Sifrei Devarim Reader

"all the places where the nations worshipped, etc.": Scripture here apprises us that the Canaanites were even more steeped in licentiousness than the Babylonians.

"which you inherit": Do not emulate their (evil) ways lest others come and disinherit you.

R. Yossi Haglili says: I might think that even if they worshipped the mountains and the hills you were commanded to destroy them; it is, therefore, written "their gods on the high mountains, and on the hills, and under every leafy tree — "their gods on the mountains," but the mountains (themselves) are not (considered) their gods. And, likewise, for the hills and for the leafy trees. R. Akiva said: Before you said this, I would expound it before you (as meaning that) wherever you find a high mountain or a hill or a leafy tree know that there is idolatry (i.e., idolatrous images) there (and seek them out to destroy them). This is the intent of "on the high mountains, and on the hills, and under every leafy tree."

(Devarim 12:3) "And you shall raze their altars": This is an altar that was built originally for idolatry.

"and you shall break their monuments": This is a monument which was hewn originally for idolatry.

"and their asheiroth shall you burn in fire": This is an asheirah that was planted originally for idolatry.

"and the cuttings of their gods shall you cut off": That which was (already) planted, and was then cut and trimmed for idolatry.

"and you shall cause their name to go lost": that under which idolatry was placed. From here it was ruled: There are three kinds of asheiroth: A tree that was planted from the beginning for idolatry is forbidden (for benefit), it being written "and their asheiroth shall you burn in fire." If he cut and trimmed it and it grew (new growths), he removes the new growths, it being written "and the cuttings of their gods shall you cut down." If he placed idolatry under it and removed it (the idolatry), then it (the tree) is permitted, it being written "and you shall cause their name (but not the tree itself) to go lost from that place."

There are three kinds of houses (in this regard): A house that was built from the beginning for idolatry is forbidden, it being written "And you shall raze." If he plastered and decorated it for idolatry, thereby adding to it, he removes the additions, it being written "shall you cut down." If he placed (idolatry) in it and then removed it, then it (the house) is permitted, it being written "and you shall cause their name (but not the house itself) to go lost from that place.

Variantly: "And you shall raze their altars": Once you have razed the altar, leave it. "and you shall break their monuments": Once you have broken it, leave it. ("and you shall cause their name to go lost) from that place." In Eretz Yisrael you must pursue it (its complete destruction), and not outside of Eretz Yisrael.

R. Eliezer says; Whence is it derived that if one cuts down an asheirah he must root it out? From "and you shall cause their name to go lost from that place." R. Akiva said: This is not needed, it already being written "Destroy shall you destroy." What, then, is the intent of "and you shall cause their name to go lost"? That you shall change their name (to a demeaning one). I might think, to a laudatory one; it is, therefore, written (Devarim 7:26) "Despise shall you despise it."

Whence is it derived that if one knocks down one stone from the sanctuary or from the altar or from the azaroth (the Temple courts) he is in transgression of a negative commandment? From "And you shall raze their altars … (4) "You shall not do thus to the L-rd your G-d." R. Yishmael says: Whence is it derived that if one erases one letter of the Name, he is in transgression of a negative commandment? From "and you shall cause their name to go lost. You shall not do thus to the L-rd your G-d." R. Gamliel says: Would it enter your mind, G-d forbid, that Israel would raze their own altars (that they have to be exhorted against it)? Rather, (the intent of the verse is) that you not do as they do and your sins and evil acts lead to the destruction of the Temple of our fathers.

(Devarim 12:5) "But to the place that the L-rd your G-d will choose of all your tribes": by word of a prophet. I might think, wait until a prophet tells you; it is, therefore, written "His dwelling shall you seek and you shall come there": Seek to find it and then the prophet will tell you. And thus do we find with David (Psalms 132:1-5) "Remember, O L-rd, unto David, all of his affliction. How he swore to the L-rd, vowed to the Might of Jacob: I shall not go up to the bed that is spread for me; I shall not give sleep to my eyes, slumber to my eyelids, before I find a place for the L-rd, a resting place for the Might of Jacob."

And whence is it derived that he wrought only by word of a prophet? From (II Samuel 24:18) "And Gad came to David on that day and said to him: Arise and set up an altar to the L-rd on the threshing floor of Aravna the Yevussi," and (II Chronicles 3:1) "And Solomon began building the Temple of the L-rd in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, where He had appeared to his father David."

