Zevachim Daf 118 (זבחים דף קי״ח)
Daf: 118 | Amudim: 118a – 118b | Date: Loading...
📖 Breakdown
Amud Aleph (118a)
Segment 1
TYPE: גמרא (המשך)
Rabbi Yehuda’s interpretation of “fitting in his eyes”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר לָךְ: כִּי כְּתִיב – ״הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו״ הוּא דִּכְתִיב; אֲבָל בְּבָמָה גְּדוֹלָה – אֲפִילּוּ חוֹבוֹת נָמֵי לִיקְרוּב.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara continues explaining Rabbi Yehuda’s position from the previous daf. He interprets “fitting in his own eyes” as referring to private altars — places the individual deems fitting. The restriction to voluntary offerings applies only there. On a great public altar, even individuals could bring compulsory offerings.
Key Terms:
- הַיָּשָׁר בְּעֵינָיו (ha-yashar be-einav) = Fitting in his eyes — referring to private altars
- בָּמָה גְּדוֹלָה (bamah gedolah) = Great public altar — the central sanctuary
Segment 2
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
The word “man” — qualifying non-priests
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֶלָּא הָא כְּתִיב ״אִישׁ״ – לָאו לְמֵימְרָא דְּאִישׁ יְשָׁרוֹת הוּא דְּלִיקְרוּב, הָא חוֹבוֹת לָא לִיקְרוּב? כִּי כְּתִיב ״אִישׁ״ – לְהַכְשִׁיר אֶת הַזָּר.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara challenges: the word “man” (אִישׁ) seems to limit individuals to voluntary offerings! The answer: “man” comes to teach a different law — that non-priests (זָרִים) may perform the sacrificial service on private altars, not just priests.
Key Terms:
- זָר (zar) = Non-priest — an Israelite who is not a Kohen
Segment 3
TYPE: קושיא
Non-priests are already derived from another verse
Hebrew/Aramaic:
זָר – מִ״וְּזָרַק הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הַדָּם עַל מִזְבַּח ה׳״ נָפְקָא!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara objects: we already know non-priests can serve on private altars from a different verse! Leviticus 17:6 specifies “the priest” only for the central altar, implying non-priests may serve on private altars.
Segment 4
TYPE: תירוץ
Excluding the requirement for consecrated firstborn
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מַהוּ דְּתֵימָא לִיבְעֵי קִדּוּשׁ בְּכוֹרוֹת כְּמֵעִיקָּרָא; קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The answer: one might think that while priests aren’t required, perhaps the originally sanctified firstborn are still needed for private altar service (as before the Tabernacle). The verse “every man” teaches that anyone may sacrifice on their own private altar.
Key Terms:
- קִדּוּשׁ בְּכוֹרוֹת (kiddush bechorot) = Consecration of firstborn — before the Tabernacle, firstborn performed sacrificial service
Segment 5
TYPE: בירור
The Rabbis and the first Tanna — what’s the difference?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
חֲכָמִים הַיְינוּ תַּנָּא קַמָּא!
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara notices that the “Rabbis” in the baraita seem to say the same thing as the “first Tanna.” Both hold that individuals could only sacrifice burnt offerings and peace offerings on private altars. What distinguishes them?
Segment 6
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Pappa: The difference is libations in the wilderness
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַב פָּפָּא: קָרְבוּ נְסָכִים בְּמִדְבָּר אִיכָּא בֵּינַיְיהוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Pappa explains the subtle difference: they disagree about whether libations (wine offerings) were offered in the wilderness. The first Tanna says no libations in the wilderness or Gilgal; the Rabbis say libations were offered even then.
Key Terms:
- נְסָכִים (nesakhim) = Libations — wine offerings poured on the altar
Segment 7
TYPE: גמרא
Rabbi Shimon’s source — the Paschal offering in Gilgal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר מָר: רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר וְכוּ׳. מַאי טַעְמֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיַּעֲשׂוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת הַפֶּסַח בַּגִּלְגָּל״.
