Product Code Database
The first tithe () is a positive Mitzvah in the Torah requiring the giving of one tenth of agricultural produce to charity, after the giving of the standard terumah, to the Levite (or Kohen). This tithe is required to be free of both monetary and servicial compensation.
Originally, during the First Temple period, the tithe was given to the Levite. Approximately at the beginning of the Second Temple construction, Ezra and his beth din implemented its giving to the kohanim.The Talmud Adin Steinsaltz 1992 "Yet if a priest has first tithe in his possession, he need not give it to a Levite. Ezra penalized the Levites of his generation because they did not return to Eretz Israel with him, and he decreed that first tithe should be given to ..." Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian perspectives p329 James M. Scott - 2001 "One says that the Levites were punished because they did not come up to the Land of Israel during Ezra's days. The other says that the first tithe was given to the priests, so that they would have food when they were in a state of ..." However, this rule was nullified with the destruction of the Second Temple, and since then the tithe has been given to Levites once again.
Traditionally tithes were calculated for the produce of each whole year, however Literature indicates that there was a debate between Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel as to when this tithing year should begin and end. Tithing years had different starts and ends depending on the particular crop in question; land crops began their tithe year on the first of Tishrei (Rosh Hashanah); according to Eleazar ben Shammua and Simeon bar Yohai the first of Tishri was also the start of the tithe year for cattle, but according to Rabbi Meir it was the first of Elul that held this honour. The followers of Hillel argued that the tithe year for fruit from trees began on the fifteenth of Shevat, but the followers of Shammai, his rival, argued that it began on the first of Shevat; the view of Hillel's followers eventually became the majority view and the new year for trees – Tu Bishvat – is now held at the date which they considered appropriate.
Contemporary practice, after designating and setting aside terumah, is to make a formal declaration that the portion set aside is ma'aser rishon. Afterwards, terumat ma'aser is designated and set aside. Finally, depending on the year, ma'aser sheni or ma'sar ani are designated and tithed in the appropriate manner.
While tithes from produce may not be given to a Kohen or Levite, they may be fed to their animals.
Today, Ma'aser is also referred to the minhag of giving 10% of ones earnings to Tzedakah.
Although such scholars speculate that the deuteronomist is a later author than the priestly source, scholars believe that much of the Deuteronomic Code was a reaction against the regulations introduced by the Priestly Code,Richard Elliott Friedman, Who wrote the Bible? and that here it reflects the earlier situation. In the Book of Ezekiel, which some scholars believe predates the Priestly Code, meaning that according to their view the Priestly Code must post-date the Babylonian Exile, there is no mention whatever of a tithe appointed for the Levites, and in the Deuteronomic Code, though Levites have a share of the ma'aser sheni, their share is seemingly voluntary, and it can alternatively be given to strangers, widows, and/or paternal orphans; in the Priestly Code, however, donation of the tithe to the Levites is compulsory. Of course, if the ma'aser sheni tithe, also mentioned in Leviticus, were originally different from ma'aser rishon, there is a simpler explanation for the variation.
The clear differentiation between the (the priests) and the other Levites, in the regulations given by the Priestly Code for the ma'aser rishon, is a distinction scholars attribute to the pro-Aaronid political bias of the priestly source; according to the Biblical revisionists' worldview, all Levites can be legitimate priests, which is likely to be why the Deuteronomist does not mention a tithe of the tithe (the portion of the tithe which is given to the priests rather than other Levites), since it would be somewhat meaningless. On the other hand, it raises a question about the distinction between ma'aser and terumah. In the Priestly Code it is stated that the ma'aser rishon existed as the source of sustenance for the Levites, since they had no territory, and hence nowhere to keep livestock or perform agriculture (Numbers ). but this seemingly neglects the existence of a number of scattered Levite cities; Peake's Commentary on the Bible scholars believe that the tithe (i.e. the tithe of which the ma'sar ani and ma'aser rishon are conflicting versions) actually arose as a generic heave offering, given to priests at the sanctuaries for their sustenance, and only became distinct when the Aaronids began to position themselves as the only Levites that could be legitimate priests. This view neglects the fact that cities are not agricultural centers and the tithing laws focus on agricultural produce. According to a holistic view of the Torah, the Levites had no portion in the fields. The Book of Amos, cited by some scholars for support of their proposition, admonishes the Israelites about their rebellious offerings to idols by mentioning practices that would be acceptable to idolatry but not Torah Law.Amos Thus, Amos sarcastically remarks that they bring "for three days your tithes", as well as saying that they should offer their todah offerings of leaven (which was forbidden, see Lev. ). Amos . The text itself does not bear out such scholars identification between ma'aser rishon and ma'sar ani. First, the text clearly does not state "three years," it states "three days". Second, the text expressly proposes deviant practices as forms of rebellion. Finally, the owner of the produce was not required to bring ma'sar ani to the Temple; but, rather to the poor, no matter where there were. Likewise, this confused story does not clearly demonstrate how ma'aser sheni developed into a system where the owner separated the tithe for himself and had nothing to do with kings or priests.
|
|
