Our Mishna, spanning from Amud Aleph to Amud Beis, delves into the quandary faced by an individual who is half-slave and half-freeman due to being emancipated by only one of their two owners. Bais Shammai argues before Beis Hillel that the other owner must be compelled to free the individual, as his current status prevents him from marrying a regular free Jewish woman or a Canaanite servant. This predicament, impeding the individual from leading a fulfilling life and building a family, transcends Jewish concerns, embodying a universal human dilemma. Bais Shammai supports their stance with a proof text from Isaiah (45:18):

לֹא תוֹהוּ בְרָאָהּ לָשֶׁבֶת יְצָרָהּ

"He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited."

The choice of this verse, as noted by the Chasam Sofer, is significant. Bais Shammai deliberately avoids employing the traditional source for the commandment of procreation in Genesis (1:28) — "פרו ורבו" ("Be fruitful and multiply"). While it is true that the half-free individual is deprived of fulfilling this obligation, the Chasam Sofer explains that the rabbis would not mandate the second owner to free the slave solely to enable the fulfillment of a personal positive commandment that is not the master’s concern. Rather, the Gemara justifies this based on the overarching ethical directive of "settling the world," applicable to all human beings. Consequently, this obligation becomes incumbent upon the individual who remains a slave and, by extension, upon their half-owner. As the master is responsible for the overall welfare of the slave, and since the slave is obligated to "settle the world," the half-owner must facilitate this fulfillment by granting freedom.

While exploring the implications of this verse and the ethical directive it represents, an insightful Maharal elucidates a nuanced understanding of Jewish perspectives on sexuality (Be'er Hagolah 2). The Maharal ponders why engaging in sexual intercourse "not in the usual way" (commonly interpreted as anal intercourse) is permissible, despite the wasting of seed and the impossibility of conception (see Rama EH 25:2). This is particularly perplexing given that the Gemara (Sanhedrin 58b) presents an opinion forbidding Gentiles from engaging in this practice, implying a stringency applied to Gentiles over Jews.

The Maharal explains that sexual union serves two purposes: the procreative function and the spiritual bonding of souls. The procreative function, shared by Jews, Gentiles, and all living beings in the ecosystem, relates to the directive of "settling the world." However, the profound mystical union achieved through sexuality is not solely about procreation. Therefore, from a Jewish ethical perspective, while procreation holds importance, as long as sexuality embodies a deep and unifying bond, procreation becomes secondary. This is why, according to certain opinions, although actively thwarting procreation and deliberately wasting seed are prohibited, occasional ejaculation outside of the vagina during loving sexual intimacy is not deemed a transgression. In such instances, the value of the sexual union transcends procreation, and its fulfillment is not considered wasteful or hedonistic (see Rabbenu Bechaye Vayikra 18:6, where he further elaborates on the themes of sexual union, creation, unity, and not solely procreation).

Our Mishna addresses the plight of a half-slave half-freeman, underscoring the need to rectify their predicament for the sake of leading a fulfilling life and forming a family. Additionally, the Maharal's insights shed light on the intricate Jewish perspective regarding sexuality, highlighting the multifaceted nature of sexual union beyond procreation, emphasizing its spiritual and unifying aspects.