Sanctuary for the meat-offering of the Omer that is brought in the Passeouer that is of barly as in Levit. 23.10 17. and so Bechai And Aben-Ezrah on Nehem 10.35 doth second this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. And to bring the first fruits of our land as an Omer and two loaues By these authorities it appeares that in the feast of the Passeouer they offered an Omer or sheafe of the first fruites of barly and in the feast of Pentecost they presented for the first fruits of their wheat-haruest two loaues of fine flowre of wheat baken with leauen But all this while no mention here of first-fruits in eares of wheat and barly c. As for that Text Levit. 2.14 where there is mention of eares of corne dryed by the fire Aben-Ezra sheweth there that it is meant of a free-will offering saying 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That which is due is the first of the first fruites Exod. 34.26 not the first fruites in generall and if a man bring a meat offering of the first fruits he shall bring it as a free-will offering And the text imports as much for it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If you offer a meat-offering c. Consider now what is taught in these testimonies before alleadged and then with one labour wee may easily descrye the falsehood of two of the forenamed assertions for here we see that an Omer or tenth part of an Ephah was offered for first fruites of barly and two loaues of fine flower for the first fruits of wheat And therefore the first fruits thereof were not payde in eares of barly or eares of wheat c. according to Scripture Againe an Omer of barly and two loaues of wheat determine in these particulars a set quantity of first fruits And therefore the first fruits were not payde in what quantity the owner would Beside as our Historian doth afterward relate from Scaliger that not Moses but the Iewes prescribed what should be the quantity of the therumah or heaue offering so it seemeth also by their writings that they appointed what should be the determinate quantity of the first fruits as may be gathered by the glosse of Baal Haturim on Deut. 26.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The letters of the word translated basket containe in number 60 to signifie that of first fruits they should pay a sixtieth part And herein he agrees with R. Simeon on Massech Bicurim cap. 3. fol. 85. Againe the same author on Numb 15.21 saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. The verse beginnes with Mem and endes with Mem to shew that a gift of a good eye is a fourtieth part For the Hebrew letter Mem in number stands for fourty I goe not about to iustifie these Cabalisticall collections from the Text but only by them to shew that the Iewes had among them a set quantity for their first fruits aswell as for their Therumahs as these glosses doe import flat against the History Now as before we haue declared for wheat and barly that the first fruits of them was not payde in eares of wheat and barly so for the other things specified in the history figges grapes oliues pomgranates and dates we doe not read in the Scripture that the first fruits of these are prescribed or expressed in particular but the fruits of corne wine and oyle Deut. 18.4 And so 2 Chronic. 31.5 The children of Israel brought abundance of first fruits of corne wine and oyle c. And Ramban on Deut. 14. as also on Exod. 22. teacheth concerning grapes oliues that the tithe of them was not due by the Law vntill such time as they yeelded wine oyle and so likewise may wee coniecture for the first fruits of them Or if the first fruits were payde both of grapes and oliues as the History saith and of wine and oyle too as the Scripture sheweth then the first fruits were not payde only of those seuen things which are before described And this is the last of those three assertions against which I tooke exception It was indeed propounded in the second place but blame me not though I binde not my selfe too strictly to order in following a confused History that hath in it as little truth as order The two former points I haue passed ouer briefly But this that he saith That of these seuen onely wheat barly figges c. the first fruits were payd it requires a litle larger explication All the proof that is brought for it is quoted in the margent viz Talmud in Seder Heraim Massechetb Biccurim atque inde recentiores eorum iurisperiti It is an easier taske for a man to quote the Talmud then to reade or vnderstand it and easier to read and vnderstand it then to iustifie or defend it And therefore as the Historian himselfe in his preface pag. 3. speaking of the diuine right of Tithes saith well that the holy Text must be the sole tryall of it so say we likewise concerning first fruits that what is spoken of them not the Iewish Talmud but the holy Text must bee the tryall of it for as the Iewes themselues teach the Talmud is but the exposition of the Text so saith Aben-Ezra on Exod. 19.7 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. and proposed to them That is the Law by tradition which is the exposition of the Law in writing Therfore here we desire to know quid scriptum est what Text of Scripture he hath for his warrant Scripture he sheweth none either because he would not or else could not finde any to serue his turne Notwithstanding for better satisfaction to the Reader herein I must confesse that the Iewish Commentators vpon the Scripture as Iarchi on Exod. 23.19 34.26 And on Deut. 26.2 Aben-Ezra on Nehem. â—0 and Chimki on 2 Chron. 