1) WHEN THE “MISHKAN” WAS IN “GILGAL”

(a) R. Yehudah disagrees – he says, “Ha’Yashar” refers to “b’Einav” (what an individual offers as he wants, on his own Bamah), but on a Bamas Tzibur, an individual may offer even Chovos.
(b) Question: How does R. Yehudah expound “Ish”
1. Surely, this teaches that an individual offers Yashrus, not Chovos!
(c) Answer: No, it permits a Zar to offer on a Bamah.
(d) Question: We learn this from “V’Zarak ha’Kohen…(Pesach Ohel Mo’ed)” (Kehunah is required only in the Mikdash)!
(e) Answer: One might have thought, Avodas Bamah must be by Bechoros (like before the Mishkan) – “Ish” teaches, this is not so.
(f) Question: Chachamim and the first Tana say the same thing!
(g) Answer (Rav Papa): They argue about whether or not Nesachim were offered in the Midbar (the first Tana says that they were not, Chachamim say that they were.)
(h) (Beraisa – R. Shimon): (Even the Tzibur only offered Pesach and Chovos that have a fixed time.)
(i) Question: What is R. Shimon’s reason?
(j) Answer: It says “Va’Yachanu…ba’Gilgal va’Ya’asu Es ha’Pesach”;
1. Question: This is obvious, what does the verse teach?
2. Answer: This teaches that Mei Chatas may be sprinkled on an Arel (even though most of Benei Yisrael had become Teme’im in the Midbar and were not circumcised until the 11th of Nisan, they were able to bring Korban Pesach (since the verse does not say that it was brought in Tum’ah, we assume that it was b’Taharah) on the 14th – since the second sprinkling was (at the latest) on the 14th, the first (which must be four days earlier) was before circumcision.
(k) (A reciter of Beraisos): The only difference between a Bamas Tzibur and a Bamas Yachid is that Pesach and Chovos that have a fixed time may be offered on the former.
(l) Rav Ada bar Ahavah: Your Beraisa (is like R. Shimon, it) must teach that Olos Chovah of a fixed time (e.g. Musafim) are offered on a Bamas Tzibur, whereas only Olos Nedavah are offered on a Bamas Yachid;)
1. Version #1A (Rashi): (We infer this, for the Tana explicitly taught Pesach, even though it is a Chovah with a fixed time! Presumably, it was taught because it is the only Korban offered on a Bamas Tzibur which individuals do not offer on a Bamas Yachid!
2. Version #1B (Tosfos): (The Tana taught Pesach to show that he discusses Korbanos that are sometimes brought on a Bamas Yachid (e.g. Pesach Sheni)!)
3. The Beraisa cannot refer to Chatas, for an individual never brings Chatas Nedavah (all agree that only Nedavos are brought on a Bamas Yachid, therefore, Chatas is not brought.) (end of Versions 1A and 1B)
4. Version #2 (Our text): It cannot refer to Chatas, for an individual never brings a Chatas with a fixed time (so we cannot say that this is a difference between *Bamas* Tzibur and *Bamas* Yachid, is it a difference between a Tzibur and a Yachid!)
(m) Question: Why didn’t Rav Ada establish the Beraisa to discuss Menachos, for (these may be offered on a Bamas Yachid, and) there are Menachos Chovah (of an individual) with a fixed time, i.e. Chavitim are brought every day!
(n) Answer: Rav Ada holds that Menachos are not brought on a Bamah.
2) THE “MIKDASH” OF “SHILO”
(a) (Mishnah): When they came to Shilo (they built a stone building without a (solid) roof, only curtains on top.)
(b) Question: What is the source of this?
(c) Answer (R. Chiya bar Aba) Contradiction: One verse calls it a house, “Va’Tvi’ehu *Beis* Hash-m Shilo” – other verses call it a Mishkan and tent, “Va’Yitosh Mishkan Shilo Ohel Shiken ba’Adam”, “Va’Yimas *b’Ohel* Yosef uv’Shevet Efrayim Lo Vachar”!