One verse (Devarim 12:14) states (that the Temple is to be built) "in (the portion of) one of your tribes," and, another (here) "of all your tribes." How are these two verses to be reconciled? Israel knew that the Temple was destined to be built in the portion of one of them — wherefore they set aside the "fat land" of Jericho. Who ate of it all of these years (until its building)?

The descendants of Keini (Yithro), the father-in-law of Moses, ate of it four hundred and forty years. But with the building of the Temple, they left, viz. (Judges 1:16) "And the children of the Keini, the father-in-law of Moses went up from the city of palms (Jericho)." These are the words of R. Shimon. R. Yehudah says: They went to Yabetz, viz. ( Chronicles 2:55) "and the families of scribes, who dwelt in Yabetz … These were the Keinites, etc."

Variantly: One verse states "of one of your tribes," and another, "of all your tribes." The money (paid for the site) from all of the tribes, and the place, from one tribe (Benjamin). And thus is it written (II Samuel 24:24) "And David bought the threshing floor and the cattle for fifty silver shekels." And another verse states (I chronicles 21:25) "And David gave to Ornon for the place gold shekels weighing six hundred." How can these two verses be reconciled? There were twelve tribes. He took fifty shekels from each tribe, six hundred shekels in all. Variantly: "of one of your tribes" — (the sanctuary of Shiloh); "of all of your tribes" — (the Temple of) Jerusalem.

"to place His name there": It is written here "to place His name there," and elsewhere (Bamidbar 6:27) "And they (the Cohanim) shall place My name on the children of Israel" — Just as here, in the Temple, so, there, in the Temple. This tells me only of the Temple. Whence do I derive (the same for) all places? From (Shemoth 20:21) "In every place in which I mention My name I shall come to you and I shall bless you." If so, why is it written "to place His name there, His dwelling shall you seek"? — In the Temple you pronounce it (the Tetragrammaton) as it is written; outside it, by epithet.

(Devarim 12:5) "and you shall come there … (6) and you shall bring there": Why is this stated (i.e., it is essentially stated elsewhere). Because it is written (Vayikra 23:37) "These are the festivals of the L-rd, which you shall call holy callings to present a fire-offering to the L-rd, a burnt-offering and a meal-offering, sacrifice and drink-offerings, the thing of the day in its day."

I might think that the only things sacrificed on a festival are the sacrifices of the festival alone. Whence are derived for inclusion communal offerings, and individual offerings dedicated before the festival and on the festival itself? From (Ibid. 38) "aside from your gifts and aside from all your vows and aside from all your gift-offerings that you give to the L-rd" — to include birds and meal-offerings, all of which are sacrificed on the festival.

I might think that this is optional; it is, therefore, written (Bamidbar 29:39) "These shall you offer to the L-rd on your festivals." If to permit them, they have already been permitted. If so, why is it written "These shall you offer to the L-rd on your festivals"? To make them mandatory, that all are to be sacrificed on the festival.

I might think, on any festival that they desire; it is, therefore, written (here) "and you shall come there … and you shall bring there." If to permit them, they have already been permitted. If to make them mandatory, they have already been made mandatory. If so, why is it written "and you shall come there … and you shall bring there'? To make them mandatory on the first fixed festival that presents itself.

I might think that if one festival passed and he did not bring it he is in transgression of (Ibid. 23:22) "You shall not delay to pay it"; it is, therefore, written "These shall you offer to the L-rd on your festivals" — he is not in transgression thereof until all the festivals of the year have passed.

(Ibid. 12:6) "your burnt-offerings": both individual and communal burnt-offerings.

"your sacrifices": both individual and communal peace-offerings.

"your tithes": R. Akiva says: Scripture speaks of two tithes, the grain tithe and the animal tithe.

"and the offering of your hands": These are bikkurim, as it is written (Ibid. 26:4) "and the Cohein shall take the basket from your hands and he shall place it before the altar of the L-rd your G-d."

"your cattle and your flocks": sin-offerings and guilt-offerings.

(Devarim 12:7) "And you shall eat there before the L-rd your G-d": It is found that there were two precincts (for eating), one for holy of holies, and one for lower-order offerings.