31. doe all of them alleadge a place of Scripture on which this their assertion is grounded and that is Deut. 8.8 A land of wheat and barly and of vineyards and figge-trees and pomegranates a land of oyle oliue and hony Here are seuen kinds of fruits for which the land of Canaan is commended and of which onely the Iewes say the first fruits were payde If any obiect that Dates are here wanting which were reckoned in the former number for this we must know that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is translated hony the Iewes in this place interpret Dates as Iarchi sheweth on Exod. 34.26 and Deut. 26.2 and 2 Chron. 31. And Chimki to make this more plaine on 2 Chron. 31.5 saith that by hony here they vnderstand Dates and addes this reason because saith he they brought neither first fruits nor oblations of hony hauing reference as it may seeme to that in Leuit. 2.11 All the meat offerings which ye shall offer vnto the Lord. shall be made without leauen for yee shall neither burne leauen nor hony in any offering of the Lord made by fire Not leauen nor hony saith Baal Haturim on this text because euill concupiscence is
sonnes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 because he begate him in his old age The Targum of Onkelus expresseth it thus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. for he was a wise and vnderstanding childe interpreting the words of the excellency of his apprehension and capacity for otherwise he begate also Beniamin in his old age after Ioseph and hence it is that the Iewes say here as Iarchi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. That Iacob committed to Ioseph whatsoeuer himselfe had learned of Shem and Heber and as Ramban saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. He deliuered to him the wisdome and mysteries of the Law and found him wise and capable of them as though he had bin of ripe age But now Shem and Heber being dead as appeares by computation of time to whom Iacob gaue his Tithe or whether Isaac were the chiefest Priest of that time it is altogether vncertaine Aben-Ezra on Gen. 35.1 saith that Iacob gaue his Tithe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. to him that was in that generation fit to receiue it but who that should be he leaues doubtfull Mercer on ver 15. saith Dederit autem ipsi Heber aut eius filijs vel potius consecrârit in usus sacros c. But the Historian saith As Abraham gaue Tithes to Shem being the eldest auncestor of the house so it may be thought that Iacob payde his vow into the hands of Isaac the chiefe of the family then liuing as a first-borne and a Priest also I deny not but this may be thought so but I cannot conceiue how it can be certainly thought or taken for a truth for all hold â—hat Iacob at his returne performed his vow at Bethel a great while before he came to his father Isaac at Hebron Gen. 35.27 so Iosephus Aben Ezra Iarchi Ramban agree Again after the performance of his vow many things happened to him by the way before he came to his father as namely the death of Deborah the birth of Beniamin the death of Rachel the sinne of Reuben and therefore on ver 22. Iarchi saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. All these things happened to him whilst as yet he was not come to Isaac at Hebron Neither is there any likelyhood that Isaac should meet Iacob at Bethel there receiue his Tithes for Isaac was old and blind Gen. 27.1 Esau gaped for his death ver 41. before Iacob's first departure from him to goe to Laban And hence it is that the Iewes speaking of the death of Deborah Rebecca's nurse and the mourning for her say that it had relation to Rebecca her selfe for whom Iacob especially mourned and that therefore the place was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the oake of mourning and lamentation but say they as Ramban relates it there is no mention made of her death because she was buried priuatly without that funerall solemnity that others had for Iacob was not there and Esau hated her and would not come thither and Isaac he was blind and went not out of dores Now if Isaac because of blindnes could not goe out to the buriall of his wife much lesse could he goe to meet his sonne Iacob at Bethel to take of him the Tithes Where then or how can it be thought that Iacob payde his vow into the hands of his father Isaac And for that he saith Before Aaron the Iewes say the Priesthood was wholly annext to the first-borne of families which agrees well with the sanctifying of the first-borne commanded in Aegypt True it is that the Iewes in diuers places affirme that the Priesthood followed the birth-right vntill such time as they sinned in worshipping ths golden calfe but after that the Priesthood say they was giuen to Levi because among the rest only the Tribe of Levi was free from that transgression which they gather though weakely from these words Exod. 32.26 where Moses said Who pertaineth to the Lord let him come downe to mee And all the sonnes of Levi gathered themselues vnto him And this they also record on diuers Texts as Iarchi sheweth on Deut. 8.16 Exod. 32.26 Deut. 10.9 Malach. 