1)

(a)We already cited the Kashya that the Chachamim of Rebbi Yehudah ('Kol she'ha'Tzibur Makrivin be'Ohel Mo'ed ... , ve'Ka'an ve'Ka'an Lo Karvu le'Yachid Ela ... ') appears to duplicate the Tana Kama. Rav Papa answers that - they argue over Nesachim, which they brought in the desert according to the Chachamim, but not according to the Tana Kama.

(b)We extrapolate from the Chachamim's words Kol she'ha'Tzibur Makrivin be'Ohel Mo'ed she'ba'Midbar Makrivin be'Gilgal, that they are coming to argue with the Tana Kama, and not with Rebbi Yshudah - since Rebbi Yehudah also agrees with them be'Tzibur, and all they needed to have said was Ka'an ve'Ka'an Lo Karvu *le'Yachid* Ela Olah u'Shalamim, since that is their chief bone of contention.

(c)And we know that they are the ones who add Nesachim to the list and not the Tana Kama - due to the principle Tana Basra Litefuyei (the last Tana always comes to add).

(d)The Tana Kama now learns from the Pasuk in Sh'lach l'cha (in connection with the Nesachim) "ki Savo'u el Eretz Moshvoseichem" that - they did not bring Nesachim until after they had captured and settled the land (which was synonymous with the construction of Mishkan Shiloh),

(e)The Chachamim learn from there that - even Bamos Ketanos, (which then became permitted), required Nesachim too.

2)

(a)The Pasuk in Yehoshua writes "Vaya'asu B'nei Yisrael es ha'Pesach ba'Gilgal", which otherwise appears redundant, and from which Rebbi Shimon extrapolates that - only Chovos that (like Pesach) are time-related are permitted on a Bamah.

(b)The Chachamim (who permit on a Bamah Gedolah even Chovos that are not time-related) learn from the Pasuk in Yehoshua, the Din of Rebbi Yochanan in the name of Rebbi Ban'ah that - an Areil may be sprinkled with the Mei Parah.

(c)Even though they crossed the Yarden on the tenth of Nisan, they must have been Areilim when they were sprinkled with the Mei Parah (which was necessary for them to be able to eat the Korban Pesach) - because seeing as they did not perform the Milah until the eleventh, had they waited until after the Milah for the first Haza'ah, it would have taken place on the eleventh, and the second Haza'ah, only on the fifteenth (too late to enable them to bring the Korban Pesach).

(d)They did not perform the B'ris Milah on the tenth, immediately after crossing the Yarden - because they were tired from traveling.

(e)Most of them must have been Tamei anyway - because the previous generation (their fathers) had been dying throughout the forty years in the desert.

3)

(a)A Beraisa expert quoted a Beraisa in front of Rav Ada bar Ahavah stating that there are only two differences between a Bamah Ketanah and a Bamah Gedolah - Pesachim and Chovos that have a fixed time (both of which are brought on a Bamah Gedolah but not on a Bamah Ketanah).

(b)Rav Ada bar Ahavah told him to restrict the latter to Olos Chovah (but not to Chata'os) - because Chata'os do not have an equivalent by Nedarim and Nedavos of a Yachid.

(c)The sort of ...

1. ... Olos the Tana is referring to are - Temidin and Musafin ...

2. ... Chata'os that we would otherwise have thought the Tana is referring to are - Se'irei ha'Regalim (but which in fact, they did not bring, even on the Bamah Gedolah).

(d)The Beraisa must be speaking in a case which has an equivalent on a Bamah Ketanah - because the Tana could have just said Chovos ha'Kavu'a lahem Z'man (which would have incorporated Pesachim). And he added Pesachim in order to differentiate between Pesachim, which are brought even though they have no equivalent by Korb'nos Nedavah of a Yachid, and other Korb'nos Tzibur, which do.

4)

(a)We ask why Rav Ada bar Ahavah did not establish the Beraisa by a Minchas Chavitin - the obligatory daily Minchah of the Kohen Gadol.

(b)And we answer that - Rav Ada bar Ahavah holds Ein Minchah be'Bamah.

