Zevachim 118b (קיח:) — the Talmud in English

This is derived from what

the verse says:

"

And the boundary descended eastward to Taanath Shiloh."

And we interpret “Taanath” as an expression of “lament and mourning.”

It is a place over which anyone who sees it sighs,

because there is mention

of eating his sacrificial meat there,

for it was located in a place from which Shiloh could be seen.

Rabbi Abbahu said:

The source for this is what

the verse says: “A fruitful son is Joseph, a fruitful son by the eye,”

and we interpret it:

The eye that did not wish to sustain itself or derive benefit from something that was not its own,

namely, his master’s wife,

will merit to eat sacrificial meat as far as its own eyes can see,

in Shiloh, which was in Joseph’s territory. And he learned that the word “fruitful” (porat) is an expression of procreation, meaning that his place of eating was expanded through the “eye.”

Rabbi Yosei bar Rabbi Ḥanina said:

The source for “anyone who sees” is what is said concerning Joseph: “

And the favor of Him who dwells in the thornbush; and we interpret it:”

“Favor” means

the eye that did not wish to derive benefit from something that was not its own will merit to eat

sacrificial meat

between

the boundaries of the other tribes,

those who hated it,

namely, those who hated Joseph—that is, anywhere from which one can see Shiloh, even though it is in the territory of the other tribes.

A tanna taught: “Sees”

Shiloh

means,

as they said that one eats there sacrificial meat of lesser sanctity, specifically

anyone who can see it and there is nothing interrupting

between him and Shiloh, such that he cannot see it—even if he is not so far away, and if not for the intervening object he would be able to see it.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakim said to Rabbi Elazar: Explain it to me;

show me an example of this matter.

He said to him,

Rabbi Elazar:

For example, the synagogue of Maon,

from there they could see Shiloh, as nothing intervened between them and it.

Rav Pappa said: “Sees,” as they said, does not

necessarily mean

when he sees

all of Shiloh from there;

rather, even

a place from which he sees

part

of Shiloh is valid for eating sacrificial meat of lesser sanctity.

Rav Pappa raised a dilemma:

A place where, if he

stands

there, he

sees

Shiloh, but when he

sits he does not see it—what

is its status with regard to eating sacrificial meat of lesser sanctity?

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma:

When he

stands on the bank of the streambed, he sees

Shiloh, but when he

is inside the streambed he does not see it—what

is his status? And we conclude:

Teyku!

When Rav Dimi came, he said: The Divine Presence rested upon Israel in three places: in Shiloh, and in Nov and Givon

196, and in the eternal House; and in all of them it rested only in Benjamin’s territory

for all of them were in his territory,

as it is stated

concerning Benjamin: “

He shelters him all day long,”

and we interpret it:

All the sheltering

of the Divine Presence

will be only in Benjamin’s territory 197.

Abaye went and related

Rav Dimi’s words

before Rav Yosef.

Rav Yosef said:

said:

He had one son named Killeil,

Abaye’s father,

and he was not successful,

for it is impossible to say as he did that all of them were in Benjamin’s territory.

But it is written: “He abandoned the Tabernacle of Shiloh,” and it is written

there: “

And He rejected the tent of Joseph, and did not choose the tribe of Ephraim,”

which proves that Shiloh was in Joseph’s territory.

Rav Adda bar Mattana said: What difficulty does this present

to Rav Yosef?

Perhaps the Divine Presence

was in Shiloh

in Benjamin’s territory, while the Sanhedrin was in Joseph’s territory,

and therefore it is written “the tent of Joseph,” since the seat of the Sanhedrin is near the Temple,

as we find in the eternal House,

where the

Divine Presence was in Benjamin’s territory, while the Sanhedrin

was

in Judah’s territory.

Rav Yosef said to him,

Rav Adda:

How can these be compared?

They are not alike, because

there,

in the eternal House,

the territories

of Judah and Benjamin

are adjacent to each other,

so it is possible to explain that the Sanhedrin was near the Temple. But

here,

in Shiloh,

are

Shiloh and the boundary of Benjamin’s territory adjacent to the boundary of Joseph’s territory? How can we explain that the Temple was near Joseph’s territory?

And we answer:

They said: Here too,

in Shiloh,

Shiloh and

the territory of Joseph were adjacent.

As Rabbi Ḥama bar Rabbi Ḥanina said

with regard to the eternal House:

A strip extended from Judah’s territory and entered Benjamin’s territory, and the altar was built upon it.

And Benjamin the righteous

foresaw through ruaḥ hakodesh what would eventually be, and

grieved over it, desiring to swallow it

into his territory.

Here too,

in Shiloh,

a strip

extended

from Joseph’s territory into Benjamin’s territory,

reaching as far as Shiloh. Thus Shiloh, which was in Benjamin’s territory, was close to Joseph’s territory, where the Sanhedrin was located.

