Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility Skip to content

Today's Daf Yomi

May 22, 2017 | 讻状讜 讘讗讬讬专 转砖注状讝

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Bava Batra 120

Study Guide Bava Batra 120. If the daughters of Tzlofchad got married so late, how did they have children? 聽A miracle happened to them and it is compared to Yocheved giving birth to Moshe at an old age. 聽The gemara explains the whole chronology of the Yocheved narrative and how it is clear she was so old when Moshe was born. 聽In telling the narrative, they also resolve other difficulties in the verses. 聽 The daughters of Tzlofchad are mentioned twice in a different order each time. 聽The gemara explain what one can learn from this. 聽The daguhters of Tzlofchad were able to marry anyone they wanted, yet it was recommended they marry within the tribe. 聽however, a commandment was given to the other women in their generation who inherited land that they could only marry within their tribe. 聽This was a commandment only for that generation. 聽The gemara explains from words in the verse how we know it wasn’t forever and then questions that explanation based two other places where the same words are mentioned and the commandment is also for future generations.


If the lesson doesn't play, click "Download"

讗驻砖专 讘转 诪讗讛 讜砖诇砖讬诐 砖谞讛 讜拽专讗 诇讛 讘转 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讝讜 讬讜讻讘讚 砖讛讜专转讛 讘讚专讱 讜谞讜诇讚讛 讘讬谉 讛讞讜诪讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讗砖专 讬诇讚讛 讗转讛 诇诇讜讬 讘诪爪专讬诐

The Gemara asks: Is it possible that this is Jochebed? Jochebed was then 130 years old and the verse called her a daughter, indicating one who is very young. Jochebed鈥檚 age is established based on a tradition concerning the number of Jacob鈥檚 descendants who came to Egypt, as follows: While the verse states that Leah had thirty-three descendants (Genesis 46:15), only thirty-two were enumerated. This was explained as Rabbi 岣ma bar 岣nina says: This 鈥渄aughter of Levi鈥 is Jochebed, whose conception occurred on the journey as the family of Jacob descended to Egypt, and she was born within the walls, i.e., having entered Egypt, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the name of Amram鈥檚 wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt鈥 (Numbers 26:59).

诇讬讚转讛 讘诪爪专讬诐 讜讛讜专转讛 砖诇讗 讘诪爪专讬诐 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讛 讘转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讝讘讬讚讗 诪诇诪讚 砖谞讜诇讚讜 讘讛 住讬诪谞讬 谞注专讜转 谞转注讚谉 讛讘砖专 谞转驻砖讟讜 讛拽诪讟讬谉 讜讞讝专 讛讬讜驻讬 诇诪拽讜诪讜

One can infer from the verse: Her birth was in Egypt, but her conception was not in Egypt. Since the Jewish people were in Egypt for 210 years and Moses was eighty years old at the time of the Exodus, Jochebed must have been 130 years old when Moses was born. The Gemara therefore asks: And why does the verse call her 鈥渁 daughter鈥? Rav Yehuda bar Zevida says: This teaches that her signs of youth miraculously came into being again. The flesh became smooth, the wrinkles were straightened out, and the youthful beauty returned to its place.

讜讬拽讞 讜讬讞讝讜专 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讝讘讬讚讗 诪诇诪讚 砖注砖讛 诇讛 诪注砖讛 诇拽讜讞讬谉 讛讜砖讬讘讛 讘讗驻专讬讜谉 讜讗讛专谉 讜诪专讬诐 诪砖讜专专讬诐 诇驻谞讬讛 讜诪诇讗讻讬 砖专转 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诐 讛讘谞讬诐 砖诪讞讛

The verse concerning Amram鈥檚 marriage to Jochebed states: 鈥淎nd a man of the house of Levi went, and took as a wife a daughter of Levi鈥 (Exodus 2:1). The Gemara asks: Since Jochebed had already been married to Amram for some years, as Miriam and Aaron were already born, the verse should have stated: And he took back as a wife. Rav Yehuda bar Zevida says: The wording of the verse teaches that Amram performed for her a formal act of marriage as though he were marrying her for the first time. He seated her in a bridal palanquin [be鈥檃ppiryon], and Aaron and Miriam were singing before her, and the ministering angels were saying: 鈥淎 joyful mother of children鈥 (Psalms 113:9).

诇讛诇谉 诪谞讗谉 讛讻转讜讘 讚专讱 讙讚讜诇转谉 讜讻讗谉 讚专讱 讞讻诪转谉 诪住讬讬注讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘讬砖讬讘讛 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讞讻诪讛 讘诪住讬讘讛 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讝拽谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讜讗 讚诪驻诇讬讙 讘讞讻诪讛 讜讛讜讗 讚诪驻诇讬讙 讘讝拽谞讛

搂 The Gemara returns to discuss Zelophehad鈥檚 daughters: Later on, the verse lists them according to their age, stating: 鈥淔or Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married鈥 (Numbers 36:11), and here the verse lists them in a different order, according to their wisdom: 鈥淎nd these are the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah鈥 (Numbers 27:1). This supports the ruling of Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami says: In the context of sitting in judgment or learning Torah, follow the participants鈥 wisdom in determining the seating, so that the wisest is granted the highest honor, and in the context of reclining for a meal, follow the participants鈥 age. Rav Ashi says: And this is so only when one is outstanding in wisdom, then wisdom trumps age; and this is so only when one of the participants is outstanding in age, i.e., particularly old, then age trumps wisdom.

