Only sixty-nine names are listed who went down to Egypt with Ya'akov. The seventieth, according to Rebbi Chama bar Chanina, was - Levi's daughter, Yocheved,.

She is not listed among the seventy, because, although Osah (Levi's wife) conceived her before going down to Egypt, she only gave birth to her as they entered Egypt.

When Amram re-married Yocheved, she was - a hundred and thirty.

Nevertheless, Rav Yehudah bar Z'vida explains, the Torah refers to her as "bas Levi" (which is otherwise superfluous, since we already know who Yocheved was, or because it would have been more appropriate to mention her by name) - to teach us that she regained her youthfulness and beauty at that time (perhaps in honor of the savior of Yisrael to whom she was about to give birth, or as a sign of the rejuvenation of Yisrael, who would emerge as a nation as a result).

He also extrapolates from the Pasuk "va'Yikach es bas Levi" (when it should have written "ve'Hichzir es bas Levi", seeing as this was a re-marriage) that - Amram performed Chupah and Kidushin (see Agados Maharsha), placing her in a canopy.

The somewhat unusual performers at the wedding were. The ...

... singers were Aharon (aged 3) and Miriam (aged 6), whilst ...

... the angels declared "Eim ha'Banim Semeichah" (see Agados Maharsha).

Even though Amram's separation from Yocheved was due to Par'oh's decree to drown all Jewish new-born babies, he took her back (even before the decree had been repealed) - on the basis of Miriam's prophecy, that her mother would give birth to the savior of Yisrael (see also, Rashi in Chumash).

Miriam and Aharon sang on account of the same prophecy.

The significance of the fact that Yocheved was born upon entering Egypt is to teach us that - Yisrael were slaves in Egypt for two hundred and ten years (a hundred and thirty of Yocheved until Moshe was born, and eighty of Moshe until he was chosen (by the Burning Bush) to redeem Yisrael).

The connection between this and Ya'akov's words many years earlier, when he instructed his sons "R'du Shamah" ('Go down to Egypt' to buy corn) lies in the fact that - the Gematriyah (numerical value) of "R'du" is two hundred and ten.

On the other hand, Hash-m told Avraham (at the B'ris bein ha'Besarim, in Parshas Lech-l'cha) that his children would be strangers in a land that was not theirs for four hundred years - beginning with the birth of Yitzchak.

To arrive at the four hundred years of exile - we need to add on to the two hundred and ten (of Yocheved and Moshe) that we just discussed, the 60 years of Yitzchak (when Ya'akov and Eisav were born) plus the 130 of Ya'akov (when he stood before Par'oh)

In Pinchas (when they questioned Moshe about the Yerushah), the Pasuk lists the B'nos Tz'lofchad as "Machlah, No'ah, Choglah, Milkah and Tirtzah" - in order of intelligence, whereas in Masei (when they married), it changes the order to "Machlah, Tirtzah, Choglah, Milkah ve'No'ah" - in order of age

This also proves a statement of Rebbi Ami who said that - when it comes to Yeshivah (meetings, whether they concern judgment or other matters of learning), we go after wisdom, whereas in matters of feasting (such as speaking or Benching), we go after age.

Rav Ashi qualifies Rebbi Ami's statement - by confining it to where the wisest man in the meeting is much wiser than those who are older than him, and the oldest person at the party, is much older than those who are wiser than him.

But if ...

... the oldest man present at a meeting is very much older than the wisest, who is not that much wiser than him - he takea precedence over the wiser man. Similarly, if ...

... the wisest man present at a party is very much wiser than the oldest, who is not that much older than him - then he takes precedence over the older man.

... the difference between the two in both regards is only minimal - we always go after age ...

... since Rav Ashi stresses that, in the previous cases, both advantages are marked, we can infer that where neither is marked, we always follow one of them, and logic dictates we will then give precedence to age, which the wiser man, in his wisdom, will acknowledge.

de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael in a Beraisa, interpret the word "va'Ti'heyenah" (in the Pasuk "va'Ti'heyenah Machlah, No'ah ... ") as - an indication that the five daughters of Tz'lofchad were all equal as regards wisdom or righteousness (which explains why the Pasuk is not particular about changing the order from one location to the other), thereby negating the proof for Rebbi Ami).

We find a similar discrepancy with regard to - Moshe and Aharon, which we resolve in the same manner.

Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel learns from the Pasuk in Masei "la'Tov be'Einehem Tih'yenah le'Nashim" that - the B'nos Tz'lofchad were actually permitted to marry whoever they wanted ...

... and the Pasuk there "Ach le'Mishpachas Mateh Avihem Tih'yenah le'Nashim" was no more than a piece of good advice, but not a command.

When the Torah writes in Emor (with regard to the Chiyuv Kareis for bringing a Korban be'Tum'ah) "Emor ...

... Aleihem", it is referring - to that generation (the fathers who stood at Har Sinai).

... le'Doroseichem" it is referring - to future generations (their sons).

Having taught us this Halachah with regard to ...

... the fathers, the Torah nevertheless found it necessary to incorporate the sons, since we find Mitzvos (such as Hasavas Nachalah) that pertain to the fathers but not to the sons.

... the sons, the Torah found it necessary to incorporate the fathers - since there are many Mitzvos that pertain to the children that did not pertain to the fathers (e.g. the Mitzvos of Eretz Yisrael).

We know to apply the same equation to all other Mitzvos - by treating it as a 'Binyan Av'.

We reconcile this with Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's statement (that the B'nos Tz'lofchad were actually permitted to marry whoever they wanted) - by differentiating between the B'nos Tz'lofchad and the other women of that generation (who were not).

