Tithes the Law of First tithe Second tithe Poor tithe Cattle tithe According to Bibliology is an Online School of Prayer Learning Center Student Work Book to Study the Laws of the Tithe for the rich and the poor communities with Instructor Sister Lara. http://onlineschoolofprayer.webs.com

1. Tithes the Law of
First tithe Second tithe Poor tithe Cattle tithe According to
Bibliology

2. Contents
1 First tithe 1
1.1 Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 In the priestly code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.4 Contemporary practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2 Second tithe 4
2.1 In the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 In the Mishna and Talmud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 The practice of the ma'aser sheni . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4 In contemporary Orthodox Judaism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.5 Critical perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.6 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.8 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3 Poor tithe 7
3.1 In the Hebrew Bible . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2 In the Works of Flavius Josephus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3 In the Talmud . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4 Cattle tithe 9
4.1 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
5 Commentaries on the Laws of England 10
5.1 Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.1 The Rights of Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
5.1.2 The Rights of Things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
i

3. ii CONTENTS
5.1.3 Of Private Wrongs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.1.4 Of Public Wrongs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.2 Legacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
5.3 Quotations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.4 Notable editions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5.5 Abridgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.6 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.8 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.9 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.9.1 Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.9.2 Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.9.3 Content license . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4. Chapter 1
First tithe
The first tithe (Hebrew ma'aser rishon ‫ראשון‬ ‫)מעשר‬ is
a positive commandment in the Torah requiring the giv-
ing of one tenth of agricultural produce, after the giving
of the standard terumah, to the Kohen (Jewish priest) (or
Levite). This giving is required to be free of both mone-
tary and servicial compensation.
Historically, during the First Temple period, the first tithe
was given to the Levite. Approximately at the beginning
of the Second Temple construction, Ezra and his Beth din
implemented its giving to the kohanim.[1][2]
1.1 Hebrew Bible
The tithe gift is discussed in the Hebrew Bible (Numbers
18:21-26) according to which a tenth of the produce was
to be presented to a Levite who then gave a tenth of the
first tithe to a kohen (Numbers 18:26). Tithing was seen
as performing a Mitzvah done in joyful obedience to God.
Giving tithe would open oneself up to receipt of divine
blessing[3]
1.2 Regulations
The Torah instructs that the tithe should be of the “five
grains”,[4]
wine, olive oil, fruit, and cattle (Leviticus
27:30-33). The time for taking such tithes was at the fin-
ished stage of processing the produce (Numbers 18:30).
Unlike Terumah given to the Kohen, the Maaser Rishon
was not regarded as sacred, and as a result did not have to
be ritually pure, neither was it required to be eaten in any
particular state (such as the Temple in Jerusalem). Once
received by the Levite, it was regarded simply as ordinary
property, and they could pass it on to non-Levites, or sell
it, as they wished.
Traditionally tithes were calculated for the produce of
each whole year, however Chazalic Literature indicates
that there was a debate between Beit Shammai and Beit
Hillel as to when this tithing year should begin and end.[5]
Tithing years had different starts and ends depending on
the particular crop in question; land crops began their
tithe year on the first of Tishrei (Rosh Hashanah); ac-
cording to Eleazar Kalir and Simeon bar Yohai the first
of Tishri was also the start of the tithe year for cattle, but
according to Meir Lublin it was the first of Elul that held
this honour.[5]
The followers of Hillel argued that the tithe
year for fruit from trees began on the fifteenth of Shevat,
but the followers of Shammai, his rival, argued that it be-
gan on the first of Shevat; the view of Hillel’s followers
eventually became the majority view and the new year
for trees — Tu Bishvat — is now held at the date which
they considered appropriate.[5]
1.3 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;[5]
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. Ac-
cording to some secular scholars, the poor tithe and the
second tithe, when taken together, are a conflicting ver-
sion of the same single tithe as the first tithe;[5]
the poor
tithe and second tithe together being the Deuteronomist's
version and the first time being the version of the priestly
source.[5]
Although such scholars speculate that the deuteronomist
is a later author than the priestly source, scholars be-
lieve that much of the Deuteronomic Code was a re-
action against the regulations introduced by the Priestly
Code,[6]
and that here it reflects the earlier situation.[5]
In
the Book of Ezekiel, which some scholars believe pre-
dates the Priestly Code, meaning that according to their
view the Priestly Code must post-date the Babylonian Ex-
ile, there is no mention whatever of a tithe appointed
for the Levites,[5]
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
1

5. 2 CHAPTER 1. FIRST TITHE
compulsory.[5]
Of course, if the maaser sheni tithe, also
mentioned in Leviticus, were originally different from
maaser rishon, there is a simpler explanation for the vari-
ation.
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;[6]
according to the Biblical revisionists’
worldview, all Levites can be legitimate priests, which
is likely to be why the Deuteronomist does not men-
tion 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.[6]
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;[7]
scholars believe that the tithe
(i.e. the tithe of which the Maaser Ani and Maaser Ris-
hon 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.[5]
This view neglects the fact that
cities are not agricultural centers and the tithing laws fo-
cus 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.[5][8]
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 forbid-
den, 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 re-
bellion. Finally, the owner of the produce was not re-
quired 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.
1.4 Contemporary practice
Orthodox Judaism regards the tithe as still being required
for any produce grown within the historic boundaries of
the ancient Kingdoms of Israel and of Judah, covering the
modern territories of the state of Israel, West Bank, Gaza
Strip, Golan Heights, and portions of western Jordan.
However, because Maaser Rishon has no inherent sanc-
tity, consistent with Numbers 18:31 (Levite tithes are
wages), after Terumat Maaser has been removed, it is
governed by the monetary civil laws which put the proof
of a claim for monetary compensation on the person mak-
ing the demand (the plaintiff). Since the lineage of the
Levites is currently uncertain, there is no obligation to
provide Maaser Rishon to a questionable Levi, whereas
there is no rabbinic prohibition by doing so.
Contemporary practice, after designating and setting
aside Terumah, is to make a formal declaration that the
portion set aside is Maaser Rishon. Afterwards, Terumat
Maaser is designated and set aside. Finally, depending on
the year, Maaser Sheni or Maaser Ani are designated and
tithed in the appropriate manner.
While tithes from produce may not be given to a Kohen
or Levite, they may be fed to their animals.
1.5 See also
• Teruma Gedola
• Terumat HaMaaser
• Maaser Sheni, the second tithe
• Maaser Ani, the poor tithe
1.6 References
[1] The Talmud Adin Steinsaltz 1992 “Yet if a priest has first
tithe in his possession, he need not give it to a Levite. Ezra
penalized the Levites of his generation because they did
not return to Eretz Israel with him, and he decreed that
first tithe should be given to ...”
[2] Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian perspec-
tives p329 James M. Scott - 2001 “One says that the
Levites were punished because they did not come up to
the Land of Israel during Ezra’s days. The other says that
the first tithe was given to the priests, so that they would
have food when they were in a state of ...”
[3] Rashi to Parshat Nasso
[4] (see the Mitzvah of Challah)
[5] Jewish Encyclopedia
[6] Richard Elliott Friedman, Who wrote the Bible?
[7] Peake’s Commentary on the Bible
[8] Amos 4:4