1. Resolution: It was a stone building without a roof, only curtains on top;
(d) This was “Menuchah” (“Ki Lo Vasem Ad Ata El *ha’Menuchah* v’El ha’Nachalah a Bamas Tzibur and a Bamas Yachid “.)
(e) (Mishnah): Kodshei Kodoshim (… Kodshim Kalim and Ma’aser Sheni could be eaten any place from which Shilo could be seen.
(f) Question: What is the source of this?
(g) Answer #1 (R. Oshaya): “Hishamer Lecha Pen *Ta’aleh* Olasecha b’Chol Makom Asher Tir’eh” – you may not *offer* Korbanos in any place from which Shilo could be seen, but you may eat (Kodshim Kalim and Ma’aser) there.
1. Suggestion: Why not infer, you may not *Ta’aleh* (Maktir) in any place from which you can see, but you may slaughter (Kodshim) there!
2. Rejection (R. Yanai): “Sham Ta’aleh…v’Sham *Ta’aseh*” (this includes slaughter.)
(h) Answer #2 (Rav Avdimi bar Chasa): “Ta’anas Shilo” – it would cause Ta’aniyah (sighing) to anyone who saw it (after it was destroyed), for he would remember that Kodshim could be eaten there (i.e. within sight of it.)
118b—————————————118b

(i) Answer #3 (R. Avahu): “Ben Poras (this suggests increase) Yosef…Alei Ayin” – Yosef’s eye did not want to enjoy something (Potifar’s wife) that was not his, therefore (Shilo in) his portion merited extra area for eating its Kodshim, i.e. within eyeshot.
(j) Answer #4 (R. Yosi b’Rebbi Chanina): “U’Rtzon Shochni Sneh” – Yosef’s eye did not want to enjoy something that was not his, therefore ‘his’ Kodshim (i.e. of Shilo) could be eaten among the Senu’im (portions of his brothers, who hated him.)
(k) (Beraisa): ‘Any place from which Shilo could be seen’ – any place from where it is visible, without any obstruction in between (text of Shitah Mekubetzes – our text is very difficult, for the Gemara does not challenge Rav Papa (below) from this Beraisa.)
(l) R. Shimon ben Elyakim: The synagogue of Ma’on is such a place.
(m) (Rav Papa): All of Shilo need not be visible, it suffices if part of it can be seen.
(n) Question (Rav Papa): If Shilo is visible to one who stands, but not to one who sits, what is the law?
(o) Question (R. Yirmeyah): If Shilo is visible to one who stands on the edge of the valley, but not to one standing in the valley, what is the law?
(p) These questions are not resolved.
3) THE PLACES OF THE “SHECHINA”H
(a) (Rav Dimi): The Shechinah rested on Yisrael in three places, all were in the inheritance of Binyamin – in Shilo, in Nov and Giv’on (Rashi – these are counted like one; the text of Ein Yakov says ‘four places’, and counts them separately), and in the Beis ha’Mikdash – “Chofef Alav Kol ha’Yom”, whenever the Shechinah will hover (i.e. over the Mikdash), in will be in (the portion of) Binyamin.
(b) Objection (Rav Yosef): “Va’Yitosh Mishkan Shilo Ohel Shiken ba’Adam”, “Va’Yimas *b’Ohel* Yosef uv’Shevet Efrayim Lo Vachar” (this shows that Shilo was in Yosef)!
(c) Answer (Rav Ada): Perhaps the Shechinah was in Binyamin, and the verse refers to the Great Sanhedrin, which was in Yosef, similar to the Beis ha’Mikdash – the Shechinah was in Binyamin, the Great Sanhedrin was in Yehudah!
(d) Objection (Rav Yosef): No – the portions of Binyamin and Yehudah were near each other, therefore it was possible for the Shechinah to be in Binyamin and the Great Sanhedrin in Yehudah (the Great Sanhedrin must be right near the Shechinah);
1. We do not find that the portions of Binyamin and Yosef were so close to each other (Maharsha – within one city.)
(e) Answer: Indeed, they were very close to each other!
