Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Summary
This is the daf for Shabbat.
The Gemara explains the basis of the disagreement in the braita between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, and how the second position of the Rabbis differs from the first position in the name of the rabbis in that same braita.
Rabbi Shimon’s source in the Torah for his view limiting the communal offerings brought in Gilgal is a verse in Yehoshua 5:10, which describes the Jews bringing the Paschal offering just a few days after crossing the Jordan River into the Land of Israel.
The reason the structure of Shilo was built with stone walls while its ceiling was only a curtain is derived from seemingly contradictory verses – some referring to Shilo as a “house” and others as a “tent.”
Four rabbis each cite a different verse to explain the law that during the period when the Tabernacle stood in Shilo, kodshim kalim and maaser sheni could be eaten anywhere within sight of Shilo.
There is also a debate about whether the Tabernacle in Shilo was located in the territory of Yosef or Binyamin.
A braita discusses how many years the Tabernacle remained in each location and explains the calculations: thirty-nine years in the desert, fourteen in Gilgal, fifty-seven in Nov and Givon, and three hundred sixty-nine in Shilo.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
Zevachim 118
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר לָךְ: כִּי כְּתִיב – ״הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו״ הוּא דִּכְתִיב; אֲבָל בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה – אֲפִילּוּ חוֹבוֹת נָמֵי לִיקְרוּב.
And Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that an individual may also sacrifice compulsory offerings on a great public altar, could have said to you that when the phrase “whatsoever is fitting” is written, indicating that individuals may sacrifice only vow offerings and gift offerings, it is with regard to “in his own eyes” that it is written. In other words, it is referring to a location that is fitting in his eyes for sacrifice, i.e., a private altar. But on a great public altar, even compulsory offerings may be sacrificed.
אֶלָּא הָא כְּתִיב ״אִישׁ״ – לָאו לְמֵימְרָא דְּאִישׁ יְשָׁרוֹת הוּא דְּלִיקְרוּב, הָא חוֹבוֹת לָא לִיקְרוּב? כִּי כְּתִיב ״אִישׁ״ – לְהַכְשִׁיר אֶת הַזָּר.
The Gemara asks: But even if that derivation is correct, isn’t “man” written in that verse? Isn’t that to say that with regard to “a man,” i.e., an individual, only offerings that one deems fitting to sacrifice may be sacrificed, but compulsory offerings may not be sacrificed? The Gemara replies: When “man” is written in this verse, it is to qualify a non-priest to perform the sacrificial service on a private altar.
זָר – מִ״וְּזָרַק הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַדָּם עַל מִזְבַּח ה׳״ נָפְקָא!
The Gemara challenges: But the fact that a non-priest is qualified to perform the sacrificial service on a private altar is derived from the verse: “And the priest shall dash the blood against the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 17:6). The verse indicates that service at a great public altar may be performed only by a priest, from which it is inferred that the service on a private altar may be performed by a non-priest as well.
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא לִיבְעֵי קִדּוּשׁ בְּכוֹרוֹת כְּמֵעִיקָּרָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara replies: Lest you say that whereas that verse indicates it is not required that the service on a private altar be performed by a priest, nevertheless consecration of the firstborn is required for this purpose, as was the case initially, i.e., before the Tabernacle was constructed. Perhaps the only non-priests who may perform the service on private altars are the firstborn sons. Therefore, the verse states: “Every man whatsoever is fitting in his own eyes,” which teaches us that with regard to private altars, each person may sacrifice his own offerings.
חֲכָמִים הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא!
§ The Gemara clarifies the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda, by questioning: But the statement of the Rabbis is identical to the statement of the first tanna, i.e., the Rabbis cited at the beginning of the baraita, who say that on a private altar an individual sacrificed only burnt offerings and peace offerings. What is the difference between the first tanna and the Rabbis?
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: קָרְבוּ נְסָכִים בְּמִדְבָּר אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
Rav Pappa said: The difference between them is whether libations were offered in the wilderness along with burnt offerings and peace offerings. According to the opinion of the first tanna, libations were not offered in the wilderness, nor were they offered in Eretz Yisrael during the period of Gilgal. According to the Rabbis in the latter section of the baraita, libations were offered in the wilderness and in Gilgal.
אָמַר מָר: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר וְכוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעֲשׂוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַפֶּסַח בַּגִּלְגָּל״.
§ The Master said in the baraita: Rabbi Shimon says that even the public did not sacrifice all offerings in the Tent of Meeting in Gilgal; they sacrificed only Paschal offerings and compulsory public offerings that have a set time. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? As it is written: “And the children of Israel encamped in Gilgal; and they kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month at evening in the plains of Jericho” (Joshua 5:10).
פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּחוֹבוֹת כְּעֵין פֶּסַח הוּא דְּקָרֵב, הָא לָאו כְּעֵין פֶּסַח לָא קָרֵב. וְאִידַּךְ –
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that they brought the Paschal offering? The Paschal offering is compulsory. Rather, this verse teaches us that in Gilgal, only compulsory offerings similar to the Paschal offering, i.e., that have a set time, were sacrificed, but offerings that are not similar to the Paschal offering were not sacrificed. The Gemara asks: And how does the other tanna, i.e., the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Shimon and hold that during the period of Gilgal other offerings were sacrificed by the public, interpret the verse?
מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי בַּנָּאָה: עָרֵל – מְקַבֵּל הַזָּאָה.
The Gemara responds: It is necessary for the halakha that was taught by Rabbi Yoḥanan. As Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Bena’a: If an uncircumcised Jew contracted ritual impurity from a corpse, he may receive sprinkling of the water containing the ashes of the red heifer on the third and seventh days of his purification, despite the fact that he is uncircumcised. In the time of Joshua, the Jewish people became circumcised after they were purified from impurity imparted by a corpse.
תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: אֵין בֵּין בָּמָה גְּדוֹלָה לְבָמָה קְטַנָּה, אֶלָּא פֶּסַח וְחוֹבוֹת הַקָּבוּעַ לָהֶן זְמַן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יָחִיד – חוֹבוֹת שֶׁקָּבוּעַ לָהֶן זְמַן מְנָא לֵיהּ?
§ With regard to the Paschal offering and compulsory public offerings that have a set time mentioned by Rabbi Shimon, the Gemara relates that a tanna taught a baraita in the presence of Rav Adda bar Ahava: The difference between a great public altar, e.g., the altar in Gilgal, and a small private altar is only that the Paschal offering and compulsory offerings that have a set time may be sacrificed upon a great public altar, but not upon a private altar. Rav Adda bar Ahava said to him: From where would an individual sacrifice compulsory offerings that have a set time? There is no such offering brought by an individual. It was therefore unnecessary for the tanna to state that this type of offering is not sacrificed on a private altar.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֶסְמְיַיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תִּתַּרְגַּם מַתְנִיתָךְ בְּעוֹלַת חוֹבָה, דְּאִיכָּא עוֹלַת נְדָבָה. דְּאִי חַטַּאת יָחִיד הוּא – חוֹבוֹת דִּקְבִיעַ לֵיהּ זְמַן מִי אִיכָּא?!
The tanna said to him: If so, shall I remove it from the text of the mishna, and teach only: Paschal offerings? Rav Adda bar Ahava said to him: That is not necessary; interpret your mishna as referring to a compulsory burnt offering, i.e., the burnt offering of appearance brought on the pilgrimage Festivals by every individual, which is not sacrificed on a private altar, as there is, conversely, a voluntary burnt offering that may be sacrificed on a private altar. This baraita must be discussing a burnt offering brought by an individual, as if it is referring to a sin offering brought by an individual, are there compulsory sin offerings that have a set time?
וְלוֹקְמַהּ בְּמִנְחַת חוֹבָה – דְּהָא אִיכָּא חֲבִיתִּין! קָא סָבַר: אֵין מִנְחָה בְּבָמָה.