6. 1.7. EXTERNAL LINKS 3
1.7 External links
• Yeshivat Ohr Yerushalayim website on Jewish Law
• Rabbi Ashi Meir: Meaning in Mitzvot: Termah and
Maaser. Orthodox Union

7. Chapter 2
Second tithe
For the Talmud tractate, see Ma'aser Sheni.
The second tithe (Hebrew: ma'aser sheni ‫שני‬ ‫)מעשר‬ is
a tithe mentioned in the Hebrew Bible and continued in
Orthodox Judaism. It is distinguished from the first tithe
(Hebrew: ma'aser rishon ‫ראשון‬ ‫,)מעשר‬ the poor tithe, and
the terumat hamaaser.
In the days of the Temple in Jerusalem, the second
tithe involved the setting aside of one tenth of specific
agricultural produce from the first, second, fourth, and
fifth, years of each seven-year cycle, for the purpose of
taking it to the holy city of Jerusalem, and consuming it
there.
2.1 In the Hebrew Bible
The second tithe is discussed in Deuteronomy 12:11-18,
14:22-29 and 26:12[1]
in the Hebrew Bible, along with the
poor tithe which is performed in the third and sixth years
of the seven-year cycle;[2][3][4]
the remaining seventh year
is described as the Shmita, the Sabbatical Year.
As described, the tithe should be of grain, wine, and olive
oil, but if the distance to Jerusalem made the transfer of
these crops unreasonable, the monetary value of the tithe
should be brought to Jerusalem instead, and used to pur-
chase anything edible that the owner desired to eat there.
(See Deuteronomy 14:26.)
2.2 In the Mishna and Talmud
The Mishnah, in Tractate Rosh Hashanah, describes four
new years for various purposes. The new year for tithes
for general crops is the first of Tishrei (the holiday of
Rosh Hashanah), for animal tithes the first of Elul, and
for the produce of trees the fifteenth of Shevat (the holi-
day of Tu Bishvat). The Talmud and later commentaries
reflect a substantial amount of debate about the start and
end of the tithing year for various types of crops in vari-
ous situations.
2.3 The practice of the ma'aser
sheni
The second tithe is a distinct tithing obligation of 10%
of the produce after terumah and the first tithe were
separated. If any of these tithes were not separated,
the produce was known as tevel and forbidden for
consumption.[5]
The owner of the produce was required
to separate tithe, of any kind, after the particular kind of
produce was finished in its common preparation for in-
gathering. Unlike the first tithe, the second tithe was only
separated on the first, second, fourth and fifth years of
the sabbatical year cycle. The poor tithe was separated
on the third and sixth years. The produce was required
to be maintained in a state of purity and eaten in a state
of purity in Jerusalem, at any time of the year. If the
owner did not desire, or was unable to, bring the produce
to Jerusalem, he was entitled to redeem the produce on
a coin of equal value, in addition to adding a fifth to the
value. The ability to redeem produce on money results in
money which is mikudash (sacred, as earmarked for Tem-
ple purposes), while the produce became desanctified and
available for any use. The money could only be used for
limited categories of use in keeping with its sacred status.
Improper spending of the money was forbidden.
The Scriptures include a commandment to remove all
the tithes from one’s house in the end of the third year
(Deuteronomy 14:28).
Since the Torah enjoined the owner of the produce to
share the second tithe with the poor, needy and disenfran-
chised, a large portion was shared as a form of charity.
2.4 In contemporary Orthodox Ju-
daism
Orthodox Judaism still regards tithe obligations as in ef-
fect on produce grown in the Land of Israel, although the
obligations have been somewhat modified since the days
of the Hebrew Bible and Talmud and proceeds from the
tithes are no longer given to a Kohen or Levite or taken
to Jerusalem. Current practice is for the owner the pro-
duce to set aside terumah, then designate maaser rishon,
4

