Not only the tithe but other previous rights were withdrawn from the Levites. Th.ey were no longer trusted with the whole of the watch .•service of the temple, but had, according to the Mishna, to keep watch only on the outside at 21 points, whereas the three stations in the inner court were occupied by priests. The guard supplied by the Levites was under the control of a captain of the temple, i.e. a priest {.Middoth i. 1, 2).
Seeing that the Nethinim, who apparently were no longer even in the time of the Chronicler employed as a special class for the service of the temple, although still mentioned at a latel period, are not mentioned in connexion with the temple service, the lower nercices must have been discharged by others. Pliilo assigns not only the
PRIESTS AND LEVITES
PRIESTS AND LEVITES
95
watch service but also the cleaning of the temple to the yeuK6poi, i.e. the Lcvites ; for other duties, growing boys of the priests were employed (Schiirer, p. 279). In addition, we hear {Hukka iv. i ; Tamid v. 3) of 'attendants' (c';;n), without its being clear whether they were Lerites (so Biichler, Pricster, p. 149 ff.) or non-Levites that were thus employed. In any case the only class of Levites that could enter into consideration would be the doorkeepers, for t he singers were doubtless regarded as holding too di'^nified a position to have such a name a[>plied to tliem.
Shortly before the destruction of the temple, the sinr/ers succeeded in obtaining from Agrippa II. and the Sanhedrin permission to wear the ' linen ' garment of the priests (Jos. Ant. XX. i.\. 6). The desire to do this was not new ; according to 1 Cli 15-'', 2 Ch 5", in the time of David and Solomon not only the singers but the Levites in general wore the jiriestly Oyssus robe — a statement which sliows merely that at the time of the Chronicler this practice was an object of desire. Agrippa II. not only granted the desire of the singers, but allowed a portion of the Levites, by whom only doorkeepers can be meant, to learn tlie singing of hymns (Jos. I.e.), i.e. to hold an equal place with the division of singers.
It is to the Levites apparently that we shotild refer the designation oi ypaiifiareU toP Upov, ' the teachers of the law of the teiii])le,' which occurs in the letter of Antiochus the Great, ap. Jos. Ant. XII. iii. 3. As these ipaixpjiTtU are named between the Updt and the lepoiZ-aXToi, they can liardly be other than Levites (Sam. Krauss, p. 675). The mention of them tallies with what we learn from Nell 8'"' about the instruction in the Torah whicli was given by the Levites.
b. The revenue.1 of the priests and Levites. — The dties demanded for the priests by the Priests' Code were augmented by that imposed by Deuteronomy npon sheep's wool {Chtiltin \i. 1, 2). By combin- ing the requirements of Dt with those of the Priests' Code, the income of the priests was further augmented, inasmuch as those portions of the sacrilicial victims which, according to Dt, fell to the priests, had at a later period to be paid to them from all animals that might legitimately be oliered in sacrilice, even when these were slaugh- tered for a common use, namely the foreleg, the cheek, and the maw of cattle, sheep, and goats {Chtdlin X. 1 ; cf. Schiirer, p. 255). The bikkurim were more specilically defined as having to be [laid from seven sources, adopted from Dt 8", namely wheat, barley, grajies, ligs, pomegTanates, olives, and honey. According as the parties concerned resided near to or far from Jerusalem the bik- kiiriiii were to be handed over fresh or dried, and were to be brought in general processions to Jeru- salem (Scliiirer, p. 2-19). A distinction, based on Nell 12", was made between the bikkurim and the tirihiidh in the narrower sense, i.e. the due levied on the best not only of the above seven kinds but on all fruits of lield and tree. There was no fixed measure prescribed for these dues, but on an average tliey were to amount to ^ih of one's in- come. This tirunulh was to be eaten, accordinj; to Nu 18'2, by priests alone (Schiirer, p. 249 f.). The due to be presented of dough was also more specifi- cally defined, as well as the products of the ground which had to be regarded aa tithable (Schiirer, p. 250 tr.).
According to the Mishna (Menahoth x. 4), a portion of the firstling sheaf that was waved by the priest before Jaliweh (l,v 2;i">') falls to the priest— an arrangement of which there is no indica- tion in t*ie OT. According to Josephus (-In*. IV. iv. 4), the redemjition mice for the vow of one's own {(erson is considered to belong to the priests,
whereas in the Priests' Code (Lv 27) this is not expressly said, as it is in the case of the h(rem. Perhaps the statement of Josephus is inexact ; as a rule, at least the things vowed appear to have been used for general cultus purposes (Schiirer, 25()f.).
In one point the practice of later times took a turn less favourable to the temple-servants than the IViests' Code had intended. Not only the so- called second tenth, i.e. tL • one which, upon the ground of the tithe regulations in Dt was levied besides the tithe of the Levites, but also the tithe of cattle, are required by the Rabbinical rules to be devoted to sacrilicial meals at Jerusalem. The latter thus did not fall, as is unquestionably tlie intention of the Priests' Code, to the Levites and priests (Schiirer, p. 251 f., note 22).