Bava Batra 120a — the Talmud in English

And we expound:

Is it possible

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?

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

that is,

her birth

was

in Egypt, and her conception was not in Egypt.

And if so, the Egyptian exile was two hundred and ten years , and Moses was eighty years old at the Exodus from Egypt. It follows that his mother was one hundred and thirty years old at the time of his birth.

And why did they call her “daughter”?

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

And the Gemara raises an objection: Why is it written concerning her

“and he took

the daughter of Levi

,”

and it implies that he took a new wife, whereas she had already been his wife; rather, he divorced her because of the decree, “Every son who is born, you shall cast into the river,” and he took her back because of Miriam, who prophesied to him that a son would eventually emerge from him who would save Israel . And if so,

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

Rabbi Yehuda bar Zevida said: This teaches that he performed for her an act of marriage: He seated her in a bridal litter, and 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 of the daughters of Zelophehad.

And it is difficult for us: Why, when they came before Moses, did Scripture enumerate them in the following manner, “Mahlah, Noa, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah,” whereas when they married they were written in a different order, “Mahlah, Tirzah, Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noa

]? And the Gemara answers:

Below,

when they married the sons of their uncles,

Scripture enumerated them according to their prominence.

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

But here,

when they came before Moses, they were enumerated

according to their wisdom.

And this answer

supports the

words of

Rabbi Ami.

For Rabbi Ami said: In a sitting, [(

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

follow wisdom.

And they seat the wise man before the elder.

But

at a gathering

of a feast or at a wedding,

follow age.

Rav Ashi said: And that is when he is distinguished in wisdom, and that is when he is distinguished in age.

That is, they do not give precedence to the wise man over the elder in a sitting unless the wise man is greatly distinguished in wisdom over the elder.

And likewise they do not give precedence to the elder over the wise man who is distinguished in the house of the feast unless the elder is greatly distinguished over 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. For it is stated, “and they were,”

and we expound,

one existence for all of them.

And therefore sometimes this one was placed before that one, and sometimes the reverse.

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

As it is stated, “To whomever is good in their eyes they shall be wives.”

But how do I uphold, “Yet to the family of the tribe of their father shall they be wives”?

Scripture gave them good counsel: that they should marry only one 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 generations that follow.

The beraita expounds:

If fathers are stated, why are sons stated; and if sons are stated, why are fathers stated?

Because there is in the fathers what is not in the sons, and there is in the sons what is not in the fathers.

Concerning the fathers it says (

Numbers 36:8),

“And every daughter who inherits an inheritance

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

namely, mitzvot dependent on the Land,

therefore

because there is in the fathers what is not in the sons, and there is in the sons what is not in the fathers, it was necessary to say fathers, and it was necessary to say sons.

Thus far the beraita.

Rabba infers:

In any event, it teaches, “Concerning the fathers it says, ‘And every daughter who inherits an inheritance,’”

that is, that it is forbidden for a woman from one tribe to marry into another tribe?

And the Gemara answers:

He raised the objection and he answered it, [(

he posed the difficulty and he resolved it)],

except for the daughters of Zelophehad.

And they were permitted to marry even the sons of another tribe.

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

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

Concerning the fathers, yes; concerning the sons, no.

That is, concerning the sons, the prohibition against marrying between the tribes was not stated.

And the Gemara raises an objection:

What does this imply?

From where do we know that this verse was not said for the generations?

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

And we expound:

This matter shall apply only in this generation.

Rabba Zuti said to Rav Ashi: If so, “This is the matter” concerning slaughtering outside [the Temple] ,

likewise, does it mean that it shall apply only in this generation?

And the Gemara answers:

There it is different, for it is written (

]there, verse 7) “And they shall no longer slaughter their sacrifices to the goat-demons after whom they stray; an everlasting statute shall this be for them

for their generations.”

And therefore it applies for the generations.