(c)Neither does he establish the Beraisa by Zivchei Shalmei Tzibur - because, seeing as they are Kodshei Kodshim, they have no equivalent by Nedarim and Nedavos of a Yachid (since Shalmei Yachid are Kodshim Kalim).

5)

(a)The Pasuk in Shmuel writes (in connection with Chanah and Shmuel) "Vatevi'ehu Beis Hash-m Shiloh", whereas the Pasuk in Tehilim writes "Va'yitosh Mishkan Shiloh, Ohel ... " - an apparent discrepancy, since the first Pasuk refers to the Mishkan as a house, and the second, as a tent.

(b)Rebbi Chiya bar Aba Amar Rebbi Yochanan therefore cites these Pesukim as the source of our Mishnah, which describes Shiloh as a building with a curtain as a roof.

6)

(a)Rebbi Oshaya learns from the Pasuk in Re'ei (in connection with Shiloh) ...

1. ... "Hishamer l'cha Pen Ta'aleh Olosecha be'Chol Makom asher Tir'eh ..." that - although one is not allowed to sacrifice wherever one can see (from Shiloh), one is allowed to eat Kodshim Kalim at that distance.

2. ... "ve'Sham Ta'aseh" that - the Din regarding Shechting Kodshim is the same as sacrificing them. Otherwise, we would have explained the previous Pasuk with regard to Sh'chitas Kodshim.

(b)Rebbi ...

1. ... Avdimi bar Chama learns this from the Pasuk in Yehoshua "Mizrachah Ta'anas Shiloh" that - there will come a time when they will mourn (from the Lashon of "Ta'aniyah va'Aniyah") from there, over the time when they were able to eat Kodshim as far as they could see.

2. ... Avahu learns it from the Pasuk in Vay'chi "ben Poras Yosef, ben Poras alei Ayin" - that as a reward for controlling his eyes from gazing at what not his (the wife of Potifera), Shiloh was built in Yosef's portion, where they were permitted to eat Kodshim as far as the eye could see.

3. ... Yossi b'Rebbi Chanina learns it from the Pasuk in ve'Zos-ha'Berachah "u'Retzon Shochni S'neh" that - eventually, because Yosef's eye did not benefit from what did not belong to it, he will eat the Kodshim that is brought in his portion (beyond his borders) in the territory of the tribes who had previously hated (S'neh = Senu'in) him.

7)

(a)The Beraisa qualifies the Din of eating Kodshim Kalim within eyesight of Shiloh - by restricting it to where the view is total, with nothing obstructing it.

(b)When Rebbi Shimon ben Elyakim asked Rebbi Elazar to show him an example of such a location - he mentioned the Shul of Ma'on.

(c)Rav Papa, on the other hand - learned that it is not necessary to see the whole of Shiloh from that location, and that part of it would suffice.

(d)Rav Papa asked what the Din will be regarding a location from which one could see Shiloh from a standing position, but not sitting, Rebbi Yirmiyah added the She'eilah as to what the Din will be - if one can see Shiloh from the ground overlooking a ravine, but not from the ravine itself.

(e)The outcome of these She'eilos is - 'Teiku'.

8)

(a)When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael, he said - that the Shechinah rested in three places, in Nov and Giv'on (which he considered one), Shiloh and Yerushalayim.

(b)And based on the Pasuk in ve'Zos ha'Berachah "Chofef Alav Kol ha'Yom" ('He hovers over it all day'), he added - that all the hoverings of the Shechinah were in the territory of Binyamin.

(c)When Abaye repeated Rav Dimi's statement to Rav Yosef, the latter objected - on the basis of the Pesukim in Tehilim, which refer to Mishkan Shiloh as being located in the territory of Yosef.

(d)When he lamented that Kaylil had only one son who couldn't get it right - he was referring to Abaye, whose father was called Kaylil.

9)

(a)Rav Ada bar Masna was surprised at Rav Yosef's objection. He reconcile the Pesukim - by differentiating between the Shechinah, which rested in Binyamin's territory, and the Sanhedrin (which was based in a section of the Mishkan), which sat in the territory of Yosef ...

(b)... just like it was, in the Beis-Hamikdash, only there the Sanhedrin sat in (the Lishkas ha'Gazis, which was) the territory of Yehudah.