转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜转 爪诇驻讞讚 砖拽讜诇讜转 讛讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜转讛讬讬谞讛 讛讜讬讛 讗讞转 诇讻讜诇谉

The Gemara cites an alternative opinion: The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The daughters of Zelophehad were equal in stature, as it is stated: 鈥淔or Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were [vatihyena] married.鈥 The word 鈥vatihyena鈥 demonstrates: There was one uniform existence [havaya], i.e., spiritual level, for all of them.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘谞讜转 爪诇驻讞讚 讛讜转专讜 诇讛谞砖讗 诇讻诇 讛砖讘讟讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讟讜讘 讘注讬谞讬讛诐 转讛讬讬谞讛 诇谞砖讬诐 讗诇讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讗讱 诇诪砖驻讞转 诪讟讛 讗讘讬讛诐 转讛讬讬谞讛 诇谞砖讬诐 注爪讛 讟讜讘讛 讛砖讬讗谉 讛讻转讜讘 砖诇讗 讬谞砖讗讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讙讜谉 诇讛谉

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The daughters of Zelophehad were permitted to marry members of any of the tribes, as it is stated: 鈥淟et them be married to whom they think best鈥 (Numbers 36:6). But how do I realize the meaning of the continuation of the same verse: 鈥淥nly into the family of the tribe of their father shall they be married鈥 (Numbers 36:6), according to which they were permitted to marry only members of their own tribe? The verse offered them good advice, that they should be married only to those fit for them, who were often men from within the family.

诪讜转讬讘 专讘讛 讗诪专 讗诇讬讛诐 诇讗讜转谉 讛注讜诪讚讬诐 注诇 讛专 住讬谞讬 诇讚专转讬讻诐 讗诇讜 讚讜专讜转 讛讘讗讬诐 讗诐 谞讗诪专 讗讘讜转 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讘谞讬诐 讜讗诐 谞讗诪专 讘谞讬诐 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讗讘讜转 诪驻谞讬 砖讬砖 讘讗讘讜转 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讘谞讬诐 讜讬砖 讘讘谞讬诐 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讗讘讜转

Rabba raised an objection from a baraita taught concerning the prohibition against eating consecrated foods while in a state of ritual impurity. Moses was commanded: 鈥淪ay to them: Whoever will be of all your descendants throughout your generations, who approaches to the holy things, which the children of Israel consecrate to the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from before Me鈥 (Leviticus 22:3). Which people are referred to in the phrase 鈥渟ay to them鈥? It is referring to those standing at Mount Sinai. Which people are referred to in the phrase 鈥渢hroughout your generations鈥? These are the coming generations. If the halakha is stated to the fathers, why is it stated to the sons; and if the halakha is stated to the sons, why is it stated to the fathers? This is because there are mitzvot for the fathers that are not for the sons, and there are mitzvot for the sons that are not for the fathers.

讘讗讘讜转 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讻诇 讘转 讬专砖转 谞讞诇讛 讜讛专讘讛 诪爪讜转 谞爪讟讜讜 讘谞讬诐 砖诇讗 谞爪讟讜讜 讗讘讜转 讛讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讬砖 讘讗讘讜转 砖讗讬谉 讘讘谞讬诐 讜讬砖 讘讘谞讬诐 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讗讘讜转 讛讜爪专讱 诇讜诪专 讗讘讜转 讛讜爪专讱 诇讜诪专 讘谞讬诐

The baraita continues: For the fathers, the verse states: 鈥淎nd every daughter who possesses an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel, shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father鈥 (Numbers 36:8). This mitzva, that the woman should marry a member of her own tribe, applied only to the first generation that received tribal portions of Eretz Yisrael. And, by contrast, there were many mitzvot, e.g., all the mitzvot that applied only from the time that Eretz Yisrael was settled, which the sons were commanded to fulfill but which the fathers were not commanded to fulfill. Because there are mitzvot for the fathers that are not for the sons, and there are mitzvot for the sons that are not for the fathers, the verse needed to state, i.e., to address, the fathers, and it needed to state, i.e., to address, the sons.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讘讗讘讜转 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讻诇 讘转 讬专砖转 谞讞诇讛 讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 诇讘专 诪讘谞讜转 爪诇驻讞讚

Rabba states his objection: In any event, the baraita teaches: For the fathers, the verse states: 鈥淎nd every daughter who possesses an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel, shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father.鈥 This indicates that this was a mitzva for that entire generation, including Zelophehad鈥檚 daughters, in contrast to the statement of Shmuel. The Gemara explains: He, Rabba, raised the objection, and he resolved it: This mitzva applied to everyone except for the daughters of Zelophehad, who were explicitly permitted to marry members of any tribe.

讗诪专 诪专 讘讗讘讜转 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讻诇 讘转 讬讜专砖转 谞讞诇讛 讘讗讘讜转 讗讬谉 讘讘谞讬诐 诇讗 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讝讛 讛讚讘专 讚讘专 讝讛 诇讗 讬讛讗 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讚讜专 讝讛

The Master says in the baraita cited above: For the fathers, the verse states: 鈥淎nd every daughter who possesses an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel, shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father.鈥 For the fathers, yes, this is the mitzva, but for the sons, it is not so. The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred? Rava said that the verse states there: 鈥淭his is the matter that the Lord has commanded鈥 (Numbers 36:6), meaning: This matter will not be practiced except in this generation.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讝讜讟讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讝讛 讛讚讘专 讚砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讬讛讗 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讚讜专 讝讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 诇讚专转诐

Rabba Zuti said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, then concerning the phrase 鈥渢his is the matter鈥 written with regard to an offering slaughtered outside the Tabernacle (see Leviticus 17:2鈥3), so too, is it the halakha that it will not be practiced except in this generation? Certainly that is not so, as that prohibition applies in all generations. What is the difference between the two passages? Rav Ashi answered: It is different there, with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple, as it is written: 鈥淭hroughout their generations鈥 (Leviticus 17:7), indicating that the prohibition is in effect in all generations.

讝讛 讛讚讘专 讚专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讬讛讗 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讚讜专 讝讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讬诇讬祝 讝讛 讝讛 诪讛转诐

Rabba Zuti asked Rav Ashi about another instance of the same phrase. In the case of 鈥渢his is the matter鈥 written with regard to the heads of the tribes, in the introductory verse to the halakhot of vows: 鈥淎nd Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel, saying: This is the matter that the Lord has commanded鈥 (Numbers 30:2), is it also the case that the halakhot of vows will not be practiced except in this generation? Rav Ashi said to him: The halakha in that case, that of vows, is derived through a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渢his鈥 stated here, in the verse discussing vows, and the word 鈥渢his鈥 stated there, in the verse discussing offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple, which is applicable in all generations.

讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讬诇讬祝 讝讛 讝讛 诪讛转诐 讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 讛讻讗 诇诪讗讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇砖转讜拽 拽专讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讗谞讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚诇讚讜专讜转 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: This halakha, concerning the daughter inheriting her father鈥檚 portion, let it be derived through a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渢his鈥 stated here, with regard to inheritance, and the word 鈥渢his鈥 stated there, in the verse discussing offerings, as well. The Gemara rejects that comparison: What is this suggestion? Granted, there, i.e., with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple and with regard to vows, the phrase 鈥渢his is the matter鈥 was necessary for deriving other halakhot through a verbal analogy, as will be explained later. Therefore, the term may also be employed to teach that the halakha applies in all generations. But here, with regard to a daughter鈥檚 inheritance, for what other halakha was this phrase necessary? If the halakha truly applies for posterity, let the verse be silent and refrain from addressing when this halakha applies by not stating 鈥渢his is the matter,鈥 and I would know that it is for all generations, as is the case with all other mitzvot.

诪讗讬 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 讚转谞讬讗 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讝讛 讛讚讘专 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讝讛 讛讚讘专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗祝 讻讗谉 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪讛 讻讗谉 专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转

The Gemara explains: What is the verbal analogy for which the phrase was necessary? As it is taught in a baraita: It is stated here, with regard to vows: 鈥淭his is the matter,鈥 and it is stated there, with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple: 鈥淭his is the matter.鈥 Just as there the mitzva applies to Aaron and his sons and all Israel, so too here, with regard to vows, the mitzva applies to Aaron and his sons and all Israel. And just as here the mitzva applies to the heads of the tribes, as explicitly stated in the verse cited above, so too there, with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple, there is particular relevance to the heads of the tribes.

讗诪专 诪专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗祝 讻讗谉 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诇讜诪专 砖讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讘砖诇砖讛 讛讚讬讜讟讜转

The Gemara analyzes the cited baraita. The Master says: Just as there, with regard to offerings, the mitzva applies to Aaron and his sons and all Israel, so too here, with regard to vows, the mitzva applies to Aaron and his sons and all Israel. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this verbal analogy stated? Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov says: This is written to say that the dissolution of vows can be performed by three laymen with no particular expertise in the halakhot of vows, just as the prohibition of offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple applies to all of the Jewish people, including laymen.

