II. The Emoluments

II. THE EMOLUMENTS
The emoluments which the priests received from the people for their subsistence were, down to the time of the exile, of a very modest and rather precarious kind. But subsequent to this latter period they were augmented almost beyond measure. This fact enables us to see, in a peculiarly striking manner, what a vast increase of power and influence the priesthood had acquired through the new order of things that was introduced subsequent to the exile.[920] And this increase of power was, no doubt, the cause of the loftier pretensions of the order, just as, on the other hand, it was in turn also the effect of the augmenting of the temporalities. Nor was it ever in the power of the scribes, who came after and who in themselves were not always favourably disposed toward the priests, to do anything in the way of altering this state of matters, now that the priestly law had been for so long the acknowledged law of God. Nay, it was for this very reason that the scribes only found themselves in the position of contributing towards the yet further increase of the priests’ emoluments. For proceeding as they did on the view that a man always secured for himself the divine approval in proportion to the punctuality and readiness with which he conformed to the requirements of the law, they almost invariably interpreted its prescriptions in a sense favourable to the priests. And so we have the singular spectacle of an age that had already begun to regard the priests with distrust, helping nevertheless to confirm and increase their power.
[920] For a correct appreciation of these matters we are indebted first and foremost to the modern criticism of the Pentateuch. See eppecially, Wellhausen’s Geschichte Israels, i. 156-164.
In the times previous to the exile there were as yet almost no imposts in the strict sense of the word at all, that is to say, none which were not connected with sacrifice, none which had the character of a pure tax. Allowances to the priests were only exacted on the occasion of sacrifices being offered, and only in connection with these, The person who came to sacrifice brought the choicest portions of the produce of his fields and the first-born of his cattle to offer to Jehovah. Of this one part was consumed upon the altar, another fell to the officiating priest, but the most of it was made use of by the offerer himself, who was required to hold a sacrificial feast with it in the presence of Jehovah. It is in this sense that we are to understand the requirement already met with in the earliest (Jehovistic) legislation, to the effect that the best of the produce of the field and the first-born of the cattle were to be brought before Jehovah (firstlings of the field, Exodus 22:28; Exodus 23:19; Exodus 34:26; the first-born of the cattle, Exodus 13:11-16; Exodus 22:29; Exodus 34:19-20).[921] The prescriptions in Deuteronomy bearing on this matter are perfectly plain and unequivocal. This book knows nothing whatever either of the exacting of the tithe, or of the first-born on the part of the priests. It was required no doubt that the tithe of the fruits of the field was to be separated and conveyed to Jerusalem to the sanctuary. But there it was not given to the priest, but consumed by the owner of it himself; and it was only every third year that it fell to the Levites, i.e. the priests, and to the poor (Deuteronomy 14:22-29; Deuteronomy 26:12-15; comp. also 12:6, 11, 17-19). It was precisely the same in the case of the firstlings of the sheep and oxen. These too, and that such of them as were males, were required to be brought to the sanctuary at Jerusalem, but they were consumed there by the owner himself in sacrificial feasts (Deuteronomy 15:19-23; comp. also 12:6, 17-19, 14:23). Of all the things here mentioned the priests received only certain portions, that is to say, of the fruits of the field that were presented they got only the רֵאשִׁית, i.e. the best (Deuteronomy 18:4; Deuteronomy 26:1-11), while of the animals offered, they got merely the shoulder, the two cheeks and the stomach of each (Deuteronomy 18:3), Beyond this there is no mention of anything else that was required to be given to the priest except a part of the fleece at the sheep-shearing (Deuteronomy 18:4). As corroborative of what we have been saying we would point to the prescriptions of Ezekiel (44:28-30). Although a priest himself and showing an undoubted disposition to favour rather than to discourage the pretensions of his order, still he says quite as little about a tithe and the first-born being required to be given to the priests. The claims he makes on behalf of these latter are no doubt somewhat higher than those of Deuteronomy, still, on the whole, they move on the same lines. While Deuteronomy assigns to the priests only two portions of the victims, Ezekiel requires the whole of the sin-offerings and trespass-offerings (which as yet are quite unknown to Deuteronomy) to be given to them, and similarly with regard to the meat-offerings as well (Ezekiel 44:29); also every “dedicated thing” (44:29); and lastly, the reshith, i.e. the best of the first-fruits, the choicest portions of offerings of every description, and of the dough in baking (44:30).
[921]a The more subtle point as to whether Exodus 13:11-16; Exodus 34:19-20 belong to the Jehovist himself or were inserted by a kindred spirit, may here be left an open question. For the latter view, see Wellhausen, Jahrbücher für deutsche Theol. 1876, pp. 542 ff., 553 ff.; for the former, see Dillmann, Exeget. Handbuch to Ex. and Lev. pp. 99, 334.
But we find a considerable advance upon all the exactions we have just been referring to when we come to those contained in the priest-code, which, in its enumeration of the various emoluments of the priests as given in Numbers 18:8-32, coincides in many respects with Ezekiel, only it introduces in addition what constitutes a most important innovation, the tithe and the first-born. Like Ezekiel, the priest-code also assigns the sin-offerings, the trespass-offerings and the meat-offerings, at least the greater portion of the latter, to the priests (Numbers 18:9-10; for fuller details, see Leviticus 1-6). Of those sacrifices which their owners themselves were at liberty to make use of in furnishing the sacrificial feast (the so-called זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים), the priests were to get the breast and the right shoulder (Leviticus 7:30-34), thus obtaining considerably choicer portions than those assigned to them in Deuteronomy. Again, as in Ezekiel so also in the priest-code, the priests are to get everything “dedicated” (Numbers 18:14), and the choicest portions (the reshith) of the produce of the soil: the oil, the wine and the wheat (Numbers 18:12). But to the reshith, the first-fruits, בִּכּוּרִים, are further added (Numbers 18:13) as an impost of a different sort; then, in the last place, comes the most important item of all, one that considerably exceeded in value all the former ones, viz. the tithe (Numbers 18:20-32) and the first-born (Numbers 18:15-18). The tithe however belonged, in the first instance, to the “Levites,” who in turn were required to pay a tenth part of it to the priests. With regard to the portion of the dough that was to be given to the priests, though omitted in the leading enumeration of the emoluments, it too is mentioned in the priest-code, but in a different place (Numbers 15:17-21). We find that in Nehemiah’s day those enactments were already in full force. According to Nehemiah 10:36-39, it was already the practice at that time for the priests to receive the first-fruits or bikkurim (10:36), the choicest portions of the fruits of the soil, which here, precisely as in the priest-code, are clearly distinguished alike from the first-fruits and the tithe (10:38), then the tithe after the manner described in the priest-code (10:38-40), then the first-born (10:37), and lastly, the portion of the dough (10:38). By the tithe here we are always to understand the tithe of the fruits of the ground and of the trees. But there is one passage in the priest-code where, in addition to the tithe just mentioned, that of the cattle is also exacted (Leviticus 27:32-33). But it may well be presumed that this requirement, standing there as it does in so entirely isolated a fashion, did not originally form part of the code.[922] It would seem that the tithe of the cattle was actually exacted and paid in the time of the author of Chronicles; or possibly we have only to regard it as forming part of this writer’s conceptions of what ought to be (2 Chronicles 31:6). In post-Biblical times the whole passage, Leviticus 27:30-33 has been understood as referring to a tithe in the sense of the one demanded by Deuteronomy.
[922] See Wellhausen, Jahrb. für deutsche Theol. 1877, p. 444; also his Geschichte Israels, i. 162.
The legal prescriptions of Deuteronomy and of the priests’ code have not only been blended together so as to form one whole in a literary sense, but they would also appear to have been combined with each other in actual practice. Consequently we find that the law in its later developments has considerably augmented the already heavy imposts of the priest-code. With the Levites’ tithe of this code there was now conjoined, and simply as “a second tithe” the one prescribed in Deuteronomy, and which was to be consumed by the owner himself before Jehovah. The discrepancy between the prescriptions of the code and those of Deuteronomy, with respect to the portions of the victims that were to be given to the priests, was now got rid of by regarding the former as referring exclusively to the victims offered in sacrifice, and the latter to such animals as were slaughtered for ordinary use, Of the former of these the priests, according to Leviticus 7:30-34, were to receive the breast and the right shoulder, while of the latter they were to get, according to Deuteronomy 18:3, a fore-leg, the cheeks, and the stomach. Lastly, to all the imposts of the priest-code there was further added the portion of the fleece at the sheep-shearing as prescribed in Deuteronomy (18:4). From this process of amalgamation there resulted the following list of the priests’ emoluments, which we may venture to regard as the one that was in force in the time of Christ.[923]
[923] Philo already gives us a synopsis in his treatise, entitled De praemiis sacerdotum et honoribus (Opp. ed. Magney, ii. 232-237); comp. besides, Ritter’s Philo und die Halacha, 1879, pp. 114-126. Further, Josephus in the leading passage on the subject, Antt. iv. 4. 4, with which iii. 9. 1-4 (sacrificial offerings) and iv 8. 22 (firstlings) may be compared. The Rabbinical writers, according to an artificial system of reckoning, represent the various sources of the priests’ emoluments as having amounted to twenty-four in all; see Tosefta, Challa ii. 7-9 (ed. Zuckermandel); Jer. Challa iv. fin. fol. 60b; Bab. Baba kamma 110b, Chullin 133b, Pesikta in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xiii. pp. 1122-1128. Several of the twenty-four in question are already enumerated in Mishna, Challa iv. 9. For the Talmudic passages, see also Beland’s Antiquitates sacrae, ii. 4. 11, in Bernard’s edition of Josephus, note on Antt. iv. 4. 4, and in Havercamp’s edition, note on the same passage; and for a German rendering of them, Saalschütz, Das mosaische Recht, i. 351. Among modern writers the most complete and most correct lists comparatively speaking are given by Saalschütz, Das mosaische Recht, i. 343-353, and Haneberg, Die religiösen Allerthümer der Bibel, pp. 565-582. Authentic material also in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xiii. 1055-1129.
(I.) Of the victims the following portions fell to the priests:—(1) The sin-offerings in their entirety, at least as a rule, for only two, and that of a particular sort, were required to be burnt without the camp.[924] (2) The trespass-offerings in their entirety also.[925] In both instances it was only the fat that was burnt upon the altar, the flesh belonged to the priests. (3) Of the meat-offerings again they got by far the larger portion, for as a rule only a small part of it was reserved to burn upon the altar, while the rest fell to the priests.[926] All the sacrifices we have just mentioned were of very frequent occurrence, particularly the meat-offerings, which might not only be offered independently by themselves, but which also formed a necessary accompaniment to the majority of the animal sacrifices.[927] To the same category we have further to refer (4) the twelve cakes of shewbread, a fresh supply of which was placed in the temple every week, while that which was taken away became the property of the priests.[928] All the four classes of offerings now mentioned were “most holy,” and as such could only be consumed in a holy place, i.e. within the inner court of the temple, and exclusively by the priests themselves (and not by their relations as well).[929]
[924] Leviticus 5:13; Leviticus 6:19; Leviticus 6:22 f.; Numbers 18:9-10; Ezekiel 44:29. Joseph. Antt. iii. 9. 3. Sifra to Leviticus 6:19 ff., in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xiii. p. 1071 ff. For the sin- and trespass-offerings generally, see Leviticus 4-7. Winer’s Realwörterb. ii. pp. 429-435.
[925] Leviticus 7:6-7; Numbers 18:9-10; Ezekiel 44:29. Joseph. Antt. iii. 9. 3; Sifra to Leviticus 7:6-7, in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, xiii. 1078.
[926] Leviticus 2:3; Leviticus 2:10; Leviticus 6:9-11; Leviticus 7:9-10; Leviticus 7:14; Leviticus 10:12-13; Numbers 18:9-10; Ezekiel 44:29. Joseph. Antt. iii. 9. 4: τὴν δὲ λοιπὴν οἱ ἱερεῖς πρὸς τροφὴν λαμβάνουσιν, ἢ ἑψηθεῖσαν (ἐλαίῳ γὰρ συμπεφύραται) ἢ γενομένων ἄρτων. On the meat-offerings generally, see Leviticus 2 the whole chapter, and 6:7-11, also Winer’s Realwörteb. under the word.
[927]a If we want to form some idea of the frequency of many of those sacrifices, we have only to read the laws relating to Levitical defilement and the mode of treating it with a view to its removal (Leviticus 11-15; Numbers 19). For example, every woman after childbirth had to offer a lamb as a burnt-offering and a pigeon as a sin-offering, or in the event of her being too poor for this, one pigeon as a burnt-offering and another as a sin-offering, Leviticus 12:1-8; Luke 2:24.
[928] Leviticus 24:5-9; for the Sifra to this as also the other Rabbinical passages, see Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xiii. p. 1084 ff.; see also Joseph. Antt. iii. 10. 7; Matthew 12:4; Mark 2:26; Luke 6:4. For the principle on which they were divided, see Sukka v. 7, 8 (the retiring course of service got the one half and the incoming one the other half).
[929] Numbers 18:10 and the passages cited in the preceding notes; also Joseph. Antt. iv. 4. 4, fin.
The regulations were not so stringent with regard to the two following offerings, viz. (5) the thank-offerings and (6) the burnt-offerings. Of the former, the זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים, i.e. those offerings which were consumed by the offerers themselves, and by Luther rendered “Dankopfer,” or as it should rather be “Mahlopfer,” the priests received two parts of each, viz. the breast and the right shoulder. These might be eaten in any “clean place” and therefore not within the sanctuary as in the previous instances, and that not by the priest alone, but by all who were connected with the priestly order as well, even by their wives and daughters.[930] Lastly, of the burnt-offerings (6), the priests received comparatively speaking least of all, for they were entirely consumed upon the altar. But even of these they got the skins at least, and, considering how frequently sacrifices of this sort were offered, it was certainly not without good reason that Philo estimated the amount of revenue from this source also as something very considerable.[931]
[930] Leviticus 7:30-34; Leviticus 10:14-15. Sifra to Leviticus 7:30-34, in Ugolini’s Thes. vol. xiii. p. 1094 ff. Philo, De praemiis sacerdotum, sec. iii. (ed. Mang. ii. 234): παντὸς γὰρ ἱερείου προστέτακται δύο τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν ἀπὸ δυοῖν δίδοσθαι μελῶν, βραχίονα μὲν ἀπὸ χειρὸς δεξιᾶς, ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ στήθους ὅσον πῖον. Joseph. Antt. iii. 9. 2: τὸ δὲ στῆθος καὶ τὴν κνήμην τὴν δεξιὰν τοῖς ἱερεῦσι παρασχόντες. On the peace-offerings generally, see Leviticus 3 the whole chapter, 7:11-21, 28-34. Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Dankopfer.”
[931] Leviticus 7:8; the Sifra thereto in Ugolini’s Thes. vol. xiii, p. 1079. Mishna, Sebachim xii. 2-4. Tosefta, Sebachim (or Korbanoth) xi. 7 ff. in Ugolini’s Thes xiii 1080 ff. Philo, De praemiis sacerdotum, sec. iv. (Mang. ii. 235): Ἐφʼ ἁπασι μέντοι καὶ τὰς τῶν ὁλοκαυτωμάτων, ἀμύθητα δὲ ταῦτʼ ἐστί, δορὰς προστάττει τοὺς ὑπηρετοῦντας ταῖς θυσίαις ἱερεῖς λαμβάνειν, οὐ βραχεῖαν ἀλλʼ ἐν τοῖς μάλιστα πολυχρήματον δωρεάν. Josephus, Antt. iii. 9. 1. Ritter’s Philo und die Halacha, p. 126. On the burnt-offerings generally, see Leviticus 1:3-17. Winer’s Realwörterb. under the word “Brandopfer.”