The Gemara asks: And let him establish the baraita as referring to the compulsory meal offering of an individual, which has a set time, as there is the griddle-cake offering that the High Priest was obligated to sacrifice every day and that may be sacrificed only upon a great public altar, not upon a private altar. The Gemara replies: Rav Adda bar Ahava holds that there is no meal offering sacrificed upon an altar outside the Temple, even a great public altar.
בָּאוּ לְשִׁילֹה וְכוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וַתְּבִאֵהוּ בֵּית ה׳ שִׁילֹה״, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וַיִּטֹּשׁ (אֶת) מִשְׁכַּן שִׁילֹה אֹהֶל שִׁכֵּן בָּאָדָם״, וּכְתִיב ״וַיִּמְאַס בְּאֹהֶל יוֹסֵף וּבְשֵׁבֶט אֶפְרַיִם לֹא בָחָר״.
§ The mishna teaches that when they arrived at Shiloh, private altars were prohibited. There was no roof of wood or stone in the Tabernacle in Shiloh; there was only a building of stone below, and the curtains of the roof of the Tabernacle were spread above it. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One verse states, with regard to Hannah bringing Samuel to the Tabernacle: “And she brought him to the house of the Lord in Shiloh” (I Samuel 1:24), and one verse states: “And He forsook the Tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent that He had made to dwell among men” (Psalms 78:60). And in addition, it is written: “Moreover he abhorred the tent of Joseph and chose not the tribe of Ephraim” (Psalms 78:67).
הָא כֵּיצַד? לֹא הָיְתָה שָׁם תִּקְרָה, אֶלָּא אֲבָנִים מִלְּמַטָּן וִירִיעוֹת מִלְּמַעְלָן, וְהִיא הָיְתָה ״מְנוּחָה״.
One verse describes the Tabernacle in Shiloh as a house, while the other describes it as a tent. How can these texts be reconciled? As the mishna states: There was no roof of wood or stone there; rather, there was stone below, and it was therefore described as a house, and the curtains of the Tabernacle were spread above it, and it was therefore described as a tent. And the period that the Tabernacle was in Shiloh was characterized in the Torah as “rest” in the verse: “For you have not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the Lord your God has given you” (Deuteronomy 12:9).
קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן תַּעֲלֶה עֹלֹתֶיךָ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם אֲשֶׁר (אַתָּה) תִּרְאֶה״ – בְּכׇל מָקוֹם אֲשֶׁר תִּרְאֶה אִי אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה, אֲבָל אַתָּה אוֹכֵל בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה רוֹאֶה.
§ The mishna teaches that during the period of Shiloh, offerings of the most sacred order were eaten within the curtains, and offerings of lesser sanctity and second tithe were eaten in any place that overlooks Shiloh. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Oshaya said: As in the context of the prohibition against sacrificing outside the Tabernacle, the verse states: “Take heed to yourself that you do not offer your burnt offerings in every place that you see” (Deuteronomy 12:13), from which it may be inferred: You may not offer up in every place that you see, but you may eat the offerings in every place that you see.
אֵימָא: בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה רוֹאֶה אִי אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה, אֲבָל אַתָּה זוֹבֵחַ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה!
The Gemara challenges: Say instead the following inference: You may not offer up offerings upon an altar in every place that you see, but you may slaughter offerings in every place that you see. It would therefore be permitted to slaughter offerings in any place that overlooks Shiloh.
אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״שָׁם תַּעֲלֶה… וְשָׁם תַּעֲשֶׂה״.
Rabbi Yannai said that the subsequent verse states: “But in the place that the Lord shall choose in one of your tribes, there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do all that I command you” (Deuteronomy 12:14). This verse teaches that all of the sacrificial service is performed in the place that the offering is burned, and only the consumption of offerings of lesser sanctity is permitted in any place that overlooks Shiloh.
רַבִּי אַבְדִּימִי בַּר חַסָּא אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא:
Rabbi Avdimi bar Ḥasa said that when describing the boundaries of the portions of Eretz Yisrael of the children of Joseph, wherein Shiloh was located, the verse states:
״וְלוֹ תַּאֲנַת שִׁילֹה״ – מָקוֹם שֶׁכׇּל הָרוֹאֶה אוֹתוֹ מִתְאַנֵּחַ עָלָיו עַל אֲכִילַת קָדָשִׁים שֶׁלּוֹ.
“And the border turned about eastward to Taanath Shiloh” (Joshua 16:6), a place adjacent to Shiloh. Why did it bear the name of Taanath Shiloh? It is because it was the place from which whoever saw the Tabernacle in Shiloh after its destruction would moan [mitane’aḥ] for it with regard to the consumption of sacrificial animals from offerings of lesser sanctity that had been previously permitted there, but was now no longer permitted.
רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״בֵּן פֹּרָת יוֹסֵף בֵּן פֹּרָת עֲלֵי עָיִן״ – עַיִן שֶׁלֹּא רָצְתָה לִזּוֹן וְלֵיהָנוֹת מִדָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, תִּזְכֶּה וְתֹאכַל כִּמְלֹא עֵינֶיהָ.
Rabbi Abbahu says that a different biblical allusion may be found in what the verse states in the context of Jacob’s blessing to Joseph: “Joseph is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine by a fountain [ayin]” (Genesis 49:22). The Gemara interprets the word fountain homiletically: An eye [ayin] that did not wish to partake or derive benefit from something that was not his, i.e., the wife of Potiphar, shall merit to have offerings of lesser sanctity consumed in Shiloh, in Joseph’s portion of Eretz Yisrael, to the fullest extent of its eyes, i.e., from wherever Shiloh can be seen.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: ״וּרְצוֹן שֹׁכְנִי סְנֶה״ – עַיִן שֶׁלֹּא רָצְתָה לֵיהָנוֹת מִדָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, תִּזְכֶּה וְתֹאכַל בֵּין הַשְּׂנוּאִין.
Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says that another allusion may be found in the context of Moses’ blessing to Joseph: “And the good will of Him Who dwelt in the bush [seneh]” (Deuteronomy 33:16). The Gemara interprets the word “seneh” homiletically: An eye that did not wish to derive benefit from something that was not his shall merit to have offerings of lesser sanctity consumed among the haters [senu’in]. In other words, offerings of lesser sanctity may be consumed in any place that overlooks Shiloh, even in the portions of the other tribes, who are described by the Torah as hating Joseph (see Genesis, chapter 37).
תָּנָא: רוֹאֶה שֶׁאָמְרוּ – רוֹאֶה כּוּלּוֹ, וְלֹא הַמַּפְסִיק בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְיָקִים לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, אַסְבְּרָא לָךְ: כְּגוֹן בֵּי כְנִישְׁתָּא דְּמָעוֹן. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: רוֹאֶה שֶׁאָמְרוּ – לֹא רוֹאֶה כּוּלּוֹ, אֶלָּא רוֹאֶה מִקְצָתוֹ.
§ With regard to the halakha that during the period of Shiloh offerings of lesser sanctity could be eaten in any place that overlooks Shiloh, it was taught: The term: Overlooks, that was stated in the mishna, means that one sees it in its entirety, and there is nothing that obstructs between the seer and the surrounding area. Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakum said to Rabbi Elazar: I shall explain this type of seeing to you: For example, the synagogue of Maon, which was adjacent to the city of Tiberias, and from where Tiberias could be seen. Rav Pappa said that the term: Overlooks, that was stated does not mean that one must see the Tabernacle in Shiloh in its entirety, but rather even if one sees it partially, offerings of lesser sanctity may be consumed there.
בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: עוֹמֵד וְרוֹאֶה, יוֹשֵׁב וְאֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה – מַאי? בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבֵּי הַנַּחַל וְרוֹאֶה, (יוֹשֵׁב) בְּתוֹךְ הַנַּחַל וְאֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה – מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
With regard to the definition of overlooking, Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: If one is in a place where he stands and sees Shiloh, but if he sits he does not see Shiloh, what is the halakha? Is this considered overlooking? Likewise, Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If one is in a place where he can stand upon the bank of the stream and see Shiloh, but if he is in the stream he does not see Shiloh, what is the halakha? No resolution is found for either of these questions, and the Gemara concludes: These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַבִּי: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת שָׁרְתָה שְׁכִינָה עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל – בְּשִׁילֹה, וְנוֹב וְגִבְעוֹן, וּבֵית עוֹלָמִים; וּבְכוּלָּן לֹא שָׁרְתָה אֶלָּא בְּחֵלֶק בִּנְיָמִין. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״חֹפֵף עָלָיו כׇּל הַיּוֹם״ – כׇּל חֲפִיפוֹת לֹא יְהוּ אֶלָּא בְּחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל בִּנְיָמִין.
§ When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The Divine Presence rested upon the Jewish people in three places: In Shiloh, and Nov and Gibeon, and the Eternal House, and in all of those the Divine Presence rested only in the portion of the tribe of Benjamin, as it is stated in Moses’ blessing to Benjamin: “The beloved of the Lord shall dwell in safety by Him; He covers him all the day and He dwells between his shoulders” (Deuteronomy 33:12), meaning: All coverings, i.e., times of resting of the Divine Presence upon the Jewish people, shall be only in the portion of Benjamin.
כִּי אָזֵיל אַבָּיֵי, אַמְרַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף. אָמַר: חַד בְּרָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְכַיְילִיל, וְלָא מִיתְּקַן. וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיִּטֹּשׁ אֶת מִשְׁכָּן שִׁילוֹ״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּמְאַס בְּאֹהֶל יוֹסֵף וּבְשֵׁבֶט אֶפְרַיִם לֹא בָחָר״!
The Gemara relates that when Abaye went to study Torah with Rav Yosef, he said the statement of Rav Dimi before Rav Yosef. Rav Yosef said in response: Kaylil, Abaye’s father, had one son, and he is not proper. But isn’t it written with regard to the Tabernacle in Shiloh: “And He forsook the Tabernacle of Shiloh” (Psalms 78:60); and it is written: “Moreover He abhorred the tent of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim” (Psalms 78:67)? These verses indicate that the Tabernacle in Shiloh was in the portion of Joseph, not of Benjamin.
אָמַר רַב אַדָּא: מַאי קָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ? דִּלְמָא שְׁכִינָה בְּחֵלֶק בִּנְיָמִין, וְסַנְהֶדְרִי גְּדוֹלָה בְּחֵלֶק יוֹסֵף; מִדְּמָצִינוּ בְּבֵית עוֹלָמִים דִּשְׁכִינָה בְּחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל בִּנְיָמִין, וְסַנְהֶדְרִין בְּחֵלֶק יְהוּדָה!
Rav Adda said: What is Rav Yosef’s difficulty from that verse? Perhaps the Tabernacle was in both the portion of Benjamin and that of Joseph. The Divine Presence was in the portion of Benjamin, and the Great Sanhedrin, which sits adjacent to the location of the Divine Presence, was in the portion of Joseph. This is similar to what we found in the case of the Eternal House, where the Divine Presence was in the portion of Benjamin and the Sanhedrin was in the portion of Judah.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם – מִיקָרְבָן נַחֲלוֹת גַּבֵּי הֲדָדֵי; הָכָא – מִי מְקָרְבָן?! הָכָא נָמֵי מְקָרְבָן. כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: רְצוּעָה הָיְתָה יוֹצֵאת מֵחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל יְהוּדָה וְנִכְנֶסֶת לְחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל בִּנְיָמִין, וּבָהּ הָיָה מִזְבֵּחַ בָּנוּי, וְהָיָה בִּנְיָמִין הַצַּדִּיק מִצְטַעֵר עָלֶיהָ לְבׇלְעָהּ.
Rav Yosef said to him in response: How can these cases be compared? There, in the Temple in Jerusalem, the portions of Benjamin and Judah were close to each other, and a division in which the Temple was located in the portion of one tribe while the Sanhedrin was located in the portion of another was possible. Here, with regard to Shiloh, are Shiloh and the portion of Benjamin close to each other? The Gemara replies: Here too they are close, as Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: A strip of land protruded from the portion of Judah and entered into the portion of Benjamin, and the altar in the Temple was built on that strip. And the tribe of Benjamin the righteous would agonize over it every day, desiring to take it into its portion, due to its unique sanctity.
הָכָא נָמֵי – רְצוּעָה הָיְתָה יוֹצֵאת מֵחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל יוֹסֵף, לְחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל בִּנְיָמִין. וְהַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״תַּאֲנַת שִׁילֹה״.
Here too, with regard to the Tabernacle in Shiloh, a strip of land protruded from the portion of Joseph and entered into the portion of Benjamin, which connected Shiloh to the portion of Benjamin, and it was upon that strip, which had the status of Benjamin’s portion, that the Tabernacle stood. And that is what it means concerning that which is written with regard to the boundary of Joseph: “And the border turned about eastward to Taanath Shiloh” (Joshua 16:6), which in this context, is interpreted as meaning that the tribe of Benjamin would bemoan the fact that the Tabernacle in Shiloh was not located entirely in its portion.
כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״חֹפֵף עָלָיו״ – זֶה מִקְדָּשׁ רִאשׁוֹן, ״כׇּל הַיּוֹם״ – זֶה מִקְדָּשׁ שֵׁנִי, ״וּבֵין כְּתֵפָיו שָׁכֵן״ – אֵלּוּ יְמוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ.
The Gemara notes that the dispute between the amora’im with regard to the tribe in which the Tabernacle in Shiloh was located is like a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught with regard to Moses’ blessing to Benjamin: “He covers him”; this is a reference to the First Temple. “All the day”; this is a reference to the Second Temple. “And He dwells between his shoulders”; this is a reference to the messianic era.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״חוֹפֵף עָלָיו״ – זֶה הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, ״כׇּל הַיּוֹם״ – אֵלּוּ יְמוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ, ״וּבֵין כְּתֵפָיו שָׁכֵן״ – זֶה הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: “He covers him”; this is a reference to this world. “All the day”; this is a reference to the messianic era. “And He dwells between his shoulders”; this is a reference to the World-to-Come. According to the opinion of the Rabbis, the Divine Presence dwelled in the portion of Benjamin from the first Temple period and onward, but not during the period of the Tabernacle in Shiloh, when it was in the portion of Joseph. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the entire period that the Divine Presence dwelled in this world, including the period of Shiloh, it did so in the portion of Benjamin.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יְמֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּמִּדְבָּר – אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה חָסֵר אַחַת. יְמֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּגִּלְגָּל – אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה; שֶׁבַע שֶׁכִּבְּשׁוּ, וְשֶׁבַע שֶׁחִלְּקוּ. יְמֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבְּנוֹב וְגִבְעוֹן – חֲמִשִּׁים וָשֶׁבַע. נִשְׁתַּיְּירוּ לְשִׁילֹה שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת וְשִׁבְעִים חָסֵר אַחַת.
§ With regard to the duration of the different periods mentioned in the mishna, the Sages taught: The days of the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness were forty years, less one year. The days of the Tent of Meeting that were in Gilgal were fourteen years: Seven years during which the Jews conquered the land and seven years during which they divided the land among the tribes. The days of the Tent of Meeting that were in Nov and Gibeon were fifty-seven years, until the Temple in Jerusalem was constructed. Since the Temple was constructed 480 years after the Exodus from Egypt (see I Kings 6:1), it follows that there remain for the period of the Tabernacle in Shiloh 370 years less one.
יְמֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּמִּדְבָּר – אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אַחַת. מְנָלַן? דְּאָמַר מָר: שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה – עָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן, שְׁנִיָּה – הוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְשָׁלַח מֹשֶׁה מְרַגְּלִים.