讜讛讗 专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬讞讬讚 诪讜诪讞讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讘讬讞讬讚 诪讜诪讞讛

The Gemara objects: But the phrase 鈥渢he heads of the tribes鈥 is written explicitly in the portion of the vows, indicating that the matter is not entrusted to laymen. The Gemara answers: It is as Rav 岣sda says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says in a different context: The mention of the heads of tribes teaches that vows may be dissolved by a single expert halakhic authority; so too here, this phrase teaches that vows can be nullified by a single expert halakhic authority.

讜诪讛 讻讗谉 专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讜诪专 砖讬砖 砖讗诇讛 讘讛拽讚砖

The Gemara analyzes the next clause of the cited baraita: And just as here the mitzva applies to the heads of the tribes, so too there, with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple, there is particular relevance to the heads of the tribes. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha are the heads of the tribes linked to the prohibition of slaughtering offerings outside the Tabernacle or Temple? Rav Sheshet says: This is written to say that there is a concept of requesting dissolution of consecration of consecrated property, just as one can request dissolution of a vow.

讜诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 砖讗诇讛 讘讛拽讚砖 讚转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛拽讚砖 讟注讜转 讛拽讚砖 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讛拽讚砖 讛讗讬 讝讛 讜讝讛 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Beit Shammai, who say that there is no possibility of requesting that a halakhic authority dissolve a vow of consecrated property, this cannot explain the connection of the heads of the tribes to offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple. As we learned in a mishna (Nazir 30b): Beit Shammai say: Consecration that one performed in error is nevertheless effective as consecration, because one鈥檚 mindset does not supersede his verbal declaration; and Beit Hillel say: This is not consecration. Accordingly, in the opinion of Beit Shammai, what do they do with this seemingly analogous usage of 鈥渢his鈥 and 鈥渢his,鈥 in the portions of offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple and vows, respectively?

讝讛 讛讚讘专 讚砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 注诇 讛砖讜讞讟 讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛诪讜诇拽 讝讛 讛讚讘专 讚专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讞讻诐 诪转讬专 讜讗讬谉 讘注诇 诪转讬专 讘注诇 诪驻专 讜讗讬谉 讞讻诐 诪驻专

The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai require 鈥渢his is the matter鈥 written of offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple to teach that for the act of slaughtering, he is liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [karet]; but he is not liable to receive karet for the act of pinching the neck of a consecrated bird outside the Tabernacle or Temple, which is excluded from the category of slaughtering in this mitzva. And Beit Shammai require 鈥渢his is the matter鈥 written of the heads of the tribes in the portion about vows to teach that only a halakhic authority can dissolve vows, but a husband cannot dissolve them. The halakhic authority can dissolve the vow for a petitioner, but a woman鈥檚 husband or father cannot dissolve her vow. And, conversely, a husband can nullify his wife鈥檚 or his daughter鈥檚 vows on the day that he hears the vow, regardless of her mindset, but a halakhic authority cannot nullify vows in this manner.

讜诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚诇讬转 诇讛讜 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讘砖诇砖讛 讛讚讬讜讟讜转 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 谞驻拽讗 诇讛讜 诪讚转谞讬讗 讜讬讚讘专 诪砖讛 讗转 诪注讚讬 讛壮 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专

The Gemara asks: But according to Beit Shammai, who do not have this verbal analogy, meaning that they do not recognize as authoritative the verbal analogy that links vows to offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple, from where do they derive that dissolution of vows can be performed by three laymen? The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai derive it from that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states at the end of a passage relating to the halakhot of the Festivals: 鈥淎nd Moses declared to the children of Israel the appointed seasons of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 23:44). In explaining the verse, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says:

  • This month's learning is sponsored by Ron and Shira Krebs to commemorate the 73rd yahrzeit of Shira's grandfather (Yitzchak Leib Ben David Ber HaCohen v'Malka), the 1st yahrzeit of Shira's father (Gershon Pinya Ben Yitzchak Leib HaCohen v'Menucha Sara), and the bar mitzvah of their son Eytan who will be making a siyum on Mishna Shas this month.

  • This month's learning is sponsored for the Refuah Shlemah of Naama bat Yael Esther.

Want to explore more about the Daf?

See insights from our partners, contributors and community of women learners

Sorry, there aren't any posts in this category yet. We're adding more soon!

Bava Batra 120

The William Davidson Talmud | Powered by Sefaria

Bava Batra 120

讗驻砖专 讘转 诪讗讛 讜砖诇砖讬诐 砖谞讛 讜拽专讗 诇讛 讘转 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讞诪讗 讘专 讞谞讬谞讗 讝讜 讬讜讻讘讚 砖讛讜专转讛 讘讚专讱 讜谞讜诇讚讛 讘讬谉 讛讞讜诪讜转 讚讻转讬讘 讗砖专 讬诇讚讛 讗转讛 诇诇讜讬 讘诪爪专讬诐

The Gemara asks: Is it possible that this is Jochebed? Jochebed was then 130 years old and the verse called her a daughter, indicating one who is very young. Jochebed鈥檚 age is established based on a tradition concerning the number of Jacob鈥檚 descendants who came to Egypt, as follows: While the verse states that Leah had thirty-three descendants (Genesis 46:15), only thirty-two were enumerated. This was explained as Rabbi 岣ma bar 岣nina says: This 鈥渄aughter of Levi鈥 is Jochebed, whose conception occurred on the journey as the family of Jacob descended to Egypt, and she was born within the walls, i.e., having entered Egypt, as it is written: 鈥淎nd the name of Amram鈥檚 wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt鈥 (Numbers 26:59).

