Bava Batra

Does This is the thing.  [said in connection] with the heads of the tribes  also [imply] that [that Jaw]  was to apply to that generation only? — He said unto him: [In] that [case], this  is inferred from this [that is mentioned] there.  Let this, [in] the present [case].  also, be inferred from this [mentioned] there!  — What a comparison!  There  [one may] rightly [compare one this to the other this because these expressions are in any case] required for [another] comparison;  here,  [however], for what [other purpose] is it  needed? The text could [simply] have omitted it altogether  and one would have known that [the law applied]  to [all] generations! What is the [other] comparison  [just referred to]? — It was taught: This is the thing, has been said here,  and This is the thing, has [also] been said elsewhere:  just as there [it was spoken to] Aaron and his sons and all Israel,  so here  [it was spoken to] Aaron and his sons and all Israel; and just as here  [it was spoken to] the heads of the tribes.  so there  [it was spoken to] the heads of the tribes. The Master has said: 'Just as there, [it was spoken to] Aaron and his sons and all Israel, so here, [it was spoken to] Aaron and his sons and all Israel'. In [respect of] what law [has this comparison been made]? — R. Aba b. Jacob said: To infer that the annulment of vows [may be effected] by three laymen.  But surely, 'the heads of the tribes' is written [in connection] with it?  — As R. Hisda said in the name of R. Johanan, 'By a qualified individual',  [so] here also [it may be said], 'By a qualified individual'. [It has been said: 'Just as here [it was spoken to] the heads of the tribes, so there [it was spoken to] the heads of the tribes'. In [respect of] what law [has this comparison been made]?  — R. Shesheth said: To infer [that] the law of absolution  [is applicable] to consecrated objects.  According to Beth Shammai, however, who maintains [that] the law of absolution  is not [applicable] to consecrated objects; as we learnt,  'Beth Shammai maintains [that] mistaken consecration is [regarded as proper] consecration, and Beth Hillel maintains [that] it is not [regarded as proper] consecration,' — to what [other] purpose do they apply,  this and this?  [The expression], This is the thing, [used in connection] with [animals] slaughtered outside the Temple is required [for the inference that] one is guilty [only] for slaughtering  but not for 'pinching'.  [The express sion] This is the thing, [mentioned in connection] with the 'heads of the tribes', is required [for the inference that only] a Sage can dissolve [a vow], but a husband cannot dissolve  [a vow], [only] a husband can declare [a vow] void, but a Sage cannot declare [it] void. Whence does Beth Shammai, who does not use the inference from the similarity of expression,  derive the law [that] the annulment of vows [may be performed] by three laymen?  They derive it from what was taught [in the following Baraitha]: And Moses declared unto the children of Israel the appointed seasons of the Lord.  R. Jose the Galilean said: