Zevachim 119a — 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 were completed—that is, at the beginning of David’s reign in Jerusalem—David brought the Ark from Kiriath-jearim to the City of David, and afterward there were added another thirty-three years of David’s reign in Jerusalem,

and four

years

of Solomon

until the construction of the House,

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

altogether fifty-seven years that passed from the destruction of Shiloh until the construction of the House, which were all the days of Nob and Gibeon, where the Tabernacle stood from the destruction of Shiloh until the construction of the House.

There remained for Shiloh

out of the four hundred and eighty years that passed from the Exodus from Egypt until the construction of the House—[when we subtract the forty years in the wilderness, the fourteen years in 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 inquire concerning it:

From where are these matters

that the private altars became permitted there?

And we answer:

As the Sages taught:

It was stated in the section concerning the permission of the private altars, in which Moses said to Israel: At the beginning of your entry into the Land, in the days of Gilgal, you will be permitted to offer on private altars,

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

and it implies: but once you have come, the private altars will be forbidden to you. And we expound:

“The resting-place”—this is Shiloh;

“and the

inheritance”—this is Jerusalem.”

And we further expound:

Why did Scripture divide them

and write both of them? Why did it not write “resting-place” alone, and we would learn that when they came to Shiloh the private altars would become forbidden, and automatically they would also be forbidden in the “inheritance,” which was afterward in Jerusalem?

Rather,

in order to give permission between this and that!

To teach that after the “resting-place” the private altars would become permitted at Nob and Gibeon, until their entry into the “inheritance,” and then they would again become forbidden.

And we object:

Reish Lakish said to Rabbi Yohanan: If so,

if the sanctity departed from Shiloh to Nob and Gibeon,

second tithe also should be taught

in our Mishna, that it must be brought up to Nob and Gibeon; and why did we learn that it is eaten in all the cities of Israel?

And we answer:

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan to Reish Lakish:

Tithe

second, through a gzera shava,

“there” “there”—they learn it from the Ark;

for “there” is stated with regard to both of them. And

since the Ark was not

at Nob and Gibeon—for after the Ark was captured by the Philistines, it was in Kiriath-jearim and in the City of David until the House was built—therefore

tithe

second

also was not

at Nob and Gibeon, and it did not need to be brought up there, but it was eaten in all the cities of Israel.

Reish Lakish objects:

If so, Passover and

the rest of the most

holy offerings,

with regard to which “there” is also stated,

also

should not be eaten specifically at Nob and Gibeon,

for “there” “there”—they learn it from the Ark.

For “and you shall eat there” is also stated with regard to them, and we should learn

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

and they should be eaten everywhere?

He said to him,

Rabbi Yohanan:

This is according to whom?

The statement that we learned in our Mishna, that “second tithe is eaten in all the cities of Israel”—according to whose view is it stated?

It is Rabbi Shimon’s, who says: Even the community did not offer

during the time of the permission of the private altars

anything but Passover and obligations whose time is fixed. But obligations whose time is not fixed, here and here,

whether on the great altar or on the small altar,

were not offered.

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

and consequently it was not offered at Nob and Gibeon.

And grain tithe was juxtaposed to animal tithe,

as it is stated concerning grain tithe [Deuteronomy 14:22], “You shall surely tithe,” and we expound: Scripture speaks of two tithes, and they were juxtaposed to one another to teach: just as animal tithe was not offered at Nob and Gibeon, so there is no need to bring second tithe there.

And we inquire concerning it:

By implication, according to Rabbi Judah,

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

is offered

at Nob and Gibeon, and it is also necessary to bring second tithe there?

And we conclude:

No! For Rav Adda bar Mattana said: Second tithe and animal tithe are eaten at Nob and Gibeon according to the words of Rabbi Judah 209.

And we object:

But it requires

for the eating of animal tithe and second tithe

a citadel,

a Temple, for “before the Lord your God” is stated with regard to them; and was there a Temple at Nob and Gibeon?

And we answer:

Did Rav Yosef not teach: There are three citadels: Shiloh, Nob and Gibeon, and the Eternal House.

He taught it

this beraita,

and he said it,

Rav Yosef interpreted it:

with

regard to

the eating of second tithe

this beraita was taught,

and according to Rabbi Judah.

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

We learned in the Mishna:

They came to Jerusalem;

the private altars became forbidden, and there was no further permission for them, and it was the inheritance.

The Sages taught:

It was stated concerning the permission of the private altars,

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

and we expound:

“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: “The speckled bird is My inheritance to Me; the birds are around her.”

These verses were said concerning Jerusalem, and it is brought that “inheritance” is Jerusalem,

the words of Rabbi Judah.

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

And afterward it says, “This is My resting-place,” and from here: “resting-place” is Jerusalem.

And we inquire concerning it:

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

according to the order of their occurrence: first

“to the resting-place”

and afterward

“and to the inheritance”; but according to the one who says, “resting-place” is Jerusalem and “inheritance” is Shiloh—

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

for Shiloh, which is “inheritance,” existed before Jerusalem?

And we answer:

This is what the verse says:

The verse says:

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

you have not yet reached Jerusalem,

but even to the “inheritance,”

Shiloh,

you have not reached

it yet while you were at Gilgal.

The school of Rabbi Ishmael taught:

“Resting-place” and “inheritance,”

both of them are Shiloh 212.

Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai

says: This and that are Jerusalem,

and the private altars were not forbidden during the time of Shiloh, but remained permitted from their entry into the Land until they came to Jerusalem.