8. 2.6. SEE ALSO 5
then separate terumat maaser, and then, on the first, sec-
ond, fourth and fifth years of the Shemittah cycle, redeem
Maaser Sheni on a coin of minimal value capable of pur-
chasing food, which need not be equal in value to the
amount set aside. The coin, and a total of a little over 1%
of the produce which cannot be redeemed is set aside or
discarded in a way intended to prevent its future use and
in a manner consistent with the sanctity of the separated
portions. The reason for discarding in such a manner is
that the set-aside produce is still considered mikudash or
sacred. While dedicated offerings cannot actually be of-
fered in their traditional form in the absence of the Tem-
ple, because one must consume terumah and maaser sheni
in a state of purity, they also cannot be used for mundane
purposes. However, the mundane use of maaser sheni
was not considered me'ilah (unauthorized or inappropri-
ate use of Temple property/hekdesh).
Every three years, on the mincha (afternoon service) of
the last day of Pesach (Passover), they would say the Vidui
Maaser (a confession of tithing prescribed specifically in
the Torah). The reason this is done at the end of the festi-
val, at the last prayer is because until that time (during the
Temple era), people were still eating their Maaser Sheni.
2.5 Critical perspectives
In Classical Rabbinical Literature, according to which the
entire Torah was principally written by a single author
(Moses), the maaser sheni, and maaser ani were con-
trasted with the Maaser Rishon as entirely different tithes
from each other, and for this reason gave the tithes the
distinct names they possess.[6]
However, according to the view of some textual scholars,
the latter tithe, which is mentioned in the Priestly Code,
and constitutes an annual tithe given over to the Levites,
additionally tithing cattle and wine, is a conflicting version
of the same single tithe as the tithe formed by the maaser
ani and maaser sheni taken together;[6]
the maaser ani and
maaser sheni together being the Deuteronomist's version
and the maaser rishon being the version of the priestly
source;[6]
despite the fact that those tithes appear in both
Leviticus and Deuteronomy. The Jewish Encyclopedia
article (1911) concludes that there is no significant tex-
tual evidence that the tithes come from different sources
and the theory ignores the role of terumah and terumat
maaser, which were separated for the priests. In both
alleged “versions” it is required that a portion be given
to the Leviim because they had no inheritance of land,
unlike the other tribes, and were considered to be more
likely to be supported by others’ property. Although the
deuteronomist is generally considered to be 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,[7]
and that here it reflects
the earlier situation.[6]
Some scholars speculate that maaser sheni developed
as a tribute to the king;[6]
the Books of Samuel men-
tion that the Israelites were ordered by Samuel (speak-
ing on behalf of God) to give a tenth of everything to the
king, seemingly referring to such a tribute in a passage
(1 Samuel 8:15) which textual scholars believe belongs
to the monarchial source, and predates both the Priestly
Code and the Deuteronomic Code.[8]
This is in contrast
to the reading of the text which was a warning by Samuel
to the Children of Israel about the abuses of power that
a king may impose. There is no example of an Israelite
king actually imposing such a 10% tax. Further, ma'aser
sheni was retained for consumption by the farmer who
produced the crop or redeemed by said farmer for money
to be used by him and his family. Some scholars speculate
that these tributes began to be used for public festivals,
often including religious ones, and thus gradually came
to be seen as associated with the priests.[9]
Once again,
this is unlikely as the Levites who received ma'aser ris-
hon were not priests (called "kohanim"). The kohanim
received terumah and terumat ma'aser from the Leviim,
not ma'aser rishon, as would be thought if they had writ-
ten the Torah to enhance their own agenda. Moreover,
this has nothing to do with ma'aser sheni, which, once
again, was retained by the farmer who was liable to sep-
arate the tithe.
2.6 See also
• Teruma gedola, the great tribute
• Terumat HaMaaser
• Maaser Rishon, the first tithe
• Maaser Ani, the poor tithe
2.7 References
[1] Rewriting the Torah: literary revision in Deuteronomy,
p167, Jeffrey Stackert (2007). “It is precisely this issue
that I shall pursue in this chapter: is there a literary re-
lationship between the extant 5 As Tigay notes, LXX for
Deut 26:12 already knows of a first and second tithe”
[2] The Gutnick Edition Chumash - Book of Deuteronomy,
p109, ed. Chaim Miller (2005). "(That year you will not
separate the second tithe and take it to Jerusalem. Instead,
you will give the poor man’s tithe, ... THE EXPLANA-
TION The Torah’s “ permission” to exchange the second
tithe for money could be interpreted in three ways...”
[3] The Commentary of Abraham Ibn Ezra on the Pentateuch:
Deuteronomy, p68, Abraham ben Meïr Ibn Ezra, Jay F.
Shachter (2003). “Having just mentioned the second tithe,
Scripture now says: Do not think that you fulfill your duty
with only the second tithe, within your gates The first tithe
should be given to him who resides within your gates.”

9. 6 CHAPTER 2. SECOND TITHE
[4] Law and theology in Deuteronomy - p71, J. Gordon Mc-
Conville (1984). “Weinfeld’s interpretation has in com-
mon with the traditional Jewish idea of a second tithe the
belief that the tithes of Numbers and Deuteronomy are en-
tirely incompatible with each other. There are difficulties
with Weinfeld’s position,”
[5] Talmud Bavli Hersh Goldwurm - 2007 “Rav Yosef says:
The same six penalties would apply ... even when the
olive’s volume is composed of one mashed ant plus ....
Tevel is produce grown in Eretz Yisrael that has reached
the tithing stage but has not been tithed. "
[6] Jewish Encyclopedia
[7] Richard Elliott Friedman, Who wrote the Bible?
[8] Jewish Encyclopedia, Books of Samuel
[9] Jewish Encyclopedia, Tithe Joseph Jacobs, M. Seligsohn,
Wilhelm Bacher
2.8 External links
• Yeshivat Ohr Yerushalayim website on Jewish Law

