(Permission is granted to print and redistribute this material
as long as this header and the footer at the end are included.)


prepared by Rabbi Eliezer Chrysler
Kollel Iyun Hadaf, Jerusalem

Previous daf

Bava Basra 120



(a) The seventieth of the children of Ya'akov who went down to Egypt (of whom only sixty-nine names are listed), according to Rebbi Chama bar Chnina, was - Yocheved, Levi's daughter.

(b) She is not listed among the seventy - because Osah (Levi's wife) gave birth to her only after entering Egypt.

(c) The connection between this and ...

1. ... Ya'akov's words many years earlier, when he instructed his sons "Redu Shamah" ('Go down to Egypt', to buy corn) - lies in the numerical value of "Redu", which is two hundred and ten.
2. ... the four hundred years that Hashem told Avraham his children were destined to be in Egypt is - that, beginning with the birth of Yitzchak ("ki Ger Yih'yeh Zar'acha be'Eretz Lo Lahem" [Lech-Lecha]), the 60 years of Yitzchak (when Ya'akov and Eisav were born) plus the 130 of Ya'akov (when he stood before Par'oh), the 130 of Yocheved (when she bore Moshe and the 80 of Moshe (when Hashem sent him to deliver Yisrael from Egypt) add up to 400.
(a) Yocheved, as we just explained - was a hundred and thirty when Levi re-married her.

(b) Nevertheless, the Torah refers to her as "bas Levi" (which is seemingly 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).

(c) Rav Yehudah bar Z'vida (the author of the previous statement) also extrapolates from the Pasuk "va'Yikach es bas Levi" (when it ought to have written "ve'Hichzir es bas Levi", seeing as this was a re-marriage) - that he performed Chupah and Kidushin (see Agados Maharsha), placing her on a canopy.

(d) The performers at the wedding were somewhat unusual.

1. The singers at the wedding were none other than Aharon (3) and Miriam (6), whereas it was ...
2. ... the angels declared "Eim ha'Banim Semeichah" (see Agados Maharsha).
(a) Amram's separation from Yocheved was due to Par'oh's decree to drown all Jewish new-born babies, yet he took her back (even before the decree had been repealed) - on the basis of Miriam's prophecy, that her mother would give birth to the savior of Yisrael (see also, Rashi in Chumash).

(b) Miriam and Aharon sang - on account of the same prophecy.

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

(b) This also proves a statement of Rebbi Ami - who says 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 Bensching), we go after age.

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

(d) If ...

1. ... the oldest man present at a meeting is very much older than the wisest, who is not that much wiser than him - then we will give him precedence over the wiser man.
2. ... the wisest man present at a party is very much older than the oldest, who is not that much older than him - then we will give him precedence over the older man.
3. ... the difference between both is only slight (both as regards age and as regards wisdom) - then since Rav Ashi stresses that when both advantages are marked, we follow either one or the other, we can infer that where neither is marked, we always follow one of them. Logically, we will then give precedence to age, which the wiser man, in his wisdom, will acknowledge.
(a) According to de'Bei Rebbi Yishmael in a Beraisa, the (superfluous) word "*va'Ti'heyenah* Machlah, No'ah ... " teaches us - that the five daughters of Tz'lofchad were equal as regards wisdom (which explains the discrepancy in the order of the B'nos Tz'lofchad, negating the proof for Rebbi Ami). Alternatively, he may be referring to their level of righteousness.

(b) We find a similar discrepancy with regard to Moshe and Aharon, which we also attribute to the fact that they were equal in righteiousness.

(c) What Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel learns from the Pasuk "la'Tov be'Einehem Tiheyenah le'Nashim" - that the B'nos Tz'lofchad were actually permitted to marry whoever they wished ...

(d) ... and the Pasuk there "Ach le'Mishpachas Mateh Avihem Tiheyenah le'Nashim" - was no more than a piece of good advice, but not a command.

(a) When the Torah writes (with regard to the Chiyuv Kareis for someone who brings a Korban be'Tum'ah) "Emor ...
1. ... Aleihem", it refers to - that generation (the fathers who stood at Har Sinai).
2. ... le'Doroseichem" it refers to - future generations (their children).
(b) Having taught us this Halachah with regard to ...
1. ... the fathers, the Torah nevertheless found it necessary to incorporate the sons. We might have otherwise have thought - that it only pertains to the fathers, who were commanded the Mitzvah of Hasavas Nachalah ("ve'Chol Bas Yoreshes Nachalah ... le'Echad mi'Mishpachas Mateh Avihah Tih'yeh le'Ishah") although, in fact, it would actually take effect only on the next generation).
2. ... the children, the Torah found it necessary to incorporate the fathers - since many of the Mitzvos which pertained to the children (e.g. the Mitzvos of Eretz Yisrael) did not pertain to them.
(c) We know to apply the same equation to all other Mitzvos - by treating it as a 'Binyan Av'.

