Midrash for Numbers 18:26

1) (Vayikra 7:14) ("And he shall offer of it, one of each offering, a gift-offering (terumah) to the L–rd. To the Cohein who sprinkles the blood of the peace-offerings, to him shall it be.") "And he shall offer of it": of the conjoined loaves. "one": he must not take a broken one. "of each offering": All the offerings must be equal. (He may not take a greater portion of one on behalf of the other), and he may not take from one offering for the other. "terumah to the L–rd": I would not know from how many (challoth he takes one); it is, therefore, written here "terumoth," and, in respect to terumath ma'aser (Numbers 18:29) "terumah." Just as there, one of ten; here, too, one of ten.

Another interpretation (of Ps. 33:18): BEHOLD, THE EYE OF THE LORD < IS ON THOSE WHO FEAR HIM >. This < refers to > the tribe of Levi, of whom it is stated (in Mal. 2:5): AND I GAVE THEM (i.e., life and peace) TO HIM²¹Buber’s reading, TO ME, is surely in error. (i.e., Levi) AS WELL AS FEAR, [AND HE FEARED ME]. (Ps. 33:18, cont.:) ON THOSE WHO WAIT, since they were always waiting for the Holy One. (Ps. 33:19:) TO DELIVER THEIR SOUL FROM DEATH, when they enter < the Sanctuary > to offer sacrifice. (Ps. 33:19, cont.:) TO KEEP THEM ALIVE IN THE FAMINE, since he has given them a tithe, as stated (in Numb. 18:26): NOW < YOU SHALL SPEAK > UNTO THE LEVITES < AND SAY UNTO THEM: WHEN YOU RECEIVE THE TITHES FROM THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL >.

(Fol. 86) Our Rabbis were taught: "Heave-offering must be given to the priest, first tithe to the Levite," so says R. Akiba. R. Elazar b. Azaria, however, says: (Ib. b) "Even the first tithes must be given to the priest." Does he mean to the priest only and not to the Levite? Say, "Also to the priest." What is the reason for R. Akiba's statement? It is written (Num. 18, 26) And to the Levites shalt thou speaks, and say unto them. Hence the passage speaks concerning Levites. But the other authority explains the passage as R. Joshua b. Levi did. For R. Joshua b. Levi said: "In twenty-four places, priests are called Levites, and the following is one of them. (Ez. 44, 15) But the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadak," etc. There was a garden of which R. Elazar b. Azaria was getting the first tithes, whereupon R. Akiba went there and removed its entrance toward a cemetery. R. Elazar then remarked: "It is all right with Akiba, who has his [shepherd] bag wherein he keeps his maintenance (i.e., has a rich father-in-law); but how can I live through it?" It was taught: Why were the Levites punished with the tithes? R. Jochanan and one of the seniors of the academy differ. One said because they did not go up to the land of Israel in the time of Ezra, and the other said because the Priests should have to rely upon [cheap food,] during their uncleanliness. And when do we infer that they did not go to the land of Israel in the time of Ezra? It is written (Ez. 8, 15) And I gathered them together to the river that turneth unto the Ahava, and we encamped there three days; and I looked about among the people, and the priests, but of the sons of Levi I found none there. R. Chisda said: "In the beginning the executive officers were appointed only from the Levites, as it is said (II. Chr. 19, 11) And the Levites are officers before you; but nowadays such executive officers are appointed only from Israel, as it is said, And the numerous officers that are at your heads.

(Prov. 6:20:) MY CHILD, KEEP YOUR FATHER's {TORAH} [COMMANDMENTS], <AND DO NOT FORSAKE THE TORAH OF YOUR MOTHER>. Our earliest ancestors separated out terumot²⁹I.e., the priestly tithes on produce, sometimes called “heave offerings.” and tithes.³⁰Tanh., Deut. 4:14, cont.; PRK 10:6; see PR 25:3, cont. Abraham separated out a great terumah, as stated (in Gen. 14:22): <THEN ABRAM SAID UNTO THE KING OF SODOM:> I HAVE LIFTED UP MY HAND UNTO THE LORD, GOD MOST HIGH. A lifting up is nothing but a terumah (rt.: RWM), since it is stated (in Numb. 18:26): <NOW YOU SHALL SPEAK UNTO THE LEVITES AND SAY UNTO THEM: WHEN YOU RECEIVE TITHES FROM THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL, THE TITHE THAT I HAVE GIVEN YOU AS YOUR PORTION,> YOU SHALL LIFT (rt.: RWM) OUT OF IT A TERUMAH OF THE LORD, <A TITHE FROM THE TITHE>. Isaac separated out a second tithe, as stated (in Gen. 26:12): SO ISAAC SOWED ON THAT LAND AND REAPED IN THAT YEAR A HUNDREDFOLD, <FOR THE LORD HAD BLESSED HIM>. R. Abba bar Kahana said: Is it not true that a blessing does not rest on what is measured, on what is weighed, or on what is counted? So why did he measure them? In order to tithe them. This is what is written (ibid.): FOR THE LORD HAD BLESSED HIM.³¹See Deut. 14:24, which mentions a blessing in the context of the second tithe; therefore, the blessing of Gen. 26:12 must have been the result of Isaac’s second tithe. Jacob separated out a first tithe, as stated (in Gen. 28:22): AND OF ALL THAT YOU GIVE ME, I WILL SURELY SET ASIDE A TITHE FOR YOU.

Another explanation (of Deut. 14:22), “You shall tithe, tithe.” This is related to the verse (in Is. 24:5), “And the earth was distorted under its inhabitants, because they transgressed Torahs;¹⁷Torot. Such a literal translation is required by the midrash. In the biblical context the word denotes something more general, such as teachings. they violated a statute; [they broke an eternal covenant].” R. Isaac said, “You have already been false to it, and [so] it is distorted for you. It [may] show you standing grain, but it does not show you a shock of sheaves. It [may] show you [a shock of sheaves, but it does not show you a threshing floor]. It [may] show you a threshing floor, but it does not show you a winnowed heap. Why [not]? (Ibid.:) ‘Because they transgressed Torahs; they violated statutes,’ in that they did transgress two Torahs, the written Torah and the oral Torah; (ibid.) ‘they violated a statute,’ the statute of tithes; (ibid.) ‘they broke an eternal covenant,’ an ancestral covenant.” For that reason Moses warned Israel (in Deut. 14:22), “You shall surely tithe.” (Prov. 6:20:) “My child, keep your father's commandments, [and do not forsake the Torah of your mother].” R. Huna said, “Our earliest ancestors separated out terumot and tithes.” Abraham separated out the great terumah, as stated (in Gen. 14:22), “[Then Abram said unto the king of Sodom,] ‘I have lifted up my hand unto the Lord, God most high.’” A lifting up is nothing but a terumah (rt.: rwm), as you say (in Numb. 18:26), “[Now you shall speak unto the Levites and say unto them, ‘When you receive tithes from the Children of Israel, the tithe that I have given you as your portion,] you shall lift (rt.: rwm) out of it a terumah of the Lord, [a tithe from the tithe].’” Isaac separated out the second tithe, as stated (in Gen. 26:12), “So Isaac sowed on that land and reaped in that year a hundredfold, [for the Lord had blessed him]”; R. Eiba bar Kahana said, “Is it not true that a blessing does not rest on what is measured, on what is weighed, or on what is counted? So why did he measure them? In order to tithe them. This is what is written (ibid.), ‘for the Lord had blessed him.’”¹⁸See Deut. 14:24, which mentions a blessing in the context of the second tithe; therefore, perhaps the blessing of Gen. 26:12 would have been the result of Isaac’s second tithe. Jacob separated out the first tithe, as stated (in Gen. 28:22), “and of all that You give me, I will surely set aside a tithe for You.” A certain Cuthean (i.e., a Samaritan) came and questioned R. Meir. He said to him, “Do you not say that indeed your ancestor Jacob is truthful?” He said [back] to him, “Yes, as it is written (in Micah 7:20), ‘You give truthfulness to Jacob.’” [The Cuthean] said to him, “He separated out the tribe of Levi [as a tithe] for the tribes, [i.e.,] one out of ten. Should he not have separated out [a tithe] from two more [tribes]?” R. Meir said to him, “You have said that there were twelve, but I say that there were fourteen, as stated (in Gen. 48:5), ‘Ephraim and Manasseh shall be mine like Reuben and Simeon.’” He said to him, “So here you are supporting me. You have added flour. Have you added water?” He said to him, “Do you not admit that there are four matriarchs that had four first-borns? Take away from [the fourteen] the four firstborn (of Jacob's four wives), since the firstborn is not tithed. Why? Because he is holy, and something holy does not redeem for use something [else that is] holy.” He said to him, ‘It is good for your people that you are among them.” Hence it is written (Prov. 6:20), “and do not forsake the Torah of your mother (immekha),” [i.e.,] your people (ummatekha). That is what David said (in Ps. 40:9), “To carry out Your will, my God, is my desire, [for Your Torah is within my belly].” R. Aha bar Ulla said, “Is there Torah within the belly? And is it not so written (in Jer. 31:33), ‘and upon their heart (not their belly) I will write it?’ It is simply that David said, ‘May [a curse] come upon me, if something goes down into my belly, except when it is tithed.’ This is what is written (in I Chron. 27:25), ‘And over the treasuries of the king was Azmaveth ben Adiel; and over the treasuries in the country in the cities, in the villages, and in the towers was Jonathan ben Uzziah.’”¹⁹In other words, David was concerned enough about tithes to appoint overseers. For that reason Moses warned Israel (in Deut. 14:22), “You shall surely tithe.”

