## Bava Batra Daf 120a

###### Bava Batra 120a:1
[Bava Batra 120a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/120a:1)

אֶפְשָׁר בַּת מֵאָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה, וְקֹרֵא לָהּ: ״בַּת״?! דְּאָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: זוֹ יוֹכֶבֶד; שֶׁהוֹרָתָהּ בַּדֶּרֶךְ, וְנוֹלְדָה בֵּין הַחוֹמוֹת – דִּכְתִיב: ״אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה אֹתָהּ לְלֵוִי בְּמִצְרָיִם״ –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: Is it **possible** that this is Jochebed? Jochebed was then **130 years old and** the verse **called her a daughter,** indicating one who is very young. Jochebed’s age is established based on a tradition concerning the number of Jacob’s descendants who came to Egypt, as follows: While the verse states that Leah had thirty-three descendants (Genesis 46:15), only thirty-two were enumerated. This was explained **as Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina says: This** “daughter of Levi” is **Jochebed, whose conception** occurred **on the journey** as the family of Jacob descended to Egypt, **and she was born within the walls,** i.e., having entered Egypt, **as it is written:** “And the name of Amram’s wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, **who was born to Levi in Egypt”** (Numbers 26:59).


###### Bava Batra 120a:2
[Bava Batra 120a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/120a:2)

לֵידָתָהּ בְּמִצְרַיִם, וְהוֹרָתָהּ שֶׁלֹּא בְּמִצְרַיִם. וְאַמַּאי קָרוּ לַהּ ״בַּת״? אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר זְבִידָא: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בָּהּ סִימָנֵי נַעֲרוּת, נִתְעַדֵּן הַבָּשָׂר, נִתְפַּשְּׁטוּ הַקְּמָטִין, וְחָזַר הַיּוֹפִי לִמְקוֹמוֹ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
One can infer from the verse: **Her birth** was **in Egypt, but her conception was not in Egypt.** Since the Jewish people were in Egypt for 210 years and Moses was eighty years old at the time of the Exodus, Jochebed must have been 130 years old when Moses was born. The Gemara therefore asks: **And why** does the verse **call her “a daughter”? Rav Yehuda bar Zevida says:** This **teaches that** her **signs of youth** miraculously **came into being** again. **The flesh became smooth, the wrinkles were straightened out, and the** youthful **beauty returned to its place.**


###### Bava Batra 120a:3
[Bava Batra 120a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/120a:3)

״וַיִּקַּח״?! ״וַיַּחְזוֹר״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה בַּר זְבִידָא: מְלַמֵּד שֶׁעָשָׂה לָהּ מַעֲשֵׂה לִקּוּחִין – הוֹשִׁיבָה בְּאַפִּרְיוֹן, וְאַהֲרֹן וּמִרְיָם מְשׁוֹרְרִים לְפָנֶיהָ, וּמַלְאֲכֵי שָׁרֵת אוֹמְרִים: ״אֵם הַבָּנִים שִׂמְחָה״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The verse concerning Amram’s marriage to Jochebed states: “And a man of the house of Levi went, **and took** as a wife a daughter of Levi” (Exodus 2:1). The Gemara asks: Since Jochebed had already been married to Amram for some years, as Miriam and Aaron were already born, the verse **should have** stated: **And** he **took back** as a wife. **Rav Yehuda bar Zevida says:** The wording of the verse **teaches that** Amram **performed for her** a formal **act of marriage** as though he were marrying her for the first time. He **seated her in** a bridal **palanquin [*be’appiryon*], and Aaron and Miriam** were **singing before her, and** the **ministering angels** were **saying: “A joyful mother of children”** (Psalms 113:9).