2.6 And Chimki on 1 Kings 12 31. But Ramban writing on Numb 16. touching the rebellion of Corah seemes to be of another minde in this point for these are his words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Now all this that I haue spoken concerning the first borne is according to the tradition of our Doctors which say that the seruice belonged to the first-borne but according to the literall exposition at the first all Israell were fit for the seruice of the sacrifices for so was alwayes the custome in the high places of particular or priuate persons but Aaron was chosen for the seruice of the Tabernacle and Sanctuary and against this election did Corah contend and would haue restored the seruice to all Israell for saith he all the congregation is holy euery one of them as Numb 16.3 Againe this that Ramban writes concerning the Priesthood is confirmed by the like testimony of R. Bechai on Exod. 12.1 pag. 79. grounded vpon the tradition of their Doctors 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. whilst that Aaron was not chosen all Israel were fit for the Priesthood after that Aaron was chosen all Israel were excepted Therefore by these authorities of the Iewes that cannot be altogether true which is affirmed here that before Aaron the Priesthood was wholly annext to the first-borne of families Neither doth this agree so well with the sanctifying of the first-borne commanded in Aegypt Exod. 13.2 for the sanctifying there commanded was not only of the first-borne of man but of beast and that in respect of the death of the first-borne in Aegypt both of man beast Exod. 12.29 Againe it appeares not in this relation to what first-borne the Priesthood did belong whether to the first-borne of the father or mother or both for this distinction is to be obserued as R. Bechai writes on Exod. 13.2 11.5 with reference to Psal 78.51 the one being called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the beginning of streÌ„gth the other 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that first openeth the womb Reuben was first borne to Iacob but Ioseph to Rachel after Reubens sin the birthright was giuen to Ioseph the Kingdome to Iudah but the Priesthood to Levi as Bechai speakes on Gen. 49.3 and 28.21 But now the sanctifying of the first-borne commanded in Aegypt is expresly restrain'd to the first-borne of the mother the first that openeth the wombe as being best knowne saith Bechai and hauing speciall relation to the sanctified first-borne of the blessed virgine the expectation glory of all first-borne Luke 2.7 Moreouer the name of first-borne in Scripture is not only properly but also figuratiuely taken and so it is said Exod. 4.22 Israel is my sonne euen my first borne which is thus expounded in the Talmud Massech cap. 2. fol. 31. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Giuing a reason of the loue wherewith he loued them he saith Israel is my sonne my first-borne And
to their land of Israel Whatsoeuer was ceremoniall and typicall in the Leviticall Law we acknowledge that it was abrogated by our Sauiour Christ not after but before the destruction of the second Temple and before the dispersion of the Iewes But yet the Iewes themselues doe not hold that their Law of first fruits Therumahs tithes with them ceased but only that the practise of the paiment of these according to the Law ceased because they were dispersed wanted meanes hauing not wherewithall to pay them for otherwise they generally maintain their law to be perpetual vnchangeable so doth Chimki plead against the Christians of his time as appeares by his obiections answers to this purpose set down at the end of his com on the Psal on Mal. 3.4 his words are these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Hence yee see that the Law shall neuer be changed but as it was giuen to Moses so shall it remaine for euer And so much also saith R. Bechai on Levit 27. fol. 161. And though the second Temple was destroyed yet without doubt as the Historian himselfe noteth out of Galatinus in his Review pag. 455. Most of them haue long since expected a third Temple otherwise why were they so carefull to haue their lawes and speciall cases of first fruits and tithing so copiously deliuered in fiue whole Massecheth of their Talmud or body of their ciuill and Canon Law which was many yeres after the destruction of the second Temple made for the direction of the dispersed of their Nation and so they expound those Chapters in Ezech. literally of a third Temple that they expect although they are forced to confesse and that according to the letter that there shall be an alteration in divers particulars differing from that which was before in the Law as Iarchi declareth on Ezech. 