It will be seen that the book of Deuteronomy only mentions the second or vegetable tithe as well as its triennial conversion into the poor tithe, omitting alto- gether the first or Levitical tithe; while the books of Leviticus and Numbers, which discuss the Levitical tithe, pass over in silence the second or feast tithe. This has given rise to various theories among modern critics. Thus Ewald will have it that the t)euteron- omist, writing durirg the period of the Jewish monar- chy, when the Levitical tithe, as enacted in Leviticus and Numbers, could no longer be continued as a regular rate in consequence of the new taxes imposed bv the X.— E E
sovereigns, endeavored to bring the tithe back to its original form of a voluntary offering {Die Alterthiimer des Volkes Israel, p. 34t)). Knobel {Comment, on Lev. p. 419, 590) regards Deut. xii, G, 11; xiv, 22-29; xxvi, 12, as proceeding from the later Jehovistic legislator who lived towards the end of the kingdom of Judah, and who substituted for the older Elohistic ainuial veg- etable and animal tithe, which was no longer practica- ble, the triennial vegetable tithe which was to be de- voted to the hospitable meals whereunfo the Levites, together with the stranger, widow, orphans, and poor, were to be invited. Bishop Colenso {The Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua Critiadli/ Examined, iii, 476), who also regards the enactments in Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy as referring to one and the same tithe, finds "the most complete contradiction between the two sets of laws." Against these theories, however, is to be urged that — a. The tithal enactment in Deuter- onomy has nothing whatever to do with the one iu Leviticus and Nimibers, and is therefore neither in- tended to contravene nor supersede it. b. The Deuter- onomist presupposes the existence and force of the Le- vitical tithe as the fixed income of the ministers of the sanctuary, and designs the second tithe to be in force by its side. This is evident from the fact that the book of Deuteronomy (x, 9; xii, 19; xiv, 27, 29), like the books of Leviticus and Numbers, legislates upon the basis of Levitical poverty, and frequently refers to the care to be taken of the Levites. Now if, according to the above-named hypothesis, we are to regard the triennial tithe as substituted in the place of the orig- inal Levitical tithe, we are shut up to the preposterous conclusion that the only provision made by the Deuter- onomist for the Levites is an ample meal once in three years, c. The mention of the second tithe by the Den- teronomist alone is owing to the fact that it is connect- ed with the fixing of the central sanctuary, the rites and regulations of which he alone discusses, d. The post -exilian practice of the Jews shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that the nation for whom these tithal laws were passed understood the enactment iu Deuteronomy to mean a second tithe as in force side bj- side with the first or Levitical tithe enjoined in Le- viticus and Numbers (Tobit i, 7; Josephus, Ant. iv, 8. 8, 22 ; Mishna, Maaser Sheni). This also sets aside the objection urged by some that a double tithe would be too heavy and unbearable a tax. For if the Jews did not find it so in later times, when under the rule of foreign sovereigns, and paying heavy rates to them, surely they could not have found the double tithe too grinding an oppression during the independence of the State, especially when it is remembered that the second tithe was devoted to festive repasts of the respective families at which the Levites, the strangers, the wid- ows, orphans, etc., were simply guests.
From all this we gather: 1. That one tenth of the whole produce of the soil was to be assigned for the maintenance of the Levites. 2. That out of this the Levites were to dedicate a tenth to God for the use of the high-priest. 3. That a tithe, in all probability a second tithe, was to be applied to festival purposes. 4. That in every third year either this festival tithe or a third tenth was to be eaten in company with the jioor and the Levites. The question thus arises, were there three tithes taken in this third year, or is the third tithe only the second under a different description V That there were two yearly tithes seems clear, both from the general tenor of the directions and from the Sept. rendering of Deut. xxvi, 12. But it must be al- lowed that the thii'd tithe is not without support, a. Josephus distinctly says that one tenth was to be giv- en to the priests and Levites, one tenth was to be ap- plied to feasts in the metropolis, and that a tenth be- sides these {rpiTTjv Tvpoq avTo'ig) was every third year to be given to the poor {Ant. iv, 8, 8, 22). b. To- bit says he gave one tenth to the priests, one tenth he sold and spent at Jerusalem, i. e. commuted according
TITHE
434
TITHE
to Deut. xiv, 24, 25, and another tenth he gave away (Tobit i, 7, 8). c. Jerome says one tenth was tjiven to tlie Levites, out of which they gave one teiitli to the priests {cevrffioCiKuTi]') ; a second tithe was applied to festival purposes, and a third was given to the poor {TrToJxoCEKarti) (Com. on Kzek. xlv, i, 565). Spencer thinks there were three tithes. Jennings, with iMede, thinks there were only two complete tithes, hut that in the third year an addition of some sort was made (Spencer, l)e Ley. Hebr. p. 727 ; Jennings, Jewisit A iit. p. 183).