II. But considerable as the amount derived from those offerings no doubt was, still it formed but the smaller portion of the sacerdotal revenues, while for the most part it was only available for the officiating priests. The real bulk of the priests’ emoluments, on the other hand, consisted strictly speaking of what was derived from those dues that were paid independently of the sacrifices altogether, and which consequently possessed the character of a genuine tax for the maintenance of the priesthood. These dues were levied partly upon the produce of the soil and partly upon the offspring of the cattle, and they had to be paid partly in kind, although in some instances they might also be ransomed for their equivalent in money. The dues derived from the produce of the soil were of a varied character, and had to be separated (with a view to payment) in the following order:[932] (1) The first-fruits, בִּכּוּרִים. These offerings were taken from the socalled “seven kinds,” i.e. from the principal products of the soil of Palestine as enumerated in Deuteronomy (8:8), viz. wheat, barley, vines, fig-trees, pomegranates, olives and honey. Those who lived in the vicinity of Jerusalem offered fresh fruits, while those living farther away brought them in a dried form. In going up to present their offerings the people went in common procession, and according to Philo and the Mishna it was made an occasion of merry-making. It was the practice for those living in the country to assemble in the principal towns of the districts to which they belonged and thence to go up to Zion in one merry company, marching to the music of the pipes. At the head of the procession was led the ox that was to form the festive offering, with its horns gilded and a garland of olive branches placed upon them. In Jerusalem the most eminent members of the priesthood came to meet the procession as it approached the sanctuary. The owners of the offerings then put wreaths round the baskets containing the first-fruits and carried them on their shoulders up the temple mount as far as the court. This was done even by the most distinguished personages; it had been done even by King Agrippa himself. As soon as the procession entered the court the Levites welcomed it with the singing of the thirtieth Psalm. And now each person proceeded to hand his basket to the priest, and as he did so, repeated the confession of Deuteronomy 26:5-10, whereupon the priest took it and put it down beside the altar.[933] (2) Then came the so-called terumah (תְּרוּמָה). This was distinct from the first-fruits, and in so far as the offering of these latter had always rather more of a symbolico-religious significance, it hardly could be said to have belonged to quite the same category with them. The terumah possessed the character of a pure payment in kind toward the maintenance of the priests, for Rabbinical Judaism understands it in the more restricted sense of the term (terumah in the more comprehensive sense of the word meaning every “heave” whatsoever, i.e. everything paid to the sanctuary) as denoting the giving of the choicest of the fruits of the ground and of the trees to the priests. This impost was levied not only upon the “seven kinds,” but upon every species of fruit, and that whether the fruits of the ground or the fruit of trees, Here as before the most important of them were wheat, wine and oil. The amount to be given was not regulated by any fixed measure, weight, or number,[934] but was to be, on an average, one-fiftieth of the whole yield, the person who gave one-fortieth being regarded as giving liberally, while he who gave only one-sixtieth was considered to have given somewhat stingily.[935] Whatever had once been set apart as a terumah could be lawfully made use of only by the priests.[936] (3) After the materials of the two classes of offerings we have just mentioned had been duly separated, the largest and most important item of all now fell to be deducted, viz. the tithe. We know, from what the Gospels tell us, with what painful scrupulosity the prescriptions of the law in regard to this matter were observed, and how common it was to pay tithe even of the most insignificant and worthless objects, such as mint, anise, and cummin (Matthew 23; Luke 11:42). The principle laid down in the Mishna with respect to this is as follows: “Everything which may be used as food and is cultivated and grows out of the earth is liable to tithe.”[937] The revenue derived from the source now in question must have been very large indeed. Yet the greater proportion of it was intended not so much for the priests as for the more subordinate class of sacred officials, viz. the Levites. It was to these latter, in the first instance, that the tithe had to be paid, while they had in turn to hand over a tithe of that again to the priests.[938] After separating this Levites’ tithe from his produce, the owner had to deduct another one still, the so-called second tithe. But this, in common with several other imposts of a similar kind, was made use of by the owner himself in the way of furnishing a sacrificial feast at Jerusalem; consequently they were not for the benefit of the priests, and so do not fall to be considered here.[939] (4) Then the last of the offerings taken from, the products of the soil was the so-called challah (חַלָּה), i.e. the offering from the kneaded dough (ἀπαρχὴ τοῦ φυράματος, Romans 11:16). According to the Mishna, offerings of this sort required to be given in the case of dough that happened to be made from any one of the five following kinds of grain: wheat, barley, spelt, oats, and rye (?).[940] The offering was not to be presented in the form of flour or meal, but required to be taken from the dough, i.e. as prepared for making bread.[941] The quantity to be given was, in the case of private individuals, one twenty-fourth part, and, in the case of public bakers, one forty-eighth part of the whole piece.[942]
[932] On the order to be observed, see Terumoth iii. 6, 7.
[933] See in general, Numbers 18:13; Nehemiah 10:36; also Exodus 23:19; Exodus 34:26. To this matter Deuteronomy 26:1-11 was referred. Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 22. In the Mishna the entire tractate Bikkurim is devoted to the subject of first-fruits. Comp. especially, Bikkurim i. 3 (regarding the “seven kinds” to be offered), and iii. 1-9 (account of the festive procession). Philo treats of this matter in his small work, De festo cophini, first edited by Cardinal Mai, and given in Richter’s edition of Philo’s works, v. 48-50; also in Tischendorf’s Philonea (1868), pp. 69-71. Of the works given under the literature we would specially mention, Lundius, Die alten jüdischen Heiligthümer, book iii. chap. liv. Ugolini’s Thes. vol. iii. p. 1100 ff. Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Erstlinge.” Saalschütz, i. 344 f. Haneberg, pp. 565-568. Grätz, Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissensch. des Judenth, 1877, p. 433 ff.
[934] Terumoth i. 7.
[935] Terumoth iv. 3. Comp. Jerome’s com. on Ezekiel 44:13-14 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi, v. 565): At vero primitiva quae de frugibus offerebant, non erant epeciali numero definita, sed offerentium arbitrio derelicta. Traditionemque accepimus Hebraeorum non lege praeceptam, sed magistrorum arbitrio molitam: qui plurimum, quadragesimam partem dabat sacerdotibus, qui minimum, sexagesimam: inter quadragesimam et sexagesimam licebat offerre quodcumque voluissent.
[936] See in general, Numbers 18:12; Nehemiah 10:38. The Rabbinical regulations in the tractate Terumoth. Philo, De praemiis sacerdotum, sec. i. (Mang. ii. p. 233): προστάττει καὶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἄλλης κτήσεως ἀπάρχεσθαι, καθʼ ἑκάστην μὲν ληνὸν οἶνον, καθʼ ἑκάστην δὲ ἅλωνα σῖτον καὶ κριθάς. Ὁμοίως δὲ ἐξ ἐλαιῶν ἔλαιον καὶ ἀπὸ τῶν ἄλλων ἀκροδρύων ἡμέρους καρπούς (that it is the terumah that Philo has in view here has also been correctly assumed by Richter in his Philo und die Halacha). Joseph. Antt. iv. 4. 4: ἔτι δὲ ἀπαρχὰς τὸν λαὸν δίκαιον τῷ θεῷ πάντων τῶν ἐκ τῆς γῆς φυομένων καρπῶν ἐπιφέρειν. Comp. also Lundius, Die alten jüdischen Heiligthümer, book iv. chap. xxxi. Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Erstlinge.” Saalschütz, i. 346. Haneberg, p. 568 f.
