זה הדבר דראשי המטות הכי נמי דלא יהא נוהג אלא בדור זה אמר ליה ההוא יליף זה זה מהתם

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, say ing: 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.

האי נמי ליליף זה זה מהתם האי מאי בשלמא התם איצטריך לגזרה שוה הכא למאי איצטריך לשתוק קרא מיניה ואנא ידענא דלדורות הוא

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.

מאי גזרה שוה דתניא נאמר כאן זה הדבר ונאמר להלן זה הדבר מה להלן אהרן ובניו וכל ישראל אף כאן אהרן ובניו וכל ישראל ומה כאן ראשי המטות אף להלן ראשי המטות

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.

אמר מר מה להלן אהרן ובניו וכל ישראל אף כאן אהרן ובניו וכל ישראל למאי הלכתא אמר רב אחא בר יעקב לומר שהפרת נדרים בשלשה הדיוטות

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.

והא ראשי המטות כתיב ביה כדאמר רב חסדא אמר רבי יוחנן ביחיד מומחה הכי נמי ביחיד מומחה

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.

ומה כאן ראשי המטות אף להלן ראשי המטות למאי הלכתא אמר רב ששת לומר שיש שאלה בהקדש

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.

ולבית שמאי דאמרי אין שאלה בהקדש דתנן בית שמאי אומרים הקדש טעות הקדש ובית הלל אומרים אינו הקדש האי זה וזה מאי עבדי ליה

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?

זה הדבר דשחוטי חוץ מיבעי ליה על השוחט הוא חייב ואינו חייב על המולק זה הדבר דראשי המטות מיבעי ליה לחכם מתיר ואין בעל מתיר בעל מפר ואין חכם מפר

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.

ולבית שמאי דלית להו גזרה שוה הפרת נדרים בשלשה הדיוטות מנא להו נפקא להו מדתניא וידבר משה את מעדי ה׳ אל בני ישראל רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר

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: