Midrash su Deuteronomio 26:13

4) "to the poor man": I might think (that this applies, too,) to the poor of others (i.e., of gentiles); it is, therefore, written "to the stranger" (i.e., the proselyte, who is Jewish). If "to the stranger," I might think that the reference is to a ger toshav (a "sojourning stranger," who is not Jewish); it is, therefore, written (in this context, Devarim 26:13) "to the Levite." Just as a Levite is a son of the Covenant, so "stranger" is a son of the Covenant (and not a gentile).

(Bamidbar 5:10) "And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be": All kodshim ("holies") were included in "And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be." Scripture "pulled out" all the kodshim and gave them to the Cohanim, leaving over (to the owners) only ("portions") of thank-offerings, peace-offerings, the Pesach offering, beast-tithe, second-tithe, and neta revai (plantings of the fourth year). Variantly: And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be": From here you derive that to the Cohein who performs the sacrifice (even in a different watch), its service (i.e., its flesh) and its skin belong "to him" (the Cohein). Variantly: "And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be": What is the intent of this? From (Vayikra 19:24) "And in the fourth year all of its fruit shall be holy in praise of the L-rd," (I would not know) "holy" to the owners or "holy" to the Cohanim? It is, therefore, written "And a man, his holy things, to him shall they be." Scripture here speaks of neta revai, that it belongs to the owners. These are the words of R. Meir. R. Shimon says: "holy" to the owners. You say "holy" to the owners, but perhaps it is "holy" to the Cohanim! — You derive it thus: second-tithe is called "holy" (viz. Devarim 26:13) "and neta revai is called "holy." Just as second-tithe is "holy" to the owners, so, neta revai should belong to the owners. — (No,) this is refuted by terumah, which is called "holy" (viz. Vayikra 22:14) and yet belongs to the Cohanim. — Would you say that? There is a difference. Second-tithe requires bringing to the place (Jerusalem) and neta revai requires bringing to the place. If I learned that second-tithe belongs to the owners, neta revai should belong to the owners. — (No,) this is refuted by bikkurim, which, even though they require bringing to the place, belong to the Cohanim. — Would you say that? There is a difference. Second-tithe is called "holy," and requires bringing to the place, and redemption. And neta revai is called "holy," and requires bringing to the place, and redemption. And this is not to be refuted by terumah, which, even though it is called "holy," does not require bringing to the place, nor by bikkurim, which, even though they require bringing to the place, do not require redemption. I will learn a thing from a thing, and I will reason out a thing from a thing. I will learn a thing of three facets from a thing that is similar in (these) three facets, and I will not learn a thing of three facets from a thing which is not similar in (these) three facets, but only in one or two. If I have learned, then, that second-tithe belongs to the owners, then neta revai, too, should belong to the owners. R. Yossi says "holy" to the owners. You say "holy" to the owners, but perhaps it is "holy" to the Cohanim! — It is, therefore, written (of neta revai, Vayikra 19:25) "And in the fifth year you may eat its fruit to increase for you its produce." For whom is it increased? For him to whom it has already been given (in the fourth year, i.e., the owner.)

(Job 31:38:) IF MY LAND CRIES OUT AGAINST ME. [The Holy One] said to him: Job, do you have anything more than four cubits of soil at the time of your death?³³Tanh., Deut. 4:15; PRK 10:7. So should you say (ibid.]): IF MY LAND HAS CRIED OUT AGAINST ME? And is this the work of your hand? R. Hiyya the Great and R. Simeon ben Halafta <differed>. R. Hiyya the Great said: It is comparable to one who had a mantle (tallit) for sale in the bazaar.³⁴Itlis. Buber’s note 65 suggests that the Hebrew word has lost an initial quf and comes from the Greek katalusis, which can denote a lodging or resting place. When someone passed by and saw it, he said to him: That is mine. He said to him: Wrap yourself in it. If it fits you, then it is yours; but if it does not, it is not yours. Similarly the Holy One said to Job: (Jer. 23:24:) DO I NOT FILL THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH? Yet you say (in Job 31:38): IF MY LAND CRIES OUT AGAINST ME. Is this the work of your hand? Then R. Simeon ben Halafta said: It is comparable to one who had a bondmaid for sale in the bazaar. When someone passed by and saw her, he said: She is mine. He said to him: Rebuke her. If she heeds you, she is yours; but if not she is not yours. Similarly the Holy One said to Job: It is written of me (in Ps. 104:32): WHO (i.e., the LORD) LOOKS ON THE EARTH AND IT TREMBLES. Yet you say (in Job 31:38): IF MY LAND CRIES OUT AGAINST ME. Is this the work of your hand? At that time Job said: Sovereign of the Universe: I did not mean that. Rather [what I meant by these words, IF MY LAND CRIES OUT AGAINST ME, was] "If I did not take out its tithes properly. "(Ibid., cont.:) AND <IF> ITS FURROWS WEEP TOGETHER <means> "If I planted it <unlawfully> with mixed seeds." (Job 31:39:) IF I HAVE EATEN ITS PRODUCE WITHOUT PAYMENT (literally: WITHOUT MONEY). This refers to the second tithe, as stated (in Deut. 14:25): THEN YOU SHALL CONVERT IT INTO MONEY…. (Job 31:39, cont.:) AND DISAPPOINTED ITS OWNERS. This refers to the tithe for the poor.³⁵The midrash identifies the OWNERS of Job 31:39 with the poor who actually work the land. If I have not done <all> this, (then in vs. 40): MAY THORNS COME UP INSTEAD OF WHEAT…. Rabbi Hosha'ya taught: Torah teaches you proper procedure. A field that grows thorns (when unplanted) is fine to sow wheat in. A field that grows stinkweed is fine to sow barley in. What is the evidence? That which is written (in Job 31:40:) MAY THORNS COME UP INSTEAD OF WHEAT, AND STINKWEED INSTEAD OF BARLEY. (Ibid., cont.:) THE WORDS OF JOB ARE ENDED. [Beyond this point] Job foresees and prophesies any number of prophecies. But <here> you say: THE WORDS OF JOB ARE ENDED. It is simply that Job meant: If I have not fulfilled these <conditions> (of vss. 38–39), may my words be ended, and let me not have a pretext for saying to you (in Deut. 26:13 regarding the second tithe): I HAVE REMOVED THE CONSECRATED PORTION FROM THE HOUSE.³⁶MSh 5:10. For that reason Moses warned Israel (in Deut. 14:22): YOU SHALL SURELY TITHE.