[937] Maaseroth i. 1. For details, comp. for example Maaseroth iv 5, 6, v. 8. Lightfoot, Horae hebr., note on Matthew 23:23 (Opp. ii. 359). Wetzstein, Nov. Test., note on the same passage. On the tithing of anise (ἄνηθον, שָׁבָת), see Maaseroth iv. 5; on that of cummin (κύμινον, כּמּוֹן), Demai ii. 1.
[938] See in general, Numbers 18:20-32; Nehemiah 10:38-39. Philo, De caritate, sec. x. (ed. Mang. ii. 891); De praemiis sacerdot. sec. vi.; probably it is also the tithe that is in view in sec. ii. init. of the same treatise. Joseph. Antt. iv. 4. 3, 4. The Rabbinical prescriptions in Maaseroth. Hottinger, De decimis Judaeorum, Lugd. Bat. 1718. Lundius, Die alten jüd. Heiligthümer, book iv. chap. xxxii. Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Zehnt.” Saalschütz, i. 346 f. Haneberg, pp. 573-576. Leyrer in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. vol. xviii. 414-421. Ritter, Philo und die Halacha, pp. 122-124. Knobel-Dillmann, Exeget. Handbuch, note on Leviticus 27:30-33 (also at the same place for the instances of a similar practice among the heathen).
[939] To the category of imposts that were consumed by the owner himself at Jerusalem belong—
[940] Challa i. 1. There is some doubt as to the meaning of the two words usually rendered “oats” and “rye” (שבולת שועל and שיפין); especially with regard to שיפון = σίφων, σιφώνιον, it would certainly be more correct to understand the word as meaning a species of oats.
[941] Challa ii. 5.
[942] Challa ii. 7. See in general, Numbers 15:17-21; Nehemiah 10:38; Ezekiel 44:30. Philo, De praemiis sacerdoium, sec. i. (Mang. ii. 233): Κελεύει γὰρ τοὺς σιτοπονοῦντας ἀπὸ παντὸς στέατός τε καὶ φυράματος ἄρτον ἀφαιρεῖν ἀπαρχὴν εἰς ἱερέων χρῆσιν. Joseph. Antt. iv. 4. 4: τούς τε πέττοντας τὸν σῖτον καί ἀρτοποιουμένους τῶν πεμμάτων αὐτοῖς τινὰ χορηγεῖν. Mishna tractate, Challa. Sifra to Numbers 15:17 ff. in Ugolini’s Thesaurus, vol. xiii. p. 1108 ff. Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book iv. chap. xxxix. Saalschütz, i. 347. Haneberg, pp. 571-573. Ritter’s Philo und die Halacha, p. 118.
(1) The “second tithe,” according to Deuteronomy 14:22-26. Leviticus 27:30-31 was likewise understood in this sense. Comp. Tob_1:7; Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 8. In the Mishna see the whole tractate Maaser sheni. Hottinger, De decimis Judaeorum, pp. 146-182 (Exercit. vii.). Lundius, Die alten jüd. Heiligthümer, iv. 33. Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Zehnt.” Saalschütz, i. pp. 169, 354-358. Leyrer in Herzog’s Real-Enc., 1st ed. vol. xviii. p. 417 f. Those living at a distance from Jerusalem were allowed to convert the second tithe into money on the understanding that one-fifth of its money value was to be superadded to it (Leviticus 27:31; Maaser sheni iv. 3). But this money had to be spent exclusively in the purchase of such viands, beverages, and ointment as were necessary for the sacrificial feast as Jerusalem (Deuteronomy 14:26; Maaser sheni ii. 1).
(2) The tithe of the cattle. The only passage in the Pentateuch which requires the cattle to be tithed, viz. Leviticus 27:32-33, was expresaly understood by the later legislation in the sense of the “second tithe,” and that being the case, it follows that the cattle tithe would also be devoted to the furnishing; of the feasts in Jerusalem. See Sebachim v. 8, Bartenom and Maimonides on Bechoroth ix. 1 (in Surenhusius’ edition of the Mishna, v. 187). At the same time, Philo would seem to include the cattle tithe also among the prieste’ emoluments, De caritate, sec. x. (Mang. ii. 391); De praemiis sacerdotum, sec. ii. init. (where the tithe is probably meant). Comp. Ritter’s Philo und die Halacha, p. 122 f. For a fuller account of the matter, see Mishna, Bechoroth ix. 1-8; also Maaser sheni i. 2; Shekalim i. 7, iii. 1, viii. 8; Rosh hashana i. 1; Chagiga i. 4; Sebachim v. 8, x. 3; Manachoth ix. 6; Chullin i. 7. Hottinger, De decimis Judaeorum, pp. 228-253 (Exercit. x.). Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth. book iv. chap. xxxviii.
(3) The produce of trees and vines in the fourth year of their growth. According to Leviticus 19:23-25, the fruit of newly-planted trees (and vines) was not to be gathered at all during the first three years, while in the fourth it was to be consecrated to God, as it was not to be at the free disposal of the owner of it till the fifth year. In later times this was taken to mean that the produce of the fourth year was, like the second tithe, to be consumed by the owner himself in Jerusalem. See especially, Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 19: τῷ δὲ τετάρτῳ τρυγάτω πᾶν τὸ γενόμενον (τότε γὰρ ὥριον εἶναι) καὶ συναγαγὼν εἰς τὴν ἱερὰν πόλιν κομιζέτω, καὶ σὺν τῇ δεκάτῃ τοῦ ἄλλου καρποῦ μετὰ τῶν φίλων εὐωχούμενος ἀναλισκέτω καὶ μετʼ ὀρφανῶν καὶ χηρευουσῶν γυναικών. Comp. also Philo, De cariate, sec. xxi. (Mang. ii. 402). Mishna, Pea vii. 6; Maaser sheni v. 1-5; Orla throughout; Edujoth iv. 5. Guisius on Pea vii. 6 (in Surenhusius’ Mishna, i. 68). Hottinger, De jure plantae quarti anni juxta praeceptum Leviticus 19:24, Marburg 1704. Saalschütz, i. 168 f.
(4) Then, in the last place, among the offerings that did not fall to the priests were those intended for the benefit of the poor, viz.: (a) the gleanings of the fields and what grew upon the edges of them when the corn was reaped, Leviticus 19:9-10; Leviticus 23:22; Deuteronomy 24:19-22. Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 21. Philo, De caritate, sec. ix. (Mang. ii. 390). Mishna, Pea. (b) The so-called third tithe, or the tithe for the poor. According to the terms of the prescription (Deuteronomy 14:28-29; Deuteronomy 26:12) on which this tithe is based one should expect that, strictly speaking, the tithe for the poor would alternate with the second tithe. For Deuteronomy prescribes that the tithe that in the other two years was consumed by the owner himself before Jehovah, was in the third year to be assigned to the Levites and the poor. So too according to the Sept. version of Deuteronomy 26:12 : (ἐν τῷ ἔτει τῷ τρίτῳ) τὸ δεύτερον ἐπιδέκατον δώσεις τῷ Λευίτῃ καὶ τῷ προσηλύτῳ καὶ τῷ ὀρφανῷ καὶ τῇ χήρᾳ. But it became the practice in later times to superadd the tithe for the poor to the second tithe every third year. See Tob_1:7-8. Joseph. Antt. iv. 8. 22. Pea viii. 2-9. Demai iv. 3, 4. Maaser sheni v. 6. Jadajim iv. 3. Targum of Jonathan on Deuteronomy 26:12. Jerome’s commentary on Ezekiel 45:13-14 (ed. Vallarsi, v. 565). Guisius’s note on Pea viii. 2 (in Surenhusius’ Mishna i. 70). Bernard and Havercamp’s editions of Josephus, notes on Antt. iv. 8. 22. Hottinger, De decimis Judaeorum, pp. 182-203. Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligth., book iv. chap. xxxiv. Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Zehnt.” Leyrer in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. xviii. p. 418 f.
