Ki Tavo | Viddui Ma’aserot (Devarim 26:12:15)

[1] "In every place" means not necessarily "in the place which the Lord shall choose," as in the law of ma’aser sheni, which will be discussed below. "'In every place' – even in a graveyard" (Rashi, following the Sifrei, ad loc.); that is to say, it can be eaten in a state of ritual impurity.

[2]  This tithe is mentioned two more times in Parashat Re'eh in the oration in chapter 12:

12:6: And to there [the place which the Lord shall choose] you shall bring your burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes [Rashi: "the tithe of the cattle and ma’aser sheni, in order to consume them within the wall"].

11: Then it shall come to pass that the place which the Lord your God shall choose to cause His name to dwell there, to there shall you bring all that I command you: your burnt-offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the offering of your hand….

[3]  At the end of passage dealing with ma’aser sheni, it is stated (v. 26): "And you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household." Even though the following verse states: "And the Levite that is within your gates, you shall not forsake him, for he has no portion nor inheritance with you," Rashi explains this: "'And the Levite… you shall not forsake' – by not giving him ma’aser rishon." The Ibn Ezra clarifies the need for this command: "Since mention was made of ma’aser sheni, it says: Think not that you will fulfill your obligation with ma’aser sheni alone." Indeed, the same reason is given here for not forsaking the Levite as what appears in Parashat Korach for the mitzva of ma’aser rishon. See also the next note.

[4] The reason that is embedded in the verse for the Levite's coming to take the tithe – "for he has no portion nor inheritance with you" – alludes to the fact that this is the tithe that is designated for him, for it is with this reason that the Torah justifies this tithe in Bemidbar 18:24.

[5] This is certainly under the influence of the “Tithe Confession” that we will discuss in our study below, in which the confessor says (26:13): "I have put away [bi'arti] the hallowed things out of my house," referring to ma’aser sheni (and neta reva'i), which is called "holy to the Lord." According to the wording of the mitzva in chapter 14 – "You shall bring forth [totzi] all of the tithe of your produce" – one might have called this mitzva "hotza'at ma'aserot, "the bringing forth of tithes." The enumerators of the mitzvot did not count this commandment as a separate mitzva, but rather included it in the mitzva of Tithe Confession in our parasha.

[6]  Of course, the ma’aser sheni of the first and second years is not included in what he brought forth and lay "at your gates," as it may be eaten only in the place which the Lord shall choose and it is fit for the owner of the tithe and his household.

Chazal learned in the Midrash Halakha that the removal of tithes after the third year includes the removal of all the gifts that a person must set aside from the produce of his land. This is what is taught in Mishna Ma'aser Sheni 5:6:

On the eve of the first festival day [the Rambam reads: "the last festival day," which is also the reading of the Sifrei] of Pesach in the fourth and in the seventh [years of the Sabbatical cycle], the removal was performed. How so? Teruma and terumat ma'aser were given to their owners, ma’aser rishon was given to its owner, ma’aser ani was given to its owner, and ma’aser sheni and first-fruits [which could no longer be brought up to Jerusalem] were removed from everywhere [from the world].

[7] In the Sifrei (Ki Tavo 302), this is learned from the designation of the third year in Devarim 16:12 as "the year of the tithe":

“The year of the tithe” – the year in which only one of the two tithes that applied in the two preceding years applies. For in the first year of the Sabbatical cycle, there is ma’aser rishon… and ma’aser sheni… totaling two tithes. And it comes here and teaches you that in the third year, these two tithes do not apply, but only one. And which is it? Ma’aser rishon. And in place of ma’aser sheni, give ma’aser ani."

This is difficult to understand: The third year is not "the year of the tithe" – the year of ma’aser rishon alone – for in it as well there are two tithes – ma’aser rishon and ma’aser ani. There is thus no reason to call it "the year of the tithe." The meaning of the Sifrei appears to be different: "You might say that two tithes apply" – ma’aser sheni and ma’aser ani (and we are not dealing now with ma’aser rishon, for it applies every year). "Therefore the verse states: 'the year of the tithe' – one tithe applies in it and not two tithes." That is to say, only ma’aser ani applies (as this is explicitly stated in the verse with respect to the third year in chapter 14 and in chapter 26), and ma’aser sheni does not apply. Such an explanation arises from Midrash Ha-Gadol to 26:12 (p. 596): "You might say that two tithes apply in it – ma’aser sheni and ma’aser ani..."

This still requires explanation: Why is a year in which only ma’aser ani applies called "the year of the tithe," whereas a year in which only ma’aser sheni applies is not called by that name? The answer is simple: Ma’aser sheni is eaten by its owner; there is no law of giving it to another person, and it is not experienced as a loss of produce to the owner. In contrast, ma’aser ani is given to the needy, and therefore the year in which it applies is "the year of giving tithe." See also R. Hoffman's commentary to 26:12, where he explains the verse itself in this manner.

The words of R. Yehoshua ben Levi in Rosh Hashana 12b can be explained in a similar fashion:

"When you have made an end of tithing all the tithe of your produce in the third year, the year of the tithe” - the year in which there is only one tithe. How so? [He gives] ma’aser rishon and ma’aser ani, and ma’aser sheni is omitted.

This means: the year in which there is only one of the two tithes – ma’aser sheni and ma’aser ani. But ma’aser rishon is not considered regarding the name of this year for the reasons offered in the gemara.

[8] "The tradition of our Rabbis" appears in the Sifrei and in the words of R. Yehoshua ben Levi in tractate Rosh Hashana cited in the previous note. The Ramban's explanation of the words "year by year" is found also in Midrash Aggada to Devarim 14:22.

It is clear from the words of the Ramban that it is only because of "the tradition of our Rabbis" that we are to explain the matter in this manner, and not because this is the plain meaning of the text. Indeed, in the sectarian Halakha, which was followed by various sects in the Second Temple period, there appears to be an opinion that ma’aser sheni is given all six years, in accordance with the plain meaning of the expression "year by year." According to this opinion, it is possible that ma’aser ani in the third and the sixth years is in addition to ma’aser sheni. According to this, the expression, "the third year, the year of the tithe," means the year of the additional tithe, ma’aser ani. This view is found in the book of Jubilees 32:10-11 and in one version of the book of Tobias (long version 1, 7-8). There may be an allusion to this also in Targum Yonatan to Devarim 26:12-13. To our great surprise, it is found also in the words of the Ibn Ezra, in his commentary to 14:28: "'At the end of every three years' – this is a third tithe [ma’aser ani], and one does not set aside this year ma’aser sheni. And some say that he sets aside all three of them."

[9] We have briefly addressed this question and its answer in our study of Parashat Ki Tavo, second series, section I. Here we expand upon what we wrote there, for here is the proper forum for the discussion.

[10] Whether the Tithe Confession must be recited specifically "in the place which the Lord shall choose," and not "within your gates," is the subject of a dispute between the Rambam and the Ra'avad in Hilkhot Ma'aser Sheni 11:4. One of the ramifications of this dispute is whether the Tithe Confession applies in our day.

[11] a. The continuity of the orations included in these twenty-two chapters stems from the fact that there is no passage in these chapters that interrupts the words of Moshe, who speaks in the first person. The last break was at the end of chapter 4 (verses 41-49), where the Torah describes Moshe in third person, and the next break is at 27:1, where it says: "And Moshe and the elders of Israel commanded the people, saying…," and there begin the orations concerning the covenant.

b. This lengthy and continuous section of the orations concerning the mitzvot, which is the primary unit in the book of Devarim, is not of a uniform character, but is rather divided into two large parts. Chapters 5-11 (Parashot Va'etchanan and Eikev) contain orations with a rhetorical-educational character, and the mitzvot scattered within them are general mitzvot: the prohibition of idolatry is repeated in different contexts, and in contrast to it there are the mitzvot of loving and fearing God, and the command to listen to the voice of God and keep His commandments is repeated many times. Chapters 12-26 (Parashot Re'eh, Shofetim, Ki-Tetze, and the beginning of Ki-Tavo) are of a different character: The orations concerning the mitzvot in these chapters include dozens of halakhic sections that ​​detail very many mitzvot.

[12] Regarding making this declaration specifically at the time of bringing first-fruits, see our study of Parashat Ki-Tavo, first series.

[13]  Rashi in his commentary writes in a brief but inclusive manner: "We have done what You have laid upon us; do You now what lies upon You to do, because You have said (Vayikra 26:4): 'If you walk in My ordinances… then I will give you rain in its season,'" referring to all that is stated in the blessing in Parashat Bechukotai.

[14] A broader discussion of the reason for the making of the covenant in the plains of Moav is found in our study of Parashat Ki Tavo, second series, section IV.

[15] In the First-fruits Declaration, these words conclude the historical review given by the person bringing the first-fruits: "And He has brought us to this place, and has given us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey" (26:9). In the Tithe Confession, they come at the end of the request: "Look forth from Your holy habitation, from heaven, and bless Your people Israel, and the land which You have given us, as You did swear to our fathers, a land flowing with milk and honey" (26:15). Their role from a grammatical perspective requires explanation. These words of conclusion may be part of the request: "Bless… the land… that it be a land flowing with milk and honey." This is the way these words were understood in the mishna, the first part of which was cited above: "'A land flowing with milk and honey' – that it [the land] may grant a good taste in the fruit." The Ibn Ezra explained similarly: "And the meaning of 'a land flowing with milk and honey' – that it be that way always." Rashi, however, saw in these words a continuation of the description of the land that God gave us as He had promised to our fathers: "'Which you have given us, as You swore to our fathers' – to give it to us, and indeed You have kept Your promise, giving us a land flowing with milk and honey." The Ramban explains his words: "If so, the verse means: 'And the land which You have given us, a land flowing with milk and honey, as You did swear to our fathers."

[16] It stands to reason that these parallels help explain verse 14, which contains several exegetical difficulties, but we will not deal with this issue in this forum.

[17] The root nun-taf-nun as a verb also serves as a guideword in the section dealing with first-fruits that precedes our passage. See our study for Parashat Ki Tavo, first series, pp. 388-389.

[18] How does Scripture refer to the action (or speech) of a person offering a confession? The term toda appears twice in this sense. The term toda appears in Scripture thirty-two times. In half of these instances, it is the name of the offering that expresses gratitude to God for His kindness to man. In most of the other cases, the term means gratitude to God, not by way of an offering, but through song and musical instruments. Only twice does the word toda denote confession of sins. In Yehoshua 7:19, Yehoshua says to Achan: "My son, give, I pray you, glory to the Lord, the God of Israel, and make confession (toda) to Him; and tell me now what you have done; hide nothing from me." The "confession" appears in the next verse: "Of a truth I have sinned against the Lord, the God of Israel, and thus and thus have I done." In Ezra 10:10-11, Ezra says to the people: "You have broken faith and have married foreign women, to increase the guilt of Israel. Now therefore make confession (toda) to the Lord, the God of your fathers, and do His pleasure; and separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign women." And the people answer him (v. 13): "For we have greatly transgressed in this matter."

It is no surprise, then, that in Rabbinic Hebrew a special noun was created – viddui – in order to distinguish between toda in its prevalent sense in Scripture – a thanksgiving offering (the word toda appears in Rabbinic Hebrew only in connection with this offering) – and toda in its rare sense – confession of sins.

What is the common denominator of these two meanings of the word toda in Scripture, which seem so distant from each other? Ben Yehuda in his dictionary (s.v. toda) offers an overall definition: "recognition of God's righteousness and exaltedness." This recognition of God's righteousness can come in the wake of His acts of kindness toward man or in the wake of His demands upon him after he has sinned.

Having come this far, we will cite also the following remarks which we found in that dictionary. At the end of the entry "toda," it says: "It is used in our time in the sense of gratitude – Dank, thank(s) – also in the expressions: toda rabba, rav todot." The editor of the dictionary, N. H. Tur-Sinai, remarks about this: "While the transition to this meaning from the original meaning of the term in Scripture as recognition of the righteousness of God and the like is understandable, we do not find this new meaning in the sources. It results only from the influence of the foreign term, Dank, in the translations of the Bible, which serves in both senses." In Hebrew, then, the term toda was used only to express man's relationship to God.

[19] In the Bible, verbs are derived from the root yod-dalet-heh in two conjugations. The first is in the hitpa'el conjugation, hitvada – in the sense of confession of sin before God. The hitpa'el conjugation is appropriate for this action, as it demands of the person self-reflection and revealing his hidden sin. But most of the verbs derived from this root (about 100 instance) are in the hif'il conjugation, and generally they denote praising and lauding God for His kindness.

Only in two places in the Bible does the verb le-hodot in the hif'il denote confession of sins: Mishlei 28:13: "He that covers his transgressions shall not prosper; but whoever confesses (u-modeh) and forsakes them shall obtain mercy"; Tehilim 32:5: "I acknowledged my sin to You, and mine iniquity have I not hid; I said: I will make confession (odeh) concerning my transgressions to the Lord."