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now analyzes Rabbi Shimon’s position that even the public only sacrificed Paschal and time-bound offerings in Gilgal. His source is Joshua 5:10, which records the Israelites bringing the Paschal offering in Gilgal.
Segment 8
TYPE: דרשה
Only offerings similar to the Paschal offering
Hebrew/Aramaic:
פְּשִׁיטָא! אֶלָּא הָא קָא מַשְׁמַע לַן – דְּחוֹבוֹת כְּעֵין פֶּסַח הוּא דְּקָרֵב, הָא לָאו כְּעֵין פֶּסַח לָא קָרֵב. וְאִידַּךְ –
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
Of course they brought the Paschal offering — it’s obligatory! The verse’s innovation is that ONLY offerings like the Paschal offering (time-bound) were brought. Offerings without fixed times weren’t sacrificed in Gilgal according to Rabbi Shimon.
Segment 9
TYPE: תירוץ
Rabbi Yochanan’s teaching about the uncircumcised
Hebrew/Aramaic:
מִיבְּעֵי לֵיהּ לְכִדְרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי בַּנָּאָה: עָרֵל – מְקַבֵּל הַזָּאָה.
English Translation:
The Gemara responds: It is necessary for the halakha that was taught by Rabbi Yochanan. As Rabbi Yochanan 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The other Tannaim use this verse differently — to teach Rabbi Yochanan’s principle: an uncircumcised person can receive the purifying sprinkling of the red heifer ashes. In Gilgal, they were sprinkled while still uncircumcised, then circumcised, then brought the Paschal offering.
Key Terms:
- עָרֵל (arel) = Uncircumcised person
- הַזָּאָה (haza’ah) = Sprinkling — the purification ritual using red heifer ashes
Segment 10
TYPE: ברייתא
A Tanna’s statement before Rav Adda bar Ahava
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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?
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A Tanna recites: the only difference between great and small altars is Paschal offerings and time-bound compulsory offerings. Rav Adda challenges: individuals don’t HAVE time-bound compulsory offerings! Why mention this distinction?
Segment 11
TYPE: תירוץ
Interpret as referring to burnt offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֲמַר לֵיהּ: אֶסְמְיַיהּ? אֲמַר לֵיהּ: תִּתַּרְגַּם מַתְנִיתָךְ בְּעוֹלַת חוֹבָה, דְּאִיכָּא עוֹלַת נְדָבָה. דְּאִי חַטַּאת יָחִיד הוּא – חוֹבוֹת דִּקְבִיעַ לֵיהּ זְמַן מִי אִיכָּא?!
English Translation:
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?
קלאוד על הדף:
Should the Tanna delete the phrase? No — interpret it as referring to the olat re’iyah (pilgrimage burnt offering), which individuals bring on festivals. This is time-bound and compulsory, unlike voluntary burnt offerings. Sin offerings have no set time for individuals.
Key Terms:
- עוֹלַת חוֹבָה (olat chovah) = Compulsory burnt offering — e.g., pilgrimage offerings
- עוֹלַת נְדָבָה (olat nedavah) = Voluntary burnt offering
Segment 12
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
Why not meal offerings? No meal offering on bamot
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְלוֹקְמַהּ בְּמִנְחַת חוֹבָה – דְּהָא אִיכָּא חֲבִיתִּין! קָא סָבַר: אֵין מִנְחָה בְּבָמָה.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Why not interpret it as meal offerings (like the High Priest’s daily griddle-cakes)? Because Rav Adda bar Ahava holds that no meal offerings were sacrificed on any bamah — not even the great public altar.
Key Terms:
- חֲבִיתִּין (chavitin) = Griddle-cake offering — the High Priest’s daily meal offering
Segment 13
TYPE: ברייתא
The Tabernacle in Shiloh — house or tent?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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״.
English Translation:
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 Chiyya bar Abba says that Rabbi Yochanan 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).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now addresses the mishna’s teaching about Shiloh. One verse calls it a “house” (בֵּית), another calls it a “tent” (אֹהֶל). How can both be true?