"and you shall rejoice": It is written here "rejoicing," and, elsewhere (27:7) "rejoicing." Just as the "rejoicing" there is with peace-offerings, so, the "rejoicing" here.

"in all to which you put your hands": In all to which you put your hands, I shall place blessing in it.

"whereby the L-rd your G-d has blessed you": all according to the blessing which comes (as "vows and gifts" [6]).

(Devarim 12:8) "You shall not do as all that we do here today": As long as the mishkan (the tabernacle) had not been established, the bamoth (individual altars) were permitted, and the (sacrificial) service was performed by the first-born. When the mishkan was established, the bamoth were forbidden and the service was performed by the Cohanim.

Before they came to Shiloh, the bamoth were permitted. After they came to Shiloh, the bamoth were forbidden. When they came to Nov and Giveon, the bamoth were permitted. When they came to Jerusalem, the bamoth were forbidden, and not permitted again, as it is written "You shall not do as all that we do here today":

We move the mishkan. Today, bamoth are forbidden to us. When we come to Eretz Yisrael, we do not move the mishkan and bamoth are permitted to us.

R. Yehudah says: I might think that the congregation sacrificed on a bamah; it is, therefore, written "a man, all that is fitting in his eyes" — An individual sacrifices on a bamah, but not the congregation.

"all that is fitting in his eyes": All that is vowed and donated is sacrificed on an individual bamah; and all that is not vowed and donated is not sacrificed on an individual bamah.

The sages say: "here today" we sacrifice sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, but when we come to Eretz Yisrael, we will not sacrifice sin-offerings and guilt-offerings, even upon a great bamah.

(Devarim 12:9) "For you have not as yet come": to be permitted (again to sacrifice) on a bamah.

"to the rest and to the inheritance": "the inheritance": This is Shiloh; "the rest": This is Jerusalem, as it is written (Psalms 132:14) "This is My resting place forever. Here will I dwell, for I desire her." These are the words of R. Shimon. R. Yehudah says: Reverse it, it being written (Jeremiah 12:8-9) "My inheritance (Jerusalem) has become to Me like a lion in the forest … Like a bird of prey has My inheritance become to Me."

(Devarim 12:10) "And you will cross the Jordan and you will dwell in the land … (11) and the place that the L-rd your G-d will choose, etc." R. Yehudah says: Three mitzvoth were commanded to Israel upon their entrance to the land: to appoint a king over them, to build the Temple, and to cut off the seed of Amalek,

and I would not know which takes precedence; it is, therefore, written (Shemoth 17:16) "For a hand upon the throne of the L-rd: The L-rd shall war against Amalek." When the king sits upon the throne of the L-rd, cut off the seed of Amalek. And whence is it derived that "the throne of the L-rd" refers to the king? From (I Chronicles 29:23) "And Solomon sat on the throne of the L-rd as a king."

And I still would not know which preceded — the building of the Temple or the cutting off of the seed of Amalek? It is, therefore, written (Devarim, Ibid.) "… and you will dwell in the land that the L-rd your G-d causes you to inherit, and He gives you rest from all of your foes roundabout and you will dwell secure (only then) (11) the place that the L-rd your G-d shall choose (i.e., the Temple) etc." And it is written (II Samuel 7:1-2) "And it was, when the king (David) dwelt in his house and the L-rd had given him rest roundabout from all of his foes, that the king said to Nathan the prophet: See now, I am living in a house of cedar while the ark of G-d dwells within the curtain, etc."

(Devarim 12:11) "then the place that the L-rd your G-d shall choose to repose His name therein, there shall you bring … your burnt-offerings": both individual and communal burnt-offerings. "and your sacrifices": sacrifices of individual peace-offerings and of communal burnt-offerings.

"and your tithes": R. Akiva says: Scripture speaks of two tithes, the grain tithe and the animal tithe.

"and the offering of your hands": These are bikkurim.

"your choice vows": These are vows and donations, which are to come only from the choicest.

This tells me only of vows and donations. Whence do we derive (the same for) the first-born (bechoroth), tithes, sin-offerings and guilt-offerings? From "and all your choice vows."

Rebbi says: If this is written above (12:6), why is it written below (here)? The first, for Shiloh, (that these things shall be brought only there and not on a bamah); the second, for Jerusalem.

(Devarim 12:12) "And you shall rejoice": It is written here "rejoicing," and, elsewhere (27:7) "rejoicing." Just as the "rejoicing" there is with peace-offerings, so, the "rejoicing" here.