诇讬讚转讛 讘诪爪专讬诐 讜讛讜专转讛 砖诇讗 讘诪爪专讬诐 讜讗诪讗讬 拽专讜 诇讛 讘转 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讝讘讬讚讗 诪诇诪讚 砖谞讜诇讚讜 讘讛 住讬诪谞讬 谞注专讜转 谞转注讚谉 讛讘砖专 谞转驻砖讟讜 讛拽诪讟讬谉 讜讞讝专 讛讬讜驻讬 诇诪拽讜诪讜

One can infer from the verse: Her birth was in Egypt, but her conception was not in Egypt. Since the Jewish people were in Egypt for 210 years and Moses was eighty years old at the time of the Exodus, Jochebed must have been 130 years old when Moses was born. The Gemara therefore asks: And why does the verse call her 鈥渁 daughter鈥? Rav Yehuda bar Zevida says: This teaches that her signs of youth miraculously came into being again. The flesh became smooth, the wrinkles were straightened out, and the youthful beauty returned to its place.

讜讬拽讞 讜讬讞讝讜专 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讘专 讝讘讬讚讗 诪诇诪讚 砖注砖讛 诇讛 诪注砖讛 诇拽讜讞讬谉 讛讜砖讬讘讛 讘讗驻专讬讜谉 讜讗讛专谉 讜诪专讬诐 诪砖讜专专讬诐 诇驻谞讬讛 讜诪诇讗讻讬 砖专转 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗诐 讛讘谞讬诐 砖诪讞讛

The verse concerning Amram鈥檚 marriage to Jochebed states: 鈥淎nd a man of the house of Levi went, and took as a wife a daughter of Levi鈥 (Exodus 2:1). The Gemara asks: Since Jochebed had already been married to Amram for some years, as Miriam and Aaron were already born, the verse should have stated: And he took back as a wife. Rav Yehuda bar Zevida says: The wording of the verse teaches that Amram performed for her a formal act of marriage as though he were marrying her for the first time. He seated her in a bridal palanquin [be鈥檃ppiryon], and Aaron and Miriam were singing before her, and the ministering angels were saying: 鈥淎 joyful mother of children鈥 (Psalms 113:9).

诇讛诇谉 诪谞讗谉 讛讻转讜讘 讚专讱 讙讚讜诇转谉 讜讻讗谉 讚专讱 讞讻诪转谉 诪住讬讬注讗 诇讬讛 诇专讘讬 讗诪讬 讚讗诪专 专讘讬 讗诪讬 讘讬砖讬讘讛 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讞讻诪讛 讘诪住讬讘讛 讛诇讱 讗讞专 讝拽谞讛 讗诪专 专讘 讗砖讬 讜讛讜讗 讚诪驻诇讬讙 讘讞讻诪讛 讜讛讜讗 讚诪驻诇讬讙 讘讝拽谞讛

搂 The Gemara returns to discuss Zelophehad鈥檚 daughters: Later on, the verse lists them according to their age, stating: 鈥淔or Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married鈥 (Numbers 36:11), and here the verse lists them in a different order, according to their wisdom: 鈥淎nd these are the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah鈥 (Numbers 27:1). This supports the ruling of Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami says: In the context of sitting in judgment or learning Torah, follow the participants鈥 wisdom in determining the seating, so that the wisest is granted the highest honor, and in the context of reclining for a meal, follow the participants鈥 age. Rav Ashi says: And this is so only when one is outstanding in wisdom, then wisdom trumps age; and this is so only when one of the participants is outstanding in age, i.e., particularly old, then age trumps wisdom.

转谞讗 讚讘讬 专讘讬 讬砖诪注讗诇 讘谞讜转 爪诇驻讞讚 砖拽讜诇讜转 讛讬讜 砖谞讗诪专 讜转讛讬讬谞讛 讛讜讬讛 讗讞转 诇讻讜诇谉

The Gemara cites an alternative opinion: The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The daughters of Zelophehad were equal in stature, as it is stated: 鈥淔or Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were [vatihyena] married.鈥 The word 鈥vatihyena鈥 demonstrates: There was one uniform existence [havaya], i.e., spiritual level, for all of them.

