmud in English

Indeed,

you have rectified his master in all his matters, for he has in the slave only a monetary aspect.

in all respects, since the master has only a monetary interest in the slave.

But

However,

himself—

you have not rectified in all his matters!

in all respects!

For you have rectified only the monetary matter concerning him, but you have not rectified him with regard to the mitzva of procreation.

For

to marry a maidservant [as is the law for a slave, who is permitted to marry a maidservant]

[as a slave is permitted to marry a maidservant],

he cannot, since he is half a free man and is forbidden to a maidservant.

he is half-free and is therefore forbidden to marry a maidservant.

And conversely, also

to marry a free woman he cannot, since he is half a slave and is forbidden to a free woman.

because he is half a slave and is forbidden to marry a free woman.

Perhaps you will say: Since he is forbidden to all the women in the world,

let him refrain [let him be idle] from procreation!

[let him abandon the obligation] to have children!

It is impossible to say so.

For

was the world not created except for procreation—

as it is stated: “He did not create it to be empty

as it is stated: “He did not create it for emptiness [the Almighty did not create the earth so that it should be empty and uninhabited, but]

He formed it to be inhabited.”

Rather, for the sake of the betterment of the world

Rather, for the rectification of the world [so that it will be inhabited]—

his master is compelled, and he makes him a free man, and he writes him

the slave to the master

a document

of debt

for half his value

which the master lost, and the slave will repay the document when he has money.

And Beit Hillel returned to rule in accordance with the words of Beit Shammai,

and this is the “later Mishna” that we stated.

We learned in the Mishna:

except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor:

The exemption of a deaf-mute from appearing [at the Temple] can be explained in two ways:

The first: Since he has no understanding, he is exempt according to the law of an imbecile and a minor.

According to this, only one who is a deaf-mute who neither hears nor speaks, who has no understanding, is to be exempted; but one who speaks and does not hear, or hears and does not speak, who has understanding, is obligated in appearing.

The second: The mitzva of appearing is learned by a gzera shava from the mitzva of hakhel. And just as at hakhel everyone who does not hear is exempt [even if he speaks], so too with appearing [as is explained later in the sugya].

According to this explanation, even one who speaks and does not hear, or hears and does not speak, is exempt from appearing.

And now the Gemara derives from the wording of our Mishna in accordance with the first approach:

It teaches

in our Mishna

“a deaf-mute,” analogous to “an imbecile and a minor.”

And from the juxtaposition of “deaf-mute” to “imbecile and minor,” we learn [according to Rashi, 3a, s.v. “and one who does not”]:

Just as an imbecile and a minor

mentioned in our Mishna—the reason for their exemption is that

they are not people of understanding

they are—

so too, “a deaf-mute,”

whom our Mishna exempted from appearing—the reason for his exemption is that

he is not a person of understanding.

But a deaf-mute who has understanding, such as one who speaks and does not hear or hears and does not speak, is obligated in appearing.

And it teaches us

our Mishna that it exempted only a deaf-mute who neither hears nor speaks,

as we learned

in tractate Terumot:

,

A deaf-mute of whom the Sages spoke everywhere is the deaf-mute

,

who neither hears nor speaks! But one who speaks and does not hear, or hears and does not speak—

is obligated

in appearing. And we do not learn a gzera shava from hakhel, as is demonstrated by our Mishna.

And the Gemara says,

we learned this, that also in a beraita we learned what is stated in our Mishna, that a person who neither hears nor speaks is the one called “deaf-mute”:

for in a beraita, a Tannaitic source not included in the Mishna, we likewise learned what is stated in our Mishna: that a person who can neither hear nor speak is called “deaf”:

For the Sages taught

in a beraita:

A person

who speaks and does not hear—this is

the one called

“deaf-mute.”

And the

one who hears and does not speak—this is

the one called

“mute.”

And there is proof for this from our Mishna, for it is understandable if the name “deaf-mute” refers to hearing: there is reason to call also one who neither hears nor speaks by the name “deaf-mute,” because the cause of his muteness is his lack of hearing, and he is called by the name of the cause.

But if the name “deaf-mute” applies to one who is mute, one who neither hears nor speaks should not have needed to be called by the name “deaf-mute,” but by another name.

And the beraita continues:

Both this one and that one—

the aforementioned deaf-mute and the mute—

are like people of sound understanding in all their matters.

And we explain:

And from where [do we know] that “one who speaks and does not hear” is a “deaf-mute,”

whereas

“one who hears and does not speak” is a “mute”?

For it is written: “But I am like a deaf-mute; I do not hear, and like a mute who does not open his mouth.”

And if you wish, say:

the initial letters of “ilem” are

as people say: “His speech was taken away” [his speech was removed].

[his ability to speak was taken away].

And now the Gemara returns to what we inferred from our Mishna, that a person who

speaks and does not hear,

or

hears and does not speak—

is obligated

in appearing.

And we object:

But it was taught

the opposite: a deaf-mute who

speaks and does not hear,

and a mute who

hears and does not speak—

is exempt

from appearing?!

And on the basis of this difficulty,

Ravina said, and some say Rava said,

to explain our Mishna according to the second approach mentioned above: that the deaf-mute is exempt even when he has understanding [and this is learned from the mitzva of hakhel, as the Gemara proceeds to explain].

And concerning what we inferred, “a deaf-mute analogous to an imbecile and a minor,” let this not be difficult for you, for the Mishna compared the deaf-mute to an imbecile and a minor only with regard to rejoicing, and not with regard to appearing:

And

the Mishna is incomplete

our Mishna,

and this is what it teaches:

Everyone is obligated in appearing and in rejoicing, except for a deaf-mute who speaks and does not hear

or one who

hears and does not speak, who is exempt from appearing

by a gzera shava from hakhel, as it proceeds to explain.

And although he is exempt—

one who speaks and does not hear, or one who hears and does not speak—

from appearing,

he is nevertheless

obligated in rejoicing,

for he is a person of understanding, and rejoicing is not learned from hakhel, as it proceeds to explain.

But one who can neither hear nor speak

And one who neither hears nor speaks [he is the deaf-mute mentioned in the Mishna, whom it juxtaposed to an imbecile]

and

and likewise

an imbecile and a minor are exempt even from rejoicing, since they are exempt from all the mitzvot stated in the Torah.

It was likewise taught: Everyone is obligated in appearing and in rejoicing, except for a deaf-mute who speaks and does not hear, and one who hears and does not speak, who are exempt from appearing.