Deuteronomy 14:29

Deu 14:29 And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which [are] within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest.

Ver. 29. That the Lord thy God, &c.] Not getting, but giving, is the way to thrive in the world.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Deu 14:29. The stranger, the fatherless, and the widow — For this tithe was not to be spent merely in feasting themselves, but for the relief of such as were in want, who otherwise might have been compelled to beg, or to serve strangers, and thereby be in danger of being perverted from their religion.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Verse 29. And the Levite (because he hath no part nor inheritance] And hence much of his support depended on the mere freewill-offerings of the people. God chose to make his ministers thus dependent on the people, that they might be induced (among other motives) to labour for their spiritual profiting, that the people, thus blessed under their ministry, might feel it their duty and privilege to support and render them comfortable.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(29) And the Levite.—Rashi says, “the Levite shall come and take the first tithe (described in Numbers 18), and the stranger and the fatherless and the widow the second tithe.” But there is no proof whatever that anything except the second tithe is alluded to in the whole of this passage. The Levite always shared with the poor (see Deu_16:11; Deu_16:14). Rashi’s opinion is worth notice chiefly for the following reason. Some modern critics insist that the Law of Deuteronomy is contradictory to that of Numbers in respect of tithe; but if the Jews, who kept the whole Law strictly, not only saw no discrepancy between its several precepts, but actually took the precept in Deuteronomy to imply the precept in Numbers, why should we go out of our way to make difficulties now? If the precepts were harmonious and compatible, why should they be the work of different men? It is hardly likely that a whole nation would consent to pay double tithes, and acknowledge the obligation to do so by perpetual enactment, if the laws that commanded the tithe were contradictory. And the more closely we look at the subject, the more clearly will the distinction between the first and second tithes appear. The first was only an ordinary rate for the support of the Levitical ministry. No sacredness attached to it. The second was a tithe taken for Jehovah, “that thou mayest learn to fear Jehovah thy God always” (Deu_14:23). The tithe was either to be a joyful feast for the family, or a special gift to God’s poor. It furnished a table spread by the God of Israel for the entertainment of His guests. Why this should be confused with the ordinary rate for the maintenance of the Levitical ministry, it is not easy to understand.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

29. the Levite] because he is landless and through the abolition of the local shrines has been deprived of his means of subsistence, and of—

the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow] for they also are landless. D frequently emphasises the duty of caring for them, Deu_16:11; Deu_16:14, Deu_24:17; Deu_24:19 ff., Deu_26:12 f.

shall eat and be satisfied] Here the words before Jehovah and rejoice, used in connection with the eating of tithes at the Sanctuary, are omitted; for this is not like that, a festal celebration. On the contrary the third year tithe is designed for the common daily sustenance of those poor persons. This secularisation of the tithe (as it would be called to-day) is interesting; see Additional Note.

that the Lord thy God may bless thee] Deu_26:15. Such devotion of the tithe to the poor is a condition of the increase of the crop from which it is made.

Additional Note on Tithes

According to 1Sa_8:15; 1Sa_8:17, a king if granted to Israel would be expected—in conformity with the practice of several ancient monarchies—to exact a tithe of his subjects’ cereal crops, vines, olives, herds and flocks. No religious offering under the name of tithe appears in the earlier legislation, the Holiness Code (Leviticus 17-26), or Ezekiel. Yet all these require an offering of the firstfruits of the soil:—E, Exo_22:29 (28), thou shalt not delay thy fulness nor thy trickling (see Driver’s note), LXX firstfruits of thy threshing-floor and wine-press, like D’s law of tithes associated with firstlings, Exo_22:30 (29); H, Lev_23:11 demands merely a sheaf of the firstfruits (reshîth) of harvest; Eze_20:40, I will require your contributions (terumôth) and the firstfruits (reshîth) of your oblations. In the 8th century tithes were offered on the 3rd day of the feast at the royal sanctuary at Bethel (Amo_4:4 : see Wellh.’s note); and E, Gen_28:22 ascribes to Jacob at the same sanctuary the promise to God to tithe all He would give him.

From these data several inferences have been drawn:—(1) that the tithes of D and the later legislation (see below) were the same as the first-fruits (reshîth and bikkurim) of the earlier (Nowack, Hebr. Arch. ii. 257 ff.), cp. the synonymousness of ἀπαρχαί and δεκάται, Dion Halic. i. 23 f. and Philo’s ἀπαρχῆς ἀπαρχή for the priests’ tithe of the Levites’ tithe in P (De Mut. Nom. 1607, Mangey); (2) that the same offering was called firstfruits at some sanctuaries, tithes at others (Now., G. F. Moore, E.B. art. ‘Tithes’ § 1); (3) that tithes is the later name (W. R. Smith, Rel. Sem. 226 ff.); (4) that the use of this name at Bethel, a royal sanctuary, was due to the appropriation of the king’s tithe to the support of the shrine, the result of Phoenician influence in N. Israel, for the earliest reference to a religious tithe is Phoenician (ibid.); (5) that these tithes were the material of a feast for not only the offerers but all the worshippers, including the poor, whose rights to them were sometimes cruelly absorbed by the rich (ibid.). What is sure is that from the time of their settlement Israel shared the belief of many primitive peoples (Frazer, Golden Bough2, ii. 459) that they might not enjoy their harvests till they offered the Deity some of the firstfruits. This was done at the local sanctuaries and became the occasion of a joyful feast, in which the officiating priest, the poor and all who had gêr, or guest, rights at the sanctuary would share. At some places these offerings were called tithes, either because it was found to be necessary to fix their proportion to the whole harvest, or because the royal tithe was actually appropriated to the support of the sanctuary and the solemn entertainment of the worshipping guests.