Then there was a second leading class of regular offerings, viz. those derived from the rearing of cattle. These were of three different kinds: (1) The most important of them was that consisting of the male first-born of the cattle (that is to say therefore, the first-born whenever it happened to be a male). As far back as the earlier Jehovistic and Deuteronomist legislation we find that the male first-born of the cattle was required to be dedicated to God, i.e. was to be used in sacrifice and for sacrificial feasts (Exodus 13:11-16; Exodus 22:28-29; Exodus 34:19-20; Deuteronomy 15:19-23). This the priestly legislation has converted into an allowance to be given to the priests (Exodus 13:1-2; Leviticus 27:26-27; Numbers 18:15-18; Nehemiah 10:37). Both legislations add to this the firstborn among men as well, for these two were regarded as, properly speaking, belonging to God, and consequently they required to be ransomed. Further, as a distinction had to be made between clean and unclean cattle, we accordingly have the following more specific regulations with respect to the first-born:[943] (a) the first-born of the cattle that were clean and suitable for sacrificial purposes, i.e. oxen, sheep and goats, were to be given in natura. If they were free from blemish they were to be treated as sacrifices, i.e. the blood was to be sprinkled upon the altar and the fat consumed in the altar fires.[944] The flesh could be eaten by all who were connected with the order of the priests, even by their wives, and that in any part of Jerusalem (Numbers 18:17-18; Nehemiah 10:37; Exodus 22:29; Exodus 34:19; Deuteronomy 15:19-20).[945] But if, on the other hand, the animals had any blemish about them, they belonged no less to the priests, only they were to be treated as unconsecrated food (Deuteronomy 15:21-23).[946] (b) The first-born of unclean animals above all, according to Philo, those of the horse, the ass, and the camel—and here too as in every other instance only the male ones—were to be ransomed by the payment of a certain sum of money fixed by the priest with a fifth part added (Numbers 18:15; Nehemiah 10:37; Leviticus 27:27). An ass was to be exchanged for a sheep (Exodus 13:13; Exodus 34:20). According to Josephus, the ransom would appear to have been effected by the payment of a fixed sum of one shekel and a half for each beast. (c) The first-born of man, i.e. the first child that happened to be a male, required to be “ransomed” as soon as it was a month old by the payment of five shekels (Numbers 18:15-16; comp. Numbers 3:44 ff.; Nehemiah 10:37; Exodus 13:13; Exodus 22:28; Exodus 34:20). It was not necessary that the boy should be presented at the temple on the occasion of his being ransomed, as has been supposed, for the most part on the strength of Luke 2:22.[947] As is expressly stated in the passages just referred to, the shekels in question were to be those of the Tyrian standard.[948] This tax was imposed upon poor and rich alike.[949]
[943] Subsequent practice amalgamated the Jehovietic and Deuteronomic enactments with those of the priest-code, and made the latter the standard by which to interpret them.
[944] Consequently the Mishna characterizes the first-born also as “holy,” but only in the second degree, קדשים קלים, like passa and the cattle tithe, Sebachim v. 8
[945] In the passage in Deuteronomy the “thou” of 15:20 has been understood as though it were addressed to the priests and not (as was the original intention of the passage) to the Israelites.
[946] Accordingly, in cases of this sort the flesh might be sold by the priests even to persons who did not belong to their own order and eaten by them; see Bartenora’s note on Bechoroth v. 1 (in Surenhusius’ Mishna, v. 169).
[947] See, on the other hand, Löw, Die Lebensalter in der jüdischen Literatur (1875), p. 110 ff.
[948] Bechoroth viii. 7. A shekel of the Phoenician (= the early Hebrew) standard amounted to somewhere about 2 marks 62 pfennige of German money (Hultsch, Griechische und römische Metrologie, 2nd ed. p. 420), and consequently five shekels would be equivalent to about 13 marks. There can be no question that, by the “ransoming,” the older legislation (Exodus 13:13; Exodus 34:20) does not mean a buying back for money, but an exchanging for an animal that could be used as a sacrifice.
[949] See in general, Philo, De sacerdotum, sec. i. (Mang. ii. 233). Τρίτον ἐστὶ γέρας τὰ πρωτότοκα ἀρʼῥενικὰ καὶ πάντα τῶν χερσαίων ὅσα πρὸς ὑπηρεσίας καὶ χρῆσιν ἀνθρώπων. Ταῦτα γὰρ κελεύει διαδίδοσθαι τοῖς ἱερωμένοις ἀνθρώποις. Βοῶν μὲν καὶ προβάτων καὶ αἰγῶν αὐτὰ τὰ ἔκγονα, μόσχους καὶ κριοὺς καὶ χιμάρʼῥους, ἐπειδὴ καθαρὰ καὶ πρὸς ἐδωδὴν καὶ πρὸς θυσίας ἐστί τε καὶ νενόμισται· λύτρα δὲ κατατιθέναι τῶν ἄλλων ἵππων καὶ ὄνων καὶ καμήλων καὶ τῶν παραπλησίων μὴ μειοῦντας τὴν ἀξίαν. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ ταῦτα παμπληθῆ. … Τὴν δὲ τῶν πρωτοτόκων υἱῶν καθιέρωσιν, ὡς ὑπὲρ τοῦ μήτε γονεῖς τέκνων μήτε τέκνα γονέων διαζεύγνυσθαι, τιμᾶται τὴν ἀπαρχὴν ἀργυρίῳ ῥητῷ, προστάξας ἴσον εἰσφέρειν καὶ πένητα καὶ πλούσιον. Comp. also De caritate, sec. x. (ed. Mang. ii. 391). Joseph. Antt. iv. 4. 4: τῶν τετραπόδων δὲ τῶν εἰς τὰς θυσίας νενομισμένων τὸ γεννηθὲν πρῶτον, ἂν ἄρσεν ᾖ, καταθῦσαι παρασχεῖν τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν, ὥστε αὐτοὺς πανοικὶ σιτεῖσθαι ἐν τῇ ἱερᾷ πόλει· τῶν δʼ οὐ νενομισμένων ἐσθίειν παρʼ αὐτοῖς κατὰ τοὺς πατρίους νόμους τοὺς δεσπότας τῶν τικτομένων σίκλον καὶ ἥμισυ αὐτοῖς ἀναφέρειν, ἀνθρώπου δὲ πρωτοτόκου πέντε σίκλους. Mishna tractate Bechoroth. Lundius, Die alt. jüd. Heiligthümer, book iii. chap. xliv. Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Erstgeburt.” Saalschütz, i. 348 f. Haneberg, pp. 569-571. Frankel, Ueber den Ein fluss der palästinischen Exegese, etc., 1851, p. 98 f. (on the Sept. rendering of Exodus 13:13; Exodus 34:20). Ritter, Philo, pp. 118-122 (the most exhaustive and accurate of any). Knobel-Dillmann, Exeget. Handbuch, note on Exodus 13:1-2. Löw, Die Lebensalter in der jüd. Literatur, 1875, pp. 110-118, 390-392 (specially treating of the flrst-born in the case of man).
(2.) Of all the flesh that was slaughtered generally the priests were to receive three portions, viz. the shoulder, the two cheeks, and the stomach. This is the sense in which Deuteronomy 18:3 was understood, and was therefore taken as referring, not to animals offered in sacrifice, but to those slaughtered for ordinary use. According to the later interpretation of it, this prescription was also regarded as applying exclusively to such animals as were suitable for sacrifices, viz. oxen, sheep and goats.[950]
[950] See in general, besides Deuteronomy 18:3, Philo, De praemiis sacerdotum, sec. iii. (Mang. ii. 235): Ἀπὸ δὲ τῶν ἔξω τοῦ βωμοῦ θυομένων ἕνεκα κρεωφαγίας τρία προστέτακται τῷ ἱερεῖ δίδοσθαι, βραχίονα καὶ σιαγόνα καὶ τὸ καλούμενον ἤνυστρον. Joseph. Antt. iv. 4. 4: εἶναι δὲ καὶ τοῖς κατʼ οἶκον θύουσιν, εὐωχίας ἕνεκα τῆς αὑτῶν, ἀλλὰ μὴ θρησκείας, ἀνάγκην κομίζειν τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν ἤνυστρόν τε καὶ χελύνιον καὶ τὸν δεξιὸν βραχιονα τοῦ θύματος. On the meaning of χελύνιον (not the breast, but the cheek), see notes on this passage in Bernard and Havercamp’s editions of Josephus. Mishna tractate Chullin x. and the corresponding Gemara, fol. 130 ff. Sifra to Deuteronomy 18:3 in Ugolini, vol. xiii. 1113-1115 (here too, as in Josephus, the right foreleg or shoulder). Jerome, Epist. lxiv. ad Fabiolam, chap. ii. (Vallarsi, i. 355): Caeterum et alia tria, exceptis primitiis hostiarum et de privato et de macello publico, ubi non religio sed victus necessitas est, sacerdotibus membra tribuuntur, brachium, maxilla et venter. Bernard and Havercamp’s editions of Josephus, notes on Antt. iv. 4. 4. Saalschütz, i. p. 350. Haneberg, p. 576 f. Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. xii. p. 181 f. Knobel’s note on Deuteronomy 18:3. Ritter’s Philo, p. 124 f. Wellhausen, i. p. 158.
(3.) Again, a portion of the proceeds of the sheep-shearing had to be given to the priests, only in those cases however in which a person owned more than one sheep—according to the school of Shammai, when he owned two, according to Hillel’s school, on the other hand, not unless he owned five. This offering was said to amount to five Jewish (= ten Galilaean) sela.[951]
[951] See in general, Deuteronomy 18:4. Joseph. Antt. iv. 4. 4: εἶναι δὲ ἀπαρχὰς αὐτοῖς καί τῆς τῶν προβάτων κουρᾶς. Mishna, Chullin xi. 1, 2. Sifra to Deuteronomy 18:4, in Ugolini, vol. xiii. p. 1113. Philo, De caritate, sec. x. (Mangey, ii. 391), erroneously includes this offering among the tithes.
III. Besides the regular offerings, there also fell to the priests a considerable number of an irregular and extra-ordinary character. To this category belonged, fundamentally at least, a large number of sacrifices offered on an almost endless variety of occasions (see p. 195 f. above); but besides these they also received the following offerings: (1) The consecration vows, or votive offerings. These might be of a very varied character. One could dedicate oneself or some other person to the sanctuary (to the Lord). In such cases it was usual to pay a certain sum of money by way of ransom, viz. fifty shekels for a man and thirty for a woman. But one could also dedicate animals, houses, or lands to the sanctuary. If the animals happened to be such as could be offered in sacrifice, then they had to be given in natura. But in the case of unclean animals and in that of houses and lands, a money ransom could be paid as before, though on certain conditions specified in the law.[952] (2) A special form of consecration vow called the ban, i.e. something irredeemably devoted to the sanctuary. Whenever anything was devoted to the sanctuary in this form (as something banned, חֵרֶם) it fell to it, i.e. to the priests in natura, whether it were in the shape of a person, cattle, or lands.[953] (3) Lastly, in those cases in which any one had appropriated or otherwise unlawfully got possession of anything, and in which it was no longer possible to restore the property to its rightful owner, a certain indemnity had to be paid, and this also fell to the priests.[954] With regard to the two things last mentioned, the law distinctly states that they were to belong to the priests personally, whereas the votive offering, on the other hand, would appear to have been devoted as a rule to purposes connected with the services of the sanctuary generally.[955] At the same time Josephus distinctly affirms that the ransom of fifty or of thirty shekels to be paid in those cases in which any one had devoted him or herself to God formed part of the priests’ emoluments.[956] Further, the Rabbinical theologians hold that, besides the cherem and the indemnity offering, “the inherited field,” consecrated as a votive offering (Leviticus 27:16-21), was also to be included among the twenty-four different kinds of offerings that fell to the priests.[957]
[952] See in general, Leviticus 27.; Deuteronomy 23:22-24. Joseph. Antt. iv. 4. 4; Matthew 15:5; Mark 7:11. Lundius, Die alt, jüd. Heiligthümer, book iii. chap. xlv. Saalschütz, Das mosaische Recht, i. 150-153, 358-367. Winer’s Real-wörterb. art. “Gelubde.” Oehler in Herzog’s Real-Encycl., 1st ed. vol. iv. pp. 788-790 (art. “Gelübde bei den Hebräern”). Knobel-Dillmann, Exeget. Handbuch, notes on Leviticus 27. Haneberg, Die religiösen Alterthümer der Bibel, pp. 370-376. Lightfoot, Horae hebr., note on Matthew 15:5 (Opp. ed. Roterodamens. ii. p. 332 f.). Edzard, Tractatus Talmudicus, Aboda sara 1710, p. 294 ff. Schoettgen, Horae hebr., Wolf’s Curae phil. in Nov. Test., and Wetzstein’s Nov. Test., the notes of the three last-mentioned writers on Matthew 15:5; see in general the expositors on Matthew 15:5 and Mark 7:11; also “Saat auf Hoffnung,” edited by Delitesoh for year 1875, pp. 37-40. On the validity of vows in the case of women, see Numbers 30; Mishna tractate Nedarim.
[953] See Leviticus 27:28; Numbers 18:14; Ezekiel 44:29. Saalschüts, i. 368-373. Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Bann.” Leviticus 27:29 is not applicable here. See Knobel-Dillmann’s note on this latter passage.
[954] Numbers 5:5-8.
[955] Shekalim iv. 6-8: “When any one consecrates his possessions (נְכָסָיו) … and there happen to be cattle amongst them suitable for sacrifice, whether males or females, then, according to Rabbi Eliesar, they are to be sold, the males for burnt-offerings and the females for festive offerings, to those who may be requiring them for such purposes, while the money with the rest of the property was to be given to the treasury for the support of the temple (לְבֶדְק הַבַּיִת). Rabbi Josua says: The males are sacrificed as burnt-offerings, and the females are sold to such as happen to be requiring festive offerings, while, with the money realized from the sale, burnt-offerings are purchased and offered; the residue of the property goes to the treasury for the maintenance of the sanctuary.… If any one consecrates his possessions, and there happen to be things amongst them suitable for the altar, such as wine, oil, birds, then, according to Rabbi Eliesar, these are to be sold to those who are requiring offerings of this sort, while the money thus realized is to be spent in procuring burnt-offerings; the residue of the property goes to the treasury for the support of the temple.”
[956] Joseph. Antt. iv. 4. 4.
[957] Comp. the Rabbinical passages quoted in note 60, above.
