Zevachim 119a (קיט.) — the Talmud in English

And seven

years

that David reigned in Hebron

over Judah,

as it is written: “And the days that David reigned over Israel were forty years; in Hebron he reigned seven years.”

And when these twenty years had ended, that is, at the beginning of David’s reign in Jerusalem, David brought the Ark from Kiryat Yearim to the City of David; and afterward there were an additional thirty-three years of David’s reign in Jerusalem,

and four

years

of Solomon

until the construction of the Temple,

as it is written: “And he began to build it in the fourth year of his reign,”

making a total of fifty-seven years that passed from the destruction of Shiloh until the construction of the Temple. These were all the years of Nob and Gibeon, where the Tabernacle stood, from the destruction of Shiloh until the construction of the Temple.

There remained for Shiloh

out of the four hundred and eighty years that passed from the Exodus from Egypt until the construction of the Temple—after subtracting the forty years in the wilderness, the fourteen years at Gilgal, and the fifty-seven years of Nob and Gibeon—

three hundred and seventy

years

less one.

We learned in the Mishna:

They came to Nob and Gibeon,

the private altars became permitted.

And we raised a question about it:

From where are these matters

that the private altars became permitted there, derived?

And we answer:

For the Sages taught:

It is stated in the passage concerning the permission of private altars, where Moses said to Israel: At the beginning of your entry into the Land, during the days of Gilgal, you will be permitted to sacrifice on private altars,

“For you have not yet come to the resting-place and to the inheritance,”

and this implies: But once you have arrived, private altars will be forbidden to you. And we interpret:

“The resting-place”—this is Shiloh,

“and the

inheritance”—this is Jerusalem.”

And we interpret further:

Why did the verse divide them

and write both terms? Why did it not write “resting-place” alone, so that it could be learned that when they arrived at Shiloh private altars would become forbidden, and consequently they would also be forbidden at the “inheritance,” which came afterward in Jerusalem?

Rather,

it was in order to grant permission between this one and that one!

This teaches that after the “resting-place,” private altars would again become permitted at Nob and Gibeon, until their arrival at the “inheritance,” when they would once again become forbidden.

And we challenge this:

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yohanan: If so,

if the sanctity was removed when they moved from Shiloh to Nob and Gibeon,

second tithe should also be taught

in our Mishna, that it must be brought up to Nob and Gibeon. Why, then, do we learn that it may be eaten in all the cities of Israel?

And we answer:

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan said to Reish Lakish:

Second tithe

is derived by a gzera shava from the words

“there” and “there,” from the Ark.

In both cases the word “there” is stated. And

since the Ark was not present

at Nob and Gibeon—for after the Ark was captured by the Philistines, it was in Kiryat Yearim and in the City of David until the Temple was built—therefore

second tithe

also

was not present

at Nob and Gibeon, and there was no need to bring it there; rather, it was eaten in all the cities of Israel.

Reish Lakish raises an objection:

If so, Passover and

the other offerings of

the highest sanctity,

concerning which “there” is also stated,

also

should not be eaten specifically at Nob and Gibeon,

for “there” and “there” are derived from the Ark.

For it is also stated concerning them, “and you shall eat there,” and it should be derived

that since the Ark was not present, they too were not present

and may be eaten anywhere?

He said to him:

Rabbi Yohanan:

Whose view is this?

In whose view is what we learned in our Mishna—that “second tithe is eaten in all the cities of Israel”—stated?

It is Rabbi Shimon’s view, for he says: Even the community offered

during a period when private altars were permitted

only the Passover offering and obligations whose time is fixed. But obligations whose time is not fixed, in this case and in that case,

whether on the great altar or on a private altar,

were not sacrificed.

And animal tithe is an obligation whose time is not fixed,

and consequently it was not sacrificed at Nob and Gibeon.

And grain tithe was likened to animal tithe,

as it is stated concerning grain tithe [Deuteronomy 14:22], “You shall surely tithe,” and we interpret this as referring to two tithes. They were likened to one another to teach that just as animal tithe was not sacrificed at Nob and Gibeon, so there was no need to bring second tithe there.

And we inquire:

By inference, according to Rabbi Yehuda,

who said that obligations whose time is not fixed were sacrificed on a private altar, animal tithe

was also sacrificed

at Nob and Gibeon, and second tithe likewise had to be brought there?

And we conclude:

No. For Rav Adda bar Mattana said: Second tithe and animal tithe were eaten at Nob and Gibeon according to Rabbi Yehuda 209.

And we challenge this:

But it requires

for the eating of animal tithe and second tithe

a capital city,

a Temple, as it is stated concerning them, “before the Lord your God.” Was there a Temple at Nob and Gibeon?

And we answer:

Did Rav Yosef not teach: There are three capital cities: Shiloh, Nob and Gibeon, and the everlasting House?

He taught it,

this beraita,

and he explained it:

Rav Yosef interprets it:

With regard

to

the eating of second tithe,

this beraita was stated

according to Rabbi Yehuda.

For according to his view, animal tithe was sacrificed at Nob and Gibeon, and second tithe was brought there.

We learned in the Mishna:

They came to Jerusalem,

private altars became forbidden, they were never again permitted, and Jerusalem was the inheritance.

The Sages taught:

It is stated concerning the permission of private altars,

“For you have not yet come to the resting-place and to the inheritance,”

and we interpret:

“Resting-place”—this is Shiloh; “inheritance”—this is Jerusalem. And so it says: “She was to Me as an inheritance, like a lion in the forest,” and it says: “My inheritance has become to Me a speckled bird; birds of prey are around her.”

These verses were stated concerning Jerusalem, and it is thus brought as a source that “inheritance” refers to Jerusalem—

the words of Rabbi Yehuda.

Rabbi Shimon says: “Resting-place”—this is Jerusalem; “inheritance”—this is Shiloh. And it says: “This is My resting-place forever; here I will dwell, for I have desired it,” and it says: “For the Lord has chosen Zion; He has desired it as His dwelling.”

After this it says, “This is My resting-place,” and from here it follows that “resting-place” refers to Jerusalem.

And we inquire:

Granted, according to the one who says, “Resting-place”—this is Shiloh; this is why it is written

in the order in which they came into being: first

“to the resting-place”

and afterward

“and to the inheritance.” But according to the one who says, “Resting-place”—this is Jerusalem, and “inheritance”—this is Shiloh,

it should have written “to the inheritance and to the resting-place,”

since Shiloh, which is the “inheritance,” preceded Jerusalem?

And we answer:

This is what the verse is saying:

The verse means:

“It is not necessary to say that you have not reached the ‘resting-place,’”

that you have not yet reached Jerusalem;

“but even to the ‘inheritance,”

Shiloh,

you have not reached

while you are still at Gilgal.

The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:

“Resting-place” and “inheritance”

both refer to Shiloh 212.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai

says: “This one and that one refer to Jerusalem,”

and private altars were not forbidden during the period of Shiloh; they remained permitted from the time they entered the Land until they came to Jerusalem.