Segment 14
TYPE: תירוץ
Reconciliation: stone below, curtains above
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָא כֵּיצַד? לֹא הָיְתָה שָׁם תִּקְרָה, אֶלָּא אֲבָנִים מִלְּמַטָּן וִירִיעוֹת מִלְּמַעְלָן, וְהִיא הָיְתָה ״מְנוּחָה״.
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
The resolution: Shiloh had stone walls (hence “house”) but no solid roof — only the Tabernacle curtains spread on top (hence “tent”). This hybrid structure represented “menucha” (rest), the intermediate stage before the permanent Temple.
Key Terms:
- מְנוּחָה (menucha) = Rest — the status of Shiloh
- נַחֲלָה (nachalah) = Inheritance — the status of Jerusalem
Segment 15
TYPE: דרשה
Where offerings of lesser sanctity could be eaten
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Oshaya derives from Deuteronomy 12:13: “do not offer… in every place you see” — this implies you may not OFFER everywhere you see Shiloh, but you MAY EAT offerings of lesser sanctity wherever you can see Shiloh.
Segment 16
TYPE: קושיא
Perhaps slaughtering is permitted everywhere?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֵימָא: בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה רוֹאֶה אִי אַתָּה מַעֲלֶה, אֲבָל אַתָּה זוֹבֵחַ בְּכׇל מָקוֹם שֶׁתִּרְאֶה!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Challenge: maybe the verse permits SLAUGHTERING everywhere (not just eating)! “Offering up” (העלאה) refers to burning on the altar — perhaps slaughtering isn’t restricted!
Segment 17
TYPE: תירוץ
“There you shall offer… there you shall do”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי, אָמַר קְרָא: ״שָׁם תַּעֲלֶה… וְשָׁם תַּעֲשֶׂה״.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yannai answers from the next verse: “there you shall offer… and there you shall DO all.” The word “do” includes all sacrificial services — slaughtering, sprinkling, etc. Only consumption is permitted outside.
Segment 18
TYPE: דרשה (פתיחה)
Rabbi Avdimi bar Chasa’s teaching
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי אַבְדִּימִי בַּר חַסָּא אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא:
English Translation:
Rabbi Avdimi bar Chasa said that when describing the boundaries of the portions of Eretz Yisrael of the children of Joseph, wherein Shiloh was located, the verse states:
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Avdimi bar Chasa introduces another source about eating offerings in view of Shiloh, relating to the territory of Joseph where Shiloh was located. The full verse continues on the next amud.
Amud Bet (118b)
Segment 19
TYPE: דרשה
“Taanath Shiloh” — moaning for the consumption of offerings
Hebrew/Aramaic:
״וְלוֹ תַּאֲנַת שִׁילֹה״ – מָקוֹם שֶׁכׇּל הָרוֹאֶה אוֹתוֹ מִתְאַנֵּחַ עָלָיו עַל אֲכִילַת קָדָשִׁים שֶׁלּוֹ.
English Translation:
“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 [mit’ane’ach] 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The place name “Taanath Shiloh” (תַּאֲנַת שִׁילֹה) is interpreted as related to “moaning” (תְּאַנֵּחַ). From this place, one could see Shiloh and moan over the loss of the ability to eat offerings there.
Segment 20
TYPE: אגדתא
Rabbi Abbahu — Joseph’s eye that refused forbidden benefit
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמַר, אָמַר קְרָא: ״בֵּן פֹּרָת יוֹסֵף בֵּן פֹּרָת עֲלֵי עָיִן״ – עַיִן שֶׁלֹּא רָצְתָה לִזּוֹן וְלֵיהָנוֹת מִדָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, תִּזְכֶּה וְתֹאכַל כִּמְלֹא עֵינֶיהָ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Abbahu connects this to Joseph’s merit: his “eye” (עַיִן) refused to benefit from Potiphar’s wife. As reward, offerings could be eaten throughout the extent his descendants could “see” — anywhere with a view of Shiloh in Joseph’s territory.