10. Chapter 3
Poor tithe
The poor tithe (Hebrew ma'aser ani ‫עני‬ ‫,)מעשר‬ also re-
ferred to as the third tithe, reflects an obligation to set
aside one tenth of produce grown in the third and sixth
years of the seven-year sabbatical year agricultural cycle
for the poor, in the days of the Temple in Jerusalem.[1]
There was no mechanism for collection of the poor tithe
after 135,[2]
but Orthodox Judaism still regards tithe obli-
gations as residing in produce grown in the Land of Is-
rael. Contemporary practice is to set aside terumah, sep-
arate first tithe (Hebrew ma'aser rishon ‫ראשון‬ ‫,)מעשר‬ sep-
arate terumat ma'aser, then redeem second tithe (Hebrew:
maaser sheni ‫שני‬ ‫)מעשר‬ with a coin (on years that do
not coincide with ma'aser ani). The coin can be a mini-
mal amount capable of purchasing food and need not be
the value of the produce. When the value of the coin is
“filled”, the coin can be redeemed on a coin of higher
value or discarded in a way that prevents its future use.
Terumah and terumat ma'aser must be discarded in a
manner consistent with their sanctity.
Orthodox Judaism regards it as meritorious to discharge
one’s poor tithe obligation additionally by giving a portion
of one’s income, ideally a tenth, to charity.
3.1 In the Hebrew Bible
The poor tithe is discussed in the Book of Deuteronomy:
At the end of three years you shall bring forth
all the tithe of your produce in that year, and
shall lay it up inside your gates; And the Levite,
because he has no part nor inheritance with
you, and the stranger, and the orphan, and the
widow, who are inside your gates, shall come,
and shall eat and be satisfied; that the Lord your
God may bless you in all the work of your hand
which you do.” (Deuteronomy 14:28.)
[3]
When you have finished tithing all the tithes
of your produce in the third year, the year of
the tithe, you shall give them to the Levite, the
stranger, the orphan, and the widow, so that
they can eat to satiety in your cities. (Deuteron-
omy 26:12)
The early rabbis, the Tannaim and Amoraim, understood
these texts as describing two separate tithes: the first
tithe (maaser rishon) for the Levites and the second tithe
(maaser sheni) in Leviticus 27 for eating in Jerusalem,
except in every third year when it became the poor tithe
(maaser ani).[4]
The medieval commentator Rashi also
interprets Deuteronomy 26:12 as referring to the poor
tithe:
3.2 In the Works of Flavius Jose-
phus
In the writings of Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, as
referenced in the Antiquities of the Jews, book IV chap-
ter 8, Josephus refers to the first, second, and third tithe.
The third tithe was to be brought to the Levites, every
third and sixth year of the seven year Sabbath cycle. The
distribution of which to be given to those in need or want,
especially widow women and orphan children.
3.3 In the Talmud
The Babylonian Talmud states in Eruvin 29a:
“The general rule is that the produce [that one sets aside
for the Poor Tithe] should be enough to provide two
meals”
The Babylonian Talmud also records:
Come learn, two brothers, two partners, a fa-
ther and son, a teacher and his student can re-
deem maaser sheni one for the other and can
feed one another maaser ani. But if you say -
from the son - this one will be found paying his
obligation from the poor . . . R' Yehudah says,
“May a curse befall one who feeds his father
out of Paupers’ Tithe:” (Kiddushin 32a)
indicating that while the poor man’s tithe technically
7

11. 8 CHAPTER 3. POOR TITHE
could be used to feed one’s father, one should not feed
his poor father maaser ani, so as not to embarrass one’s
father. The son should try his best to care for his father
out of his other property. The exchange is recorded in the
context of a discussion of the commandment of honoring
one’s parents.[5]
The Jerusalem Talmud Gemara to Tractate Pe'ah
1:1(which does not have a Gemara in the Babylonian
Talmud) discusses the maximum amount of one’s in-
come/money one can give to the poor and determines that
one should not give more than 1/5 of his possessions so
he does not become poor himself. This Gemara and a
discussion in Sifrei are quoted extensively by later Jewish
sages who discussed an ancient custom of tithing 10% of
one’s income for charity. This tithe, known as ma'aser ke-
safim, has become a universal obligation in Jewish Law.
3.4 References
[1] Sirach, scrolls, and sages p185 ed. T. Muraoka, John F.
Elwolde - 1999 “and honouring God was expressed, inter
alia, by paying one’s dues to the priesthood and by setting
aside the 'pauper’s tithe'"
[2] Imperialism and Jewish society, 200 B.C.E. to 640 C.E.
p228 Seth Schwartz - 2004 “That there was any mecha-
nism for the collection and distribution of the poor tithe
after 135, for instance,”
[3] David Instone-Brewer Traditions of the Rabbis from the
Era of the New Testament Page 321 2004 “The rabbis un-
derstood these texts as describing two separate tithes: the
first tithe (maaser rishon) which was for the Levites and
the second tithe (maaser sheni) which was for eating in
Jerusalem except every third year when it became the poor
tithe (maaser ani). The passage in Leviticus 27 is tradi-
tionally interpreted as referring to second tithe because
it speaks about redeeming the tithed produce, which was
necessary only for second tithe.”
[4] David Instone-Brewer Traditions of the Rabbis from the
Era of the New Testament Page 321 2004 “The rabbis un-
derstood these texts as describing two separate tithes: the
first tithe (maaser rishon) which was for the Levites and
the second tithe (maaser sheni) which was for eating in
Jerusalem except every third year when it became the poor
tithe (maaser ani). The passage in Leviticus 27 is tradi-
tionally interpreted as referring to second tithe because
it speaks about redeeming the tithed produce, which was
necessary only for second tithe.”
[5] Talmud of Babylonia: An American translation : Vol-
ume XXIV ed. Jacob Neusner - 1992 "... not been re-
moved, from which poor tithe also had not been removed,
is flogged.”
• Josephus, Flavius. Antiquities of the Jews.
• Yoy.Org website on tithe obligations
• Yeshivat Ohr Yerushalayim website on Jewish Law
3.5 See also
• Teruma Gedola
• Terumat HaMaaser
• Maaser Sheni - the second tithe
• Maaser Rishon
• Zakat, alms and tithing in Islam