"before the L-rd your G-d": in the respective precincts.

"you, your sons, your daughters, your men-servants, your maid-servants": priority being given in order of affection.

"and the Levite in your gates, for he has no portion or inheritance with you": Wherever you find the Levite, give him his portion (first-tithe). If he has no portion, he gives him poor-tithe. If he has no poor-tithe, he gives him peace-offerings.

(Devarim 12:13) "Take heed unto yourselves": a negative commandment.

"lest you offer up your burnt-offerings": and not the burnt-offerings of gentiles. These are the words of R. Shimon. R. Yehudah says: and not the burnt-offerings of gentiles that were dedicated outside of Eretz Yisrael.

"in every place that you see": but you may offer them up in every place that the prophet tells you as Eliyahu did on Mount Carmel.

One verse states (12:14) "in (the portion of) one of your tribes," and another (Ibid. 5) "of all your tribes." As R. Yehudah says: The payment (for the site) from "all of your tribes": the site of the Temple, in "one of your tribes" (i.e., Benjamin).

"But in the place that the L-rd shall choose, in one of your tribes, there shall you offer up your burnt-offerings": This tells me only of burnt-offerings. Whence do I derive (the same for) other offerings? From (Ibid.) "and there shall you do all that I command you."

But I still would say that burnt-offerings are subject to a positive commandment and negative commandments, but other offerings are subject only to a positive commandment. Whence do I derive that they are also subject to a negative commandment? It is, therefore written "there shall you offer up your burnt-offerings." Burnt-offerings were included in all of the offerings. Why were they singled out (here)? To serve as the basis for a comparison, viz.: Just as burnt-offerings, which are characterized by being subject to a positive commandment, are subject to a negative commandment, so, all offerings that are so characterized are subject to a negative commandment.

(Devarim 12:15) "Only with all the desire of your soul shall you slaughter": Of what is Scripture speaking here? If of "lust-flesh" (i.e., slaughtering a non-consecrated animal for food), this is spoken of elsewhere (20); and if of the eating of consecrated flesh, this has already been spoken of (as being permitted only in Jerusalem, whereas here it is written "in all of your gates"). It must be speaking, then, of consecrated animals (which had sustained a blemish) and were redeemed (and were to be eaten in "all of your gates").

"shall you slaughter and you shall eat": and not shear.

I might think that it is forbidden (to shear them even) after slaughtering; it is, therefore, written "according to the blessing of the L-rd your G-d" (i.e., derive as much benefit from them as is consistent with their status.)

I might think that (even) if a permanent blemish preceded their dedication, and they were redeemed, they would be forbidden (to shear); it is, therefore, written "Only (with all the desire, etc.", to exclude this).

Whence is it derived that it is permitted to slaughter them only if they sustained a permanent blemish (and not a passing one). Would you say that (i.e., that a derivation is needed)? It follows a fortiori, viz.: If a bechor (a first-born) — which (i.e., whose sanctity) does not obtain with all births, and which (if it were blemished) it becomes chullin (mundane, non-sacred) without redemption — (If a bechor) is slaughtered only if it sustained a permanent blemish — then consecrated animals, which obtain (i.e., whose sanctity obtains) with all births (and not only with first-born), and which become chullin only with redemption — how much more so should they be slaughtered only if they sustained a permanent blemish! — No, (i.e., this does not follow.) It may be true of a bechor, whose sanctity is from the womb and obtains even with one that is permanently blemished (i.e., it may be slaughtered only if it sustained a permanent blemish), but would you say the same (i.e., that they may not be slaughtered only if they sustained a permanent blemish) for consecrated animals, whose sanctity is not from the womb and does not obtain with those that are permanently blemished? It is, therefore, written (here) "that He has given you in all of your gates," and, elsewhere (in connection with a bechor that sustained a blemish, [Ibid. 15:22]) "In your gates may you eat it" — "gates" - "gates" for an identity (gezeirah shavah), viz.: Just as there, (re bechor), it is not slaughtered unless it sustained a permanent blemish, (viz. [Ibid. 21] "lame or blind,") so, here (re offerings in general), they are not slaughtered unless the blemish were permanent.

