First Tithe - in The Priestly Code

In The Priestly Code

In classical rabbinical literature, according to which the entire Torah was principally written by Moses, the first tithe is contrasted with the poor tithe, and second tithe, as entirely different tithes from each other, and for this reason gave the tithes the distinct names they possess; these latter tithes, which are mentioned by the Deuteronomic Code, differ by not covering cattle or fruit, and rather than just going to the Levites, are in one case shared among the poor and other charitable destinations, and in the other go to the food producer themselves. According to some secular scholars, the poor tithe and the second tithe, when taken together, are a conflicting version of the same single tithe as the first tithe; the poor tithe and second tithe together being the Deuteronomist's version and the first time being the version of the priestly source.

Although such scholars speculate that the deuteronomist is a later author than the priestly source, scholars believe that much of the Deuteronomic Code was a reaction against the regulations introduced by the Priestly Code, and that here it reflects the earlier situation. In the Book of Ezekiel, which some scholars believe predates the Priestly Code, meaning that according to their view the Priestly Code must post-date the Babylonian Exile, there is no mention whatever of a tithe appointed for the Levites, and in the Deuteronomic Code, though Levites have a share of the Maaser Sheni, their share is seemingly voluntary, and it can alternatively be given to strangers, widows, and/or paternal orphans; in the Priestly Code, however, donation of the tithe to the Levites is compulsory. Of course, if the maaser sheni tithe, also mentioned in Leviticus, were originally different from maaser rishon, there is a simpler explanation for the variation.

The clear differentiation between the kohens (the priests) and the other Levites, in the regulations given by the Priestly Code for the Maaser Rishon, is a distinction scholars attribute to the pro-Aaronid political bias of the priestly source; according to the Biblical revisionists' worldview, all Levites can be legitimate priests, which is likely to be why the Deuteronomist does not mention a tithe of the tithe (the portion of the tithe which is given to the priests rather than other Levites), since it would be somewhat meaningless. On the other hand, it raises a question about the distinction between maaser and terumah. In the Priestly Code it is stated that the Maaser Rishon existed as the source of sustenance for the Levites, since they had no territory, and hence nowhere to keep livestock or perform agriculture (Numbers 18:21-24). but this seemingly neglects the existence of a number of scattered Levite cities; scholars believe that the tithe (i.e. the tithe of which the Maaser Ani and Maaser Rishon are conflicting versions) actually arose as a generic heave offering, given to priests at the sanctuaries for their sustenance, and only became distinct when the Aaronids began to position themselves as the only Levites that could be legitimate priests. This view neglects the fact that cities are not agricultural centers and the tithing laws focus on agricultural produce. According to a holistic view of the Torah, the Levites had no portion in the fields. The Book of Amos, cited by some scholars for support of their proposition, admonishes the Israelites about their rebellious offerings to idols by mentioning practices that would be acceptable to idolatry but not Torah Law. Thus, Amos sarcastically remarks that they bring "for three days your tithes", as well as saying that they should offer their todah offerings of leaven (which was forbidden, see Lev. 2:11). Amos 4:5. The text itself does not bear out such scholars identification between Maaser Rishon and Maaser Ani. First, the text clearly does not state "three years," it states "three days". Second, the text expressly proposes deviant practices as forms of rebellion. Finally, the owner of the produce was not required to bring Maaser Ani to the Temple; but, rather to the poor, no matter where there were. Likewise, this confused story does not clearly demonstrate how maaser sheni developed into a system where the owner separated the tithe for himself and had nothing to do with kings or priests.