(Bamidbar 15:15-17) "And the L-rd spoke to Moses, saying: … upon your coming to the land whither I bring you there": R. Yishmael says: Scripture varied (linguistically) this "coming" from all the other "comings" in the Torah. For in all the other instances it is written "And it shall be, when you come to the land"; "And it shall be when the L-rd shall bring you" (all such expressions connoting permanent settlement), whereas here it is written "upon your coming" (connoting the moment of arrival), to teach that the mitzvah of challah (the Cohein's share of the dough) devolved upon them immediately upon their entering the land "whither I bring you there": From here you derive that produce grown outside the land which enters the land is subject to challah. It is from here (Eretz Yisrael) to there that R. Eliezer ruled it subject to challah, and R. Akiva exempts it. R. Yehudah says: Produce grown outside the land which entered the land — R. Eliezer exempts it, it being written (Ibid. 19) "and it shall be, when you eat of the bread of the land," and R. Akiva rules it subject to challah, it being written "there" (i.e., in Eretz Yisrael). What is the intent of "when you eat of the bread of the land"? From (Ibid 20) "the first of your dough," I would understand even other produce (as being subject to challah). You, therefore, reason: It is written here "bread" and elsewhere (Devarim 16:3) "bread." Just as "bread" there is of the five species: wheat, barley, rye, oats, and spelt, so, "bread" here. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) "that you shall separate an offering (terumah)": This speaks of the "great terumah" (taken from one's produce [viz. Devarim 18:4]) — But perhaps it speaks of the challah offering! — (This cannot be, for) (Bamidbar, Ibid. 20) "challah, you shall offer up an offering" already speaks of challah. How, then, is "you shall offer up an offering to the L-rd to be understood? As referring to the "great terumah," (which is taken before the challah is separated). (Devarim 18:4) "The first of your corn, your wine, and your oil … shall you give to him" (the Cohein). This is mandatory. You say that it is mandatory, but perhaps it is optional (i.e., if you separate it, you must give it to him, but you need not separate it.) It is, therefore, written "You shall separate terumah" — It is mandatory and not optional. I might think that flours, too, are subject to challah; it is, therefore, written "the first of your dough" — when it has become dough. [From here they ruled: One may eat a chance meal of started dough of wheat before it has been rolled out, or of barley before it had been well kneaded, (after which it becomes subject to challah). If one ate of it — of wheat flour, after it had been rolled out, or of barley flour after it had been well kneaded, (without taking challah) — he is liable to the death penalty. Once she had added the water, she must remove her challah, so long as there not remain there (in the kneading-trough) five quarter-kavs or more of flour that had not been mixed with water, (for if there did, they are subject to challah.)] For challah is not taken from (unprocessed) flour. If one had not taken challah from the dough, I might think he may not take it from the bread; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar, Ibid. 19) "And it shall be when you eat of the bread of the land, you shall separate, etc." R. Akiva says: All (vis-à-vis the separation of challah) is contingent upon its forming a crust in the oven. (Ibid. 24) "As terumah of the threshing floor, so shall you offer it" (the challah). Just as with terumah, (the designated separation is) one (part) to a thousand, so, challah. And just as terumah of the threshing floor is "raised" (if it became intermixed) with one hundred and one times (its amount of non-terumah — which may then be eaten by non-Cohanim); and it creates a forbidden admixture for non-Cohanim if it fell into (only) a hundred of non-terumah; and it creates liability to the death penalty and to the one-fifth (chomesh) restitution penalty (viz. Vayikra 5:16) — so, with challah. These are the words of R. Yoshiyah. R. Yonathan "whispered" to him: You liken it to terumah of the threshing floor, (the percentage of) which is unspecified (in the Torah)? I will liken it to terumath ma'aser (Bamidbar 18:26), (the percentage of) which is explicit (in the Torah) — and one-tenth should be taken (as challah). He responded: It is written "As the terumah of the threshing floor, so shall you offer it." It is likened to terumah of the threshing floor, and not to terumath ma'aser.