Segment 21
TYPE: אגדתא
Rabbi Yosei son of Rabbi Chanina — eating “among the haters”
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא אָמַר: ״וּרְצוֹן שֹׁכְנִי סְנֶה״ – עַיִן שֶׁלֹּא רָצְתָה לֵיהָנוֹת מִדָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ שֶׁלּוֹ, תִּזְכֶּה וְתֹאכַל בֵּין הַשְּׂנוּאִין.
English Translation:
Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Chanina, 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).
קלאוד על הדף:
Another interpretation: “seneh” (bush) relates to “senu’in” (haters). Joseph’s descendants could eat offerings even in territories of tribes who “hated” them — as long as they could see Shiloh.
Segment 22
TYPE: הלכה
Definition of “overlooks” — with or without obstruction
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
What does “overlooks” mean precisely? One view: complete, unobstructed view. Rav Pappa disagrees: even partial view suffices. Rabbi Shimon ben Elyakum gives an example: the synagogue of Maon overlooking Tiberias.
Segment 23
TYPE: בעיא
Standing vs. sitting — unresolved questions
Hebrew/Aramaic:
בָּעֵי רַב פָּפָּא: עוֹמֵד וְרוֹאֶה, יוֹשֵׁב וְאֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה – מַאי? בָּעֵי רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה: עוֹמֵד עַל גַּבֵּי הַנַּחַל וְרוֹאֶה, (יוֹשֵׁב) בְּתוֹךְ הַנַּחַל וְאֵינוֹ רוֹאֶה – מַאי? תֵּיקוּ.
English Translation:
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 Yirmeyah 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Two unresolved questions about “overlooking”: (1) Rav Pappa: What if you can see Shiloh standing but not sitting? (2) Rabbi Yirmeyah: What if you can see it from the streambank but not from within the stream? Both remain תֵּיקוּ (unresolved).
Segment 24
TYPE: מימרא
Rav Dimi: The Divine Presence in Benjamin’s portion
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Dimi brings Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s teaching: the Divine Presence (שְׁכִינָה) rested in only three permanent locations — Shiloh, Nov/Gibeon, and the Temple — all in Benjamin’s territory. This is derived from “He covers him all the day.”
Key Terms:
- שְׁכִינָה (Shekhinah) = Divine Presence
- בֵּית עוֹלָמִים (Beit Olamim) = Eternal House — the Temple in Jerusalem
Segment 25
TYPE: קושיא
Rav Yosef’s challenge — Shiloh was in Joseph’s portion
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי אָזֵיל אַבָּיֵי, אַמְרַהּ קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַב יוֹסֵף. אָמַר: חַד בְּרָא הֲוָה לֵיהּ לְכַיְילִיל, וְלָא מִיתְּקַן. וְהָכְתִיב: ״וַיִּטֹּשׁ אֶת מִשְׁכַּן שִׁילוֹ״, וּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּמְאַס בְּאֹהֶל יוֹסֵף וּבְשֵׁבֶט אֶפְרַיִם לֹא בָחָר״!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yosef rebukes Abaye for repeating this teaching, citing verses that call Shiloh “the tent of Joseph” — implying it was in Joseph’s territory, not Benjamin’s!
Segment 26
TYPE: תירוץ
Rav Adda’s resolution — Sanhedrin in Joseph, Shekhinah in Benjamin
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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!
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Adda resolves the difficulty: perhaps the complex straddled two territories — the Shekhinah in Benjamin’s portion, while the Sanhedrin sat in Joseph’s portion. This parallels the Temple, where the Shekhinah was in Benjamin’s portion but the Sanhedrin sat in Judah’s.
Segment 27
TYPE: קושיא ותירוץ
The strip of land connecting the territories
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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 Chama, son of Rabbi Chanina, 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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rav Yosef objects: Benjamin and Joseph’s territories aren’t adjacent! The answer: a strip of land connected them, just as a strip from Judah entered Benjamin’s portion where the altar stood. Benjamin longed to “swallow” this strip into his territory.