1. (Rav Chama bar Chanina): A strip of land extended from Yehudah into Binyamin, the Mizbe’ach was (partially) built on (or built right next to) this strip, Binyamin (himself) was pained that his Shevet did not receive it.
2. Similarly, we can say that a strip extended from Yosef into Binyamin – “Ta’anas Shilo”!
(f) Tana’im argue like Rav Yosef and Rav Ada:
1. (Beraisa): “Chofef Alav” – this refers to the first Mikdash; “Kol ha’Yom” – this refers to the second Mikdash; “U’Vein Kesefav Shochen” – in the days of Mashi’ach;
2. Rebbi says, “Chofef Alav” – in this world; “Kol ha’Yom” – in Yemos ha’Mashi’ach; “U’Vein Kesefav Shochen” – in the world to come.
(g) (Beraisa): The Ohel Mo’ed stood for 39 years in the Midbar, 14 years in Gilgal (seven years of conquest and seven of division), 57 years in Nov and Giv’on (together), it follows that it stood for 369 years in Shilo:
1. It stood for 39 years in the Midbar – The Mishkan was made in the first year (that Benei Yisrael left Miztrayim), in the second year it was erected and the Meraglim were sent;
2. It was 14 years in Gilgal – we know that conquest took seven years, for Kalev was 40 years old when he went with the Meraglim (in the second year in the Midbar, hence he was 78 when Benei Yisrael entered Eretz Yisrael), and he was 85 when the conquest was finished.
3. Question: What is the source that the division took seven years?
4. Answer #1: Presumably, if the conquest took seven years, also the division. (Rashi does not explain the logic. Perhaps Hash-m caused that both take the same amount of time, to show that the slow conquest was due to Hashgachah (“Pen Tihyeh ha’Aretz Shemamah v’Rabah Alecha Chayas ha’Sadeh”), and not on account of the strength of the Kana’anim. *Seven* years makes this even more evident, since this is the most common number in the Torah concerning units of time. Ben Yehoyada explains (based on the Ari Zal), the years of conquest are a Tikun for Rachel, the years of division are a Tikun for Leah, these must be equal, just like Yakov worked seven years for each (and other parallels).)
5. Answer #2: We must say that the division took seven years in order to reconcile the verse in Yechezkeil. (It calls the 10th of the month Rosh Hashanah, i.e. it was Yovel, and this was 14 years after the Churban. Construction of the first Mikdash started 480 years after Yetzi’as Mitzrayim, and it stood 410 years, so (deducting 40 years in the Midbar) the Churban was 850 years after Benei Yisrael entered Eretz Yisrael, this is exactly 17 full Yovel cycles! Since 14 years *later* was Yovel, it follows that the Yovel cycles did not start until 14 years after entering Eretz Yisrael, i.e. that is when conquest and division were finished and Mitzvos such as Terumah, Shemitah…first applied.)
(h) Question: What is the source that the Mishkan was in Nov and Giv’on for 57 years?
1. Answer: “K’Hazkiro Es Aron ha’Elokim…va’Yamos”;
i. (Beraisa): Shilo was destroyed when Eli ha’Kohen died, the Ohel Mo’ed was set up in Nov; Nov was destroyed when Shmuel died, it was set up in Giv’on; The Aron was by the Plishtim for 20 years;
ii. Shmuel reigned for 10 years by himself (after Eli died), for one year with Sha’ul, Sha’ul reigned for two years by himself, David reigned for 40 years (seven in Chevron, 33 in Yerushalayim), and Shlomo did not start to build the Beis ha’Mikdash until the fourth year of his reign – altogether, this is 57 years.
(i) Since building of the first Mikdash started 440 years after entering Eretz Yisrael, after deducting 14 years for Gilgal and 57 years for Nov and Giv’on, 369 years remain for Shilo.