The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the days of the Tent of Meeting that were in the wilderness were forty years less one? As the Master said in a baraita: In the first year after the Exodus from Egypt, Moses constructed the Tabernacle; in the second year the Tabernacle was erected, and Moses sent spies. Because of the sin of the spies, the Jewish people remained in the wilderness for forty years. It follows that the Tabernacle in the wilderness stood for thirty-nine years.
שֶׁבַּגִּלְגָּל אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה – שֶׁבַע שֶׁכִּבְּשׁוּ וְשֶׁבַע שֶׁחִלְּקוּ. מְנָלַן? דְּקָאָמַר כָּלֵב: ״בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה אָנֹכִי בִּשְׁלֹחַ מֹשֶׁה עֶבֶד ה׳ אוֹתִי מִקָּדֵשׁ בַּרְנֵעַ לְרַגֵּל אֶת הָאָרֶץ, וָאָשֵׁב אוֹתוֹ דָּבָר כַּאֲשֶׁר עִם לְבָבִי״; וּכְתִיב: ״וְעַתָּה הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי הַיּוֹם בֶּן חָמֵשׁ וּשְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה״.
From where do we derive that the Tabernacle remained in Gilgal for fourteen years, seven years during which the Jews conquered the land and seven years during which they divided it? As Caleb, son of Jephunneh, said to Joshua at the conclusion of the period of conquest before the land was divided: “Forty years old was I 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” (Joshua 14:7), and it is written: “And now, I am this day eighty and five years old” (Joshua 14:10).
כִּי עַבְרֵיהּ לְיַרְדֵּן בַּר כַּמָּה הָוֵי – בַּר שִׁבְעִין וְתַמְנֵי, וְקָאָמַר: ״בֶּן חָמֵשׁ וּשְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה״; הֲרֵי שֶׁבַע שֶׁכִּבְּשׁוּ.
When the Jewish people crossed the Jordan, how old was Caleb? He was seventy-eight years old: The spies were sent by Moses in the second year after the Exodus from Egypt, and in the fortieth year they crossed the Jordan. And at the time of the division of the Land, he said that he was eighty-five years old. This indicates that it was seven years during which the Jews conquered the land.
וְשֶׁבַע שֶׁחִלְּקוּ מְנָלַן? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִדְּשֶׁבַע שֶׁכִּבְּשׁוּ, שֶׁבַע נָמֵי שֶׁחִלְּקוּ;
The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that there were seven years during which they divided the land? If you wish, say: Since it was a period of seven years in which they conquered the land, it was presumably also a period of seven years in which they divided the land.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִדְּלָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּאַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה ״אַחַר אֲשֶׁר הֻכְּתָה הָעִיר״.
And if you wish, say instead: Because otherwise, you do not find any plausible explanation for the date mentioned by the prophet Ezekiel in the verse: “In the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, in the fourteenth year after that the city was smitten” (Ezekiel 40:1). This indicates that it was a Jubilee Year, unless capturing and dividing the land took a total of fourteen years, after which point they began to calculate Sabbatical and Jubilee Years.
אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבְּנוֹב וְגִבְעוֹן – חֲמִשִּׁים וָשֶׁבַע. מְנָא לַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי כְּהַזְכִּירוֹ אֶת אֲרוֹן הָאֱלֹהִים״;
§ The baraita stated that the period of the Tent of Meeting that was in Nov and Gibeon was fifty-seven years. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? As it is written in the description of the death of Eli the High Priest, upon being informed that the Ark was captured by the Philistines: “And it came to pass, when he made mention of the Ark of God, that he fell from off his seat backward by the side of the gate, and his neck broke, and he died” (I Samuel 4:18).
וְתָנָא: כְּשֶׁמֵּת עֵלִי הַכֹּהֵן – חָרְבָה שִׁילֹה, וּבָאוּ לְנוֹב; כְּשֶׁמֵּת שְׁמוּאֵל הָרָמָתִי – חָרְבָה נוֹב, וּבָאוּ לְגִבְעוֹן.
And a tanna taught: When Eli the priest died, Shiloh was destroyed and the Jews arrived at Nov, where they erected the Tabernacle. At that time, Samuel began to lead the people. When Samuel from Rama died, Nov was destroyed by Saul (see I Samuel 22:19) and they arrived at Gibeon, where the Tabernacle remained (see I Chronicles 16:39).
וּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי מִיּוֹם שֶׁבֶת הָאָרוֹן בְּקִרְיַת יְעָרִים, וַיִּרְבּוּ הַיָּמִים וַיִּהְיוּ עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, וַיִּנָּהוּ כׇּל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֲרֵי ה׳״;
The Gemara determines the number of years from when the Ark was captured by the Philistines and Shiloh was destroyed: And it is written: “And it came to pass, from the day that the Ark abode in Kiriath Jearim that the time was long; for it was twenty years; and all the house of Israel yearned after the Lord” (I Samuel 7:2). The Ark was returned by the Philistines to Kiriath Jearim seven months after it was captured, and it remained there for twenty years, until David brought it to Jerusalem.
הָנֵי עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה – עֶשֶׂר שָׁנָה שֶׁמָּלַךְ שְׁמוּאֵל בְּעַצְמוֹ, וְשָׁנָה שֶׁמָּלַךְ שְׁמוּאֵל וְשָׁאוּל, וּשְׁתַּיִם שֶׁמָּלַךְ שָׁאוּל, וְשֶׁבַע דְּדָוִד –
The Gemara explains that these twenty years are calculated as follows: Ten years that Samuel reigned alone, from the death of Eli until the coronation of Saul, and one year that Samuel and Saul reigned, i.e., Saul reigned for one year during the lifetime of Samuel, and two years that Saul reigned alone after the death of Samuel. And in addition to these thirteen years, there were the seven years of David’s reign in Hebron, before the years of his reign in Jerusalem.
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Din & Daf: A Breakaway Mikdash in Egypt? Chazal’s take the Temple of Onias
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
Minnesota, United States
It has been a pleasure keeping pace with this wonderful and scholarly group of women.
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I started learning at the beginning of the cycle after a friend persuaded me that it would be right up my alley. I was lucky enough to learn at Rabbanit Michelle’s house before it started on zoom and it was quickly part of my daily routine. I find it so important to see for myself where halachot were derived, where stories were told and to get more insight into how the Rabbis interacted.
Ra’anana, Israel
After experiences over the years of asking to join gemara shiurim for men and either being refused by the maggid shiur or being the only women there, sometimes behind a mechitza, I found out about Hadran sometime during the tail end of Masechet Shabbat, I think. Life has been much better since then.
London, United Kingdom
When the new cycle began, I thought, If not now, when? I’d just turned 72. I feel like a tourist on a tour bus passing astonishing scenery each day. Rabbanit Michelle is my beloved tour guide. When the cycle ends, I’ll be 80. I pray that I’ll have strength and mind to continue the journey to glimpse a little more. My grandchildren think having a daf-learning savta is cool!
Jerusalem, Israel
The first month I learned Daf Yomi by myself in secret, because I wasn’t sure how my husband would react, but after the siyyum on Masechet Brachot I discovered Hadran and now sometimes my husband listens to the daf with me. He and I also learn mishnayot together and are constantly finding connections between the different masechtot.
Silver Spring, Maryland, United States
I started learning at the start of this cycle, and quickly fell in love. It has become such an important part of my day, enriching every part of my life.
Toronto, Canada
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
Tel Aviv, Israel
After enthusing to my friend Ruth Kahan about how much I had enjoyed remote Jewish learning during the earlier part of the pandemic, she challenged me to join her in learning the daf yomi cycle. I had always wanted to do daf yomi but now had no excuse. The beginning was particularly hard as I had never studied Talmud but has become easier, as I have gained some familiarity with it.
Brookline, United States
Attending the Siyyum in Jerusalem 26 months ago inspired me to become part of this community of learners. So many aspects of Jewish life have been illuminated by what we have learned in Seder Moed. My day is not complete without daf Yomi. I am so grateful to Rabbanit Michelle and the Hadran Community.