讗诪专 专讘 讬讛讜讚讛 讗诪专 砖诪讜讗诇 讘谞讜转 爪诇驻讞讚 讛讜转专讜 诇讛谞砖讗 诇讻诇 讛砖讘讟讬诐 砖谞讗诪专 诇讟讜讘 讘注讬谞讬讛诐 转讛讬讬谞讛 诇谞砖讬诐 讗诇讗 诪讛 讗谞讬 诪拽讬讬诐 讗讱 诇诪砖驻讞转 诪讟讛 讗讘讬讛诐 转讛讬讬谞讛 诇谞砖讬诐 注爪讛 讟讜讘讛 讛砖讬讗谉 讛讻转讜讘 砖诇讗 讬谞砖讗讜 讗诇讗 诇讛讙讜谉 诇讛谉

Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The daughters of Zelophehad were permitted to marry members of any of the tribes, as it is stated: 鈥淟et them be married to whom they think best鈥 (Numbers 36:6). But how do I realize the meaning of the continuation of the same verse: 鈥淥nly into the family of the tribe of their father shall they be married鈥 (Numbers 36:6), according to which they were permitted to marry only members of their own tribe? The verse offered them good advice, that they should be married only to those fit for them, who were often men from within the family.

诪讜转讬讘 专讘讛 讗诪专 讗诇讬讛诐 诇讗讜转谉 讛注讜诪讚讬诐 注诇 讛专 住讬谞讬 诇讚专转讬讻诐 讗诇讜 讚讜专讜转 讛讘讗讬诐 讗诐 谞讗诪专 讗讘讜转 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讘谞讬诐 讜讗诐 谞讗诪专 讘谞讬诐 诇诪讛 谞讗诪专 讗讘讜转 诪驻谞讬 砖讬砖 讘讗讘讜转 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讘谞讬诐 讜讬砖 讘讘谞讬诐 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讗讘讜转

Rabba raised an objection from a baraita taught concerning the prohibition against eating consecrated foods while in a state of ritual impurity. Moses was commanded: 鈥淪ay to them: Whoever will be of all your descendants throughout your generations, who approaches to the holy things, which the children of Israel consecrate to the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from before Me鈥 (Leviticus 22:3). Which people are referred to in the phrase 鈥渟ay to them鈥? It is referring to those standing at Mount Sinai. Which people are referred to in the phrase 鈥渢hroughout your generations鈥? These are the coming generations. If the halakha is stated to the fathers, why is it stated to the sons; and if the halakha is stated to the sons, why is it stated to the fathers? This is because there are mitzvot for the fathers that are not for the sons, and there are mitzvot for the sons that are not for the fathers.

讘讗讘讜转 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讻诇 讘转 讬专砖转 谞讞诇讛 讜讛专讘讛 诪爪讜转 谞爪讟讜讜 讘谞讬诐 砖诇讗 谞爪讟讜讜 讗讘讜转 讛讗 诪驻谞讬 砖讬砖 讘讗讘讜转 砖讗讬谉 讘讘谞讬诐 讜讬砖 讘讘谞讬诐 诪讛 砖讗讬谉 讘讗讘讜转 讛讜爪专讱 诇讜诪专 讗讘讜转 讛讜爪专讱 诇讜诪专 讘谞讬诐

The baraita continues: For the fathers, the verse states: 鈥淎nd every daughter who possesses an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel, shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father鈥 (Numbers 36:8). This mitzva, that the woman should marry a member of her own tribe, applied only to the first generation that received tribal portions of Eretz Yisrael. And, by contrast, there were many mitzvot, e.g., all the mitzvot that applied only from the time that Eretz Yisrael was settled, which the sons were commanded to fulfill but which the fathers were not commanded to fulfill. Because there are mitzvot for the fathers that are not for the sons, and there are mitzvot for the sons that are not for the fathers, the verse needed to state, i.e., to address, the fathers, and it needed to state, i.e., to address, the sons.

拽转谞讬 诪讬讛转 讘讗讘讜转 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讻诇 讘转 讬专砖转 谞讞诇讛 讛讜讗 诪讜转讬讘 诇讛 讜讛讜讗 诪驻专拽 诇讛 诇讘专 诪讘谞讜转 爪诇驻讞讚

Rabba states his objection: In any event, the baraita teaches: For the fathers, the verse states: 鈥淎nd every daughter who possesses an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel, shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father.鈥 This indicates that this was a mitzva for that entire generation, including Zelophehad鈥檚 daughters, in contrast to the statement of Shmuel. The Gemara explains: He, Rabba, raised the objection, and he resolved it: This mitzva applied to everyone except for the daughters of Zelophehad, who were explicitly permitted to marry members of any tribe.

讗诪专 诪专 讘讗讘讜转 讛讜讗 讗讜诪专 讜讻诇 讘转 讬讜专砖转 谞讞诇讛 讘讗讘讜转 讗讬谉 讘讘谞讬诐 诇讗 诪讗讬 诪砖诪注 讗诪专 专讘讗 讗诪专 拽专讗 讝讛 讛讚讘专 讚讘专 讝讛 诇讗 讬讛讗 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讚讜专 讝讛

The Master says in the baraita cited above: For the fathers, the verse states: 鈥淎nd every daughter who possesses an inheritance from the tribes of the children of Israel, shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father.鈥 For the fathers, yes, this is the mitzva, but for the sons, it is not so. The Gemara asks: From where may it be inferred? Rava said that the verse states there: 鈥淭his is the matter that the Lord has commanded鈥 (Numbers 36:6), meaning: This matter will not be practiced except in this generation.