###### Bava Batra 120a:4
[Bava Batra 120a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/120a:4)

לְהַלָּן מְנָאָן הַכָּתוּב דֶּרֶךְ גְּדוּלָּתָן, וְכָאן דֶּרֶךְ חׇכְמָתָן; מְסַיְּיעָא לֵיהּ לְרַבִּי אַמֵּי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי אַמֵּי: בִּישִׁיבָה – הַלֵּךְ אַחַר חׇכְמָה. בִּמְסִיבָּה – הַלֵּךְ אַחַר זִקְנָה. אָמַר רַב אָשֵׁי: וְהוּא דְּמַפְלַיג בְּחׇכְמָה, וְהוּא דְּמַפְלַיג בְּזִקְנָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ The Gemara returns to discuss Zelophehad’s daughters: **Later on, the verse lists them according to their age,** stating: “For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, were married” (Numbers 36:11), **and here** the verse lists them in a different order, **according to their wisdom:** “And these are the names of his daughters: Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah” (Numbers 27:1). This **supports** the ruling **of Rabbi Ami, as Rabbi Ami says: In** the context of **sitting** in judgment or learning Torah, **follow** the participants’ **wisdom** in determining the seating, so that the wisest is granted the highest honor, and **in** the context of **reclining** for a meal, **follow** the participants’ **age. Rav Ashi says: And this** is so only **when** one is **outstanding in wisdom,** then wisdom trumps age; **and this** is so only **when** one of the participants is **outstanding in age,** i.e., particularly old, then age trumps wisdom.


###### Bava Batra 120a:5
[Bava Batra 120a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/120a:5)

תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד שְׁקוּלוֹת הָיוּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַתִּהְיֶינָה״ – הֲוָיָה אַחַת לְכוּלָּן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara cites an alternative opinion: **The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: The daughters of Zelophehad were equal** in stature, **as it is stated:** “For Mahlah, Tirzah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Noah, the daughters of Zelophehad, **were [*vatihyena*]** married.” The word “*vatihyena*” demonstrates: **There was one** uniform **existence [*havaya*],** i.e., spiritual level, **for all of them.**


###### Bava Batra 120a:6
[Bava Batra 120a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/120a:6)

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל: בְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד הוּתְּרוּ לְהִנָּשֵׂא לְכׇל הַשְּׁבָטִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לַטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיהֶם תִּהְיֶינָה לְנָשִׁים״; אֶלָּא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״אַךְ לְמִשְׁפַּחַת מַטֵּה אֲבִיהֶם תִּהְיֶינָה לְנָשִׁים״? עֵצָה טוֹבָה הִשִּׂיאָן הַכָּתוּב, שֶׁלֹּא יִנָּשְׂאוּ אֶלָּא לְהָגוּן לָהֶן.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ **Rav Yehuda says** that **Shmuel says: The daughters of Zelophehad were permitted to marry** members **of any of the tribes, as it is stated: “Let them be married to whom they think best”** (Numbers 36:6). **But how do I realize** the meaning of the continuation of the same verse: **“Only into the family of the tribe of their father shall they be married”** (Numbers 36:6), according to which they were permitted to marry only members of their own tribe? **The verse offered them good advice, that they should be married only** to those **fit for them,** who were often men from within the family.


###### Bava Batra 120a:7
[Bava Batra 120a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/120a:7)

מוֹתֵיב רַבָּה: ״אֱמוֹר אֲלֵיהֶם״ – לְאוֹתָן הָעוֹמְדִים עַל הַר סִינַי, ״לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם״ – אֵלּוּ דּוֹרוֹת הַבָּאִים. אִם נֶאֱמַר אָבוֹת – לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר בָּנִים? וְאִם נֶאֱמַר בָּנִים – לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר אָבוֹת? מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּאָבוֹת מַה שֶּׁאֵין בַּבָּנִים, וְיֵשׁ בַּבָּנִים מַה שֶּׁאֵין בָּאָבוֹת –

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba raised an objection** from a *baraita* taught concerning the prohibition against eating consecrated foods while in a state of ritual impurity. Moses was commanded: “Say to them: Whoever will be of all your descendants throughout your generations, who approaches to the holy things, which the children of Israel consecrate to the Lord, having his uncleanness upon him, that soul shall be cut off from before Me” (Leviticus 22:3). Which people are referred to in the phrase **“say to them”?** It is referring **to those standing at Mount Sinai.** Which people are referred to in the phrase **“throughout your generations”? These are the coming generations. If** the *halakha* **is stated** to **the fathers, why is** it **stated** to **the sons; and if** the *halakha* **is stated** to **the sons, why is** it **stated** to **the fathers?** This is **because there are** mitzvot **for the fathers that are not for the sons, and there are** mitzvot **for the sons that are not for the fathers.**


