During the monarchy, the payment of tithes was neglected, and it seems that the kings claimed them for themselves (1 Sam. viii, 14, 15, 17; with 1 Mace, ii, 35). It w-as, however, re-established at the restoration of re- ligion by the pious llezekiah (2 Chron. xxxi, 5, (!, 12), and after the return of the .Jews from the Babylonian captivity (Neh. x, 3S; xii, 44; xiii, 5, 12), when mate- rial alteratinns and moditications were made in the tith- al law owing to the altered state of the commonwealth and to the disproportion of the Levites and laymen. Onlv 341 or 3(50 Levites returned at first from the Kab- vlonian captivity, with about 37.310 laymen ; while with Ezra onlv 3.S Levites came l)ack. with 1496 laymen; and there can be but little doubt tliat the same dispro- portion continued among those who returned afterwards, as well as in the gradual and natural increase of the nation.' There were thus 97 laymen to 1 Levite, while the tithe of 9 laymen amounted to as much as was left for each jirivate family; and if we take 10 laymen to 1 Levite, as the latter had to pay a tenth to the priest, the tithe when didy paid by all the people yielded ten times as much as the Levites required. On the other hand, there were in .Tudaja, after the return from Baby- lon, a disproportionately large number of priests, since, exclusive of those who had no register (Ezra ii, (i2), 4289 of them came with Zerubbabel — i. e. twelve or thirteen times more than Levites — and two whole families, besides separate individuals, came with Ezra. These could not possibly have subsisted upon the legal dues (Neh. x,3G-39). In addition to the miserably pro- vided priests, there were the 612 Nethinim who came back with Zerubbabel and Ezra (Ezra ii, 58; viii, 20; Neh. vii, (50), for whom no provision whatever existed. Ezra had therefure to take the superabundant tithe from the Levites for the support of the priests and the Netliinim. Hence .loseplius distinctly tells us that the priests received tithes in later times {Life, 15; A7it. xi, 5, 8 ; XX, 8, 8 ; 9, 2 ; Apion, i, 22). It is this distribution of the Levitical tithe between the priests and the Le- vites which is evidently alluded to when the Talmud says that Ezra transferred the tithes from the Levites to the priests as a punishment for their tardiness in re- turning from exile (A' '///"/v"^//. 2<) a ; C/io/iii, Viii b; 1>- 6nmoM, 86 b; Sotith, 47 b), for it could not possibly mean that he took the whole tithe away from the Levites, since that would be at variance with other records (comp. Ezra X, 38. 39; Neh. xiii, 10, 13; Tobit i, 7, with Tos- sephoth on Kethnholh, 26 a), and woidd leave the Levites wholly iniprovided for, and visit the good Levites who did return with the punishment deserved by those who remained bchin<l. It is, moreover, owing to this distri- bution of tlie Levitical tithe effected by Ezra that the tithe was afterwards divided into three portions, one of which was given by the owner to his friends the priests and Levites, the other was taken to the Temple store- house, and the third portion was distributed in Jerusa- lem among the poor and the needy chdberim (D^isn) ^doctors of the law (Jerusalem iSotnh, ix, 11 ; Jerusa- lem Maaser Sheni, v, 15; Babylon Yebcimoth,HQ b).
The board appointed to watch over the tithes, as well as the storehouses, which already existed in the time of llezekiah for the rece[ilion of the tithes (2
Chron. xxxi, 11-14), were now better organized than ever. To achieve the purpose intended by Ezra in the new division of the tithe, it was absolutely neces- sary that the collection and the distribution thereof should take \)lace under the careful superintendence of a body consisting of both priests and Levites. Such a board was therefore duly a[)pointed, and it was ordain- ed that at least one portion of the tithes should be tak- en to Jerusalem for the support of the ministering Le- vites.
During the period of sacerdotal degeneracy and (Gre- cian ascendency in Palestine, the tithes were again dis- continued; but at the rise of the Pharisees the strict payment of a tenth was made one of the two essential conditions exacted from every individual who desired to become a dialer (T!3H) = member of this associa- tion. The reason for this is given in the article Piiak-
I.SEE.
IV. Literature. — Mishna, tractates Maaseroth, Maa- ser Sheni, and Bekoroth. ix, 1-8; and the (iemaras on these Mishnas; Maimonides, lad lla-Chezaka, Hilchoth Afathanuth A njiin, vi, 1-17 ; Hilchoth Maaser and Maa- ser Sheni; SeMen, The Uistory of Tithes (1618); Ilot- tinger, l>e Deciinis Judaorum (L. B. 1713); and other monographs cited by Volbeding, index Programmatiun, p. 170; Spencer, />e Lec/ibus Hebrworum (Cantabrigise, 1727), lib. iii, c. x ; ii, 720, etc. ; Michaelis, Commenta- ries on the Laws of Moses (Engl, transl. London, 1814), art. cxcii, iii, 141 , etc. ; Herzfeld, Gesch. des Vullces Israel (Nordhausen, 1855), i, 62 sq., 138 sq.
TITHES (Anglo-Saxon, teotha, a tenth^. a tenth part of the produce of the land, which by ancient usage, and subsequently by law, is set aside for the support of the clergj' and other religious uses. In the Christian dis- pensation the verj' circumstance of the existence of the clergv is supposed by many to imply a certain fixed pro- vision for their maintenance. This obligation has been put forward in ecclesiastical legislation from the earliest period. The Apostolic Canons, the Apostolic Constitu- tions, St. Cyjjrian on the Unity of the Church, and the works of Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, and the oth- er fathers of both divisions of the Church, abound with allusions to it. In the early Christian Church the cus- tom of consecrating to religious purposes a tenth of the income was voluntary, and it was not made obligatory until the Council of Tours in 567. The second Council of Macon, in 585, enjoined the payment of tithes under pain of excommiuiication ; and Charlemagne, by his ca- pitularies, formally established the practice within those portions of the ancient Roman empire to which his legis- lation extended.