## Zevachim Daf 119a

###### Zevachim 119a:1
[Zevachim 119a:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/119a:1)

דִּכְתִיב: ״וְהַיָּמִים אֲשֶׁר מָלַךְ דָּוִד עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל – אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה; בְּחֶבְרוֹן מָלַךְ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים [וְגוֹ׳]״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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).


###### Zevachim 119a:2
[Zevachim 119a:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/119a:2)

וּבִשְׁלֹמֹה כְּתִיב: ״וַיָּחֶל לִבְנוֹתוֹ בִּשְׁנַת אַרְבַּע לְמַלְכוּתוֹ״. נִשְׁתַּיְּירוּ לְשִׁילֹה שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת וְשִׁבְעִים חָסֵר אֶחָת.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Zevachim 119a:3
[Zevachim 119a:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/119a:3)

בָּאוּ לְנוֹב וְגִבְעוֹן [וְכוּ׳]. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? דְּתָנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כִּי לֹא בָּאתֶם עַד עָתָּה אֶל הַמְּנוּחָה וְאֶל הַנַּחֲלָה״;

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.


###### Zevachim 119a:4
[Zevachim 119a:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/119a:4)

״אֶל הַמְּנוּחָה״ – זוֹ שִׁילֹה, ״נַחֲלָה״ – זוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם. לָמָּה חִלְּקָן? כְּדֵי לִיתֵּן הֶיתֵּר בֵּין זֶה לָזֶה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 119a:5
[Zevachim 119a:5](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/119a:5)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ לְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי נָמֵי לִיתְנֵי! אֲמַר לֵיהּ: מַעֲשֵׂר – ״שָׁם״–״שָׁם״ מֵאָרוֹן קָא יָלְפִי; כֵּיוָן דְּאָרוֹן לָא הֲוָה, מַעֲשֵׂר נָמֵי לָא הֲוַאי.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.


###### Zevachim 119a:6
[Zevachim 119a:6](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/119a:6)

אִי הָכִי, פֶּסַח וְקָדָשִׁים נָמֵי – דְּ״שָׁם״–״שָׁם״ מֵאָרוֹן יָלְפִי; דְּכֵיוָן דְּאָרוֹן לָא הֲוָה, אִינְהוּ נָמֵי לָא הֲווֹ!

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 119a:7
[Zevachim 119a:7](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/119a:7)

אֲמַר לֵיהּ: דַּאֲמַר לָךְ הָא, מַנִּי – רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הִיא, דְּאָמַר: אַף צִבּוּר לֹא הִקְרִיבוּ אֶלָּא פֶּסַח וְחוֹבוֹת הַקָּבוּעַ לָהֶן זְמַן, אֲבָל חוֹבוֹת שֶׁאֵין קָבוּעַ לָהֶם זְמַן – הָכָא וְהָכָא לָא קְרוּב. מַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה – חוֹבוֹת שֶׁאֵין קָבוּעַ לָהֶן זְמַן הוּא, וְאִיתַּקַּשׁ מַעְשַׂר דָּגָן לְמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 119a:8
[Zevachim 119a:8](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/119a:8)

מִכְּלָל דִּלְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה קְרוּב? אִין; דְּהָאָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר מַתְנָה: מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי וּמַעְשַׂר בְּהֵמָה נֶאֱכָלִין בְּנוֹב וְגִבְעוֹן לְדִבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה. וְהָא בָּעֵי בִּירָה! וְלָאו תָּנֵי רַב יוֹסֵף: שָׁלֹשׁ בִּירוֹת הֵן – שִׁילֹה, וְנוֹב וְגִבְעוֹן, וּבֵית עוֹלָמִים? הוּא תָּנֵי לַהּ וְהוּא אָמַר לַהּ: לַאֲכִילַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי, וְאַלִּיבָּא דְּרַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.**


###### Zevachim 119a:9
[Zevachim 119a:9](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/119a:9)

בָּאוּ לִירוּשָׁלַיִם [וְכוּ׳]. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״כִּי לֹא בָּאתֶם עַד עָתָּה אֶל הַמְּנוּחָה וְאֶל הַנַּחֲלָה״ – ״מְנוּחָה״ זוֹ שִׁילֹה, ״נַחֲלָה״ זוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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.**


###### Zevachim 119a:10
[Zevachim 119a:10](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/119a:10)

וְאוֹמֵר: ״הָיְתָה לִּי נַחֲלָתִי כְּאַרְיֵה בַיָּעַר״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״הַעַיִט צָבוּעַ נַחֲלָתִי לִי הַעַיִט סָבִיב עָלֶיהָ״. דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי יְהוּדָה.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
**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.**


###### Zevachim 119a:11
[Zevachim 119a:11](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/119a:11)

רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר: ״מְנוּחָה״ זוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, ״נַחֲלָה״ זוֹ שִׁילֹה. וְאוֹמֵר: ״זֹאת מְנוּחָתִי עֲדֵי עַד פֹּה אֵשֵׁב כִּי אִוִּיתִיהָ״, וְאוֹמֵר: ״כִּי בָחַר ה׳ בְּצִיּוֹן אִוָּהּ לְמוֹשָׁב לוֹ״.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 119a:12
[Zevachim 119a:12](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/119a:12)

בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״מְנוּחָה״ זוֹ שִׁילֹה – הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״אֶל הַמְּנוּחָה וְאֶל הַנַּחֲלָה״. אֶלָּא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״מְנוּחָה״ זוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, ״נַחֲלָה״ זוֹ שִׁילֹה – ״אֶל הַנַּחֲלָה וְאֶל הַמְּנוּחָה״ מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ! הָכִי קָאָמַר: לָא מִיבַּעְיָא ״מְנוּחָה״ דְּלָא מְטֵיתוּ, אֶלָּא אֲפִילּוּ לְ״נַחֲלָה״ נָמֵי לָא מְטֵיתוּ.

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
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.


###### Zevachim 119a:13
[Zevachim 119a:13](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Zevachim/r/119a:13)

תָּנָא דְּבֵי רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל: זוֹ וְזוֹ שִׁילֹה. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחַי אוֹמֵר: זוֹ וְזוֹ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם. בִּשְׁלָמָא לְמַאן דְּאָמַר ״מְנוּחָה״ זוֹ

**William Davidson Edition - English:**
§ 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