## Bava Batra Daf 120b

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

״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ דְּרָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּלָא יְהֵא נוֹהֵג אֶלָּא בְּדוֹר זֶה? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָהוּא, יָלֵיף ״זֶה״–״זֶה״ מֵהָתָם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
Rabba Zuti asked Rav Ashi about another instance of the same phrase. In the case of **“this is the matter”** written **with regard to** the **heads of the tribes,** in the introductory verse to the *halakhot* of vows: “And Moses spoke to the heads of the tribes of the children of Israel, saying: This is the matter that the Lord has commanded” (Numbers 30:2), is it **also** the case **that** the *halakhot* of vows **will not be practiced except in this generation?** Rav Ashi **said to him:** The *halakha* in **that** case, that of vows, **is derived through** a verbal analogy between the word **“this”** stated here, in the verse discussing vows, and the word **“this”** stated **there,** in the verse discussing offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple, which is applicable in all generations.


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

הַאי נָמֵי, לֵילַיף ״זֶה״–״זֶה״ מֵהָתָם! הַאי מַאי? בִּשְׁלָמָא הָתָם, אִיצְטְרִיךְ לִגְזֵרָה שָׁוָה; הָכָא – לְמַאי אִיצְטְרִיךְ? לִשְׁתּוֹק קְרָא מִינֵּיהּ, וַאֲנָא יָדַעְנָא דִּלְדוֹרוֹת הוּא!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **This** *halakha*, concerning the daughter inheriting her father’s portion, **let it be derived through** a verbal analogy between the word **“this”** stated here, with regard to inheritance, and the word **“this”** stated **there,** in the verse discussing offerings, **as well.** The Gemara rejects that comparison: **What is this** suggestion? **Granted, there,** i.e., with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple and with regard to vows, the phrase “this is the matter” **was necessary** for deriving other *halakhot* through **a verbal analogy,** as will be explained later. Therefore, the term may also be employed to teach that the *halakha* applies in all generations. But **here,** with regard to a daughter’s inheritance, **for what** other *halakha* **was** this phrase **necessary?** If the *halakha* truly applies for posterity, **let the verse be silent** and refrain **from** addressing when this *halakha* applies by not stating “this is the matter,” **and I** would **know that it is for all generations,** as is the case with all other mitzvot.


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

מַאי גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה? דְּתַנְיָא: נֶאֱמַר כָּאן: ״זֶה הַדָּבָר״, וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן: ״זֶה הַדָּבָר״; מָה לְהַלָּן – אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל, אַף כָּאן – אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל. וּמָה כָּאן – רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת, אַף לְהַלָּן – רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara explains: **What** is the **verbal analogy** for which the phrase was necessary? **As it is taught** in a *baraita*: **It is stated here,** with regard to vows: **“This is the matter,” and it is stated there,** with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple: **“This is the matter.” Just as there** the mitzva applies to **Aaron and his sons and all Israel, so too here,** with regard to vows, the mitzva applies to **Aaron and his sons and all Israel. And just as here** the mitzva applies to **the heads of the tribes,** as explicitly stated in the verse cited above, **so too there,** with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple, there is particular relevance to **the heads of the tribes.**


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

אָמַר מָר: מָה לְהַלָּן אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל, אַף כָּאן אַהֲרֹן וּבָנָיו וְכׇל יִשְׂרָאֵל. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב אַחָא בַּר יַעֲקֹב: לוֹמַר שֶׁהֲפָרַת נְדָרִים בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה הֶדְיוֹטוֹת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the cited *baraita*. **The Master says: Just as there,** with regard to offerings, the mitzva applies to **Aaron and his sons and all Israel, so too here,** with regard to vows, the mitzva applies to **Aaron and his sons and all Israel.** The Gemara asks: **With regard to what *halakha*** is this verbal analogy stated? **Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says:** This is written **to say that** the **dissolution of vows** can be performed **by three laymen** with no particular expertise in the *halakhot* of vows, just as the prohibition of offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple applies to all of the Jewish people, including laymen.


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

וְהָא ״רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת״ כְּתִיב בֵּיהּ! כִּדְאָמַר רַב חִסְדָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: בְּיָחִיד מוּמְחֶה, הָכִי נָמֵי – בְּיָחִיד מוּמְחֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara objects: **But** the phrase **“the heads of the tribes” is written** explicitly **in** the portion of the vows, indicating that the matter is not entrusted to laymen. The Gemara answers: It is **as Rav Ḥisda says** that **Rabbi Yoḥanan says** in a different context: The mention of the heads of tribes teaches that vows may be dissolved **by a single expert** halakhic authority; **so too** here, this phrase teaches that vows can be nullified **by a single expert** halakhic authority.


