5. Maintenance. — Functions such as these were clear- ly incompatible with the common activities of men. At first the small number of the priests must have made the work almost unintermittent, and, even when the system of rotation had been adopted, the periodical absences from home could not fail to be disturbing and injurious, had the priests been dependent on their own labors. The serenity of the priestly character would have been disturbed had they had to look for support to the lower industries. It may have been intended (see above) that their time, when not liturgically employed, should be given to the study of the law, or to instructing others in it. On these grounds, therefore, a distinct provision was made for them. The later rabbins enumerate no less than twenty-four sources of emolument. Of these the chief only are given here (Ugolino, xiii, 1124). They con- sisted, (1) of one tenth of the tithes which the people paid to the Levites — i. e. one per cent, on the whole produce of the country (Numb, xviii, 26-28). (2.) Of a special tithe every third year (Deut. xiv, 28; xxvi, 12). (3.) Of the redemption-money, paid at the fixed rate of five shekels a head, for the first-born of man or beast (Numb, xviii, 14-19). It is to be noticed that the law, by recognising the substitution of the Levites for the first-born, and ordering payment only for the small number of the latter, in excess of the former, deprived Aaron and his sons of a large sum which would other- wise have accrued to them (Numb, iii, 44-51). (4.) Of the redemption-money paid in like manner for men or things specially dedicated to the Lord (Lev. xxvii). (5.) Of spoil, captives, cattle, and the like, taken in war (Numb, xxxi, 25-47). (6.) Of what may be described as the perquisites of their sacrificial functions, the shew- bread, the flesh of the burnt-offerings, peace-offerings, trespass-offerings (Numb, xviii, 8-14; Lev. vi, 26, 29; vii, 6-10), and, in particular, the heave-shoulder and the wave-breast (Lev. x, 12-15). (7.) Of an undefined amount of the first-fruits of com, wine, and oil (Exod. xxiii, 19; Lev. ii, 14; Deut. xxvi, 1-10). Of some of these, as "most holy," none but the priests were to par- take (Lev. vi, 29). It was lawful for their sons and daughters (x, 14), and even in some cases for their home -born slaves, to eat of others (xxii, 11). The stranger and the hired servant were in all cases exclud- ed (xxii, 10). (8.) On their settlement in Canaan the priestly families had thirteen cities assigned them, with " suburbs" or pasture-grounds for their flocks (Josh, xxi, 13-19.) While the Levites were scattered over all the
PRIEST
576
PRIEST
conquered country, the cities of the priests were within the tribes of Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin, and this' concentration was no) withoul its influence on theii subsequent history. See I.i.yitk. These provisions trace obviously intended to secure the religion of Israel j against the dangers of a caste of pauper-priests, needy! and dependent, and unable to bear their witni bs to the true faith. They were, on the other hand, as far as possible removed from the condition ofa wealthy order. Even in the ideal state contemplated by the book of Deuteronomy, the Levite (here probably used generi- cally, so as to include the priests) is repeatedly marked out as an object of charity, along with the stranger and I the widow (Deut. xii, 12, L9; xiv,27 29). During t lie lmig periods of national apostasy, tithes were probably paid with even less regularity than they were in the more orthodox period thai followed the return from the Captivity (Neh. xiii, 10; Mai. Lii, 8—10). The standard ofa priest's income, even in the earliest days after the settlement in Canaan, was miserably low (Judg. xvii, 10). Large portions of the priesthood fell, under the kingdom, into a state of abject poverty ie.mii>. l Sam. ii, 36). The clinging evil throughout their history was not that they were too powerful and rich, but that they sank into the state from which the law was intended to preserve them, and so came to "teach tor bin" (Mic.iii, 11; com p. Saalschutz, Irchaohgii der Uebraer, ii, 344
It will be noticed that neither the high-priest nor common priests received "any inheritance" at the dis- tribution of Canaan among the several tribes (Numb. xviii. 20; Deut. xviii, 1, 2), but were maintained, with their families, upon certain lees. dues, perquisites, etc., arising from the public services, which they enjoyed as a common fund. Perhaps the only distinct prerogative of the high-priest was a tenth part of the tithes as- signed to the Levites (xviii, 28 ; comp. Neb. x, 38); but Josephus represents this also as a common fund (Ant. iv, 1. 1 I.
6. Classification and Statistics. — The earliest histor- ical trace of any division of the priesthood and corre- sponding cycle of services belongs to the time of David. Jewish tradition indeed recognises an earlier division, even during the life of Aaron, into eighl houses (Gem. Hieros. Taanith, in Ugolino, xiii, 873), augmented dur- ing the period of the Shiloh-worship to sixteen, the two families of Eleazar and Ethamar standing in both cases on an equality. Ii is hardly conceivable, however, thai there could have been any rotation of sen ice w bile the number of priests was so small as ii must have been during the forty years of sojourn in the wilderness, if we believe Aaron and his lineal descendants to have been the only priests officiating. The difficulty of real- izing in what way the single family of Aaron were able to sustain all the burden of the worship of the taber- nacle and the sacrifices of individual Israelites may, ii is true, suggest the thought that possibly in this, as in other instances, the Hebrew idea of sonship by adoption may have extended the title of the "Sons of Aaron" be- yond the limits of lineal descent, and. iii this ease, there may be some foundation for the Jewish tradition. No- where in the later history do we find any disproportion like that of three priests to 20,000 I. exiles. Hie office