###### Bava Batra 120a:8
[Bava Batra 120a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/120a:8)

בָּאָבוֹת הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְכׇל בַּת יֹרֶשֶׁת נַחֲלָה״; וְהַרְבֵּה מִצְוֹת נִצְטַוּוּ בָּנִים, שֶׁלֹּא נִצְטַוּוּ אָבוֹת. הָא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּאָבוֹת שֶׁאֵין בַּבָּנִים, וְיֵשׁ בַּבָּנִים מַה שֶּׁאֵין בָּאָבוֹת – הוּצְרַךְ לוֹמַר אָבוֹת, הוּצְרַךְ לוֹמַר בָּנִים.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The *baraita* continues: **For the fathers,** the verse **states: “And every daughter who possesses an inheritance** from the tribes of the children of Israel, shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father” (Numbers 36:8). This mitzva, that the woman should marry a member of her own tribe, applied only to the first generation that received tribal portions of Eretz Yisrael. **And,** by contrast, there were **many mitzvot,** e.g., all the mitzvot that applied only from the time that Eretz Yisrael was settled, which **the sons were commanded** to fulfill but **which the fathers were not commanded** to fulfill. **Because there are** mitzvot **for the fathers that are not for the sons, and there are** mitzvot **for the sons that are not for the fathers,** the verse **needed to state,** i.e., to address, the **fathers,** and it **needed to state,** i.e., to address, the **sons.**


###### Bava Batra 120a:9
[Bava Batra 120a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/120a:9)

קָתָנֵי מִיהַת, בָּאָבוֹת הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְכׇל בַּת יֹרֶשֶׁת נַחֲלָה״! הוּא מוֹתֵיב לַהּ וְהוּא מְפָרֵק לַהּ – לְבַר מִבְּנוֹת צְלָפְחָד.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba states his objection: **In any event,** the *baraita* **teaches: For the fathers,** the verse **states: “And every daughter who possesses an inheritance** from the tribes of the children of Israel, shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father.” This indicates that this was a mitzva for that entire generation, including Zelophehad’s daughters, in contrast to the statement of Shmuel. The Gemara explains: **He,** Rabba, **raised the objection, and he resolved it:** This mitzva applied to everyone **except for the daughters of Zelophehad,** who were explicitly permitted to marry members of any tribe.


###### Bava Batra 120a:10
[Bava Batra 120a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/120a:10)

אָמַר מָר, בָּאָבוֹת הוּא אוֹמֵר: ״וְכׇל בַּת יוֹרֶשֶׁת נַחֲלָה״ – בָּאָבוֹת אִין, בַּבָנִים לָא. מַאי מַשְׁמַע? אָמַר רָבָא, אָמַר קְרָא: ״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ – דָּבָר זֶה לֹא יְהֵא נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בְּדוֹר זֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**The Master says** in the *baraita* cited above: **For the fathers,** the verse **states: “And every daughter who possesses an inheritance** from the tribes of the children of Israel, shall be wife to one of the family of the tribe of her father.” **For the fathers, yes,** this is the mitzva, but **for the sons,** it is **not** so. The Gemara asks: **From where may** it **be inferred? Rava said** that **the verse states** there: **“This is the matter** that the Lord has commanded” (Numbers 36:6), meaning: **This matter will not be practiced except in this generation.**


###### Bava Batra 120a:11
[Bava Batra 120a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Bava%20Batra/r/120a:11)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבָּה זוּטֵי לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, ״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ דִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא יְהֵא נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בְּדוֹר זֶה? שָׁאנֵי הָתָם, דִּכְתִיב: ״לְדֹרֹתָם״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**Rabba Zuti said to Rav Ashi: If that is so,** then concerning the phrase **“this is the matter”** written **with regard to** an offering **slaughtered outside** the Tabernacle (see Leviticus 17:2–3), **so too,** is it the *halakha* **that it will not be practiced except in this generation?** Certainly that is not so, as that prohibition applies in all generations. What is the difference between the two passages? Rav Ashi answered: It **is different there,** with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple, **as it is written: “Throughout their generations”** (Leviticus 17:7), indicating that the prohibition is in effect in all generations.