12. Chapter 4
Cattle tithe
Cattle tithe (Hebrew: ‫ָמה‬‫ה‬ֵ‫ב‬ְּ ‫ׂשר‬ַ‫ע‬ְ‫מ‬ַ)[1]
is a commandment
in the Torah requiring the sanctifying a tithe of cattle or
flock to God, to be sacrificed as a Korban at the Temple
in Jerusalem.
The tithe of cattle was not redeemable; and if one beast
was exchanged for another both became holy unto the
Lord. The method of levying the tithe of cattle is indi-
cated: they were counted singly; and every tenth one that
passed under the rod became the tithe animal (Leviticus
27:32-33).[2]
The Rabbis inferred from Deuteronomy 14:22 that each
tithe was to be taken of every year’s produce separately,
whether of crops, of cattle, or of anything else subject to
tithing (Sifre, Deut. 105; Terumot i. 5;[3]
Rosh Hashanah
8a,[4]
12b[5]
). Also they fixed a particular day to mark
the beginning of the year for tithing. The new year for
the tithing of cattle is the first of Elul according to Rabbi
Meir, or the first of Tishrei according to R. Eleazar and
R. Simeon (Rosh Hashanah i. 1).[2]
The Sages ordained that animals should not be tithed in
the present era when the Temple is not standing.[6]
4.1 See also
• First tithe
• Second tithe
• Poor tithe
4.2 References
[1] Seadict.com
[2] One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text
from a publication now in the public domain: J. M. Sel.;
W. B. M. Sel. (1901–1906). “TITHE”. Jewish Encyclo-
pedia. Retrieved June/10/13. Check date values in: |ac-
cessdate= (help)
[3] ( ‫ה‬ ‫א‬ ‫תרומות‬ ‫משנה‬in Hebrew)
[4] ( ‫א‬ ‫ח‬ ‫השנה‬ ‫ראש‬in Hebrew/Aramaic)
[5] ( ‫ב‬ ‫יב‬ ‫השנה‬ ‫ראש‬in Hebrew/Aramaic)
[6] Maimonides. “Mishneh Torah, Sefer Korbanot: Be-
chorot, Perek 6, Halacha 2”. Retrieved July/14/13. Check
date values in: |accessdate= (help)
9

13. Chapter 5
Commentaries on the Laws of England
The title page of the first book of William Blackstone's Commen-
taries on the Laws of England (1st ed., 1765)
The Commentaries on the Laws of England[1]
are an
influential 18th-century treatise on the common law of
England by Sir William Blackstone, originally published
by the Clarendon Press at Oxford, 1765–1769. The work
is divided into four volumes, on the rights of persons, the
rights of things, of private wrongs and of public wrongs.
The Commentaries were long regarded as the leading
work on the development of English law and played a
role in the development of the American legal system.
They were in fact the first methodical treatise on the com-
mon law suitable for a lay readership since at least the
Middle Ages. The common law of England has relied
on precedent more than statute and codifications and has
been far less amenable than the civil law, developed from
the Roman law, to the needs of a treatise. The Commen-
taries were influential largely because they were in fact
readable, and because they met a need. The work is as
much an apologia for the legal system of the time as it is
an explanation; even when the law was obscure, Black-
stone sought to make it seem rational, just, and inevitable
that things should be how they were.
The Commentaries are often quoted as the definitive pre-
Revolutionary source of common law by United States
courts. Opinions of the Supreme Court of the United
States quote from Blackstone’s work whenever they wish
to engage in historical discussion that goes back that far,
or farther (for example, when discussing the intent of the
Framers of the Constitution). The book was famously
used as the key in Benedict Arnold's book cipher, which
he used to communicate secretly with his conspirator
John André during their plot to betray the Continental
Army during the American Revolution.
5.1 Contents
5.1.1 The Rights of Persons
The Rights of Persons is by and large concerned with
the relations of status in the English social structure, from
the King of England and the aristocracy down to the unti-
tled commoners. Also dealt here were common relation-
ships such as that of husband and wife, master and servant
(in modern-day terminology, employer and employee),
and guardian and ward.
5.1.2 The Rights of Things
The Rights of Things, Blackstone’s longest volume,
deals with property. The vast majority of the text treats
of real property, this being the most valuable sort in
the feudal law upon which the English law of land was
founded. Property in chattels was already beginning to
overshadow property in land, but its law lacked the com-
plex feudal background of the common law of land, and
was not dealt with by Blackstone at anywhere near the
space he devoted to land.
10

14. 5.2. LEGACY 11
Sir William Blackstone as illustrated in his Commentaries on the
Laws of England.
5.1.3 Of Private Wrongs
Of Private Wrongs dealt with torts as they existed in
Blackstone’s time. The various methods of trial that ex-
isted at civil law were also dealt with in this volume, as
were the jurisdictions of the several courts, from the low-
est to the highest. Blackstone also adds a brief chapter on
equity, the parallel legal system that existed in English law
at the time, seeking to address wrongs that the common
law did not handle; the chapter on equity seems almost
an afterthought.
5.1.4 Of Public Wrongs
Of Public Wrongs is Blackstone’s treatise on criminal
law. Here, Blackstone the apologist takes centre stage; he
seeks to explain how the criminal laws of England were
just and merciful, despite becoming later known as the
Bloody Code for their severity. He does however accept
that “It is a melancholy truth, that among the variety of
actions which men are daily liable to commit, no less than
an hundred and sixty have been declared by Act of Parlia-
ment to be felonious without benefit of clergy; or, in other
words, to be worthy of instant death”. Blackstone fre-
quently had to resort to the devices of assuring his reader
that the laws as written were not actually enforced, and
that the King’s power of pardon existed to correct any
hardships or injustices.
5.2 Legacy
Blackstone for the first time made the common law read-
able and understandable by non-lawyers. At first, his
Commentaries were hotly contested, some seeing in it an
evil or covert attempt to reduce or codify the common
law which was anathema to common law purists.
For decades, a study of the Commentaries was required
reading for all first year law students. Lord Avonmore
said of Blackstone: “He it was who first gave to the law
the air of a science. He found it a skeleton and clothed it
with life, colour and complexion. He embraced the cold
statue and by his touch, it grew into youth, health and
beauty.” Jeremy Bentham, who had been a critic of the
Commentaries when it was first published, credits Black-
stone with having: "... taught jurisprudence to speak the
language of the scholar and the gentleman; put a pol-
ish upon that rugged science, cleansed her from the dust
and cobwebs of the office and, if he has not enriched her
with that precision which is drawn only from the sterling
treasury of the sciences, has decked her out to advantage
from the toilet of classical erudition, enlivened her with
metaphors and allusions and sent her abroad in some mea-
sure to instruct.”[2]
While there is much valuable historical information in the
Commentaries, later historians have tended to be some-
what critical of the uses Blackstone made of history.
There is a lot of what would later be called "Whig his-
tory" in the Commentaries; the easy and contradictory as-
surance that England’s current political settlement repre-
sented the optimal state of rational and just government,
while claiming simultaneously that this optimal state was
an ideal that had always existed in the past, despite the
many struggles in England’s actual history between over-
reaching kings and wayward Parliaments.
But Blackstone’s chief contribution was to create a suc-
cinct, readable, and above all handy epitome of the com-
mon law tradition. While useful in England, Blackstone’s
text answered an urgent need in the developing United
States and Canada. In the United States, the common law
tradition was being spread into frontier areas, but it was
not feasible for lawyers and judges to carry around the
large libraries that contained the common law precedents.
The four volumes of Blackstone put the gist of that tra-
dition in portable form. They were required reading for
most lawyers in the Colonies, and for many, they were
the only reading. Blackstone’s Whiggish but conservative
vision of English law as a force to protect people, their
liberty, and their property, had a deep impact on the
ideologies that were cited in support of the American
Revolution, and ultimately, the United States Constitu-
tion.
Two decades after its publication, Blackstone’s Commen-
taries were the focus of a mocking polemic by Jeremy
Bentham, called Fragment on Government (1776). This
dissection of Blackstone’s first book made Bentham’s

