Zevachim 119aזבחים קי״ט א
The William Davidson Talmudתלמוד מהדורת ויליאם דוידסון
Toggle Reader Menu Display Settings
119aקי״ט א

דכתיב (מלכים א ב, יא) והימים אשר מלך דוד על ישראל מ' שנה בחברון מלך ז' שנים [וגו']

As it is written: “And the days that David reigned over Israel were forty years: Seven years he reigned in Hebron, and thirty-three years he reigned in Jerusalem” (I Kings 2:11). In the first year that David reigned in Jerusalem he brought the Ark there from Kiriath Jearim. The Ark was therefore in Kiriath Jearim for twenty years. When the thirty-three years of David’s reign in Jerusalem are added to these, there are a total of fifty-three years from the destruction of Shiloh. During all of these years, and at the beginning of Solomon’s reign, the Tabernacle was in Nov and Gibeon (see I Kings 3:4).

ובשלמה כתיב (דברי הימים ב ג, ב) ויחל לבנותו בשנת ארבע למלכותו נשתיירו לשילה שלש מאות ושבעים חסר אחת:

And with regard to the construction of the Temple in the time of Solomon, it is written: “And he began to build it in the second day of the second month, in the fourth year of his reign” (II Chronicles 3:2), which was the 480th year following the Exodus (see I Kings 6:1). When the forty years in the wilderness, the fourteen years that the Tabernacle stood in Gilgal, and the fifty-seven years that the Tabernacle stood in Nov and Gibeon, which totals 111 years, are subtracted from the 480, there remain for Shiloh 370 less one years in which the Tabernacle stood there.

באו לנוב וגבעון [וכו']: מנא ה"מ דת"ר (דברים יב, ט) כי לא באתם עד עתה אל המנוחה ואל הנחלה

§ The mishna teaches that when Shiloh was destroyed and they arrived at Nov and Gibeon, private altars were permitted and offerings of lesser sanctity could be eaten in any city in Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? they are derived as the Sages taught: The Jewish people were told that when they enter Eretz Yisrael they would be permitted to sacrifice on private altars, “for you have not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance” (Deuteronomy 12:9), during which time those altars would be prohibited.

אל המנוחה זו שילה נחלה זו ירושלי' למה חלקן כדי ליתן היתר בין זה לזה

The Gemara interprets the verse: “To the rest”; this is a reference to Shiloh. “The inheritance”; this is a reference to Jerusalem. One may ask: Why does the verse divide them into two terms, i.e., “rest” and “inheritance”? It is in order to give permission to sacrifice on private altars during the period between this one and that one. Therefore, it was permitted to sacrifice on private altars during the period of Nov and Gibeon.

א"ל ריש לקיש לר' יוחנן מעשר שני נמי ליתני א"ל מעשר שם שם מארון קא ילפי כיון דארון לא הוה מעשר נמי לא הואי

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Let the tanna of the mishna teach the halakha with regard to second tithe as well. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Second tithe is derived from what was written with regard to the Ark, by means of the verbal analogy between “there” and “there.” With regard to second tithe, the verse states: “And there you shall eat before the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 12:7), while with regard to the Ark, the verse states: “There you shall place the Ark of the Testimony” (Exodus 40:3). Due to the analogy between second tithe and the Ark, one can infer that since there was no Ark in Nov and Gibeon, as at that time it was in Kiriath Jearim, there was also no second tithe eaten there.

אי הכי פסח וקדשים נמי דשם שם מארון ילפי דכיון דארון לא הוה אינהו נמי לא הוו

Reish Lakish asked: If it is so that this is the source, then with regard to the Paschal offering and other sacrificial animals, which everyone agrees were consumed in Nov and Gibeon, it can also be said that they are derived from the Ark by means of the verbal analogy between “there” and “there,” and since the Ark was not in Nov and Gibeon they too were not there.

א"ל [דאמר לך] הא מני ר"ש היא דאמר אף צבור לא הקריבו אלא פסח וחובות הקבוע להן זמן אבל חובות שאין קבוע להם זמן הכא והכא לא קרב מעשר בהמה חובות שאין קבוע להן זמן הוא ואיתקש מעשר דגן למעשר בהמה

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: With regard to the one who said this to you, i.e., the tanna of the mishna, from which you inferred that second tithe was not eaten in Nov and Gibeon, in accordance with whose opinion is this statement of his? It is the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who says: Even the public sacrificed upon a great public altar, e.g., in Nov and Gibeon, only Paschal offerings and compulsory public offerings that have a set time. But compulsory offerings that do not have a set time were not sacrificed here or there, i.e., on a great public altar or on a small private altar. This includes an animal tithe offering, which is a compulsory offering that has no set time, and grain tithe is juxtaposed to animal tithe. Since animal tithe offerings were not brought at that time, second tithe was not eaten there either.