To what extent all the offerings to which we have referred were contributed by the Jews of the dispersion as well it is no longer possible to say with any degree of certainty in regard to any one of them in particular.[958] In any case a large number of them was paid by those of the dispersion as wall, while the amount derived from all those sources was of so handsome a character that the priests always had a comfortable provision. As little are we any longer in a position always to form anything like a distinct conception of the mode in which those offerings were paid. Many of them, such as the challa and the three portions to be given on the occasion of slaughtering an animal, were of such a nature that they did not admit of being kept long. Consequently to carry these and such as these to Jerusalem for the purpose of presenting them there would be simply impossible. At any rate, in all those places in which there happened to be priests, they were given to them directly.[959] But so far as it was at all practicable, the administration of the offerings was centralized in Jerusalem. Thither they were conveyed and handed over to those appointed to receive them, and from thence again they were distributed among the priests.[960]
[958] For material bearing upon this, see Challa iv. 7, 11; Jadajim iv. 3; Chullin x. 1 (the three portions allotted to the priests at the slaughtering of an animal to be given beyond Palestine as well). Philo, De monarchia, ii. 3 (Mang. ii. 224). Legat. ad Cajum, sec. xxiii. 40 (Mang. ii. pp. 568 f., 592). Joseph. Antt. xvi. 6. 2-7, xviii. 9. 1. The passages from Philo and Josephus refer mainly, of course, to the didrachma tax, but not to that alone; see Antt. xviii. 9. 1: τό τε δίδραχμον … καὶ ὁπόσα ἄλλα ἀναθήματα. Hottinger, De decimis Judaeorum, p. 100 ff. (Exercit. v.). Frankel, Ueber den Einfluss der palästinischen Exegese auf die alexandrinische Hermeneutik (1851), p. 98 f.
[959] It is said in Terumoth ii. 4 with reference to the terumah: “Wherever there happens to be a priest, there the terumah of the choicest portions is paid to him; but where there is no priest a terumah is to be paid of something that will keep.” According to Challa iv. 8, 9, the Challa, things banned, the first-born, the ransom for first-born sons, the ransom for the first-born of the ass, the shoulder, the cheeks and the stomach (on the occasion of killing an animal for ordinary use), the portion of the fleece at the sheep-shearing, and others, could be given to any priest no matter where. Hence it was that the terumah, for example, and the. tithe, and the first-born continued to be exacted even after the destruction of the temple, Bikkurim ii. 3; Shekalim viii. 8.
[960] See especially, 2 Chronicles 31:11-19; Nehemiah 12:44; Nehemiah 13:5; Malachi 3:10. Philo, De praemiis, sec. iv. (Mang. ii. 235 f.): Ὑπὲρ δὲ τοῦ μηδένα τῶν διδόντων ὀνειδίζειν τοῖς λαμβάνουσι, κελεύει τὰς ἀπαρχὰς εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν κομίζεσθαι, πρότερον, εἶτʼ ἐνθένδε τοὺς ἱερεῖς λαμβάνειν.
This central administration on the part of the priests extended to the tithe as well, which in point of fact was delivered, not to the Levites, but to the priests, in whose hands the further disposal of it was then left.[961]
[961] Comp. Joseph. Vita, xii. 15; Antt. xx. 8. 8, 9. 2. Herzfeld, Gesch. des Volkes Jisrael, ii. 138 ff. Delitzsch, Zeitschr. f. luth. Theol. 1877, p. 448 f. Wellhausen, i. 171 f. Ritter’s Philo und die Halacha, p. 123 f. In the time of Nehemiah the tithe was paid to the Levites precisely in accordance with what is prescribed in the priest-code, while these in turn handed over only a tenth of the tithe to the temple treasury; at the same time the two things were done under the supervision of the priests (Nehemiah 10:38-39). The Mishna would appear to proceed on the assumption that the correct thing was for the priests and the Levites to receive their respective shares directly from the hands of the person paying the tithe (Maaser sheni v. 6).
Nor were those priestly gifts made use of merely by the priests themselves, but the privilege of participating in the enjoyment of them was extended to those connected with them as well. The only things that had to be partaken of exclusively by priests were those known as “most holy” (see p. 236, above). All the others might be enjoyed by the whole of the members of a priest’s household—his wife, his daughters and his slaves, with the exception however of hired workmen and daughters married to other than priests. But, in every instance, only those were at liberty to participate who were in a condition of Levitical purity.[962] With regard to the priests no distinction was made, on this occasion, between those duly qualified to officiate and those debarred from doing so in consequence of some physical defect or infirmity. These latter might be allowed, when the division to which they belonged happened to be serving, to go even the length of participating in the “most holy” things themselves.[963]
[962] Leviticus 22:1-16. Philo, De monarchia, lib. ii. secs. xiii.-xv. (ed. Mangey, ii. pp. 230-233). Joseph. Antt. iv. 4. 4: πάντων δὲ τῶν τοῖς ἱερεῦσι τελουμένων κοινωνεῖν διέταξε καὶ τοὺς οἰκέτας καὶ θυγατέρας καὶ γυναῖκας, ἔξω τῶν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτημάτων ἐπιφερομένων θυσιῶν· ταῦτας γὰρ ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ μόνοι δαπανῶσιν οἱ ἄρʼῥενες τῶν ἱερέων αὐθημερόν. Terumoth vi. 2, vii. 2. Sifra to Leviticus 22:10 ff., in Ugolini’s Thes. vol. xiii. p. 1102 ff.
[963] Leviticus 21:22. Philo, De monarchia, ii. 13. Joseph. Antt. iii. 12. 2; Bell. Jud. v. 7. Sebachim xii. 1; Menachoth xiii. 10, fin.
All the offerings to which we have hitherto been referring only went to form the personal emoluments of the priests. From these are now further to be distinguished those imposts which were directly intended to defray the expenses connected with public worship. The most important of them was the half-shekel or didraehma-tax.[964] There was no tax of this description anterior to the exile, for down to that period it had been the practice for the kings to provide the public sacrifices at their own expense (Ezekiel 45:17 ff; Ezekiel 46:13-15, according to the Septuagint). It was in existence however as early as the days of Nehemiah, although at that time it amounted only to a third of a shekel (Nehemiah 10:33-34). The raising of it to half a shekel cannot have taken place till subsequent to Nehemiah’s time. Consequently, the passage in the Pentateuch (Exodus 30:11-16), in which the half-shekel tax is prescribed, must be regarded as a later modification of the terms of the priest code, which moreover is probable for yet other reasons.[965] The actual payment of this tax in the time of Christ is placed beyond a doubt by the unquestionable testimony of various authorities.[966] Then again it was one that had to be paid by every male Israelite of twenty years of age or upwards, no matter whether he were rich or poor,[967] and that, in common with all sacred tribute, in money of the early Hebrew or Tyrian (Phoenician) standard.[968]
[964] Comp. Winer’s Realwörterb., art. “Abgaben.” Saalschütz, i. pp. 291-293. Wieseler’s Chronologische Synopse, p. 264 ff. Id., Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien, p. 108 ff. Huschke, Ueber den Census und die Steuer-verfassung der früheren römischen Kaiserzeit (1847), pp. 202-208. Keim, Geschichte Jesu, ii. 599 ff. Notes of Meyer and other expositors on Matthew 17:24.
[965] See Wellhausen, Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1877, p. 412. The passage in Exodus itself speaks only of one special instance in which the tax was paid, viz. on the occasion of the numbering of the people in the time of Moses (Numbers 1.). But there cannot be a doubt that this was indirectly intended to furnish a legal basis on which to found the exaction of the regular half-shekel tax. It is also in this sense that the passage has been understood so early as by the author of the Chronicles (2 Chronicles 24:4-10).
[966] Matthew 17:24; Joseph. Antt. xviii. 9. 1; Bell. Jud. vii. 6. 6. Mishna tractate Shekalim.
[967] Exodus 30:14-15. Philo, De monarchia, ii. 3 (Mang. ii. 224): Προστέτακται γὰρ ἀνὰ πᾶν ἔτος ἀπαρχὴν εἰσφέρειν ἀπὸ εἰκοσαετοῦς ἀρξαμένους.
[968] Tosefta, Kethuloth xii. fin.: “Wherever money is mentioned in the law, it is Syrian money (כסף צורֹי) that is meant. The specimens of Hebrew shekels that have been preserved are found really to correspond with money of the Phoenician standard. A half-shekel therefore is equal to two Tyrian drachmae, or to something like 1 mark 31 pfennige of German money. Comp. p. 244, above. In the time of Christ it was only the Roman standard that was in force in Palestine (1 denarius = 1 Attic drachma, both of these being somewhat heavier than the Tyrian drachma). Consequently, in paying the sacred tribute it was very often necessary to have recourse to the exchangers.