15. 12 CHAPTER 5. COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND
name notorious, though it was originally published anony-
mously.
5.3 Quotations
• “Of great importance to the public is the preser-
vation of this personal liberty; for if once it were
left in the power of any the highest magistrate to
imprison arbitrarily whomever he or his officers
thought proper, (as in France it is daily practised by
the crown,) there would soon be an end of all other
rights and immunities. Some have thought that un-
just attacks, even upon life or property, at the arbi-
trary will of the magistrate, are less dangerous to the
commonwealth than such as are made upon the per-
sonal liberty of the subject. To bereave a man of life,
or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accu-
sation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an
act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm
of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom; but con-
finement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to
jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten,
is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more
dangerous engine of arbitrary government.”
• "[T]he principal aim of society is to protect individ-
uals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights, which
were vested in them by the immutable laws of na-
ture, but which could not be preserved in peace with-
out that mutual assistance and intercourse which is
gained by the institution of friendly and social com-
munities. Hence it follows, that the first and primary
end of human laws is to maintain and regulate these
absolute rights of individuals.”
• “That the King can do no wrong, is a necessary and
fundamental principle of the English constitution.”
• “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than one
innocent suffer.”
• “There is nothing which so generally strikes the
imagination, and engages the affections of mankind,
as the right of property; or that sole and despotic
dominion which one man claims and exercises over
the external things of the world, in total exclusion
of the right of any other individual in the universe.
And yet there are very few, that will give themselves
the trouble to consider the original and foundation
of this right.” (Commentaries, Book II Ch. II)
5.4 Notable editions
• A bibliography of The Commentaries of the Laws of
England from Legal Bibliography (1905)
1. The Fifth Edition, Oxford, at the Clarendon
Press, MDCCLXXIII., printed for William Strahan,
Thomas Cadell, and Daniel Prince. 8vo., 4 vols.
2. The Twelfth Edition (with portraits of the judges),
with the last corrections of the author and with notes
and additions by Edward Christian, Esq., Barrister
at Law and Professor of the Laws of England in the
University of Cambridge, London, 1793–1795. 4
vols., 8vo.
3. Blackstone’s Commentaries: with notes of refer-
ence, to the Constitution and laws, of the federal
government of the United States, and of the Com-
monwealth of Virginia : in five volumes, with an ap-
pendix to each volume, containing short tracts upon
such subjects as appeared necessary to form a con-
nected view of the laws of Virginia, as a member of
the federal union / by St. George Tucker.
4. The Sixteenth Edition, with notes by J. F. Archbold,
(added to Christian’s), London, 1811. 4 vols., royal
8vo.
5. The Seventeenth Edition, with notes by J. T. Co-
leridge, London, 1825.
6. The Eighteenth Edition, with notes by J. Chitty,
London, 1826 (often reprinted in America).
7. Commentaries on the laws of England: in four books
/ by Sir William Blackstone ... ; together with such
notes of enduring value as have been published in the
several English editions ; and also, a copious analysis
of the contents ; and additional notes with references
to English and American decisions and statutes, to
date, which illustrate or change the law of the text ;
also a full table of abbreviations and some consider-
ations regarding the study of the law, by Thomas M.
Cooley. Published: Chicago: Callaghan and Co.,
1871, Second Edition 1876, Third Edition 1884,
Fourth Edition edited by James DeWitt Andrews
1899.
8. Commentaries on the laws of England / by Sir
William Blackstone, KT. Edition Information:
From the author’s 8th ed., 1778 / edited for Ameri-
can lawyers by William G. Hammond ; with copious
notes, and references to all comments on the text
in the American reports, 1787–1890. Published:
San Francisco : Bancroft–Whitney Company, 1890.
Description: 4 vols.
9. Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books
/ by Sir William Blackstone. Notes selected from
the editions of Archibold, Christian, Coleridge,
Chitty, Stewart, Kerr, and others, Barron Field’s
Analysis, and Additional Notes, and a Life of the
Author by George Sharswood. In Two Volumes.
(Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1893).