Newton, United States
When I was working and taking care of my children, learning was never on the list. Now that I have more time I have two different Gemora classes and the nach yomi as well as the mishna yomi daily.
Jerusalem, Israel
I started learning Dec 2019 after reading “If all the Seas Were Ink”. I found
Daily daf sessions of Rabbanit Michelle in her house teaching, I then heard about the siyum and a new cycle starting wow I am in! Afternoon here in Sydney, my family and friends know this is my sacred time to hide away to live zoom and learn. Often it’s hard to absorb and relate then a gem shines touching my heart.
Dover Heights, Australia
I learned Mishnayot more than twenty years ago and started with Gemara much later in life. Although I never managed to learn Daf Yomi consistently, I am learning since some years Gemara in depth and with much joy. Since last year I am studying at the International Halakha Scholars Program at the WIHL. I often listen to Rabbanit Farbers Gemara shiurim to understand better a specific sugyiah. I am grateful for the help and inspiration!
Berlin, Germany
New York, United States
I started last year after completing the Pesach Sugiyot class. Masechet Yoma might seem like a difficult set of topics, but for me made Yom Kippur and the Beit HaMikdash come alive. Liturgy I’d always had trouble connecting with took on new meaning as I gained a sense of real people moving through specific spaces in particular ways. It was the perfect introduction; I am so grateful for Hadran!
Minnesota, United States
I started my journey on the day I realized that the Siyum was happening in Yerushalayim and I was missing out. What? I told myself. How could I have not known about this? How can I have missed out on this opportunity? I decided that moment, I would start Daf Yomi and Nach Yomi the very next day. I am so grateful to Hadran. I am changed forever because I learn Gemara with women. Thank you.
Mitspe, Israel
I started Daf during the pandemic. I listened to a number of podcasts by various Rebbeim until one day, I discovered Rabbanit Farbers podcast. Subsequently I joined the Hadran family in Eruvin. Not the easiest place to begin, Rabbanit Farber made it all understandable and fun. The online live group has bonded together and have really become a supportive, encouraging family.
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
Zevachim 118
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר לָךְ: כִּי כְּתִיב – ״הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו״ הוּא דִּכְתִיב; אֲבָל בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה – אֲפִילּוּ חוֹבוֹת נָמֵי לִיקְרוּב.
And Rabbi Yehuda, who holds that an individual may also sacrifice compulsory offerings on a great public altar, could have said to you that when the phrase “whatsoever is fitting” is written, indicating that individuals may sacrifice only vow offerings and gift offerings, it is with regard to “in his own eyes” that it is written. In other words, it is referring to a location that is fitting in his eyes for sacrifice, i.e., a private altar. But on a great public altar, even compulsory offerings may be sacrificed.
אֶלָּא הָא כְּתִיב ״אִישׁ״ – לָאו לְמֵימְרָא דְּאִישׁ יְשָׁרוֹת הוּא דְּלִיקְרוּב, הָא חוֹבוֹת לָא לִיקְרוּב? כִּי כְּתִיב ״אִישׁ״ – לְהַכְשִׁיר אֶת הַזָּר.
The Gemara asks: But even if that derivation is correct, isn’t “man” written in that verse? Isn’t that to say that with regard to “a man,” i.e., an individual, only offerings that one deems fitting to sacrifice may be sacrificed, but compulsory offerings may not be sacrificed? The Gemara replies: When “man” is written in this verse, it is to qualify a non-priest to perform the sacrificial service on a private altar.
זָר – מִ״וְּזָרַק הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַדָּם עַל מִזְבַּח ה׳״ נָפְקָא!
The Gemara challenges: But the fact that a non-priest is qualified to perform the sacrificial service on a private altar is derived from the verse: “And the priest shall dash the blood against the altar of the Lord at the entrance of the Tent of Meeting” (Leviticus 17:6). The verse indicates that service at a great public altar may be performed only by a priest, from which it is inferred that the service on a private altar may be performed by a non-priest as well.
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא לִיבְעֵי קִדּוּשׁ בְּכוֹרוֹת כְּמֵעִיקָּרָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
The Gemara replies: Lest you say that whereas that verse indicates it is not required that the service on a private altar be performed by a priest, nevertheless consecration of the firstborn is required for this purpose, as was the case initially, i.e., before the Tabernacle was constructed. Perhaps the only non-priests who may perform the service on private altars are the firstborn sons. Therefore, the verse states: “Every man whatsoever is fitting in his own eyes,” which teaches us that with regard to private altars, each person may sacrifice his own offerings.
חֲכָמִים הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא!
§ The Gemara clarifies the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yehuda, by questioning: But the statement of the Rabbis is identical to the statement of the first tanna, i.e., the Rabbis cited at the beginning of the baraita, who say that on a private altar an individual sacrificed only burnt offerings and peace offerings. What is the difference between the first tanna and the Rabbis?
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: קָרְבוּ נְסָכִים בְּמִדְבָּר אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
Rav Pappa said: The difference between them is whether libations were offered in the wilderness along with burnt offerings and peace offerings. According to the opinion of the first tanna, libations were not offered in the wilderness, nor were they offered in Eretz Yisrael during the period of Gilgal. According to the Rabbis in the latter section of the baraita, libations were offered in the wilderness and in Gilgal.
אָמַר מָר: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר וְכוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעֲשׂוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַפֶּסַח בַּגִּלְגָּל״.
§ The Master said in the baraita: Rabbi Shimon says that even the public did not sacrifice all offerings in the Tent of Meeting in Gilgal; they sacrificed only Paschal offerings and compulsory public offerings that have a set time. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for the opinion of Rabbi Shimon? As it is written: “And the children of Israel encamped in Gilgal; and they kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month at evening in the plains of Jericho” (Joshua 5:10).
פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּחוֹבוֹת כְּעֵין פֶּסַח הוּא דְּקָרֵב, הָא לָאו כְּעֵין פֶּסַח לָא קָרֵב. וְאִידַּךְ –
The Gemara asks: Isn’t it obvious that they brought the Paschal offering? The Paschal offering is compulsory. Rather, this verse teaches us that in Gilgal, only compulsory offerings similar to the Paschal offering, i.e., that have a set time, were sacrificed, but offerings that are not similar to the Paschal offering were not sacrificed. The Gemara asks: And how does the other tanna, i.e., the Rabbis who disagree with Rabbi Shimon and hold that during the period of Gilgal other offerings were sacrificed by the public, interpret the verse?
מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי בַּנָּאָה: עָרֵל – מְקַבֵּל הַזָּאָה.
The Gemara responds: It is necessary for the halakha that was taught by Rabbi Yoḥanan. As Rabbi Yoḥanan says in the name of Rabbi Bena’a: If an uncircumcised Jew contracted ritual impurity from a corpse, he may receive sprinkling of the water containing the ashes of the red heifer on the third and seventh days of his purification, despite the fact that he is uncircumcised. In the time of Joshua, the Jewish people became circumcised after they were purified from impurity imparted by a corpse.
תָּנֵי תַּנָּא קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: אֵין בֵּין בָּמָה גְּדוֹלָה לְבָמָה קְטַנָּה, אֶלָּא פֶּסַח וְחוֹבוֹת הַקָּבוּעַ לָהֶן זְמַן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ: יָחִיד – חוֹבוֹת שֶׁקָּבוּעַ לָהֶן זְמַן מְנָא לֵיהּ?