מכלל דלרבי יהודה קרב אין דהאמר רב אדא בר מתנה מעשר שני ומעשר בהמה נאכלין בנוב וגבעון לדברי רבי יהודה והא בעי בירה ולאו תני רב יוסף שלש בירות הן שילה ונוב וגבעון ובית עולמים הוא תני לה והוא אמר לה לאכילת מעשר שני ואליב' דרבי יהודה:

The Gemara asks: Based on this, may it be concluded by inference that according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda that compulsory offerings for which there is no set time were sacrificed upon a great public altar, second tithe was eaten there and animal tithe offerings were sacrificed? The Gemara responds: Yes, as Rav Adda bar Mattana says: Second tithe and animal tithe offerings were consumed in Nov and Gibeon according to the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara challenges: But these require the Temple, not a tent, to which people will come to eat tithes. The Gemara responds: But didn’t Rav Yosef teach a baraita that states: There were three temples: Shiloh, Nov and Gibeon, and the Eternal House. He teaches it and he says it: This is referring to consuming second tithe, and is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.

באו לירושלים [וכו']: ת"ר כי לא באתם עד עתה אל המנוחה ואל הנחלה מנוחה זו שילה נחלה זו ירושלים

§ The mishna teaches that when they arrived at Jerusalem, private altars were prohibited and there was no subsequent period in which they were permitted. And the Temple in Jerusalem was characterized as “inheritance.” With regard to this, the Sages taught in a baraita: The verse that discusses the permissibility of private altars states: “For you have not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance” (Deuteronomy 12:9). The Gemara interprets: With regard to “rest,” this is a reference to Shiloh, and with regard to “inheritance,” this is a reference to Jerusalem.

ואומר (ירמיהו יב, ח) היתה לי נחלתי כאריה ביער ואומר (ירמיהו יב, ט) העיט צבוע נחלתי לי העיט סביב עליה דברי רבי יהודה

And similarly, the verse that relates a prophecy with regard to Jerusalem states: “I have forsaken My house, I have cast off My inheritance…My inheritance has become to Me as a lion in the forest” (Jeremiah 12:7–8). And additionally, in that same prophecy the verse states: “Is My inheritance to Me as a speckled bird of prey? Are the birds of prey against her round about?” (Jeremiah 12:9). This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda.

ר"ש אומר מנוחה זו ירושלים נחלה זו שילה ואומר (תהלים קלב, יד) זאת מנוחתי עדי עד פה אשב כי אויתיה ואומר (תהלים קלב, יג) כי בחר ה' בציון אוה למושב לו

By contrast, Rabbi Shimon says: With regard to “rest,” this is a reference to Jerusalem, and with regard to “inheritance,” this is a reference to Shiloh. And this is evident from the verse that says: “This is My resting place forever; here will I dwell, for I have desired it” (Psalms 132:14). And it states in the previous verse: “For the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it for His habitation” (Psalms 132:13), which indicates that the verses are referring to Jerusalem.

בשלמא למ"ד מנוחה זו שילה היינו דכתיב אל המנוחה ואל הנחלה אלא למ"ד מנוחה זו ירושלים נחלה זו שילה אל הנחלה ואל המנוחה מיבעי ליה הכי קאמר לא מיבעיא מנוחה דלא מטיתו אלא אפילו לנחלה נמי לא מטיתו

The Gemara challenges: Granted, according to the one who says that with regard to “rest,” this is a reference to Shiloh; that is, as it is written: “To the rest and to the inheritance,” in chronological order, as the period of Shiloh preceded that of Jerusalem. But according to the one who says that with regard to “rest,” this is a reference to Jerusalem, and with regard to “inheritance,” this is a reference to Shiloh, the verse should have stated: To the inheritance and to the rest. The Gemara explains: This is what the verse is saying: When you enter Eretz Yisrael private altars will be permitted, and it is not necessary to say that you have not arrived at the “rest,” i.e., the Temple in Jerusalem, but you have not even arrived at the “inheritance,” i.e., the Tabernacle in Shiloh.

תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל זו וזו שילה רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר זו וזו ירושלים בשלמא למאן דאמר מנוחה זו

§ With regard to the words “rest” and “inheritance” in the aforementioned verse, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that this and that, i.e., both terms, are a reference to Shiloh. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: This and that are a reference to Jerusalem. The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says that with regard to “rest,” this is