16. 5.5. ABRIDGEMENTS 13
10. Commentaries on the laws of England : in four books
/ by Sir William Blackstone ; with notes selected
from the editions of Archbold, Christian, Coleridge,
Chitty, Stewart, Kerr, and others ; and in addition,
notes and references to all text books and decisions
wherein the Commentaries have been cited, and
all statutes modifying the text by William Draper
Lewis. Published: Philadelphia : Rees Welsh and
Company, 1897. Description: 4 vols.
11. Commentaries on the Laws of England by Sir
William Blackstone, Kt. ; edited by William Carey
Jones. Published: San Francisco : Bancroft–
Whitney, 1915–16. Description: 2 vols.
12. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England;
edited by Wayne Morrison. 4 vols. Published:
London: Routledge–Cavendish; London, England:
2001. Description 4 vols.
5.5 Abridgements
Ralph Thomas in Notes & Queries, 4th Series, II August 8,
1868 gave the following list of the abridgements of Black-
stone’s Commentaries.
1. A Summary of the Constitutional Law of England:
being an Abridgment of Blackstone’s Commentaries.
By the Rev. Dr. J. Trusler, 1788, 12mo ; 228 and
index. “Everything in Blackstone necessary for the
general reader is here comprised ... and nothing
omitted but what is peculiarly adapted to the pro-
fession of a lawyer.” (Advertisement.)
2. The Commentaries of Sir W. Blackstone, Knight,
on the Law and Constitution of England, carefully
abridged in a new manner, and continued down to
the present time, by Wm. Curry 1796, 8vo; viii. con-
tents, 566. 2nd edit. 1809. Consists of selections of
the most essential parts in the words of the author.
3. Commentaries on the Law of England, principally
in the order, and comprising the whole substance,
of Commentaries of Sir W. Blackstone. [By J. Ad-
dams], 1819, 8vo.
4. An Abridgment of Blackstone’s Commentaries. By
John Gifford [pseud. i. e. Edward Foss], 1821, 8vo.
See No. VI.
5. An Abridgment of Blackstone’s Commentaries on the
Laws of England, in a series of Letters from a Fa-
ther to his Daughter, chiefly intended for the Use and
Advancement of Female Education. By a Barrister
at Law, F.R., F.A., and F.L.S. [Sir E. E. Wilmot],
1822, 12mo; viii. 304.
6. Same by Sir J. E.E. W. . . . A new edition [the
2nd] corrected ... by his son Sir J. E. E. W. 3rd edit.
1855.
7. Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England,
abridged for the Use of Students, &c. By John Gif-
ford, author of the Life of . . . . Pitt [pseud. John
Richards Green], 1823, 8vo.
8. The British Constitution; or, an Epitome of Black-
stone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, for
the Use of Schools. By Vincent Wanostrocht,
LL.D., Alfred House Academy, Camberwell, 1823,
12mo; xi. 845.
9. An American Abridgment, 1832. [Mr Thomas may
be referring to John Anthon's An Analytical Abridg-
ment of the Commentaries of Sir William Blackstone
on the laws of England: in four books: together
with an analytical synopsis of each book, printed
and published by Isaac Riley in 1809, second edi-
tion 1832.]
10. Select Extracts from Blackstone’s Commentaries,
carefully adapted to the Use of Schools and Young
Persons; with a Glossary, Questions, and Notes, and
a General Introduction. By Samuel Warren, 1837,
12mo; xxvi. 428 (no index).
11. Commentaries on the Laws of England, in the Or-
der and Compiled from the Text of Blackstone, and
embracing the New Statutes and Alterations to the
present time. By J. Bethune Bayly, of the Middle
Temple, 1840, roy. 8vo; li. 700.
12. A Synopsis of Blackstone’s Commentaries. London.
[1847]. A large single sheet in folio.
13. The Law Student’s First Book, being chiefly an
Abridgment of Blackstone’s Commentaries; incor-
porating the Alterations in the Law down to the
present time. By the Editors of The Law Student’s
Magazine, 1848, 12mo; xxiv. 508, xvi.
14. Blackstone’s Commentaries systematically arranged
and adapted to the existing State of the Law and
Constitution, with great Additions. By S. Warren,
. . . 1855, 8vo 2nd edition, 1856. See IX. The
original portions of Blackstone are indicated.
15. The Student’s Blackstone; Selections from the Com-
mentaries on the Laws of England. By Sir W. B.;
being those portions of the work which relate to the
British Constitution and the Rights of Persons. By
R. M. Kerr, 1858, 12mo; xix. 575. The Student’s
Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England,
in four books, by Sir W. Blackstone, &c., abridged
... By R. M. Kerr. 2nd edit. 1865, 12mo; xx. 612.
Other abridgments include:
• Blackstone economized: being a compendium of
the laws of England to the present time by Sir
William Blackstone, David Mitchell Aird Pub-
lished: London: Longmans, Green, & Co.: 1878

17. 14 CHAPTER 5. COMMENTARIES ON THE LAWS OF ENGLAND
• Essentials of the Law: A Review of Blackstone’s
Commentaries for the Use of Students at Law (1882)
Author: Marshall Davis Ewell Published: Boston:
Charles C Soule: 1882
• Selections from Blackstone edited by William Carey
Jones Published: San Francisco: Bancroft–Whitney
Co. 1926.
• The Sovereignty of the Law: Selections from Black-
stone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England edited
by Gareth Jones, Published: London: Macmil-
lan, 1973 ISBN 0-8357-4720-4, ISBN 978-0-8357-
4720-2
5.6 See also
• Books of authority
5.7 References
• Boorstin, Daniel J., The Mysterious Science of the
Law : An Essay on Blackstone’s Commentaries,
(Univ. Chicago, 1996). ISBN 0-226-06498-0
• Stacey, Robert D. Sir William Blackstone and the
Common Law : Blackstone’s Legacy to America
(ACW, 2003) ISBN 1-932124-14-4
[1] Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of Eng-
land, facsimile edition with introductions by Stanley N.
Katz. (Univ. Chicago, 1979). 4 vols. ISBN 0-226-05538-
8, ISBN 0-226-05541-8, ISBN 0-226-05543-4, ISBN 0-
226-05545-0
[2] Blackstone, Sir William
5.8 External links
• Sir William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws
of England, from the Avalon Project at Yale Law
School (full-text)
• Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four
Books, 2 Vols (1893/1753).. See original text in fac-
simile PDF and HTML with links to each Volume
at The Online Library of Liberty.
• Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume 1
edited by William Carey-Jones, Bancroft–Whitney,
San Francisco, 1915 (Books 1 & 2)
• Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume 2,
edited by William Carey-Jones, Bancroft–Whitney,
San Francisco, 1916 (Books 3 & 4)
• Commentaries on the laws of England: in four books,
Volume 1, edited by Thomas Cooley, Callaghan &
Co, 1884—Third Edition (Books 1 & 2)
• Commentaries on the laws of England: in four books,
Volume 2, edited by Thomas Cooley, Callaghan &
Co, 1884—Third Edition (Books 3 & 4)
• Blackstone’s Commentaries Abridged by William C
Sprague, Callaghan & Co, 1915—Ninth Edition
• The Student’s Blackstone Adapted and Abridged by
R M N Kerr, William Clowes & Son, 1885—Ninth
Edition