41.5 first touching the Chambers of the Temple againe Chimki on Ezech 41.22 notes an alteration in respect of the altar of wood which is there called a table and on Ezech. 25. 4.18 22. he saith there shall be an alteration or innovation in the order of sacrifices and on Ezech. 44.17 he obserueth a change in the Priests garments and in the feastes Ezech 45.25 and diuers other things there expressed And yet notwithstanding all this they are constant in opinion that the Law of Moses shall still continue without any change thereof and therefore though the practise for payment of first fruits Therumahs and tithes with them ceased yet the law of these ceased not but in their iudgment is still of force even as it was also before the payment of these was in vse For the Law was giuen to Moses in mount Sinai but their Doctors teach that they were not bound to pay the Therumahs and the tithes vntil they did possesse and inhabite the land which was long after as Ramban testifieth on Numb 15. But they deliuer that who so of them tooke the profits of land amongst the Cutheans or Samaritans their old enemies or else-where in Aram and so it seemes by consequent in any other land sauing which they except was not to pay any touching which point many speciall cases are put by a In Iad Chazeka tract de therumâ—h T. 1. Mikotsi in praecept 133. Rabbi Ben Maimon This is cleane contrary to that which they teach in the Talmud for Aram is Syria whence it is that the Iewes say that Abraham was first called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Pater Syriae and after the promise 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Pater multarum gentium as Iarchi notes on Gen. 17. Now of Syria they say plainly in Massech Megnaishroth cap. 5. fol. 64. that he that hath land there of his owne must pay tithe of that land or if he buy the fruits there of an other mans land before the time of tithing he must likewise answere the tithe but not after so doe Maimon Iarchi in their Commentaries there explaine the rules directly against that which is here deliuered The Historian therefore as it seemes perceiuing this errour in his Review pag. 455. goes about to amend his bill and to distinguish and say That of them that take the profits of land among the Samaritans or in Aram that is Syria must be vnderstood of a Iew dwelling among them and tilling the land there for regularly if the fruits of lands in Syria were taken by a Iew residing still in his owne Countrey he was to pay tithe of them Massech Demai cap. 6. Meashar Perek 5.5 But how doth he proue that this must be vnderstood of a Iew dwelling among them and tilling the land there for no such distinction limitation or exception appeares in the Talmud or in the Commentaries thereof And if a Iew dwelling in his owne Countrey and possessing land in Syria was to pay the tithe of that land why should he not also pay the tithe thereof if he himselfe dwelt vpon the same land considering that both the person and also the place here specified are both subiect to the Law of tithing by the rules and precepts of the Iewes The History tells vs a little before that the Israelites dwelling in Senaar Moab Ammon and Aegypt were to pay tithes there Senaar that is Babylon so called saith Rabbi Saadiah on Dan. 1.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. Because they that perished in the deluge were cast downe thither And Moab hath his denomination quasi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the father saith Aben-Ezra and Bechai on Gen. 19.37 because these two Moab and Ammon came by the incest of their father Now if the Israelites dwelling in these lands were to pay tithes why not also in Syria which had more affinity with Canaan and the Lawes thereof then the rest had for as Maimon teacheth in his explication of Massech Demai cap. 6. fol. 18 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Syria which was subdued by Dauid was reputed as the land of Israel in respect of diuers lawes to which it was subiect And among other they relate in Sedar Teharoth Massech Iadim cap 4. fol. 157. that the seuenth yeare the yeare of rest commanded Leuit. 25.1 and Deut. 15.1 was not obserued but only in Canaan and Syria for so are the words of the Commentor there 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In which yeare though no tithes were payable by the Law yet in this place they deliuer it as a tradition of Moses from Sinai that Babel Aegypt Ammon and Moab which were out of the Holy Land did pay the poore mans tithe in the seuenth yeare And Moses Ben Maimon in his Preface to Sedar Zeraim saith also that Ammon and Moab by the like tradition payde likewise the second tithe in the seuenth yeare for these are there his wordes fol. 2. pag. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Therefore here the poore mans tithe was not giuen insteed of the second tithe nor one and the same with the second tithe as the Historian hath before taught vs for here they