Bava Batra 120b — the Talmud in English

We further challenge:

“This is the matter” of the heads of the tribes ,

is it likewise that it shall apply only in this generation?

He said to him: That one derives it by “this—this” from there.

That is, from slaughtered-offerings outside, and just as slaughtered-offerings outside apply for the generations, here too the section of vows applies for the generations.

And the Gemara challenges: If so,

this

“And every daughter who inherits an inheritance”:

should likewise derive “this—this” from there,

and let it be learned from here that it too applies for the generations?

And the Gemara answers:

As for this matter, granted that there

in slaughtered-offerings outside and in vows

it was necessary

to write “This is the matter”

for

the purpose of another

gzera shava

[brought below]; therefore we also expound a gzera shava to say that they apply for the generations, but

here

the transfer of inheritance

for what purpose was it necessary

to write “This is the matter”?

And if you will say that “This is the matter” was stated for this gzera shava itself, to tell you that this law applies for the generations,

this cannot be said

! For

if it wished to say that it applies for the generations, it does not need a gzera shava, but

let the verse be silent concerning it, and

automatically

I would know that it is for the generations.

And if so, certainly, since with regard to the transfer of inheritance we say “This is the matter,” it comes to inform us that this law does not apply for the generations.

The Gemara returns to explain:

What is the gzera shava?

What additional gzera shava did we learn in the section of vows and in slaughtered-offerings outside?

For it was taught

in a beraita:

“It is stated here

in the section of vows

‘This is the matter,’ and it is stated there,

with regard to slaughtered-offerings outside,

‘This is the matter

’; just as there Aaron and his sons and all Israel, so here Aaron and his sons and all Israel.

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

Thus far the beraita.

And the Gemara explains:

The Master said: “Just as there Aaron and his sons and all Israel, so here Aaron and his sons and all Israel”—for what halakhic purpose?

What need is there for Aaron and his sons and all Israel to be involved in the annulment of vows?

Rav Aḥa bar Yaakov said: To say that

for

the annulment of vows

expert courts are not necessary, but it suffices

with three ordinary persons.

And we expound from what is written “Aaron and his sons and all Israel,” to tell you that all Israel are equivalent, even ordinary persons, to release vows like Aaron and his sons .

And the Gemara challenges:

But “the heads of the tribes” is written in it

with regard to the annulment of vows, and it implies experts?

And the Gemara answers:

As Rav Ḥisda said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥanan

below in our discussion, that if one comes to release the vow

alone,

he must be

an expert.

That is, a preeminent rabbi proficient in Gemara.

Here too

it must be established as

an expert individual.

But with three, ordinary persons suffice.

The Gemara continues to explain the continuation of the beraita:

“And just as here the heads of the tribes, so there the heads of the tribes”—for what halakhic purpose?

For what purpose do we require “the heads of the tribes” with regard to slaughtered-offerings outside?

Rav Sheshet said: To say that there is a release for consecrated property

as with vows.

And if he slaughtered a consecrated offering outside, and afterward went to a sage to have the consecrated status released for him, and the sage found him an opening based on regret, and uprooted the consecrated status from its outset, making it like consecrated property that had been consecrated in error, it is revealed retroactively that it had never been consecrated, and he is exempt from karet.

And according to Beit Shammai, who say that no release

is effective to permit

consecrated property, for we learned: “Beit Shammai say: Consecration in error is consecration,

and all the more so when it was not consecrated in error, but he comes to ask about it.

And Beit Hillel say: It is not consecration”—what do they do with “this and this”?

That is, since according to their view there is no gzera shava at all, for “a gzera shava cannot be partial,” if so, “This is the matter,” which is stated with regard to slaughtered-offerings outside and in the section of vows—for what purpose were they written?

And the Gemara answers:

“This is the matter” with regard to slaughtered-offerings outside is needed concerning the one who slaughters,

to teach us that only

he is liable

if he slaughtered outside.

And he is not liable

to karet

for one who pinches

a bird outside.

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

say that

a sage releases, but a husband does not release

. A husband annuls a vow, but a scholar does not annul it .

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

We further challenge:

And according to Beit Shammai, who do not have a gzera shava, from where do they derive the annulment of vows with three ordinary persons?

And the Gemara answers:

They derive it from what was taught

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

“And Moses declared the appointed times of the Lord to the children of Israel.”