§ With regard to the Paschal offering and compulsory public offerings that have a set time mentioned by Rabbi Shimon, the Gemara relates that a tanna taught a baraita in the presence of Rav Adda bar Ahava: The difference between a great public altar, e.g., the altar in Gilgal, and a small private altar is only that the Paschal offering and compulsory offerings that have a set time may be sacrificed upon a great public altar, but not upon a private altar. Rav Adda bar Ahava said to him: From where would an individual sacrifice compulsory offerings that have a set time? There is no such offering brought by an individual. It was therefore unnecessary for the tanna to state that this type of offering is not sacrificed on a private altar.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֶסְמְיַיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תִּתַּרְגַּם מַתְנִיתָךְ בְּעוֹלַת חוֹבָה, דְּאִיכָּא עוֹלַת נְדָבָה. דְּאִי חַטַּאת יָחִיד הוּא – חוֹבוֹת דִּקְבִיעַ לֵיהּ זְמַן מִי אִיכָּא?!
The tanna said to him: If so, shall I remove it from the text of the mishna, and teach only: Paschal offerings? Rav Adda bar Ahava said to him: That is not necessary; interpret your mishna as referring to a compulsory burnt offering, i.e., the burnt offering of appearance brought on the pilgrimage Festivals by every individual, which is not sacrificed on a private altar, as there is, conversely, a voluntary burnt offering that may be sacrificed on a private altar. This baraita must be discussing a burnt offering brought by an individual, as if it is referring to a sin offering brought by an individual, are there compulsory sin offerings that have a set time?
וְלוֹקְמַהּ בְּמִנְחַת חוֹבָה – דְּהָא אִיכָּא חֲבִיתִּין! קָא סָבַר: אֵין מִנְחָה בְּבָמָה.
The Gemara asks: And let him establish the baraita as referring to the compulsory meal offering of an individual, which has a set time, as there is the griddle-cake offering that the High Priest was obligated to sacrifice every day and that may be sacrificed only upon a great public altar, not upon a private altar. The Gemara replies: Rav Adda bar Ahava holds that there is no meal offering sacrificed upon an altar outside the Temple, even a great public altar.
בָּאוּ לְשִׁילֹה וְכוּ׳. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּיא בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: כָּתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וַתְּבִאֵהוּ בֵּית ה׳ שִׁילֹה״, וְכָתוּב אֶחָד אוֹמֵר: ״וַיִּטֹּשׁ (אֶת) מִשְׁכַּן שִׁילֹה אֹהֶל שִׁכֵּן בָּאָדָם״, וּכְתִיב ״וַיִּמְאַס בְּאֹהֶל יוֹסֵף וּבְשֵׁבֶט אֶפְרַיִם לֹא בָחָר״.
§ The mishna teaches that when they arrived at Shiloh, private altars were prohibited. There was no roof of wood or stone in the Tabernacle in Shiloh; there was only a building of stone below, and the curtains of the roof of the Tabernacle were spread above it. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: One verse states, with regard to Hannah bringing Samuel to the Tabernacle: “And she brought him to the house of the Lord in Shiloh” (I Samuel 1:24), and one verse states: “And He forsook the Tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent that He had made to dwell among men” (Psalms 78:60). And in addition, it is written: “Moreover he abhorred the tent of Joseph and chose not the tribe of Ephraim” (Psalms 78:67).
הָא כֵּיצַד? לֹא הָיְתָה שָׁם תִּקְרָה, אֶלָּא אֲבָנִים מִלְּמַטָּן וִירִיעוֹת מִלְּמַעְלָן, וְהִיא הָיְתָה ״מְנוּחָה״.
One verse describes the Tabernacle in Shiloh as a house, while the other describes it as a tent. How can these texts be reconciled? As the mishna states: There was no roof of wood or stone there; rather, there was stone below, and it was therefore described as a house, and the curtains of the Tabernacle were spread above it, and it was therefore described as a tent. And the period that the Tabernacle was in Shiloh was characterized in the Torah as “rest” in the verse: “For you have not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the Lord your God has given you” (Deuteronomy 12:9).
קׇדְשֵׁי קֳדָשִׁים. מְנָא הָנֵי מִילֵּי? אָמַר רַבִּי אוֹשַׁעְיָא, דְּאָמַר קְרָא: ״הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ פֶּן תַּעֲלֶה עֹלֹתֶיךָ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם אֲשֶׁר (אַתָּה) תִּרְאֶה״ – בְּכׇל מָקוֹם אֲשֶׁר תִּרְאֶה אִי אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה, אֲבָל אַתָּה אוֹכֵל בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה רוֹאֶה.
§ The mishna teaches that during the period of Shiloh, offerings of the most sacred order were eaten within the curtains, and offerings of lesser sanctity and second tithe were eaten in any place that overlooks Shiloh. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rabbi Oshaya said: As in the context of the prohibition against sacrificing outside the Tabernacle, the verse states: “Take heed to yourself that you do not offer your burnt offerings in every place that you see” (Deuteronomy 12:13), from which it may be inferred: You may not offer up in every place that you see, but you may eat the offerings in every place that you see.
אֵימָא: בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה רוֹאֶה אִי אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה, אֲבָל אַתָּה זוֹבֵחַ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה!
The Gemara challenges: Say instead the following inference: You may not offer up offerings upon an altar in every place that you see, but you may slaughter offerings in every place that you see. It would therefore be permitted to slaughter offerings in any place that overlooks Shiloh.
אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״שָׁם תַּעֲלֶה… וְשָׁם תַּעֲשֶׂה״.
Rabbi Yannai said that the subsequent verse states: “But in the place that the Lord shall choose in one of your tribes, there you shall offer your burnt offerings, and there you shall do all that I command you” (Deuteronomy 12:14). This verse teaches that all of the sacrificial service is performed in the place that the offering is burned, and only the consumption of offerings of lesser sanctity is permitted in any place that overlooks Shiloh.
רַבִּי אַבְדִּימִי בַּר חַסָּא אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא:
Rabbi Avdimi bar Ḥasa said that when describing the boundaries of the portions of Eretz Yisrael of the children of Joseph, wherein Shiloh was located, the verse states:
״וְלוֹ תַּאֲנַת שִׁילֹה״ – מָקוֹם שֶׁכׇּל הָרוֹאֶה אוֹתוֹ מִתְאַנֵּחַ עָלָיו עַל אֲכִילַת קָדָשִׁים שֶׁלּוֹ.
“And the border turned about eastward to Taanath Shiloh” (Joshua 16:6), a place adjacent to Shiloh. Why did it bear the name of Taanath Shiloh? It is because it was the place from which whoever saw the Tabernacle in Shiloh after its destruction would moan [mitane’aḥ] for it with regard to the consumption of sacrificial animals from offerings of lesser sanctity that had been previously permitted there, but was now no longer permitted.
רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״בֵּן פֹּרָת יוֹסֵף בֵּן פֹּרָת עֲלֵי עָיִן״ – עַיִן שֶׁלֹּא רָצְתָה לִזּוֹן וְלֵיהָנוֹת מִדָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, תִּזְכֶּה וְתֹאכַל כִּמְלֹא עֵינֶיהָ.
Rabbi Abbahu says that a different biblical allusion may be found in what the verse states in the context of Jacob’s blessing to Joseph: “Joseph is a fruitful vine, a fruitful vine by a fountain [ayin]” (Genesis 49:22). The Gemara interprets the word fountain homiletically: An eye [ayin] that did not wish to partake or derive benefit from something that was not his, i.e., the wife of Potiphar, shall merit to have offerings of lesser sanctity consumed in Shiloh, in Joseph’s portion of Eretz Yisrael, to the fullest extent of its eyes, i.e., from wherever Shiloh can be seen.
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: ״וּרְצוֹן שֹׁכְנִי סְנֶה״ – עַיִן שֶׁלֹּא רָצְתָה לֵיהָנוֹת מִדָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, תִּזְכֶּה וְתֹאכַל בֵּין הַשְּׂנוּאִין.
Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says that another allusion may be found in the context of Moses’ blessing to Joseph: “And the good will of Him Who dwelt in the bush [seneh]” (Deuteronomy 33:16). The Gemara interprets the word “seneh” homiletically: An eye that did not wish to derive benefit from something that was not his shall merit to have offerings of lesser sanctity consumed among the haters [senu’in]. In other words, offerings of lesser sanctity may be consumed in any place that overlooks Shiloh, even in the portions of the other tribes, who are described by the Torah as hating Joseph (see Genesis, chapter 37).