Rava learns from "Zeh ha'Davar" in Mas'ei that that - the prohibition of Hasavas Nachalah was confined to the Avos, and did not extend to the Banim (in support of the Beraisa's statement).

Rabah Zuti asked Rav Ashi why we do not also learn from "Zeh ha'Davar" in Acharei-Mos (in connection with Shechutei Chutz [Shechting Kodshim outside the Azarah]) that Shechutei Chutz should be confined to that generation. The latter answered - by pointing at the word there "le'Dorosam".

And when Rabah Zuti asked him the same question with regard to "Zeh ha'Davar" in Matos (in connection with Hafaras Nedarim) - he answered with a Gezeirah-Shavah "Zeh" "Zeh" from Shechutei Chutz.

Finally, Rabah Zuti asked Rav Ashi why we do not also learn from the Gezeirah-Shavah of "Zeh" "Zeh" that Hasavas Nachalah, like Shechutei Chutz, should apply to the children too, to which the latter replied that - if the Torah had wanted Hasavas Nachalah to extend to the children too, then it should not have inserted the words "Zeh ha'Davar", and no Gezeirah-Shavah would have been necessary.

We cannot use the same argument with regard to Shechutei Chutz and Nedarim however - since the Gezeirah-Shavah "Zeh ha'Davar" "Zeh ha'Davar" there is anyway needed for something else (as we shall now see).

Bearing in mind that the Torah writes by Shechutei Chutz "Aharon u'Vanav ve'Chol Yisrael", and by Nedarim "Rashei ha'Matos", we learn (via the 'Gezeirah-Shavah') from ...

... Rashei ha'Matos that - by Nedarim too, three Hedyotos (ordinary people) can nullify vows, as Rav Acha bar Ya'akov explains. We extrapolate this from the words "ve'el Kol Yisrael", which implies 'Afilu Kol-d'hu Yisrael' (even a little bit of a Yidand not necessarily a Talmid-Chacham).

... Nedarim that - by Shechutei Chutz too, one expert Dayan can issue rulings (as we shall see shortly), as Rav Chisda Amar Rebbi Yochanan explains.

Even though "Rashei ha'Matos" refers to a Yachid Mumcheh, the Torah nevertheless writes "Roshei ha'Matos" (in the plural) - because it is referring to 'the Yachid Mumcheh' at large (though only one in each Din Torah is required).

To reconcile this with Shmuel, who holds in Sanhedrin that if two people judged, their Din is valid (only they are called a Beis-Din Chatzuf) - by differentiating between cases of 'Mamon' (money-matters [Shmuel]) and Isur (the Beraisa), under which category Hataras Nedarim falls (and which therefore requires a minimum of three).

The ramifications of Sheloshah Hedyotos or Yachid Mumcheh with regard to ...

... Hekdesh in general are that - they can annul any form of Hekdesh (reverting the object of Hekdesh back to Chulin as it was before), as Rav Sheshes explains.

... Shechutei Chutz in particular are that - even after someone Shechted the Hekdesh and became Chayav Kareis, the owner can still nullify the Hekdesh, thereby saving the transgressor from Kareis.

In the Mishnah in Nazir, Beis Shamai says 'Hekdesh Ta'us Hekdesh', from which we can extrapolate (via a 'Kal va'Chomer') that - they do not hold of She'eilah by Hekdesh at all.

Beis Hillel say 'Hekdesh be'Ta'us Eino Hekdesh'; whereas there where it was not made be'Ta'us, they hold - 'Yesh She'eilah be'Hekdesh'.

Beis Shamai will learn from "Zeh ha'Davar" ...

... of Shechutei Chutz that - one is only Chayav Kareis for Shechting an animal or even a bird, outside the location where it should have been Shechted (or killed by Melikah), to preclude from Kareis a Kohen who performs Melikah on a bird outside the Azarah.

... of Nedarim that - a Chacham, must say 'Mutar Lach', and a husband, 'Mufar Lach', and not vice-versa.

Beis Shamai cannot learn the 'Gezeirah-Shavah' just from Shechutei Chutz on to Nedarim - because of the principle 'Ein 'Gezeirah-Shavah le'Mechtzah' ('a Gezeirah-Shavah must be total, and not just in part).

Beis Hillel learn from the Pasuk "Asher Yishchat" - what Beis Shamai learned from "Zeh ha'Davar" (that one is only Chayav for Shechutei Chutz, but not for Melikas Chutz).

According to Beis Shamai, the Torah draws a distinction between the Lashon used by Hataras Nedarim and Hafaras Nedarim - because 'Hatarah' implies to legally uproot the Neder from its inception (which explains why it requires a valid reason to do so, and why it is not confined to the day that the Chacham hears it). 'Hafarah' on the other hand, means cutting the vow short unilaterally, merely at the husband's whim (which is why the Torah restricts it to the day that the husband hears it).

Beis Hillel learn this from a S'vara (as we explained), based presumably on the fact that whereas Hataras Nedarim requires a Beis-Din, Hafarah is performed by the husband.

Beis Shamai, who do not hold of the 'Gezeirah-Shavah', learn ...

... that Hafaras Nedarim applies in all generations - from all other Mitzvos, seeing as we need the word "Zeh" (as we just explained), and it is no longer available to preclude other generations (see also Maharsha).

... that Hataras Nedarim can be performed by three Hedyotos - from the Pasuk in Emor "va'Yedaber Hash-m es Mo'adei Hash-m", as we will see shortly.