Key Terms:
- רְצוּעָה (retzu’ah) = Strip — a protrusion of territory
Segment 28
TYPE: סיום
A strip from Joseph to Benjamin at Shiloh
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָכָא נָמֵי – רְצוּעָה הָיְתָה יוֹצֵאת מֵחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל יוֹסֵף, לְחֶלְקוֹ שֶׁל בִּנְיָמִין. וְהַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב: ״תַּאֲנַת שִׁילֹה״.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Similarly at Shiloh: a strip extended from Joseph into Benjamin, and the Tabernacle stood on it. “Taanath Shiloh” is now interpreted as Benjamin “moaning” (תְּאַנֵּחַ) that the Tabernacle wasn’t entirely in his territory.
Segment 29
TYPE: מחלוקת תנאים
Tannaitic dispute about Moses’ blessing to Benjamin
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כְּתַנָּאֵי: ״חֹפֵף עָלָיו״ – זֶה מִקְדָּשׁ רִאשׁוֹן, ״כׇּל הַיּוֹם״ – זֶה מִקְדָּשׁ שֵׁנִי, ״וּבֵין כְּתֵפָיו שָׁכֵן״ – אֵלּוּ יְמוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A Tannaitic dispute parallels the Amoraic one. One view interprets “He covers him” as the First Temple, “all the day” as the Second Temple, and “between his shoulders” as the Messianic era. This excludes Shiloh from Benjamin’s territory.
Segment 30
TYPE: מחלוקת תנאים (המשך)
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s interpretation
Hebrew/Aramaic:
רַבִּי אוֹמֵר: ״חוֹפֵף עָלָיו״ – זֶה הָעוֹלָם הַזֶּה, ״כׇּל הַיּוֹם״ – אֵלּוּ יְמוֹת הַמָּשִׁיחַ, ״וּבֵין כְּתֵפָיו שָׁכֵן״ – זֶה הָעוֹלָם הַבָּא.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interprets differently: “He covers him” = this world (including Shiloh), “all the day” = Messianic era, “between his shoulders” = World-to-Come. According to Rabbi, the Shekhinah was ALWAYS in Benjamin’s portion, including Shiloh.
Segment 31
TYPE: ברייתא
The duration of each period — wilderness, Gilgal, Shiloh, Nov/Gibeon
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
A baraita calculates: Wilderness = 39 years; Gilgal = 14 years (7 conquest + 7 division); Nov/Gibeon = 57 years. Since the Temple was built 480 years after the Exodus, Shiloh stood for 369 years (480 - 39 - 14 - 57 - 1 = 369).
Segment 32
TYPE: בירור
How do we know the wilderness was 39 years?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
יְמֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבַּמִּדְבָּר – אַרְבָּעִים חָסֵר אַחַת. מְנָלַן? דְּאָמַר מָר: שָׁנָה רִאשׁוֹנָה – עָשָׂה מֹשֶׁה אֶת הַמִּשְׁכָּן, שְׁנִיָּה – הוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן וְשָׁלַח מֹשֶׁה מְרַגְּלִים.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara derives: Year 1 — Moses built the Tabernacle; Year 2 — Tabernacle erected and spies sent. The 40-year wandering began in year 2, so the Tabernacle in the wilderness stood for 39 years.
Segment 33
TYPE: בירור
Caleb’s age proves the 14 years in Gilgal
Hebrew/Aramaic:
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״.
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
Caleb states he was 40 when sent as a spy (year 2) and 85 at the land’s division — 45 years later. Subtracting 38 years of wandering leaves 7 years of conquest. The division took another 7 years.
