for it is written, And the days that David reigned over Israel were forty years: seven years reigned he in Hebron, [and thirty and three years reigned he in Jerusalem]. Now of Solomon it is written, And he began to build . . . in the fourth year of his reign. Thus three hundred and seventy less one was left for Shiloh. WHEN THEY CAME TO NOB AND GIBEON etc. How do we know it? — Because our Rabbis taught: For ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, [which the Lord your God giveth thee]: ‘to the rest’ alludes to Shiloh, ‘inheritance’ alludes to Jerusalem. Why does Scripture separate them? In order to grant permission between one and the other. Resh Lakish said to R. Johanan: If so, let [the Mishnah] teach second tithe too? — As for tithe, he replied, the implication of ‘there’ is derived from ‘there’ [written] in connection with the Ark: since there was no Ark [at Nob and Gibeon], there was no tithe either. If so, the Passover-offering and [other] sacrifices are the same, for we learn the meaning of ‘there’ [in their case] from ‘there’ [written] in connection with the Ark: since there was no Ark, these too were not [offered]? — Who has told you [this]? he replied: R. Simeon, who maintained that even the community could only offer Passover-offerings and obligatory offerings which have a fixed time, but obligatory offerings for which there was no fixed time might not be offered at either place. Now, animal tithe is an obligatory offering without a fixed time, and corn tithe is assimilated to animal tithe. Hence it follows that in R. Judah's view [second tithe] is offered? — Yes. For surely R. Adda b. Mattenah said: Second tithe and animal tithe were eaten in Nob and Gibeon [only], in R. Judah's opinion. Yet surely a birah [Divine residence] was required? — Did not R. Joseph recite: There were three Divine residences, [viz.,] at Shiloh, [at] Nob and Gibeon, and [at] the Eternal House? He [R. Joseph] recited it, and he explained it: [These were] in respect of second tithe, and in accordance with R. Judah. WHEN THEY CAME TO JERUSALEM etc. Our Rabbis taught: For ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance: ‘rest’ alludes to Shiloh; ‘inheritance’, to Jerusalem. And thus it says, My inheritance is become unto Me as a lion in the forest; and it says, Is My inheritance unto Me as a speckled bird of prey? this is R. Judah's opinion. R. Simeon said: ‘Rest’ alludes to Jerusalem; ‘inheritance’, to Shiloh, as it is said, This is My resting-place for ever; here will I dwell, for I have desired it; and it says, For the Lord hath chosen Zion; He hath desired it for His habitation. On the view that ‘rest’ alludes to Shiloh, it is well: hence it is written, ‘to the rest and to the inheritance’. But on the view that ‘rest’ alludes to Jerusalem while ‘inheritance’ alludes to Shiloh, [Moses] should say, ‘to the inheritance and to the rest’? — This is what he said: Not only have ye not reached the ‘rest’ [Jerusalem]; you have not even reached the ‘inheritance’ [Shiloh]. The school of R. Ishmael taught: Both [words] allude to Shiloh; R. Simeon b. Yohai said: Both allude to Jerusalem. It is well on the view that ‘rest’ alludes toᵃᵇᶜᵈᵉᶠᵍʰⁱʲᵏˡᵐⁿᵒᵖᵠʳˢᵗᵘ