Bava Batra 120a (קכ.) — the Talmud in English

And we derive:

Is it possible

that she was

one hundred and thirty years old, and he called her “daughter”?

He should have said, “a woman from the house of Levi”?

And from where do we know that she was one hundred and thirty years old?

As Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: This was Yocheved, who was conceived on the way and born between the walls, as it is written: “whom she bore to Levi in Egypt,”

that is,

her birth

was

in Egypt, but her conception was not in Egypt.

And if so, the Egyptian exile lasted two hundred and ten years , and Moses was eighty years old at the Exodus. It follows that his mother was one hundred and thirty years old when she gave birth to him.

And why did he call her “daughter”?

Rabbi Yehuda bar Zevida said: This teaches that signs of youth appeared in her: her flesh became smooth, her wrinkles spread out, and her beauty returned to its place.

And the Gemara asks: Why is it written concerning him,

“And he took

the daughter of Levi,”

implying that he took a new wife, when she had already been his wife? Rather, he had divorced her because of Pharaoh’s decree, “Every son who is born, you shall cast into the Nile,” and he took her back because Miriam had prophesied to him that a son destined to save Israel would emerge from him .

And if so,

it should have said, “and he took her back”?

Rabbi Yehuda bar Zevida said: This teaches that he performed an act of marriage for her: He seated her in a bridal litter, while Aaron and Miriam sang before her,

out of joy that Moses our teacher was destined to emerge from her,

and the ministering angels said: “The mother of children is joyful.”

The Gemara returns to explain the passage concerning the daughters of Zelophehad.

And we find it difficult: Why, when they came before Moses, does the verse list them as follows: “Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah,” whereas when they married, they are listed in a different order: “Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah”?

And the Gemara answers:

Below,

when they married their cousins,

the verse listed them according to their prominence.

For it is reasonable that they married in the order of their birth, since it is not customary to marry off the younger before the older.

Here,

when they came before Moses, they were listed

according to their wisdom.

And this answer

supports the

words of

Rabbi Ami.

For Rabbi Ami said: In an assembly, [whether when they sit in judgment or in other assemblies for Torah study,]

whether when they sit for judgment, or in other Torah sittings)]

follow wisdom.

The wise person is seated before the elder.

However,

at a gathering

of a feast or at a wedding,

follow age.

Rav Ashi said: This applies when one is exceptionally superior in wisdom and the other is exceptionally superior in age.

That is, the wise person is seated before the elder in an assembly only if the wise person is exceptionally superior to the elder in wisdom.

Likewise, the elder is given precedence over a wise person who is exceptionally superior to him at a festive gathering only if the elder is exceptionally superior to him in age .

The Gemara resolves the contradiction between the verses in another manner:

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The daughters of Zelophehad were equal. As it is stated: “And they were,”

and we derive:

One state of being for all of them.

Therefore, at times one was listed before another, and at times the reverse.

Rav Yehuda said in the name of Shmuel: The daughters of Zelophehad were permitted to marry into all the tribes.

As it is stated: “They shall be wives to whomever is good in their eyes.”

Rather, how do I understand the verse, “But only into the family of the tribe of their father shall they be wives”?

The verse gave them sound counsel: They should marry only someone suitable for them.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

Rabba objects:

We learned in a beraita: It is stated in the Torah (Leviticus 22:3),

“Say to them”—to those who stood at Mount Sinai; “for your generations”—these are the later generations.

The beraita expounds:

If the forefathers are mentioned, why are the sons mentioned; and if the sons are mentioned, why are the forefathers mentioned?

Because there are laws applying to the forefathers that do not apply to the sons, and laws applying to the sons that do not apply to the forefathers.

Regarding the forefathers it says (Numbers 36:8),

(Numbers 36:8),

“And every daughter who inherits an inheritance

from the tribes of the children of Israel shall be a wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father, so that the children of Israel shall each inherit the inheritance of his fathers,”

,”

and this law does not apply to the sons, for the tribes were permitted to marry one another, as will be explained below.

And many mitzvot were commanded to the sons that were not commanded to the forefathers,

namely, the mitzvot dependent on the Land,

indeed,

because there are matters applying to the forefathers that do not apply to the sons, and matters applying to the sons that do not apply to the forefathers, it was necessary to mention the forefathers, and it was necessary to mention the sons.

This concludes the beraita.

Rabba infers:

In any event, it teaches: “Regarding the forefathers it says, ‘And every daughter who inherits an inheritance,’

meaning that it is prohibited for a woman from one tribe to marry into another tribe?

And the Gemara answers:

He raised the objection, and he himself resolved it, [that is,

he posed the difficulty and answered it,]

except for the daughters of Zelophehad.

They were permitted to marry even into another tribe.

The Gemara returns to explain the beraita cited in Rabba’s statement:

The Master said: “Regarding the forefathers it says, ‘And every daughter who inherits an inheritance.’”

For the forefathers, yes; for the sons, no.

That is, the prohibition against marrying between the tribes was not stated with regard to the sons.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

What indication is there?

From where do we know that this verse was not stated for later generations?

Rava said: The verse states, “This is the matter.”

And we derive:

This matter shall apply only in this generation.

Rabba Zuti said to Rav Ashi: If so, regarding “This is the matter” stated with respect to slaughtering outside [the Temple precincts] ,

is it also the case that it applies only in this generation?

And the Gemara answers:

There it is different, as it is written

(there, verse 7): “And they shall no longer slaughter their sacrifices to the satyrs after whom they stray; this shall be an eternal statute for them

throughout their generations.”

Therefore, it applies for all generations.