신명기 12:9의 미드라쉬

If Israel had been meritorious, then in eleven days they would have entered Eretz Yisrael, but because they corrupted their ways, the L-rd stretched it into forty years, as it is written (Bamidbar 14:34) "According to the number of days that you spied out the land, forty days — a day for a year, a day for a year — shall you bear your sins." R. Yehudah says: Now did it take them eleven days? Did it not take them only three days? As it is written (Ibid. 10:33) "And they traveled from the mountain of the L-rd a journey of three days." (The intent is that) in three days Israel traveled an eleven-day distance. If Israel had been meritorious, they would have entered Eretz Yisrael in three days. As it is written (Ibid.) "And the ark of the covenant of the L-rd preceded them, a distance of three days to look out a resting place for them," "a resting place" being Eretz Yisrael, as it is written (Devarim 12:9) "For you will not yet have come to the rest and to the inheritance that the L-rd your G-d gives you." They said to him: Was it an eleven-day distance? Was it not a forty-day distance, as it is written of Eliyahu (I Kings 19:8) "And he arose and ate and drank, and he walked on the strength of that meal for forty days and forty nights (until the mountain of G-d, Chorev")? … R. B'na'ah says: If Israel had been meritorious, they would have entered Eretz Yisrael in one day, as it is written (Shemoth 13:4-5) "This day you go out, in the month of spring," immediately (followed by) "And it shall be, when the L-rd brings you to the land of Canaan." Abba Yossi b. Chanan says in the name of Cohein Bardela: If Israel had been meritorious, as soon as their horses' hooves ascended from the sea, they would have entered Eretz Yisrael, as it is written (Devarim 1:21) "Go up (from the sea) and possess (the land) as the L-rd, the G-d of your fathers has spoken to you."

Our Rabbis were taught concerning the passage (Deut. 12, 9) For ye are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which the Lord your God giveth thee; i.e., to the rest, refers to Shiloh; and to the inheritance, refers to Jerusalem, and so says the verse (Jer. 12, 8) My heritage has become unto Me as a lion in the forest, and again the passage says (Ib.) Is My heritage unto Me as a speckled bird of prey? This is the opinion of R. Juda. R. Simon says: "Rest refers to Jerusalem and heritage refers to Shiloh, and so the verse reads (Ps. 132, 14) This is My resting place forever, and again it reads, For the Lord hath chosen Zion; He hath desired it for His habitation." It is easily understood according to the one who explains that rest refers to Shiloh that the verse says [first] to the rest and then to the heritage, but the one who explains that rest refers to Jerusalem and heritage refers to Shiloh, this reversed form should have been used in the passage, first heritage and then rest? Moses said thus [unto Israel]: "Not only are ye not as yet come unto rest [Jerusalem] but even unto the heritage [Shiloh] are ye not as yet come."

(Devarim 12:9) "For you have not as yet come": to be permitted (again to sacrifice) on a bamah.

... “For you have not yet come…” (Devarim 12:9) this was said in order to permit private altars between the ‘resting place’ and the ‘inheritance’, because the resting place refers to Shiloh and the inheritance is Jerusalem. Why did the verse mention them separately? To permit private altars between the two. Inheritance refers to Jerusalem, as its says “My inheritance was to Me like a lion in the forest…” (Yirmiyahu 12:8) and it says “Is My inheritance to Me a speckled bird of prey?” (Yirmiyahu 12:9) These are the words of R’ Yehudah. R’ Shimon says the resting place is Jerusalem and the inheritance is Shiloh, as it says “This is My resting place forever; here I shall dwell for I desired it,” (Tehillim132:14) and it says “For the Lord has chosen Zion; He desired it for His habitation.” (Tehillim 132:13) The opinion that the resting place is Shiloh makes sense, that is why the verse says ‘to the resting place and to the inheritance.’ But according to the opinion that says that the inheritance is Shiloh and the resting place Jerusalem, it should have said ‘to the inheritance and to the resting place’! That is a difficulty. The opinion that both refer to Shiloh makes sense, because ‘the resting place’ where they ceased from the conquest and ‘the inheritance’ is where they divided tribal portions, as it is written “And Yehoshua cast lots at Shiloh before the Lord; and there Yehoshua divided the land…” (Yehoshua 18:10) But according to the opinion that both refer to Jerusalem ‘the inheritance’ is the eternal inheritance, but ‘the resting place’…? What does the resting refer to? The resting of the ark, as it is written “And now, arise, O Lord God to Your resting place, You and the Ark of Your might…” (Divre HaYamim II 6:41) The opinion that both refer to Jerusalem makes sense, because while the Tabernacle was at Shiloh private altars were permitted, as it is written “And Manoah took the kid goat and the meal-offering, and offered it upon the rock to the Lord…” (Shoftim 13:19) But the according to the opinion that both refer to Shiloh, then private altars were forbidden while the Tabernacle was there and how do we understand Manoah’s act? It was a temporary injunction. The House of R’ Yishmael taught like the opinion of R’ Shimon bar Yochai that both refer to Jerusalem, and your sign is: one man pulled many to him…