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

וּמָה כָּאן רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת, אַף לְהַלָּן רָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? אָמַר רַב שֵׁשֶׁת: לוֹמַר שֶׁיֵּשׁ שְׁאֵלָה בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara analyzes the next clause of the cited *baraita*: **And just as here** the mitzva applies to **the heads of the tribes, so too there,** with regard to offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple, there is particular relevance to **the heads of the tribes.** The Gemara asks: **With regard to what *halakha*** are the heads of the tribes linked to the prohibition of slaughtering offerings outside the Tabernacle or Temple? **Rav Sheshet says:** This is written **to say** that **there is** a concept of **requesting** dissolution of consecration **of consecrated** property, just as one can request dissolution of a vow.


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

וּלְבֵית שַׁמַּאי, דְּאָמְרִי: אֵין שְׁאֵלָה בְּהֶקְדֵּשׁ – דִּתְנַן, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים: הֶקְדֵּשׁ טָעוּת – הֶקְדֵּשׁ, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים: אֵינוֹ הֶקְדֵּשׁ; הַאי ״זֶה״ וְ״זֶה״ מַאי עָבְדִי לֵיהּ?

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **And according to Beit Shammai, who say** that **there is no** possibility of **requesting** that a halakhic authority dissolve a vow **of consecrated** property, this cannot explain the connection of the heads of the tribes to offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple. **As we learned** in a mishna (*Nazir* 30b): **Beit Shammai say: Consecration** that one performed **in error is** nevertheless effective as **consecration,** because one’s mindset does not supersede his verbal declaration; **and Beit Hillel say:** This is **not consecration.** Accordingly, in the opinion of Beit Shammai, **what do they do with this** seemingly analogous usage of **“this” and “this,”** in the portions of offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple and vows, respectively?


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

״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ דִּשְׁחוּטֵי חוּץ – מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ ״עַל הַשּׁוֹחֵט הוּא חַיָּיב, וְאֵינוֹ חַיָּיב עַל הַמּוֹלֵק״. ״זֶה הַדָּבָר״ דְּרָאשֵׁי הַמַּטּוֹת – מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְ״חָכָם מַתִּיר, וְאֵין בַּעַל מַתִּיר. בַּעַל מֵפֵר, וְאֵין חָכָם מֵפֵר״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai **require “this is the matter”** written **of offerings slaughtered outside** the Tabernacle or Temple to teach that **for the** act of **slaughtering, he is liable** to receive excision from the World-to-Come [*karet*]; **but he is not liable** to receive *karet* **for the** act of **pinching** the neck of a consecrated bird outside the Tabernacle or Temple, which is excluded from the category of slaughtering in this mitzva. And Beit Shammai **require “this is the matter”** written of **the heads of the tribes** in the portion about vows **to** teach that only **a halakhic authority can dissolve** vows, **but a husband cannot dissolve** them. The halakhic authority can dissolve the vow for a petitioner, but a woman’s husband or father cannot dissolve her vow. And, conversely, **a husband can nullify** his wife’s or his daughter’s vows on the day that he hears the vow, regardless of her mindset, **but a halakhic authority cannot nullify** vows in this manner.


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

וּלְבֵית שַׁמַּאי דְּלֵית לְהוּ גְּזֵרָה שָׁוָה, הֲפָרַת נְדָרִים בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה הֶדְיוֹטוֹת מְנָא לְהוּ? נָפְקָא לְהוּ מִדְּתַנְיָא: ״וַיְדַבֵּר מֹשֶׁה אֶת מֹעֲדֵי ה׳ אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל״ – רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר:

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
The Gemara asks: **But according to Beit Shammai, who do not have** this **verbal analogy,** meaning that they do not recognize as authoritative the verbal analogy that links vows to offerings slaughtered outside the Tabernacle or Temple, **from where do they** derive that **dissolution of vows** can be performed **by three laymen?** The Gemara answers: Beit Shammai **derive it from that which is taught** in a *baraita*: The verse states at the end of a passage relating to the *halakhot* of the Festivals: **“And Moses declared to the children of Israel the appointed seasons of the Lord”** (Leviticus 23:44). In explaining the verse, **Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says:**