The tithe-laws of D imply that some such custom prevailed at the rural sanctuaries; but like many others it had to be adapted to D’s law of One Sanctuary. This was done by dividing the tithe between religious and charitable uses. Two years out of three the Israelite farmer must take the tithe, either in kind or in money, to the one sanctuary and (that he might learn to fear God) eat it there before God, with his household and the Levite, who by the abolition of his shrine had lost his opportunity of eating before God. But this deprived both the latter and the other landless poor of their rights in what had included benefactions for them all. Therefore every third year (see on 28 f.) all the tithe was to be stored and reserved for their sustenance, without any religious rites, either in the offering of it (except the prayer Deu_26:12 ff.), or in their enjoyment of it (note the omission in 28 f. of eating before Jehovah). Some think indeed that this third year tithe is the oldest element in D’s law and in fact had been the only real tithe (cp. the expression the year of tithing; Deu_26:12). But all that is older in it is the right of the Levite and the poor and the gçrîm to a share of the annual tithes offered at the local sanctuaries. When these were disestablished and the purely religious interests involved in the tithe could only be satisfied at the One Sanctuary, D compensated the rural Levites and the poor by granting them the whole of the third year’s tithe.

In P the tithe-law, Num_18:21-32, is very different. All the tithe in Israel, the tithe of the children of Israel which they offer as a contribution to Jehovah is given as an inheritance to the landless Levites, for the service which they serve, even the service of the tent of the meeting, the central sanctuary, and they in turn are to give a tithe of this tithe to Aaron the priest. And this was that part of the law of God given by Moses and sworn to by the people under Nehemiah, according to which they were to bring in the tithes of their ground to the Levites—the Levites take the tithes in all the townships of our tillage—and the Levites were to bring the tithe of their tithe to the house of God (Neh_10:37 f.). These injunctions are irreconcileable with those of D. The tithe, which in D is enjoyed by the offerers, by the Levites of the rural sanctuaries, and by the poor and the gçrîm, is in P the inheritance of the Levites at the central sanctuary. D and P represent not, only differing practices, but incompatible principles of practice. Which is the earlier of the two? It is of course possible to argue that the original disposition of the tithe was purely religious or ecclesiastical and that D represents a later and more liberal spirit, which extended the enjoyment of it to the laity. But the converse is far more probable in view of that steady increase of all the priests’ establishments and revenues—with the consequent encroachments on the rights of the people—which is so fully illustrated in the historical Books. For an interesting and suggestive discussion of the problems arising from this subject see ‘The Deuteronomic Tithe’ by Prof. J. M. Powis Smith in The Amer. Journ. of Theology, January, 1914.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Filled. Of this feast the owner did not partake, (St. Augustine, q. 20,) as he did of the former, ver. 26. (Menochius) --- Josephus ([Antiquities?] iv. 8,) acknowledges three sorts of tithes: but Calmet thinks that only two were paid every third year, and that the same tithe is mentioned, ver. 22, and 28., and Tobias i. 7. The only difference is, that on the third and sixth years, the products were consumed on the spot, and in other years they were spent at Jerusalem. See Leviticus xxvii. Many, however, believe that three tithes were then exacted: 1. For the Levites. 2. For a feast at Jerusalem, and to defray the expenses on the road. 3. For the poor at home. (Du Hamel; &c.) (Haydock)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

ובא הלוי AND THE LEVITE SHALL COME and take the “First Tithe” which you have failed to give him,

והגר והיתום AND THE STRANGER AND THE FATHERLESS [SHALL COME] and take the “Second Tithe”, which belongs to the poor in that year, and you shall not eat it yourself in Jerusalem, as you were bound to eat the “Second Tithe” of the first two years,

ואכלו ושבעו AND THEY SHALL EAT AND BE SATISFIED — Give them sufficient to satisfy them. From here they (the Rabbis) derived the law: one must give the poor in the barn no less than half a kab of wheat or a kab of barley (Sifrei Devarim 110:3). As for you, go up to Jerusalem with the tithe (i.e. מעשר שני) of the first and the second years which thou hast delayed, and make the confession there: “I have removed the hallowed things from the house” — as it is stated in the section beginning with the words כי תכלה לעשר (Deuteronomy 26:12).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.