(Ibid. 12:15) "the unclean one may eat of it": This tells me only that the unclean one may eat of it (of disqualified offerings that have been redeemed). Whence do I derive that the clean one (may eat of it)? From "the unclean one and the clean one may eat of it": Scripture hereby apprises us that they both may eat of it from the same dish.

I might think that terumah (that has become tamei) may also be eaten from the same dish; it is, therefore, written shall eat it" — This (disqualified offerings that have been redeemed) from the same dish, but not terumah.

I might think that they (disqualified offerings that have been redeemed) are subject to the priestly gifts (shoulder, cheeks, and maw); it is, therefore, written "as the deer," (which is not subject to priestly gifts).

I would then exclude them from the priestly gifts, but not from breast and thigh. It is, therefore, written "and as the hart" (for additional exclusion).

(But then I would say:) Just as deer and hart are entirely permitted (including their fats), these, too, should be entirely permitted! It is, therefore, written "Only the blood" (i.e., the fats are forbidden as is the blood).

R. Shimon says: I might think that just as the Torah prescribed separate precincts for (the eating of) holy of holies and lower-order offerings when they are unblemished, so, did it prescribe separate precincts for holy of holies and lower-order offerings when they were blemished. It is, therefore, written "as the deer and as the hart" — Just as the Torah did not prescribe a distinct precinct between deer and hart, so it did not describe a distinct precinct between holy and holies and lower-order offerings when they were blemished.

"Only the blood you shall not eat": There is (transgression of only) one negative commandment (in eating the blood of disqualified offerings) and not two.

Since in offerings blood is compared to fats — viz.: Just as in (eating their) fats there is transgression of two negative commandments, so in (eating their blood) there is transgression of two negative commandments — I would think that the same applied to (eating the blood of) disqualified offerings; it is, therefore, written "Only the blood you shall not eat" — there is transgression in it of only one negative commandment and not of two.

"On the earth shall you spill it as water": Just as it is permitted to derive benefit from water, it is permitted to derive benefit from blood — Just as water renders seed susceptible (of incurring tumah), so, blood. Just as water need not be covered, so blood (that of a disqualified offering which has been slaughtered) need not be covered.

(Devarim 12:17) "You shall not be able to eat in your gates": R. Yehoshua b. Karchah says (in respect to "able"): I am able, but not permitted. A cognate instance is (Joshua 15:63) "But the Yevussi, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, they could not drive out": They could but they were not permitted to do so.

"the tithe" (ma'aser): This tells me only of clean tithe (that it may not be eaten outside of Jerusalem). Whence do I derive (the same for) ma'aser that is tamei? From (the superfluous) "your corn."

Whence do I derive (the same for) food that is purchased for money of ma'aser? From "your wine."

This tells me only of (such food that) is clean. Whence do I derive (the same for) what is tamei? From "and your oil."

R. Shimon says: From (Ibid. 26:14) "I did not eat in my mourning of it and I did not consume of it in uncleanliness," (which implies) whether I were tamei and it, clean or I clean and it, tamei — where is he exhorted (not to eat it)? I would not know, if it were not written "You shall not be able to eat in your gates the tithe of your corn and your wine and your oil," and, elsewhere (15:22) "In your gates shall you eat it, the unclean and the clean together," (which implies that normally it may not be eaten together).

I might think that one who gave it (second-tithe) as a gift to his neighbor (outside of Jerusalem, and he ate it there), he (the giver) was liable; it is, therefore, written "You shall not be able to eat it in your gates" — The eater is liable, but not the giver as a gift.

R. Yossi says: I might think that there was liability only for (eating) tevel (untithed produce) from which nothing had been tithed. Whence is it derived (that there is liability) if terumah had been taken from it, but not first-tithe; if first-tithe had been taken, but not second-tithe; if second-tithe had been taken, but not poor-tithe? From (Ibid. 17) "You shall not be able to eat in your gates," and, elsewhere, (Ibid. 26:12) "And they shall eat it in your gates and be sated." Just as there, poor-tithe (is being referred to), so, here.

R. Shimon says: The intent of the verse is only to prescribe separate precincts for the eating of holy of holies and lower-order offerings.

