Bava Batra 119b (קיט:) — the Talmud in English

This teaches you:

that merit is brought about through the meritorious;

that is, the law of inheritance—that sons and relatives inherit their relatives—is learned

through the meritorious,

namely, the daughters of Zelophehad.

And liability,

that is, the law that one who desecrates Shabbat is liable to stoning, is learned

through one who is liable.

That is, the wood gatherer. This concludes the statement of Shimon HaShikmoni.

The Gemara raises an objection:

If it has entered your mind that Eretz Yisrael was already in their possession, what was he uncertain about—

for Moses? Surely they would take their father’s firstborn portion.

The Gemara answers:

That very matter—

whether Eretz Yisrael was already in their possession—

was what he was uncertain about.

The two sides of the uncertainty were:

As it is written: “I shall give it to you as an inheritance; I am the Lord”—it is an inheritance for you from your forefathers.

And since it is written morasha, “an inheritance,” rather than yerusha, “inheritance,” this comes to teach that even the generation of the wilderness had some inheritance in the Land; that is, it was considered to have been in their possession with regard to the firstborn portion.

Or perhaps

we derive from this verse only

that they bequeath

their inheritance to their sons

, but do not inherit it themselves,

since they would die in the wilderness.

And they resolved it for him from Heaven, that this verse contains

a meaning of

both: “an inheritance for you from your forefathers,”

and it is considered to have been in their possession with regard to the firstborn portion,

and

nevertheless,

they bequeath but do not inherit,

as they will die in the wilderness.

And

the verse “I shall give it to you as an inheritance” was stated before the sin of the Golden Calf. It follows that Moses prophesied that they would not enter the Land, yet he did not know what he had prophesied.

And likewise,

this is what is written

in the Song at the Sea:

“You will bring them and plant them on the mountain of Your inheritance.” It does not say, “You will bring him,” but rather, “You will bring them”; this teaches that they prophesied

that they would not enter the Land,

but did not know what they were prophesying.

It is stated in the passage concerning the daughters of Zelophehad:

“They stood before Moses, before Eleazar the kohen, before the princes, and before the entire assembly .”

It follows that they first came before Moses, and afterward before Eleazar, and so on.

The Gemara raises an objection:

Is it possible that they stood before Moses

and he did not know the answer, and they then went before Eleazar

and they did not say anything to them, and

afterward

they stood before the princes and the entire assembly?!

Rather, transpose the verse and interpret it

as though it had been written in reverse order: they first came before the assembly, then the princes, then Eleazar, and finally before Moses.

These are the words of Rabbi Yoshiyya.

Abba Hanan said in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: They were sitting in the beit-midrash, and they went and stood before them all,

and asked their question before them all.

With regard to what do they disagree?

One [

Abba Hanan in the name of Rabbi Eliezer ]

holds that honor is accorded to a student in the presence of his teacher.

It is permitted to ask the student a question in the presence of his teacher, since this too is an expression of the teacher’s honor, and he is pleased with it.

And the other [

Rabbi Yoshiyya ]

holds that honor is not accorded in this manner.

And the halakha is that honor is accorded in this manner, and the halakha is that honor is not accorded in this manner.

Is one halakha difficult from the other halakha?

The Gemara answers:

The halakha and the halakha are not difficult: this is referring to a case where his teacher accords him honor [

to the student; in such a case, the teacher is certainly pleased that they ask the student.

And

that

in which we rule, “Honor is not accorded in this manner,” refers to a case where

his teacher does not accord him honor.

It was taught: The daughters of Zelophehad were wise,

that is, they were knowledgeable in proper conduct.

They were exegetes; they were righteous.

The beraita explains:

They were wise, for they spoke at the opportune moment.

That is, when they found an opening for their claim, as will be explained, they then came before the court.

As Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: This teaches that Moses our teacher was sitting and expounding the passage concerning levirate marriage, as it is stated: “When brothers dwell together,”

They said to him: If we are considered like a son,

so as to exempt our mother from levirate marriage, since she has offspring,

give us an inheritance like a son,

and

if not, let our mother enter into levirate marriage.

Immediately: “Moses brought their judgment before the Lord.”

They were exegetes, for

they knew how to expound that a daughter does not inherit in place of a son, as we expounded above: “And if he has no son, you shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter”; consequently, if he has a son, he takes precedence.

They would say: Had he had a son, we would not have spoken .

The Gemara raises an objection,

for

in the version of the beraita that we possess

it is taught: “

that they would say: Had he not had a

daughter,

we would not have spoken”? Yet the one raising the objection himself did not know how to explain it.

Rabbi Yirmeya said: Delete “daughter” from here.

That is, erase the word “daughter” from the version in your possession.

However,

Abaye said:

the version should not be changed, and this is its meaning:

Even if he had had a daughter of a son, we would not have spoken.

As we stated above, a daughter does not inherit together with a son’s daughter.

They were righteous, for

although they were permitted to marry whomever they wished , nevertheless

they married only men suitable for them.

That is, men from their father’s family, as it is written: “And they became ... wives for the sons of their uncles.”

Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov taught:

Since they were awaiting men suitable for them,

even the youngest among them did not marry before the age of forty .

The Gemara raises an objection:

Is that so? But Rav Ḥisda said: If a woman marries before the age of twenty, she gives birth until the age of sixty; if she marries at the age of twenty, she gives birth until the age of forty; if she marries at the age of forty, she no longer gives birth.

If so, how could they have waited so long that they would no longer be able to give birth? And likewise, who would agree to marry them when they could not give birth?

Rather, since they were righteous,

and confident in their righteousness that a miracle would be performed for them, they were not concerned about waiting for suitable men even after the age of forty. And

a miracle was performed for them, as it was for Jochebed.

And where was a miracle performed for Jochebed?

As it is written

with regard to Amram, Moses’ father, who remarried Jochebed:

“A man from the house of Levi went and took a daughter of Levi.”