Segment 34
TYPE: חישוב
Calculating the seven years of conquest
Hebrew/Aramaic:
כִּי עַבְרֵיהּ לְיַרְדֵּן בַּר כַּמָּה הָוֵי – בַּר שִׁבְעִין וְתַמְנֵי, וְקָאָמַר: ״בֶּן חָמֵשׁ וּשְׁמוֹנִים שָׁנָה״; הֲרֵי שֶׁבַע שֶׁכִּבְּשׁוּ.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
At the Jordan crossing, Caleb was 78 (40 + 38 years of wandering). At the division, he was 85 — a difference of 7 years for conquest.
Segment 35
TYPE: בירור
How do we know the division took 7 years?
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְשֶׁבַע שֶׁחִלְּקוּ מְנָלַן? אִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִדְּשֶׁבַע שֶׁכִּבְּשׁוּ, שֶׁבַע נָמֵי שֶׁחִלְּקוּ;
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
One answer: symmetry — if conquest took 7 years, division also took 7 years.
Segment 36
TYPE: בירור (המשך)
Alternative proof from Ezekiel
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְאִיבָּעֵית אֵימָא: מִדְּלָא מַשְׁכַּחַתְּ לַהּ בְּאַרְבַּע עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה ״אַחַר אֲשֶׁר הֻכְּתָה הָעִיר״.
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
Alternative proof: Ezekiel 40:1 mentions “the fourteenth year after the city was struck,” which must align with a Jubilee cycle. This only works if conquest + division = 14 years, after which Sabbatical/Jubilee counting began.
Segment 37
TYPE: בירור
Nov and Gibeon — 57 years
Hebrew/Aramaic:
אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד שֶׁבְּנוֹב וְגִבְעוֹן – חֲמִשִּׁים וָשֶׁבַע. מְנָא לַן? דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי כְּהַזְכִּירוֹ אֶת אֲרוֹן הָאֱלֹהִים״;
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
The Gemara now derives the 57 years of Nov and Gibeon, starting from Eli’s death when Shiloh was destroyed.
Segment 38
TYPE: ברייתא
The sequence: Eli dies → Nov; Samuel dies → Gibeon
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וְתָנָא: כְּשֶׁמֵּת עֵלִי הַכֹּהֵן – חָרְבָה שִׁילֹה, וּבָאוּ לְנוֹב; כְּשֶׁמֵּת שְׁמוּאֵל הָרָמָתִי – חָרְבָה נוֹב, וּבָאוּ לְגִבְעוֹן.
English Translation:
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).
קלאוד על הדף:
The sequence: When Eli died, Shiloh was destroyed and they moved to Nov. When Samuel died, Saul destroyed Nov and they moved to Gibeon. From Gibeon, they eventually came to the permanent Temple.
Segment 39
TYPE: חישוב
The 20 years from the Ark’s captivity
Hebrew/Aramaic:
וּכְתִיב: ״וַיְהִי מִיּוֹם שֶׁבֶת הָאָרוֹן בְּקִרְיַת יְעָרִים, וַיִּרְבּוּ הַיָּמִים וַיִּהְיוּ עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, וַיִּנָּהוּ כׇּל בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחֲרֵי ה׳״;
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
I Samuel 7:2 states the Ark was in Kiriath Jearim for 20 years. The Gemara will now calculate how this relates to the periods of Nov and Gibeon.
Segment 40
TYPE: חישוב (סיום)
Breaking down the 20 years
Hebrew/Aramaic:
הָנֵי עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה – עֶשֶׂר שָׁנָה שֶׁמָּלַךְ שְׁמוּאֵל בְּעַצְמוֹ, וְשָׁנָה שֶׁמָּלַךְ שְׁמוּאֵל וְשָׁאוּל, וּשְׁתַּיִם שֶׁמָּלַךְ שָׁאוּל, וְשֶׁבַע דְּדָוִד –
English Translation:
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.
קלאוד על הדף:
The 20 years break down as: Samuel alone = 10 years; Samuel + Saul = 1 year; Saul alone = 2 years; David in Hebron = 7 years. Total = 20 years from Shiloh’s destruction to David bringing the Ark to Jerusalem.