"and the offering of your hands": What does Scripture come to teach us? If (that it is forbidden) to eat bikkurim (first-fruits) outside the wall (of Jerusalem)? This can be derived a fortiori, from ma'aser (the tithe), viz.: If ma'aser, which is permitted to non-priests — if one transgresses a negative commandment if he eats of it outside the wall (of Jerusalem), then bikkurim, which are forbidden to non-priests, if one eats of them outside the wall, how much more so does he transgress a negative commandment if he eats of them outside the wall! The purpose of the verse, then, must be to teach us that if one eats bikkurim before the invocation has been recited over them (viz. Ibid. 26:5), he transgresses a negative commandment.

"and your gifts": These are thank-offerings and peace-offerings. What does Scripture come to teach us? If (that it is forbidden) to eat a thank-offering and peace-offerings outside the wall, this can be derived a fortiori from ma'aser, viz.: If ma'aser, which is not liable for piggul (improper intention), and nothar (exceeding of a time limitation) and for (being eaten by one who is) tamei — if one eats of it outside the wall, he transgresses a negative commandment, then a thank-offering and peace-offering, which are liable for piggul and nothar and for tamei, how much more so does he transgress a negative commandment if he eats of it outside the wall!

The purpose of the verse, then, must be to teach us that if one eats a thank-offering and peace-offerings before the sprinkling of the blood (of the sacrifice) he transgresses a negative commandment.

"and bechoroth": the first-born. What does Scripture come to teach us? If (that it is forbidden) to eat a bechor outside the wall, this can be derived a fortiori from ma'aser (as above); if before its blood has been sprinkled, this can be derived a fortiori from a thank-offering and peace-offerings, viz.: If a thank-offering and peace-offerings, which are permitted to non-priests — if one eats of them before their blood has been sprinkled, he transgresses a negative commandment, then a bechor, which is forbidden to non-priests, if one eats of them before their blood has been sprinkled, how much more so does he transgress a negative commandment!

The purpose of the verse, then, must be to teach us that if a non-priest eats of it (even) after the sprinkling of the blood, he transgresses a negative commandment.

(Devarim 12:17) "your cattle and your flocks": This refers to sin-offerings and guilt-offerings. What does Scripture come to tech us? If (that it is forbidden) to eat sin-offerings and guilt-offerings outside the wall, this can be derived a fortiori from ma'aser. If that (they may not) be eaten before their blood is sprinkled, this may be derived a fortiori from thank and peace-offerings (lower-order offerings).

If that a non-priest (may not eat of them) even after their blood had been sprinkled, this may be derived a fortiori from bechor, viz.: If bechor, a lower-order offering — if one eats of it (even) after its blood has been sprinkled, he transgresses a negative commandment, then sin and guilt-offerings, if one eats of them (even) after their blood has been sprinkled, how much more so does he transgress a negative commandment!

The purpose of the verse, then, must be to teach us that if one eats a sin or guilt-offering outside the curtains (of the tabernacle) he transgresses a negative commandment.

(Devarim 12:17) "and all your vows": This refers to burnt-offerings. What does Scripture come to teach us? If (that it is forbidden) to eat of a burnt-offering outside of the wall, this can be derived a fortiori from ma'aser. If (that it is forbidden) to eat of it before the sprinkling of blood, this can be derived a fortiori from sin and peace-offerings.

If (that it is forbidden to eat of it) after the sprinkling of its blood, this can be derived a fortiori from bechor. (If that it is forbidden to eat of it) outside the curtains, this can be derived from sin and guilt-offerings, viz.: If sin and guilt-offerings, which are permitted to be eaten — if one eats of them outside the curtains, he transgresses a positive commandment, then a burnt-offering, which is forbidden to be eaten — if one eats of it outside of the curtains, how much more so does he transgress a positive commandment!

The purpose of the verse, then, must be to teach us that if a Cohein eats of a burnt-offering, whether before or after the sprinkling of its blood, whether within or outside the curtains, he transgresses a negative commandment (for the burnt-offering must be completely burned).

(Ibid. 18) "But only before the L-rd your G-d shall you eat it": This is (the sanctuary of) Shiloh.

"in the place that the L-rd your G-d chooses": This is Jerusalem.

"you, your son, your daughter, your man-servant, your maid-servant": in order of affection.

"and the Levite who is in your gates": Wherever you find a Levite, give him his portion (first-tithe). If he has no portion, he gives him poor-tithe. If he has no poor-tithe, he gives him peace-offerings.

(Ibid. 19) "Take heed unto yourself": a negative commandment;