תָּנָא: רוֹאֶה שֶׁאָמְרוּ – רוֹאֶה כּוּלּוֹ, וְלֹא הַמַּפְסִיק בֵּינוֹ לְבֵינוֹ. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן אֶלְיָקִים לְרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר, אַסְבְּרָא לָךְ: כְּגוֹן בֵּי כְנִישְׁתָּא דְּמָעוֹן. אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: רוֹאֶה שֶׁאָמְרוּ – לֹא רוֹאֶה כּוּלּוֹ, אֶלָּא רוֹאֶה מִקְצָתוֹ.
§ With regard to the halakha that during the period of Shiloh offerings of lesser sanctity could be eaten in any place that overlooks Shiloh, it was taught: The term: Overlooks, that was stated in the mishna, means that one sees it in its entirety, and there is nothing that obstructs between the seer and the surrounding area. Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakum said to Rabbi Elazar: I shall explain this type of seeing to you: For example, the synagogue of Maon, which was adjacent to the city of Tiberias, and from where Tiberias could be seen. Rav Pappa said that the term: Overlooks, that was stated does not mean that one must see the Tabernacle in Shiloh in its entirety, but rather even if one sees it partially, offerings of lesser sanctity may be consumed there.
בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: עוֹמֵד וְרוֹאֶה, יוֹשֵׁב וְאֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה – מַאי? בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבֵּי הַנַּחַל וְרוֹאֶה, (יוֹשֵׁב) בְּתוֹךְ הַנַּחַל וְאֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה – מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
With regard to the definition of overlooking, Rav Pappa raises a dilemma: If one is in a place where he stands and sees Shiloh, but if he sits he does not see Shiloh, what is the halakha? Is this considered overlooking? Likewise, Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: If one is in a place where he can stand upon the bank of the stream and see Shiloh, but if he is in the stream he does not see Shiloh, what is the halakha? No resolution is found for either of these questions, and the Gemara concludes: These dilemmas shall stand unresolved.
כִּי אֲתָא רַב דִּימִי, אָמַר רַבִּי: בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת שָׁרְתָה שְׁכִינָה עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל – בְּשִׁילֹה, וְנוֹב וְגִבְעוֹן, וּבֵית עוֹלָמִים; וּבְכוּלָּן לֹא שָׁרְתָה אֶלָּא בְּחֵלֶק בִּנְיָמִין. שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״חֹפֵף עָלָיו כׇּל הַיּוֹם״ – כׇּל חֲפִיפוֹת לֹא יְהוּ אֶלָּא בְּחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל בִּנְיָמִין.
§ When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The Divine Presence rested upon the Jewish people in three places: In Shiloh, and Nov and Gibeon, and the Eternal House, and in all of those the Divine Presence rested only in the portion of the tribe of Benjamin, as it is stated in Moses’ blessing to Benjamin: “The beloved of the Lord shall dwell in safety by Him; He covers him all the day and He dwells between his shoulders” (Deuteronomy 33:12), meaning: All coverings, i.e., times of resting of the Divine Presence upon the Jewish people, shall be only in the portion of Benjamin.
כִּי אָזֵיל אַבָּיֵי, אַמְרַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף. אָמַר: חַד בְּרָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְכַיְילִיל, וְלָא מִיתְּקַן. וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיִּטֹּשׁ אֶת מִשְׁכָּן שִׁילוֹ״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּמְאַס בְּאֹהֶל יוֹסֵף וּבְשֵׁבֶט אֶפְרַיִם לֹא בָחָר״!
The Gemara relates that when Abaye went to study Torah with Rav Yosef, he said the statement of Rav Dimi before Rav Yosef. Rav Yosef said in response: Kaylil, Abaye’s father, had one son, and he is not proper. But isn’t it written with regard to the Tabernacle in Shiloh: “And He forsook the Tabernacle of Shiloh” (Psalms 78:60); and it is written: “Moreover He abhorred the tent of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim” (Psalms 78:67)? These verses indicate that the Tabernacle in Shiloh was in the portion of Joseph, not of Benjamin.
אָמַר רַב אַדָּא: מַאי קָא קַשְׁיָא לֵיהּ? דִּלְמָא שְׁכִינָה בְּחֵלֶק בִּנְיָמִין, וְסַנְהֶדְרִי גְּדוֹלָה בְּחֵלֶק יוֹסֵף; מִדְּמָצִינוּ בְּבֵית עוֹלָמִים דִּשְׁכִינָה בְּחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל בִּנְיָמִין, וְסַנְהֶדְרִין בְּחֵלֶק יְהוּדָה!
Rav Adda said: What is Rav Yosef’s difficulty from that verse? Perhaps the Tabernacle was in both the portion of Benjamin and that of Joseph. The Divine Presence was in the portion of Benjamin, and the Great Sanhedrin, which sits adjacent to the location of the Divine Presence, was in the portion of Joseph. This is similar to what we found in the case of the Eternal House, where the Divine Presence was in the portion of Benjamin and the Sanhedrin was in the portion of Judah.
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם – מִיקָרְבָן נַחֲלוֹת גַּבֵּי הֲדָדֵי; הָכָא – מִי מְקָרְבָן?! הָכָא נָמֵי מְקָרְבָן. כִּדְאָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא: רְצוּעָה הָיְתָה יוֹצֵאת מֵחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל יְהוּדָה וְנִכְנֶסֶת לְחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל בִּנְיָמִין, וּבָהּ הָיָה מִזְבֵּחַ בָּנוּי, וְהָיָה בִּנְיָמִין הַצַּדִּיק מִצְטַעֵר עָלֶיהָ לְבׇלְעָהּ.
Rav Yosef said to him in response: How can these cases be compared? There, in the Temple in Jerusalem, the portions of Benjamin and Judah were close to each other, and a division in which the Temple was located in the portion of one tribe while the Sanhedrin was located in the portion of another was possible. Here, with regard to Shiloh, are Shiloh and the portion of Benjamin close to each other? The Gemara replies: Here too they are close, as Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: A strip of land protruded from the portion of Judah and entered into the portion of Benjamin, and the altar in the Temple was built on that strip. And the tribe of Benjamin the righteous would agonize over it every day, desiring to take it into its portion, due to its unique sanctity.
הָכָא נָמֵי – רְצוּעָה הָיְתָה יוֹצֵאת מֵחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל יוֹסֵף, לְחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל בִּנְיָמִין. וְהַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״תַּאֲנַת שִׁילֹה״.
Here too, with regard to the Tabernacle in Shiloh, a strip of land protruded from the portion of Joseph and entered into the portion of Benjamin, which connected Shiloh to the portion of Benjamin, and it was upon that strip, which had the status of Benjamin’s portion, that the Tabernacle stood. And that is what it means concerning that which is written with regard to the boundary of Joseph: “And the border turned about eastward to Taanath Shiloh” (Joshua 16:6), which in this context, is interpreted as meaning that the tribe of Benjamin would bemoan the fact that the Tabernacle in Shiloh was not located entirely in its portion.
כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״חֹפֵף עָלָיו״ – זֶה מִקְדָּשׁ רִאשׁוֹן, ״כׇּל הַיּוֹם״ – זֶה מִקְדָּשׁ שֵׁנִי, ״וּבֵין כְּתֵפָיו שָׁכֵן״ – אֵלּוּ יְמוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ.
The Gemara notes that the dispute between the amora’im with regard to the tribe in which the Tabernacle in Shiloh was located is like a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught with regard to Moses’ blessing to Benjamin: “He covers him”; this is a reference to the First Temple. “All the day”; this is a reference to the Second Temple. “And He dwells between his shoulders”; this is a reference to the messianic era.
