In chapter 12 of the Book of Deuteronomy, Moses reminds the Israelites that when they enter the land of Israel they should take care to follow the laws that God has laid out for them. In addition, Moses instructs the Israelites: “You shall not act at all as we now act here, each of us as we please, because you have not yet come to the allotted haven (el ha’menuchah v’el ha’nachalah) that your God is giving you.” (Deuteronomy 12:9) In other words, in the desert, although there was a tabernacle, there was also freedom for the Israelites to make individual offerings to God. In the land of Israel, however, things will change and a more formal worship system will be implemented.
On today’s daf, the Gemara takes a closer look at the phrase translated above as “allotted haven” and reads it a bit more literally: “for you have not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance.” This reading allows for a flurry of creative interpretations of the verse, starting with this:
“The rest” is Shiloh and “the inheritance” is Jerusalem. One may ask: Why does the verse divide them? It is in order to give permission to sacrifice on private altars during the period between this one and that one.
Rather than being a general description of how things are meant to be in the land of Israel, this reading suggests the verse is now a more nuanced description of three stages of biblical history:
When the tabernacle arrives at Shiloh (“the rest” — implying a temporary home), the laws of the Torah restricting private altars will apply and worship will be centralized in Shiloh. After Shiloh was destroyed, there was a period in which private altars were again permitted. This continued until the time when Jerusalem became the religious center and the sacrificial system was again centralized, and individual altars were once again forbidden.
The identification of Shiloh as a temporary home and Jerusalem as a more permanent one is in line with the biblical narrative, but it is not the only way to read the verse. Later on the daf, Rabbi Shimon suggests the reverse:
With regard to “the rest,” this is a reference to Jerusalem. And with regard to “the inheritance,” this is a reference to Shiloh.
Rabbi Shimon’s support comes from Psalm 132, which makes reference to Jerusalem as God’s resting place. This leaves “inheritance” as a reference to Shiloh. The implication of the interpretation, however, is the same: When these cities were acting as religious centers, no personal altars were permitted. In the period between, when neither was a religious center, personal altars were permitted.
We’re not done. The Gemara presents two additional interpretations of the verse:
With regard to the words “rest” and “inheritance” in the aforementioned verse, the school of Rabbi Yishmael taught that both terms are a reference to Shiloh. Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai says: Both are a reference to Jerusalem.
Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai and the school of Rabbi Yishmael both suggest that Deuteronomy 12:9 is talking about one city of worship, though they disagree which. They both have good textual support, as well. The school of Rabbi Yishmael sees Shiloh as both “the rest” and “the inheritance” because during the period when Shiloh was central, the Israelites rested from the conquest of the land and because they divided the portions of land (i.e. the inheritance) among the tribes there (see Joshua 18:10). Rabbi Shimon ben Yohai, however, holds that Jerusalem is “the inheritance,” since it was given an eternal status, and also “the rest,” as it was the final resting place of the Ark of the Covenant.
These four readings are not just imaginative interpretations of the biblical verse, but have significant implications for the rules about sacrifice after the conquest of the land. However, they all agree that after the Israelites entered the land, the rules that functioned in the desert continued (that is, personal altars were permitted) until a central holy site was established, either at Shiloh or Jerusalem — depending on which perspective you adopt.
The four interpretations of Deuteronomy 12:9 found on today’s daf each attempt to establish a clear timeline for the transition from personal altars to centralized worship. Having clear historical markers for the transition from one set of rules to another resonates with the rabbis’ desire for understanding ritual requirements. The biblical record, however, is much messier, incorporating the perspectives of kings, priests, and prophets who did not always agree about when and where offerings should be made. Sometimes, we find biblical characters making sacrifices outside a centralized shrine. If this piques your interest, and you’re feeling nostalgic that we are just one page from the end of Tractate Zevachim, check out the historical narratives of the books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings — they shine a very different light on the sacrificial system than the rabbis of the Talmud.
Read all of Zevachim 119 on Sefaria.
This piece originally appeared in a My Jewish Learning Daf Yomi email newsletter sent on January 11, 2026. If you are interested in receiving the newsletter, sign up here.
