Zevachim 118b — the Talmud in English

It is from what

the verse says

precise page location

"and the border went up eastward to Taanath-shiloh."

And we expound “Taanath” in the sense of

a place concerning which everyone who sees it sighs,

because it is mentioned

concerning the eating of his sacrificial meat,

which was there, in the place from which Shiloh could be seen.

Rabbi Abbahu said:

The source for this is from what

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

and we expound:

The eye that did not wish to feed and derive benefit from something that was not hers,

his master’s wife,

will merit and eat sacrificial meat as much as her own eyes can see,

in Shiloh, which was in Joseph’s inheritance. And he learned that the word “fruitful” is in the sense of fruitfulness and increase, for his place of eating was increased through the “eye.”

Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Hanina said:

The source for “everyone who sees” is from what is said concerning Joseph,

“And the favor of Him who dwells in the thornbush,” and we expound:

“Favor” means

the eye that did not wish to derive benefit from something that was not hers will merit and eat

sacrificial meat

between

the boundaries of the other tribes,

those hated by her,

who hated Joseph—that is, wherever one can see Shiloh, even though it is in the inheritance of the other tribes.

A tanna taught: “Sees”

Shiloh

means that they said

that the place where one eats lesser sacrificial meat is specifically

every place from which one can see and nothing interrupts

between him and Shiloh, so that because of it he does not see, even though he is not so far away, and if there were no intervening object he could see.

Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakum said to Rabbi Elazar: Explain it to me,

show me an example of the matter.

He said to him,

Rabbi Elazar:

For example, the synagogue of Maon,

from there they could see Shiloh, for nothing at all interrupted between them.

Rav Pappa said: “The ‘seeing’ that they said is not

specifically when

he sees

Shiloh from there

in its entirety, but even

a place from which he sees

part of it

is fit for eating lesser sacrificial meat.

Rav Pappa raised a question:

A place where, if he

stands

there, he

sees

Shiloh, but when he

sits he does not see it—what

is its law concerning eating lesser sacrificial meat?

Rabbi Yirmeya raised a question: When he

is

standing on the bank of the stream, he sees

Shiloh, and when he is

within the stream he does not see it—what

is its law? And we conclude:

It remains unresolved!

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

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

, for all of them were in his portion,

as it is said

concerning Benjamin,

“He shelters him all day,”

and we expound:

all the shelterings

of the Divine Presence

shall be only in Benjamin’s portion 197 .

Abaye went and stated

the words of Rav Dimi

before Rav Yosef.

He said,

Rav Yosef:

He had one son, Kileil,

Abaye’s father,

and it was not established,

for it is impossible to say as he said, that all of them were in Benjamin’s portion,

for it is written, “And He abandoned the Tabernacle of Shiloh,” and it is written

there,

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

which proves that Shiloh was in Joseph’s portion.

Rav Adda bar Mattana said: What difficulty does this present

to Rav Yosef?

Perhaps the Divine Presence

was in Shiloh

in Benjamin’s portion, and the Sanhedrin in Joseph’s portion,

and therefore it is written “in the tent of Joseph,” for the place where the Sanhedrin sits is near the Temple,

as we find concerning the eternal House,

where the

Divine Presence was in Benjamin’s portion and the Sanhedrin

was

in Judah’s portion.

Rav Yosef said to him

to Rav Adda:

Is this comparable!

This is not similar to that, because

there,

in the eternal House,

the inheritances

of Judah and Benjamin

are close to one another,

and it is possible to explain that the Sanhedrin was near the place of the Temple. But

here,

in Shiloh,

are

Shiloh and the end of Benjamin’s inheritance close to one another? And how shall we explain that the Temple was near Joseph’s inheritance?

And we answer:

They said: Here too,

in Shiloh,

Shiloh and Joseph’s inheritance are close

to one another.

As Rabbi Hama son of Rabbi Hanina said

concerning the eternal House:

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

And Benjamin the righteous

foresaw through the holy spirit what was destined to be, and

grieved over it, to swallow it

the strip into his portion.