讗诪专 诇讬讛 专讘讛 讝讜讟讬 诇专讘 讗砖讬 讗诇讗 诪注转讛 讝讛 讛讚讘专 讚砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讬讛讗 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讚讜专 讝讛 砖讗谞讬 讛转诐 讚讻转讬讘 诇讚专转诐

Rabba Zuti said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, then concerning the phrase 鈥渢his is the matter鈥 written with regard to an offering slaughtered outside the Tabernacle (see Leviticus 17:2鈥3), so too, is it the halakha that it will not be practiced except in this generation? Certainly that is not so, as that prohibition applies in all generations. What is the difference between the two passages? Rav Ashi answered: It is different there, with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple, as it is written: 鈥淭hroughout their generations鈥 (Leviticus 17:7), indicating that the prohibition is in effect in all generations.

讝讛 讛讚讘专 讚专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讚诇讗 讬讛讗 谞讜讛讙 讗诇讗 讘讚讜专 讝讛 讗诪专 诇讬讛 讛讛讜讗 讬诇讬祝 讝讛 讝讛 诪讛转诐

Rabba Zuti asked Rav Ashi about another instance of the same phrase. In the case of 鈥渢his is the matter鈥 written with regard to the heads of the tribes, in the introductory verse to the halakhot of vows: 鈥淎nd Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel, saying: This is the matter that the Lord has commanded鈥 (Numbers 30:2), is it also the case that the halakhot of vows will not be practiced except in this generation? Rav Ashi said to him: The halakha in that case, that of vows, is derived through a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渢his鈥 stated here, in the verse discussing vows, and the word 鈥渢his鈥 stated there, in the verse discussing offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple, which is applicable in all generations.

讛讗讬 谞诪讬 诇讬诇讬祝 讝讛 讝讛 诪讛转诐 讛讗讬 诪讗讬 讘砖诇诪讗 讛转诐 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 讛讻讗 诇诪讗讬 讗讬爪讟专讬讱 诇砖转讜拽 拽专讗 诪讬谞讬讛 讜讗谞讗 讬讚注谞讗 讚诇讚讜专讜转 讛讜讗

The Gemara asks: This halakha, concerning the daughter inheriting her father鈥檚 portion, let it be derived through a verbal analogy between the word 鈥渢his鈥 stated here, with regard to inheritance, and the word 鈥渢his鈥 stated there, in the verse discussing offerings, as well. The Gemara rejects that comparison: What is this suggestion? Granted, there, i.e., with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple and with regard to vows, the phrase 鈥渢his is the matter鈥 was necessary for deriving other halakhot through a verbal analogy, as will be explained later. Therefore, the term may also be employed to teach that the halakha applies in all generations. But here, with regard to a daughter鈥檚 inheritance, for what other halakha was this phrase necessary? If the halakha truly applies for posterity, let the verse be silent and refrain from addressing when this halakha applies by not stating 鈥渢his is the matter,鈥 and I would know that it is for all generations, as is the case with all other mitzvot.

诪讗讬 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 讚转谞讬讗 谞讗诪专 讻讗谉 讝讛 讛讚讘专 讜谞讗诪专 诇讛诇谉 讝讛 讛讚讘专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗祝 讻讗谉 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讜诪讛 讻讗谉 专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转

The Gemara explains: What is the verbal analogy for which the phrase was necessary? As it is taught in a baraita: It is stated here, with regard to vows: 鈥淭his is the matter,鈥 and it is stated there, with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple: 鈥淭his is the matter.鈥 Just as there the mitzva applies to Aaron and his sons and all Israel, so too here, with regard to vows, the mitzva applies to Aaron and his sons and all Israel. And just as here the mitzva applies to the heads of the tribes, as explicitly stated in the verse cited above, so too there, with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple, there is particular relevance to the heads of the tribes.

讗诪专 诪专 诪讛 诇讛诇谉 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 讗祝 讻讗谉 讗讛专谉 讜讘谞讬讜 讜讻诇 讬砖专讗诇 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 讗讞讗 讘专 讬注拽讘 诇讜诪专 砖讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讘砖诇砖讛 讛讚讬讜讟讜转

The Gemara analyzes the cited baraita. The Master says: Just as there, with regard to offerings, the mitzva applies to Aaron and his sons and all Israel, so too here, with regard to vows, the mitzva applies to Aaron and his sons and all Israel. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this verbal analogy stated? Rav A岣 bar Ya鈥檃kov says: This is written to say that the dissolution of vows can be performed by three laymen with no particular expertise in the halakhot of vows, just as the prohibition of offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple applies to all of the Jewish people, including laymen.