(Bamidbar, Ibid.) "For all the hallowed things of the children of Israel, etc.": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with the holy of holies (viz. Ibid. 19) to declare a law to make a covenant with them. And why was this necessary? For Korach arose against Aaron and contested the priesthood. An analogy: A king of flesh and blood had a retainer to whom he gave a field of holding as a gift, without writing or sealing (the transaction) and without recording it, whereupon someone came and contested his (the retainer's) ownership of the field. At this, the king said to him: Let anyone who wishes come and contest it. Come (now) and I will write, seal, and record it. Korach came and contested his (Aaron's) claim to the priesthood, at which the L-rd said to him: Let anyone who wishes come and contest it. I am (now) writing and sealing and recording it — wherefore this section is juxtaposed with (the episode of) Korach. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "to you have I given them (the gifts)": in your merit "lemashchah": "meshichah" connotes greatness, as in (Vayikra 7:35) "This is mishchath Aaron and mishchath his sons, etc." R. Yitzchak says "mishchah" (here) connotes anointment, as in (Psalms 133:2) "the goodly oil upon the head, running down the beard, the beard of Aaron." (Bamidbar, Ibid.) "and to your sons": in the merit of your sons. "as an everlasting statute": the covenant obtaining for all of the succeeding generations. (Ibid. 9) "This shall be for you from the holy of holies from the fire": I would not know of what this speaks. Go out and see: What remains (for the Cohanim) of the holy of holies, all of which is consigned to the fire? You find this as obtaining only with a beast burnt-offering, (the hide of which reverts to the Cohanim.) "all of their offerings": the two loaves and the show-bread. "all of their meal-offerings": the sinner's meal-offering and the donative meal-offering. "all of their sin-offerings": the sin-offering of the individual and the communal sin-offering (viz. Vayikra 6:18), the bird sin-offering and the beast sin-offering. "all of their guilt-offerings": the "certain" guilt-offering, the "suspended" guilt-offering, the guilt-offering of the Nazirite and the guilt-offering of the leper. "which they shall return to Me": This refers to the theft of a proselyte, (which reverts to the Cohanim [viz. Ibid. 5:8]). "holy of holies": This refers to the leper's log of oil. "to you and to your sons": in your merit and in the merit of your sons. (Ibid. 10) "In the holy of holies shall you eat it": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with the holy of holies that they are to be eaten only in a holy place, within the curtains (i.e., in the azarah [the Temple court]). R. Yehudah said: Whence is it derived that if gentiles surrounded the azarah, they may be eaten (even) in the sanctuary? From "In the holy of holies shall you eat it." (Ibid.) "Every male shall eat it": Scripture forged a covenant with Aaron with the holy of holies that they are to be eaten by males of the priesthood. "Holy shall it be to you": What is the intent of this? I might think that only something fit for eating should be eaten in holiness. Whence do I derive (the same for) something which is not fit for eating? From "Holy shall it be to you." (Ibid. 11) "And this is for you the terumah of (i.e., what is set apart from) their gift-offerings": Scripture hereby apprises us that just as Scripture included holy of holies to decree a law to make a covenant with them, so, did it include lower-order offerings. "From all the wave-offerings of the children of Israel": This thing requires waving. "To you have I given them, and to your sons and to your daughters with you, as an everlasting statute": the covenant obtaining for all of the succeeding generations. "Every clean one in your house shall eat it": Scripture forged a covenant with lower-order offerings that they are to be eaten only by those who are clean. "All the best of the oil, and all the best of the wine and of the wheat": Scripture hereby apprises us that just as Scripture included the offerings of the sanctuary to decree a law to make a covenant with them, so, did it include the border offerings (i.e., those outside the sanctuary) to decree a law to make a covenant with them. "All the best of the oil": This is terumah gedolah (Devarim 18:4). "and all the best, etc.": This is terumath ma'aser (Bamidbar 18:26). "the first of them": the first of the shearing (Devarim 18:4). "which they shall give": shoulder, cheeks and maw (Ibid. 3). "to the L-rd": challah (Bamidbar 15:20). (Ibid. 18:13) "the first-fruits of all that is in their land": Scripture here comes to