18. 5.9. TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES 15
5.9 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses
5.9.1 Text
• First tithe Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_tithe?oldid=614781623 Contributors: Simetrical, John Hill, BD2412, Rjwilmsi,
Yoninah, FDuffy, SmackBot, Eliyak, Shirahadasha, Cydebot, Shirulashem, Robin S, Munin and hugin, MarcoLittel, TreasuryTag, Philip
Trueman, Steven J. Anderson, Y, JL-Bot, SamuelTheGhost, Arjayay, Versus22, Addbot, Glane23, Arbitrarily0, Yobot, AnomieBOT,
Yosefsimcha, In ictu oculi, Marecheth Ho'eElohuth, Gamliel Fishkin, Wikipelli, Mentibot, ClueBot NG, Helpful Pixie Bot, 2001:db8,
‫לעומר‬ ‫,חודר‬ Mysterytrey, ArmbrustBot and Anonymous: 16
• Second tithe Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_tithe?oldid=670509663 Contributors: Jfdwolff, Rjwilmsi, RussBot, Varano,
FDuffy, SmackBot, Eliyak, Shirahadasha, DangerousPanda, Epbr123, Mahrabu, Luna Santin, Rabbi-m, VoABot II, TreasuryTag, Akivam,
Komusou, Antonio Lopez, ClueBot, Addbot, Boomboom3757575666, Arbitrarily0, Yobot, Yosefsimcha, LilHelpa, In ictu oculi, -- -- --,
Mentibot, Mhiji, Khazar2, Siricruz and Anonymous: 12
• Poor tithe Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_tithe?oldid=646356544 Contributors: Haukurth, Jfdwolff, Pedant, Thiseye, Nlu,
FDuffy, SmackBot, Eliyak, Shirahadasha, PKT, TreasuryTag, Addbot, Arbitrarily0, In ictu oculi, John of Reading, Mentibot, Glacialfox,
RichardMills65, A delicious pot pie, Flixmiz and Anonymous: 8
• Cattle tithe Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_tithe?oldid=631543234 Contributors: Matanya, EmausBot and -- -- --
• Commentaries on the Laws of England Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentaries_on_the_Laws_of_England?oldid=
683198618 Contributors: William Avery, Rbrwr, Llywrch, Ihcoyc, Cribcage, Charles Matthews, Cjmnyc, Itai, ChrisG, Danceswithzer-
glings, Cutler, Stevietheman, Toytoy, Neutrality, MakeRocketGoNow, Lubaf, JW1805, Cavrdg, Wikidea, Wtmitchell, Kiscica, RussBot,
Chris Capoccia, Chaser, Modify, Mais oui!, SmackBot, Britannicus, KaiserbBot, John, Filippowiki, Adam sk, Eastlaw, Cydebot, A876,
Hut 8.5, Trnj2000, EagleFan, Chaydenskok, Patar knight, It Is Me Here, Olegwiki, Boobear01, RawEgg1, Oxymoron83, Randy Kryn,
ClueBot, Billwilson5060, Aitias, Addbot, Lightbot, Rdstacey, Luckas-bot, II MusLiM HyBRiD II, James500, Bob Burkhardt, Srich32977,
Amaury, FrescoBot, Android1961, Taikohediyoshi, Canadian Copy Editor, Smuconlaw, Akerans, ClueBot NG, Jorgenev, Helpful Pixie
Bot, CSDarrow, BattyBot, Finnusertop, SantiLak, KasparBot and Anonymous: 34
5.9.2 Images
• File:Commons-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg License: ? Contributors: ? Original
artist: ?
• File:Question_book-new.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/99/Question_book-new.svg License: Cc-by-sa-3.0
Contributors:
Created from scratch in Adobe Illustrator. Based on Image:Question book.png created by User:Equazcion Original artist:
Tkgd2007
• File:Text_document_with_red_question_mark.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Text_document_
with_red_question_mark.svg License: Public domain Contributors: Created by bdesham with Inkscape; based upon Text-x-generic.svg
from the Tango project. Original artist: Benjamin D. Esham (bdesham)
• File:Wikisource-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Contributors: Rei-artur Original artist: Nicholas Moreau
• File:WilliamBlackstone.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c9/WilliamBlackstone.jpg License: Public do-
main Contributors:
Originally from en.wikipedia; description page is (was) here
Original artist: After Thomas Gainsborough
• File:William_Blackstone,_Commentaries_on_the_Laws_of_England_(1st_ed,_1765,_vol_I,_title_page).jpg Source:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/William_Blackstone%2C_Commentaries_on_the_Laws_of_England_%281st_
ed%2C_1765%2C_vol_I%2C_title_page%29.jpg License: Public domain Contributors: Scanned from an original copy. Original artist:
William Blackstone (10 July 1723 – 14 February 1780).
5.9.3 Content license
• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0