讜讛讗 专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转 讻转讬讘 讘讬讛 讻讚讗诪专 专讘 讞住讚讗 讗诪专 专讘讬 讬讜讞谞谉 讘讬讞讬讚 诪讜诪讞讛 讛讻讬 谞诪讬 讘讬讞讬讚 诪讜诪讞讛

The Gemara objects: But the phrase 鈥渢he heads of the tribes鈥 is written explicitly in the portion of the vows, indicating that the matter is not entrusted to laymen. The Gemara answers: It is as Rav 岣sda says that Rabbi Yo岣nan says in a different context: The mention of the heads of tribes teaches that vows may be dissolved by a single expert halakhic authority; so too here, this phrase teaches that vows can be nullified by a single expert halakhic authority.

讜诪讛 讻讗谉 专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转 讗祝 诇讛诇谉 专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转 诇诪讗讬 讛诇讻转讗 讗诪专 专讘 砖砖转 诇讜诪专 砖讬砖 砖讗诇讛 讘讛拽讚砖

The Gemara analyzes the next clause of the cited baraita: And just as here the mitzva applies to the heads of the tribes, so too there, with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple, there is particular relevance to the heads of the tribes. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha are the heads of the tribes linked to the prohibition of slaughtering offerings outside the Tabernacle or Temple? Rav Sheshet says: This is written to say that there is a concept of requesting dissolution of consecration of consecrated property, just as one can request dissolution of a vow.

讜诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚讗诪专讬 讗讬谉 砖讗诇讛 讘讛拽讚砖 讚转谞谉 讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讗讜诪专讬诐 讛拽讚砖 讟注讜转 讛拽讚砖 讜讘讬转 讛诇诇 讗讜诪专讬诐 讗讬谞讜 讛拽讚砖 讛讗讬 讝讛 讜讝讛 诪讗讬 注讘讚讬 诇讬讛

The Gemara asks: And according to Beit Shammai, who say that there is no possibility of requesting that a halakhic authority dissolve a vow of consecrated property, this cannot explain the connection of the heads of the tribes to offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple. As we learned in a mishna (Nazir 30b): Beit Shammai say: Consecration that one performed in error is nevertheless effective as consecration, because one鈥檚 mindset does not supersede his verbal declaration; and Beit Hillel say: This is not consecration. Accordingly, in the opinion of Beit Shammai, what do they do with this seemingly analogous usage of 鈥渢his鈥 and 鈥渢his,鈥 in the portions of offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple and vows, respectively?

讝讛 讛讚讘专 讚砖讞讜讟讬 讞讜抓 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 注诇 讛砖讜讞讟 讛讜讗 讞讬讬讘 讜讗讬谞讜 讞讬讬讘 注诇 讛诪讜诇拽 讝讛 讛讚讘专 讚专讗砖讬 讛诪讟讜转 诪讬讘注讬 诇讬讛 诇讞讻诐 诪转讬专 讜讗讬谉 讘注诇 诪转讬专 讘注诇 诪驻专 讜讗讬谉 讞讻诐 诪驻专

The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai require 鈥渢his is the matter鈥 written of offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple to teach that for the act of slaughtering, he is liable to receive excision from the World-to-Come [karet]; but he is not liable to receive karet for the act of pinching the neck of a consecrated bird outside the Tabernacle or Temple, which is excluded from the category of slaughtering in this mitzva. And Beit Shammai require 鈥渢his is the matter鈥 written of the heads of the tribes in the portion about vows to teach that only a halakhic authority can dissolve vows, but a husband cannot dissolve them. The halakhic authority can dissolve the vow for a petitioner, but a woman鈥檚 husband or father cannot dissolve her vow. And, conversely, a husband can nullify his wife鈥檚 or his daughter鈥檚 vows on the day that he hears the vow, regardless of her mindset, but a halakhic authority cannot nullify vows in this manner.

讜诇讘讬转 砖诪讗讬 讚诇讬转 诇讛讜 讙讝专讛 砖讜讛 讛驻专转 谞讚专讬诐 讘砖诇砖讛 讛讚讬讜讟讜转 诪谞讗 诇讛讜 谞驻拽讗 诇讛讜 诪讚转谞讬讗 讜讬讚讘专 诪砖讛 讗转 诪注讚讬 讛壮 讗诇 讘谞讬 讬砖专讗诇 专讘讬 讬讜住讬 讛讙诇讬诇讬 讗讜诪专

The Gemara asks: But according to Beit Shammai, who do not have this verbal analogy, meaning that they do not recognize as authoritative the verbal analogy that links vows to offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple, from where do they derive that dissolution of vows can be performed by three laymen? The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai derive it from that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states at the end of a passage relating to the halakhot of the Festivals: 鈥淎nd Moses declared to the children of Israel the appointed seasons of the Lord鈥 (Leviticus 23:44). In explaining the verse, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says:

Scroll To Top