The time for payment was the month Adar (somewhere about the month of March);[969] while the mode of procedure on that occasion was to have the whole of the contributions payable by one community gathered together and then sent on to Jerusalem, there to be duly paid over in name of that community.[970] This tax was spent mainly in defraying the expense of the daily burnt-offering, and of all the sacrifices generally that had to be offered in the name of the people, as well as for other objects of a public character.[971] After the destruction of Jerusalem the didrachma had for a long time to be paid toward the support of the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in Rome.[972] It is true that in the reign of Nerva the calumnia fisci Judaici was put an end to, but the tax itself was not repealed.[973]
[969] Shekalim i. 1, 3.
[970] Shekalim ii. 1. Comp. Matthew 17:24.
[971] Nehemiah 10:33-34. Shekalim iv. 1-3.
[972] Joseph. Bell. Jud. vii. 6. 6. Dio Cass. lxvi. 7. Comp. Sueton. Domitian, 12: Judaicus fiacus acerbissime actus est.
[973] We have evidence of the first-mentioned fact in the shape of a coin belonging to the reign of Nerva with the words “fisci Judaici calumnia sublata” inscribed upon it (Madden’s History of Jewish Coinage, p. 199). This cannot be taken as alluding to the repeal of the tax itself, but merely to the fact that it was no longer to be imposed in a form so offensive to the Jews, and therefore, of course, that it was no longer to go towards the support of heathen worship. We find that the tax itself was still being paid subsequent to the period here in question; comp. Appian. Syr. l., and especially Origen’s Epist. ad African. sec. xiv. (ed. Lommatzsch, xvii. 44): καὶ νῦν γοῦν Ῥωμαίων βασιλευόντων, καὶ Ἰουδαίων τὸ δίδραχμον αὐτοῖς τελούντων. The Rabbinical writers again have decided that the payment of the half-shekel tax ceases to be binding when the temple ceases to exist (Shekalim viii. 8).
Over and above the half-shekel tax, and as forming a matter of regular tribute for the temple, there was, above all, the furnishing of so much wood every year as fuel for the altar of burnt-offering.[974] As early as the time of Nehemiah it was ordained that the priests, the Levites and the people were at certain periods of the year to furnish the necessary supply of wood for the altar, all of them according to the houses of their fathers, their turn being decided by lot (Nehemiah 10:34; Nehemiah 13:31). At a later period the “wood offering” took place, for the most part, on the 15th of the month Ab, a day which, for this very reason, came to acquire a certain festive character.[975] However, at this same period wood was also furnished by certain families on other days besides the one just mentioned.[976] Every species of wood was allowable except that of the olive and the vine.[977]
[974] On this see Herzfeld’s Geschichte des Volkes Jisrael, ii. 144 f. Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, 3rd ed. iii. pp. 612 (note 1) and 668 (note 14). Derenbourg’s Histoire de la Palestine, p. 109, note 2. Hamburger, Real-Encycl. für Bibel und Talmud, part ii. p. 881 f., art. “Opferholzspende.”
[975] Megillath Taanith, sec. xi. (in Derenbourg, pp. 443, 445). Joseph. Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 6: τῆς τῶν ξυλοφορίων ἑορτῆς οὔσης, ἐν ᾗ πᾶσιν ἔθος ὕλην τῷ βωμῷ προσφέρειν. Seeing that in Bell. Jud. ii. 17. 7, Josephus designates the day following the delivery of the wood as the fifteenth of lot-casting (= Ab), it would follow from this that the delivery took place on the fourteenth of Ab. But, according to the Rabbinical sources, there can be no doubt whatever that the fifteenth of Ab was the principal day; see Megillath Taanith, sec. xi.; Mishna, Taanith iv. 5, iv. 8; in general also, Taanith iv. 4; Megilla i. 3; Jer. Taanith 68b, 69c; Megilla 70c; Bab. Taanith 28a-31a.
[976] Mishna, Taanith iv. 5: “The dates fixed for the furnishing of the wood on the part of the priests and the people were the following nine days:—
[977] Tamid ii 3. Otherwise, according to the Book of Jubilees, chap. 21. (in Ewald’s Jahrb. der. bibl Witsensch. iii. 19). Testam. xii. Patriarch. Levi, chap. 9.
1. On the first of Nisan it was furnished by the family of Arach of the tribe of Judah (comp. Ezra 2:5; Nehemiah 7:10).
2. On the twentieth of Tammus by the family of David of the tribe of Judah (comp. Ezra 8:2).
3. On the fifth of Ab by the family of Parěosh of the tribe of Judah (comp. Ezra 2:3; Ezra 8:3; Ezra 10:25; Nehemiah 3:25; Nehemiah 7:8; Nehemiah 10:15).
4. On the seventh of Ab by the family of Jonadab the Rechabite (comp. 2 Kings 10:15; 2 Kings 10:23; Jeremiah 35:8; 1 Chronicles 2:55).
5. On the tenth of Ab by the family of Sěnaa of the tribe of Benjamin (comp. Ezra 2:35; Nehemiah 3:3; Nehemiah 7:38).
6. On the fifteenth of Ab by the family of Sattu of the tribe of Judah (comp. Ezra 2:8; Ezra 10:27; Nehemiah 7:13; Nehemiah 10:15).
On this same day by The priests.
The Levites.
Those of unknown descent.
The Benê Gonbê Eli and the Bené Kozʾê Keziʾoth.
7. On the twentieth of Ab by the family of Pachath-Moab of the tribe of Judah (comp. Ezra 2:6; Ezra 8:4; Ezra 10:30; Nehemiah 3:11; Nehemiah 7:11; Nehemiah 10:15).
8. On the twentieth of Elul by the family of Adin of the tribe of Judah (comp. Ezra 2:15; Ezra 8:6; Nehemiah 7:20; Nehemiah 10:17).
9. On the first of Tebeth by the family of Parěosh for the second time.”
Then, in the last place, freewill offerings formed a copious source of wealth for the temple. We have already stated that probably the largest share of the vows did not fall to the priests personally, but was used to defray the expenses incurred in connection with the services of the sanctuary (see p. 247, above). But however this might be, that was certainly the case with regard to those vows that were formed for some particular purpose, as well as those other voluntary gifts which did not assume exactly the character of a vow.[978] Very often objects were presented that could be turned to account either in connection with the services of the temple or in the way of ornamenting it.[979] For example, to mention just a single instance, one could present so much gold in the shape of a few leaves, or grapes, or clusters of grapes, with a view to the enlargement of the golden vine that was placed over the entrance to the temple;[980] the wealthy Alabarch Alexander of Alexandria provided the gold and silver with which the gates of the court were covered;[981] nor was it uncommon for distinguished Gentiles to present gifts to the temple (on this see close of present paragraph). As a rule, however, the gifts were bestowed in the shape of money, and then even the poor widow’s mite was not unwelcome (Mark 12:41-44; Luke 21:1-4). In the treasury of the temple thirteen trumpet-shaped boxes were erected, and into these the money was dropped that was intended for the various purposes connected with the religious services. No fewer than six of those boxes were for the reception of “voluntary gifte” pure and simple, without the object for which they were intended being further specified; and the whole of these latter were expended, at least so the Mishna affirms, in the purchase of burnt-offerings (just because it was supposed that in these most benefit would, so to speak, accrue to God).[982]
[978] That at least a formal distinction was made between vows (נדרים) and freewill offerings (נדבות) may be seen from Megilla i. 6.
[979] See in general, Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 13. 6; Mishna, Joma iii. 10.
[980] Middoth iii. 8, fin.
[981] Joseph. Bell. Jud. v. 5. 3.
[982] Shekalim vi. 5, 6.