teach us about the bikkurim that holiness "takes" upon them while they are yet attached to the ground. For it would follow (otherwise, viz.:) Since holiness "takes" on bikkurim and holiness "takes" on terumah, then, if I have learned about terumah that holiness does not "take" on it while it is yet on the ground, so, with bikkurim. It is, therefore, written "the first-fruits of all that is in their land," to teach us otherwise. (Bamidbar 18:12) "To you have I given them": Scripture comes to teach that it is given to the Cohein. (Bamidbar, Ibid. 13) "Every clean one of your household shall eat it": Why is this stated? Is it not already written (Ibid. 11) "Every clean one in your house shall eat it (terumah)"? Why repeat it? To include the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein as eating terumah. Does this include one who is betrothed? Perhaps it speaks only of one who is married! — (This is not so, for) "Every clean one in your house shall eat it" already speaks of one who is married. How, then, am I to understand "Every clean one of your household"? As including the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein, as eating terumah. This would seem to include (as eating terumah) a betrothed one and a toshav (a ger toshav [sojourner]) and a sachir (a hired non-Jew). How, then, am I to understand (Shemot 12:45) "a toshav … shall not eat of it"? A toshav who is not in your domain; but one who is in your domain may eat of it. Or even a toshav who is in your domain (may eat of it). And how am I to understand "Every clean one of your household may eat of it"? As excluding a toshav and a sachir. Or perhaps, including a toshav and a sachir! It is, therefore, written (Vayikra 22:10) "and a sachir shall not eat the holy thing" (terumah): whether or not he is in your domain. And it happened that R. Yochanan b. Bag Bag sent to R. Yehudah in Netzivim: I heard about you that you said that the daughter of an Israelite betrothed to a Cohein eats terumah. He sent back: And I held you to be expert in the recesses of Torah when you cannot even expound a kal vachomer (a fortiori, viz.:) If a Canaanite maidservant, whose intercourse (with her master) does not acquire her (or him) for (purposes of) eating terumah, her money (i.e., the money by which he acquired her [viz. Vayikra 22:11]) causes her to eat terumah — then the daughter of an Israelite, whose intercourse (with her husband) acquires her (to him) for (purposes of) eating terumah, how much more so should her money (by which he betroths her) acquire her for (purposes of) eating terumah! But what can I do? The sages said: The daughter of an Israelite betrothed (to a Cohein) does not eat terumah until she enters the chuppah (the marriage canopy). Once she enters the chuppah, even if there were no intercourse, she eats terumah, and if she dies, her husband inherits her.

(Bamidbar 18:26) "And to the Levites shall you speak, and you shall say to them: When you take from the children of Israel the tithe (ma'aser) that I have given to you from their inheritance, (then you shall separate from it the terumah of the L-rd, ma'aser from the ma'aser.") Why is this written? To teach that (Ibid. 21) "And to the sons of Levi, behold, I have given every tithe" speaks of (one-tenth of) the produce (of the land, and not of [one-tenth of] the land itself.) You say, the produce, but perhaps (the reference is to) the land (itself)! It is, therefore, written (26) "And to the Levites you shall speak and you shall say to them (… that I have given to you from them in their inheritance"). "that I have given to you from them in their inheritance": Because they have not been given a portion in the land, there has been given to them one-tenth of the produce. "then you shall separate from it": From one kind (of produce) for its kind, and not from one kind for a different kind, and not from what is rooted for what is unrooted, and not from what is unrooted for what is rooted, and not from the new (crop) for the old, and not from the old for the new. And whence is it derived that one is not to take terumah from produce of the land (Eretz Yisrael) for produce outside the land or from produce outside the land for produce of the land? From (Vayikra 27:30) "And all the tithe of the land, etc.)" Variantly: "from it": This is "extra" (mufneh) for formulating an identity (gezeirah shavah ) viz.: It is written here "from it," and, in respect to the Paschal lamb, (Shemot 12:9) ("Do not eat) from it, etc." Just as re "with it" mentioned here (in respect to ma'aser), it (ma'aser) is forbidden to a mourner, (viz. Devarim 26:14), so, re "with it" mentioned in respect to Pesach, it (the Paschal lamb) is forbidden to a mourner.