Rashi on the Torah explained: “All day—from the time Jerusalem was chosen, the Divine Presence did not rest in another place,” and he does not explain according to Rav Dimi, that earlier it had already rested only in Benjamin’s portion. For there he adopted the view of the first tanna in the following beraita, that the building of the Temple was in Benjamin’s portion. But the Tabernacle of Shiloh was in Joseph’s portion, in accordance with Rav Yosef, who disagreed with Rav Dimi. According to their view, “all day” refers only to the time from the First Temple onward. See Panim Meirot [on the first side], which explained the dispute between Rav Adda and Rav Yosef in this manner; this is proven from what they said in Megilla [16b], that Benjamin wept upon Joseph’s necks over the destruction of the Tabernacle that was destined to be in Joseph’s portion, in accordance with Rav Yosef. See in the writings of Rabbi Yitzhak Zev on the Torah Genesis [45:14]. Here too,

in Shiloh,

a strip

extended

from Joseph’s portion into Benjamin’s portion,

and reached as far as Shiloh; thus Shiloh, which was in Benjamin’s portion, was close to Joseph’s inheritance, where the Sanhedrin was.

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

because Benjamin grieved over the strip.

As a matter of dispute between tannaim!

Rav Dimi’s exposition of “He shelters him all day,” that in all the places where the Divine Presence rested it was in Benjamin’s portion, is subject to a dispute between tannaim.

For it was taught:

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

for only in all these did the Divine Presence rest in Benjamin’s portion, but not in Shiloh, Nob, and Gibeon. This beraita does not hold like Rav Dimi.

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

including every place where the Divine Presence rested, and Shiloh, Nob, and Gibeon as well; this is in accordance with Rav Dimi.

“‘All day’—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 building of the First Temple was built after four hundred and eighty years from the departure of the Children of Israel from the land of Egypt. And it follows that

The days of the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness—

thirty-nine years.

The days of the Tent of Meeting at Gilgal—

fourteen

years.

Seven while they conquered and seven while they apportioned.

The days of the Tent of Meeting in Nob and Gibeon—

fifty-seven

years.

There remained for Shiloh

out of the four hundred and eighty years

three hundred and seventy

years

less one.

And the Gemara explains the words of the beraita:

“The days of the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness, thirty-nine”—from where do we know this?

For the Master said: In the first year

after their departure from Egypt,

Moses made the Tabernacle;

in the

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

And from here it follows that the days of the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness were from the second year until the end of the forty years that they were in the wilderness, namely, thirty-nine.

We learned further in the beraita: “The days of the Tent of Meeting

at Gilgal, fourteen years—seven while they conquered and seven while they apportioned.”

From where do we know this?

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

Caleb said

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

“I was forty years old when Moses, the servant of Hashem, 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 today 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 sending of the spies, which occurred in the second year [and then Caleb was forty years old],

and he said

now, at the time of the division,

“I am eighty-five years old”—behold, seven

years had passed from their crossing the Jordan until now,

during which they conquered

the Land.

And the seven years of apportionment—from where do we know this?

If you wish, say

that it is a logical inference:

just as they conquered for seven years, they

also

apportioned for seven years.

And if you wish, say: Since one cannot find

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

“in the fourteenth year after the city was struck”

“the hand of Hashem was upon me,” unless we say that they apportioned for seven years.

And this is the calculation: that year was the year of the Jubilee, whose New Year [that is, the beginning of the laws of the Jubilee] is on the tenth of the month. If we say that they apportioned for seven years, and together with the seven years of conquest they are fourteen years, the calculation comes out correctly, for the Temple was destroyed in the thirty-sixth year of the Jubilee, and fourteen years afterward, namely, in the Jubilee, the word of Hashem came to Ezekiel.

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

We learned further in the beraita: “The days

of the Tent of Meeting in Nob and Gibeon, fifty-seven

years.”

From where do we know this?

And we explain:

For it is written

concerning the death of Eli, when the Ark was captured:

“And it came to pass, when he mentioned the Ark of God

... and he fell ... and died.”

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

and they came to Nob.

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

And from here [it follows] that the Ark was captured at the time when Shiloh was destroyed.

And it is written: “And it came to pass from the day the Ark rested in Kiryat Yearim

when 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 ruled by himself

after Eli died

(and one year

one

during which Samuel and Saul ruled

together),

and two during which Saul ruled

alone,