(c)He answered the Kashya, that Shiloh was not on the border between Yosef and Binyamin, by citing Rebbi Chama b'Rebbi Chanina, who said - that the portion of Yehudah upon which most of the Mizbe'ach (in the Beis-Hamikdash) was built, was built on a strip of land that protruded from Yehudah's territory into Binyamin's, over which Binyamin was most perturbed.

(d)Similarly, he was most perturbed over this strip of land from Yosef's territory - based on the Pasuk in Yehoshu'a (which we discussed on the previous Amud) "Ta'anas Shiloh" (from the Lashon 'Mis'onen' [mourning]).

10)

(a)Rav Dimi's statement is in fact, subject to a Machlokes Tana'im. The Tana Kama of the Beraisa explains "Chofef Alav" - 'Zeh 'Mikdash Rishon', "Kol ha'Yom", 'Zeh Mikdash Sheini', "u'Bein Keseifav Shachein", 'Eilu Y'mos ha'Mashi'ach', whilst Rebbi interprets the Pasuk "Chofef Alav" - 'Zeh Olam ha'Zeh' (incorporating all three locations of Rav Dimi), "Kol ha'Yom", 'Zeh Ye'mos ha'Mashi'ach', "u'Bein Keseifav Shachein", 'Zeh ha'Olam ha'Ba'.

(b)Another Beraisa discusses the length of the various eras currently under discussion. The era of the Mishkan in the desert lasted thirty-nine years, that of the Bamah in Gilgal, fourteen (as we have already learned), and the combined eras of Nov and Giv'on - fifty-seven years.

11)

(a)We learn the fourteen years of Gilgal (which is synonymous with the fourteen years that Yisrael captured and distributed the land) from the fact that Kalev was forty at the time of the Spies, and eighty-five at the beginning of the distribution period, when he came to claim Chevron (as he had been promised). Bearing in mind that he must have been seventy-eight when they entered Eretz Yisrael (forty plus thirty-eight), that leaves seven years until he turned eighty-five (the years during which they captured the land).

(b)Initially, we learn the seven years of distribution - from the assumption that since it took seven years to capture, it probably took seven years to distribute (seeing as the Pasuk gives no other clear indication of how long it took).

(c)Alternatively, we learn it from the Pasuk in Yechezkel, which gives fourteen years between the Churban Beis-Hamikdash and the next Yovel year. We extrapolate that the Pasuk is referring to the Yovel year from the fact that it speaks about Rosh Hashanah and then refers to the same day as the tenth of the month - and the only year that begins (in certain respects) on Yom Kipur, is the Yovel.

12)

(a)The Beis-Hamikdash was ...

1. ... built - four hundred and forty years after they arrived in Eretz Yisrael.

2. ... destroyed - four hundred and ten years later.

(b)Eight hundred and fifty years comprise exactly seventeen Yovlos. So for the Churban to take place fourteen years before the Yovel, they must have begun counting the Yovlos (which is synonymous with the end of the distribution) fourteen years after entering the land. The conquest, as we explained earlier, lasted seven years, leaving seven years for the distribution.

(c)The downfall of ...

1. ... Shiloh (and the entry of the era of Nov) was - heralded by the death of Eli ha'Kohen.

2. ... Nov (and the entry of the era of Giv'on) was - heralded by the death of Shmuel ha'Navi.

(d)The Aron stood for twenty years in Kiryas Ye'arim - where it was taken four months after the P'lishtim captured it (by the men of Beis Shemesh, where the P'lishtim returned it).

13)

(a)If the first eleven of the ensuing twenty years comprised the ten years that Shmuel ruled alone, and the year that he shared with Shaul, the remaining nine comprised - the two years of Shaul's reign and the seven years that David ruled in Chevron.

(b)The remaining thirty-seven years of 'Giv'on' comprised - the thirty-three years that David ruled over the whole of Yisrael and the four years of his son Shlomoh's reign until he built the Beis-Hamikdash.

(c)Having accounted for the fourteen years of Gilgal and the fifty seven years of Nov and Giv'on (of the four hundred and forty years until the Beis-Hamikdash was built) - that leaves three hundred and sixty nine years for the era of Shiloh.