As stated at the end of the previous note, it should be noted here as well that in all one hundred and eleven instances of verbs derived from the root yod-dalel-heh in Scripture, we are dealing exclusively with man's relationship to God: Only before Him does man confess and only to Him does he offer thanks. But already in Rabbinic Hebrew the meaning of verbs derived from the root yod-dalet-heh expanded to a recognition that is expressed to one's fellow man – about a debt that he owes him, about a true claim that he is making, and the like (though it seems that even in Rabbinic Hebrew hoda'a for kindness or about sin remains only in relation to God).

[20] This is also what the author of the Sefer Ha-Chinukh writes in commandment 607:

"There are many people who are afraid to disqualify their speech… more so than to sin in their actions. Since the matter of ma'aserot and terumot is a great thing… out of His love for us so that we not sin in their regard… that we should testify about ourselves with our own mouths in the Holy Temple that we have not lied about them and we have not held any of them back. All this, so that we should be careful about the matter. "

[21] Ein Aya, Berakhot, vol. II, Seder Zera'im (Jerusalem, 5750) on Ma'aser Sheni 5:10 (p. 405).

[22] It is possible, however, that the reason for the name Tithe Confession is more prosaic. Mishna Bikkurim 2:2 states: "[Second] tithe and first-fruits must to be brought to [the appointed] [place], and they require confession." We see, then, that the First-fruits Recitation is also referred to by Chazal as "First-fruits Confession." And we have already seen that the term viddui in Rabbinic Hebrew is the word toda in Biblical Hebrew, and that Tithe Confession is also called in the Mishna hodayat ma'aserot. Are these words – viddui, toda, hodaya – appropriate for the First-fruits Recitation?  The answer to this is undoubtedly in the affirmative. In the First-fruits Recitation, the Israelite farmer thanks God for His kindness to Israel, for His having brought them to this land as He had promised their fathers, and for His having given them all this good. It is possible then that the proximity in Scripture and in the law between tithes and first-fruits, both of which require a "statement," led to an equation of the term used to describe these statements – viddui – and that the term viddui ma'aserot was given incidentally to the term viddui bikkurim.

The commentators offer additional reasons for the term viddui ma'aser: 

1. The Tosafot Anshei Shem on Mishna Ma'aser Sheni 5:10 cites the commentary Hon Ashir on this Mishna: "One who confesses and admits what he did, whether good or bad, is called viddui." The Malbim in his commentary to the Torah here writes in similar fashion. This rule has no additional support, and it follows from the difficulty with the term viddui ma'aser. Linguistically, this rule has no standing, as we clarified in notes 18-19.

2. R. Ovadya Seforno uses the term established by Chazal, viddui ma'aser, to reverse the meaning of the declaration appearing in verses 13-14. His remarks here are connected to his general position that it was only in the wake of the sin of the golden calf that Israel was commanded to build the Mishkan and the priests and Levites were chosen to serve in it, whereas the ideal was that the service should be performed by the firstborns. In this ideal situation, the various gifts set aside from the produce would have remained in every house and given to the firstborns, and not to the priests and Levites. Let us now consider his explanation:

"I have put away the hallowed things out of my house” – Because of our sins and the iniquities of our fathers, the service was removed from the firstborns, to whom the terumot and ma'aserot should have been given, as it is stated (Yechezkel 20:26): "And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they set apart all that opens the womb." This is the Tithe Confession mentioned by our Rabbis.

In other words, "I have put away the hallowed things out of my house" is a confession of our sins, which caused the removal of the terumot and ma'aserot (the hallowed things) from the house in which they were supposed to have remained and be given to the firstborns. The Seforno continues:

"And I have also [gam] given them to the Levite" – [Here] the word gam means “even though,” as in: “Should I even [gam] have a husband tonight and even [gam] have sons.” He is saying: I confess that my sin is great that I caused the hallowed things to be put away out of my house, and even though I gave them to the Levite and the others at Your command [this being testimony to my sin], I pray that You should look favorably instead of looking to my discredit in a way that is fitting for my iniquity.

This revolutionary interpretation is far from the plain meaning of the text.

The author of the Mishna Rishona on Mishna Ma'aser Sheni 5:10 writes in similar fashion – that the confession here is for an unworthy act:

The “confession” is for someone who kept the gifts for himself and did not set them aside, or who set them aside but did not immediately give them to their owners, and regarding ma’aser sheni and first-fruits, who did not bring them up to the Temple.

However, it may be argued against this interpretation that even one who gave all of his gifts at the proper time must recited this viddui, because, of course, it is not a confession of sin, but rather of the fitting actions performed by the person.

 After all that has been said, including our own ideas on the matter, we must admit that the term viddui ma'aser remains a puzzle.