Bava Batra 120b (קכ:) — the Talmud in English

The Gemara raises another objection:

“‘This is the matter’ stated concerning the heads of the tribes” ,

does this also mean that it applies only in this generation?

He said to him: That phrase is derived by means of a verbal analogy from the phrase “this” stated there.

That is, from the passage concerning slaughtering sacrificial animals outside the Temple; just as the prohibition of slaughtering outside the Temple applies for all generations, here too, the passage concerning vows applies for all generations.

The Gemara asks: If so,

this [“

And every daughter who inherits a portion”:]

should likewise be derived by means of the verbal analogy of “this” from there,

and it should be learned from here that it too applies for all generations?

The Gemara answers:

What is this? Granted, there

in the passages concerning slaughtering outside the Temple and vows]

was a need

to write “This is the matter”

for

the purpose of another

verbal analogy

that is brought below; therefore, we also expound the verbal analogy to teach that these laws apply for all generations. But

here

in the passage concerning the transfer of inheritance]

for what purpose was it necessary

to write “This is the matter”?

And if you would say that “This is the matter” was stated for this verbal analogy itself, to teach you that this law applies for all generations,

that cannot be said.

For

if it wished to say that it applies for all generations, the verse need not employ a verbal analogy; rather,

let the verse remain silent concerning it, and

automatically

I would know that it applies for all generations.

And if so, certainly, from the fact that “This is the matter” is stated concerning the transfer of inheritance, it comes to teach us that this law does not apply for all generations.

The Gemara returns to explain:

What is the verbal analogy?

What additional verbal analogy did we learn in the passages concerning vows and slaughtering outside the Temple?

As it is taught

in a

beraita:

In the passage concerning vows,

“This is the matter” is stated here, and below

in the passage concerning slaughtering outside the Temple,

“This is the matter”

is stated there. Just as there, Aaron, his sons, and all Israel are addressed, so too here, Aaron, his sons, and all Israel are addressed.

And just as here the heads of the tribes are addressed, so too there the heads of the tribes are addressed.”

This concludes the

beraita.

The Master said: “Just as there, Aaron, his sons, and all Israel are addressed, so too here, Aaron, his sons, and all Israel are addressed.” For what halakhic purpose

is it necessary that Aaron, his sons, and all Israel be included with regard to the annulment of vows?

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: To teach that

there is no need for an expert court

for the annulment of vows;

it is sufficient to have

three ordinary people.

And we derive from the fact that it is written “Aaron, his sons, and all Israel” that all Israel are equivalent, even ordinary people, to permit vows just as Aaron and his sons do .

The Gemara asks: But

“the heads of the tribes” is written concerning

the annulment of vows, indicating experts.

The Gemara answers:

As Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan

later in this discussion: If one comes to have his vow dissolved

by a single person,

that person must be

an expert.

That is, a distinguished rabbi who is expert in the Gemara.

Here too,

it should be understood as referring to

a single expert.

But when there are three, ordinary people are sufficient.

The Gemara continues to explain the continuation of the

beraita:

“And just as here the heads of the tribes are addressed, so too there the heads of the tribes are addressed.” For what halakhic purpose is “the heads of the tribes” required in the passage concerning slaughtering outside the Temple?

Rav Sheshet said: To teach that there is a procedure for having consecrated property released,

as there is for vows.

If one slaughtered a consecrated animal outside the Temple and afterward went to a Sage to have the consecration released, and the Sage found grounds for regret on his part, thereby uprooted the consecration from its outset, and rendered it like a consecration made in error, it becomes clear retroactively that it had never been consecrated, and he is exempt from karet.

But according to Beit Shammai, who say that there is no procedure for having consecrated property released,

that can permit its release,

as we learned in the Mishna: “Beit Shammai say: Consecration made in error is consecration,

and all the more so when it was not consecrated in error but one comes to seek its release.

And Beit Hillel say: It is not consecration.” What do they do with these two instances of “this”?

That is, since according to their view there is no verbal analogy at all, for “a verbal analogy cannot be only partial,” if so, for what purpose were “This is the matter,” stated concerning slaughtering outside the Temple and in the passage concerning vows, written?

The Gemara answers:

“This is the matter” stated concerning slaughtering outside the Temple is needed with regard to the one who slaughters,

to teach us that only

he is liable

if he slaughtered outside the Temple.

But he is not liable

to karet

for one who performs melika

on a bird outside the Temple.

“This is the matter” stated concerning the heads of the tribes is needed to

teach

that a Sage releases a vow, whereas a husband does not release it

. A husband annuls a vow, whereas a Sage does not annul it .

. A husband annuls, but a sage does not annul .

The Gemara raises another objection:

And according to Beit Shammai, who do not accept a verbal analogy, from where do they derive that the annulment of vows requires three ordinary people?

The Gemara answers:

They derive it from that which is taught

in a

beraita: It is stated in the Torah (Leviticus 23:44):