And this is the meaning of what is written: “Taanath Shiloh,”

named so because Benjamin lamented over the strip.

This is a dispute between tannaim!

Rav Dimi’s interpretation of “He shelters him all day long,” that everywhere the Divine Presence rested was in Benjamin’s territory, is the subject of a dispute between tannaim.

As it is taught in a beraita:

“He shelters him”—this is the First Temple; “all day long”—this is the Second Temple; “and between his shoulders He dwells”—these are the days of the Messiah,

for only in all these places did the Divine Presence rest in Benjamin’s territory, but not in Shiloh, Nov, and Givon. This beraita does not accept Rav Dimi’s opinion.

Rabbi says: “He shelters him”—this is this world,

including every place where the Divine Presence rested, including Shiloh, Nov, and Givon; this is in accordance with Rav Dimi. “

‘All day long’—these are the days of the Messiah. ‘And between his shoulders He dwells’—this is the World-to-Come”

200. The Sages taught:

It is stated [I Kings 5:6] that the First Temple was built after four hundred eighty years from the Exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt. It follows that:

The years of the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness—

thirty-nine years.

The years of the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal—

fourteen

years:

seven years of conquering and seven years of apportioning.

The years of the Tent of Meeting in Nov and Givon—

fifty-seven

years.

There remained for Shiloh

out of the four hundred eighty years

three hundred seventy

years

minus one.

The Gemara explains the words of the beraita: “

The years of the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness were thirty-nine”—from where do we derive this?”

For the master said: In the first year

after the Exodus from Egypt,

Moses made the Tabernacle;

in the

second year the Tabernacle was erected, and Moses sent the spies!

Thus, the years of the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness were from the second year until the end of the fortieth year, during which they were in the wilderness—namely, thirty-nine years.

We also learned in the beraita: “The years of the Tent of Meeting

at Gilgal were fourteen years: seven years of conquering and seven years of apportioning.”

From where do we derive this?

And we explain: The seven years of conquering are learned from what

Caleb said

at the time of the division of the Land, when he came to claim Hebron, which Moses had promised him: “

I was forty years old when Moses, the servant of the Lord, sent me from Kadesh-barnea to spy out the Land, and I brought him back word as it was in my heart.” And it is written

there: “

And now, behold, I am this day eighty-five years old.”

When Caleb crossed

the Jordan,

how old was he? He was seventy-eight,

for they crossed it thirty-eight years after the spies were sent, which occurred in the second year [and Caleb was then forty years old].

And he said

now, at the time of the division, “

I am eighty-five years old,” so there were seven

years from their crossing the Jordan until that time, during which they

conquered

the Land.

And the seven years of apportioning—from where do we derive them?

If you wish, say

that it is logical:

Just as they conquered for seven years, they also

spent seven years

apportioning the Land.

And if you wish, say: Since one cannot find

an explanation for Ezekiel’s words, “In the first year, on the tenth day of the month,

in the fourteenth year after the city was struck

the hand of the Lord came upon me,” unless we say that they apportioned the Land for seven years.

This is the calculation: That year was a Jubilee year, whose New Year [that is, the beginning of the laws of the Jubilee] falls on the tenth day of the month. If we say that they apportioned the Land for seven years, then together with the seven years of conquering there were fourteen years, and the calculation works out correctly: The Temple was destroyed in the thirty-sixth year of the Jubilee, and fourteen years later—that is, in the Jubilee year—the word of the Lord came to Ezekiel.

How so? From the Exodus from Egypt until the construction of the Temple were four hundred eighty years. If we subtract the forty years in the wilderness, during which the Jubilee did not apply, and add the four hundred ten years during which the Temple stood, the total is eight hundred fifty years, or seventeen complete Jubilees. If we subtract from this another fourteen years of conquering and apportioning, during which the Jubilee still did not apply until after inheritance and settlement, it follows that the Temple was destroyed fourteen years before the completion of the Jubilee.

We also learned in the beraita: “The years

of the Tent of Meeting in Nov and Givon were fifty-seven

years.”

From where do we derive this?

And we explain:

For it is written

concerning Eli’s death, when the Ark was captured: “

And it happened, when he mentioned the Ark of God

... he fell ... and died.”

And a tanna taught: When Eli the priest died, Shiloh was destroyed,

and they came to Nov.

When Samuel the Ramahite died, Nob was destroyed, and they came to Gibeon!

And from here it follows that the Ark was captured at the same time that Shiloh was destroyed.

And it is written: “And it came to pass from the day the Ark rested in Kiriath-jearim [

where they placed it there after the Philistines returned it, after it had been captured]

and the days increased, and they became twenty years, and all the House of Israel lamented after the Lord.”

These twenty years

this is their breakdown:

eleven years during which Samuel reigned by himself

after Eli died

(and one

year

during which Samuel and Saul reigned

together),

and two years during which Saul reigned

alone,