(d) We reconcile this with Rav Yehudah Amar Shmuel's statement (that the B'nos Tz'lofchad were actually permitted to marry whoever they wished) - by differentiating between the B'nos Tz'lofchad and the other women of that generation.

(a) Rava learns from the Pasuk ...
1. ... "Zeh ha'Davar" - that the prohibition of Hasavas Nachalah was confined to the Avos, and not extend to the Banim.
2. ... "Zeh ha'Davar ... *le'Doroseichem" - that the Isur of Shechutei Chutz pertains to the Banim too (despite the fact that the Torah writes there "Zeh ha'Davar".
(b) According to Rava ...
1. ... we do not learn from "Zeh ha'Davar" in Matos that Hafaras Nedarim (of a woman's vows) should be confined to the fathers (the earlier generation) only - because of a Gezeirah-Shavah, as we shall now see.
2. ... the Torah writes "Zeh ha'Davar" there and by Shechutei Chutz - to create a Gezeirah-Shavah, from which we learn that Hafaras Nedarim pertains to the Banim too, just as it does by Shechutei Chutz.



(a) We cannot apply the same 'Gezeirah-Shavah' by Hasavas Nachalah (where the Torah also writes "Zeh ha'Davar"), to learn from Shechutei Chutz that it applies to the children too - because we would have known that had the Torah simply not written "Zeh ha'Davar" at all (because why should this Mitzvah be any different than all other Mitzvos that apply to all generations).

(b) We cannot use the same argument with regard to Shechutei Chutz and Nedarim however, since the Gezeirah-Shavah "Zeh ha'Davar" "Zeh ha'Davar" is needed for something else.

(a) 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 ...
1. ... Rashei ha'Matos - that by Nedarim too, three Hedyotos (ordinary people) can nullify vows, as Rav Acha bar Ya'akov explains. We infer this from the words "ve'el Kol Yisrael", which implies 'Afilu Kol-dehu Yisrael' (even a little bit of a Yid - not a Talmid-Chacham).
2. ... Nedarim - that by Shechutei Chutz too, one expert Dayan can issue rulings (as we shall see shortly), as Rav Chisda Amar Rebbi Yochanan explains.
(b) "Rashei ha'Matos" refers to a Yachid Mumcheh. Nevertheless, the Torah 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).

(c) This does not mean that Shmuel, who holds in Sanhedrin, that if two people judged, their Din is valid (only they are called a Beis-Din Chatzuf), disagrees with the above D'rashah - because he is referring specifically to cases of Mamon (money-matters), whereas Hataras Nedarim falls under the category of Isur (which requires a minimum of three.

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

1. ... Hekdesh in general are - that they can annul any form of Hekdesh (leaving the object of Hekdesh, Chulin as it was before), as Rav Sheishes explains.
2. ... 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.
(a) In the Mishnah in Nazir, Beis Shamai says 'Hekdesh Ta'us Hekdesh'. From this we can extrapolate - by means of a 'Kal va'Chomer', that they do not hold of She'eilah by Hekdesh at all.

(b) Beis Hillel say - 'Hekdesh be'Ta'us Eino Hekdesh' (where the Hekdesh was initially declared by mistake. There where it was not, he holds 'Yesh She'eilah be'Hekdesh').

(c) Beis Shamai learns from "Zeh ha'Davar" ...

1. ... 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 exclude a Kohen who performs *Melikah* on a bird outside the Azarah from Kareis.
2. ... of Nedarim - that a Chacham, must say 'Mutar Lach', and a husband, 'Mufar Lach', and not vice-versa.
(d) 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).
(a) 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).

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

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

1. ... 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). 2. ... that Hataras Nedarim can be performed by three Hedyotos - from the Pasuk in Emor "va'Yedaber Hashem es Mo'adei Hashem", as we are about to see.
Next daf


For further information on
subscriptions, archives and sponsorships,
contact Kollel Iyun Hadaf,