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״חוֹפֵף עָלָיו״ – זֶה הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, ״כׇּל הַיּוֹם״ – אֵלּוּ יְמוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ, ״וּבֵין כְּתֵפָיו שָׁכֵן״ – זֶה הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: “He covers him”; this is a reference to this world. “All the day”; this is a reference to the messianic era. “And He dwells between his shoulders”; this is a reference to the World-to-Come. According to the opinion of the Rabbis, the Divine Presence dwelled in the portion of Benjamin from the first Temple period and onward, but not during the period of the Tabernacle in Shiloh, when it was in the portion of Joseph. However, according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the entire period that the Divine Presence dwelled in this world, including the period of Shiloh, it did so in the portion of Benjamin.
תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: יְמֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּמִּדְבָּר – אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה חָסֵר אַחַת. יְמֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּגִּלְגָּל – אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה; שֶׁבַע שֶׁכִּבְּשׁוּ, וְשֶׁבַע שֶׁחִלְּקוּ. יְמֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבְּנוֹב וְגִבְעוֹן – חֲמִשִּׁים וָשֶׁבַע. נִשְׁתַּיְּירוּ לְשִׁילֹה שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת וְשִׁבְעִים חָסֵר אַחַת.
§ With regard to the duration of the different periods mentioned in the mishna, the Sages taught: The days of the Tent of Meeting in the wilderness were forty years, less one year. The days of the Tent of Meeting that were in Gilgal were fourteen years: Seven years during which the Jews conquered the land and seven years during which they divided the land among the tribes. The days of the Tent of Meeting that were in Nov and Gibeon were fifty-seven years, until the Temple in Jerusalem was constructed. Since the Temple was constructed 480 years after the Exodus from Egypt (see I Kings 6:1), it follows that there remain for the period of the Tabernacle in Shiloh 370 years less one.
יְמֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּמִּדְבָּר – אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אַחַת. מְנָלַן? דְּאָמַר מָר: שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה – עָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן, שְׁנִיָּה – הוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְשָׁלַח מֹשֶׁה מְרַגְּלִים.
The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the days of the Tent of Meeting that were in the wilderness were forty years less one? As the Master said in a baraita: In the first year after the Exodus from Egypt, Moses constructed the Tabernacle; in the second year the Tabernacle was erected, and Moses sent spies. Because of the sin of the spies, the Jewish people remained in the wilderness for forty years. It follows that the Tabernacle in the wilderness stood for thirty-nine years.
שֶׁבַּגִּלְגָּל אַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה – שֶׁבַע שֶׁכִּבְּשׁוּ וְשֶׁבַע שֶׁחִלְּקוּ. מְנָלַן? דְּקָאָמַר כָּלֵב: ״בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה אָנֹכִי בִּשְׁלֹחַ מֹשֶׁה עֶבֶד ה׳ אוֹתִי מִקָּדֵשׁ בַּרְנֵעַ לְרַגֵּל אֶת הָאָרֶץ, וָאָשֵׁב אוֹתוֹ דָּבָר כַּאֲשֶׁר עִם לְבָבִי״; וּכְתִיב: ״וְעַתָּה הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי הַיּוֹם בֶּן חָמֵשׁ וּשְׁמֹנִים שָׁנָה״.
From where do we derive that the Tabernacle remained in Gilgal for fourteen years, seven years during which the Jews conquered the land and seven years during which they divided it? As Caleb, son of Jephunneh, said to Joshua at the conclusion of the period of conquest before the land was divided: “Forty years old was I 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” (Joshua 14:7), and it is written: “And now, I am this day eighty and five years old” (Joshua 14:10).
כִּי עַבְרֵיהּ לְיַרְדֵּן בַּר כַּמָּה הָוֵי – בַּר שִׁבְעִין וְתַמְנֵי, וְקָאָמַר: ״בֶּן חָמֵשׁ וּשְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה״; הֲרֵי שֶׁבַע שֶׁכִּבְּשׁוּ.
When the Jewish people crossed the Jordan, how old was Caleb? He was seventy-eight years old: The spies were sent by Moses in the second year after the Exodus from Egypt, and in the fortieth year they crossed the Jordan. And at the time of the division of the Land, he said that he was eighty-five years old. This indicates that it was seven years during which the Jews conquered the land.
וְשֶׁבַע שֶׁחִלְּקוּ מְנָלַן? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִדְּשֶׁבַע שֶׁכִּבְּשׁוּ, שֶׁבַע נָמֵי שֶׁחִלְּקוּ;
The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that there were seven years during which they divided the land? If you wish, say: Since it was a period of seven years in which they conquered the land, it was presumably also a period of seven years in which they divided the land.
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִדְּלָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּאַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה ״אַחַר אֲשֶׁר הֻכְּתָה הָעִיר״.
And if you wish, say instead: Because otherwise, you do not find any plausible explanation for the date mentioned by the prophet Ezekiel in the verse: “In the beginning of the year, on the tenth day of the month, in the fourteenth year after that the city was smitten” (Ezekiel 40:1). This indicates that it was a Jubilee Year, unless capturing and dividing the land took a total of fourteen years, after which point they began to calculate Sabbatical and Jubilee Years.
אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבְּנוֹב וְגִבְעוֹן – חֲמִשִּׁים וָשֶׁבַע. מְנָא לַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי כְּהַזְכִּירוֹ אֶת אֲרוֹן הָאֱלֹהִים״;
§ The baraita stated that the period of the Tent of Meeting that was in Nov and Gibeon was fifty-seven years. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? As it is written in the description of the death of Eli the High Priest, upon being informed that the Ark was captured by the Philistines: “And it came to pass, when he made mention of the Ark of God, that he fell from off his seat backward by the side of the gate, and his neck broke, and he died” (I Samuel 4:18).
וְתָנָא: כְּשֶׁמֵּת עֵלִי הַכֹּהֵן – חָרְבָה שִׁילֹה, וּבָאוּ לְנוֹב; כְּשֶׁמֵּת שְׁמוּאֵל הָרָמָתִי – חָרְבָה נוֹב, וּבָאוּ לְגִבְעוֹן.
And a tanna taught: When Eli the priest died, Shiloh was destroyed and the Jews arrived at Nov, where they erected the Tabernacle. At that time, Samuel began to lead the people. When Samuel from Rama died, Nov was destroyed by Saul (see I Samuel 22:19) and they arrived at Gibeon, where the Tabernacle remained (see I Chronicles 16:39).
וּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי מִיּוֹם שֶׁבֶת הָאָרוֹן בְּקִרְיַת יְעָרִים, וַיִּרְבּוּ הַיָּמִים וַיִּהְיוּ עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, וַיִּנָּהוּ כׇּל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֲרֵי ה׳״;
The Gemara determines the number of years from when the Ark was captured by the Philistines and Shiloh was destroyed: And it is written: “And it came to pass, from the day that the Ark abode in Kiriath Jearim that the time was long; for it was twenty years; and all the house of Israel yearned after the Lord” (I Samuel 7:2). The Ark was returned by the Philistines to Kiriath Jearim seven months after it was captured, and it remained there for twenty years, until David brought it to Jerusalem.
הָנֵי עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה – עֶשֶׂר שָׁנָה שֶׁמָּלַךְ שְׁמוּאֵל בְּעַצְמוֹ, וְשָׁנָה שֶׁמָּלַךְ שְׁמוּאֵל וְשָׁאוּל, וּשְׁתַּיִם שֶׁמָּלַךְ שָׁאוּל, וְשֶׁבַע דְּדָוִד –
The Gemara explains that these twenty years are calculated as follows: Ten years that Samuel reigned alone, from the death of Eli until the coronation of Saul, and one year that Samuel and Saul reigned, i.e., Saul reigned for one year during the lifetime of Samuel, and two years that Saul reigned alone after the death of Samuel. And in addition to these thirteen years, there were the seven years of David’s reign in Hebron, before the years of his reign in Jerusalem.
