Concepts of Scripture in the Schools of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael 49Rabbi Ishmael and the Sifre Numbers belong to one group, associated with
the fi gure of Rabbi Ishmael, while the Mekhilta of Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai,
the Sifra, and Sifre Deuteronomy make up another, associated with that
of Rabbi Akiva. Th is view has been adopted by broad swaths of the schol-
arly community, most notably the mid-20th-century Israeli scholar Jacob
Epstein and his students (and their students), and has recently found ex-
pression in an authoritative survey of the legal midrashim.4 Th is division,
however, has generally been understood as one of style — the terminology
and the hermeneutic canons employed — while in fact it refl ects profound
diff erences in the conceptualization and valorization of Scripture.
Th e School of Rabbi Ishmael
One of the accomplishments of the study of midrash in recent decades
has been to recognize the extent to which rabbinic interpretation main-
tains a dialogue with the biblical text, oft en responding to its “gaps and
indeterminacies.”5 Th ough these claims are oft en formulated in the con-
text of nonlegal midrash (Aggadah), they are no less evident in the Rabbi
Ishmael midrashim,6 which employ a series of formulas that cast the rab-
binic interpreters’ intervention as a response to a diffi culty arising from the
Scripture itself. Th ese formulas typically point to an apparent ambiguity in
the biblical text that is subsequently clarifi ed. I refer to these textual am-
biguities (some immediately evident in the plain sense of Scripture, oth-
ers generated by the rabbinic interpretation) as hermeneutic markers since
they mark the biblical text as requiring interpretation. Th e most common
formulas in this context are lammah ne’emar (why was this stated?) and
mah talmud lomar (what is the instruction?). Here is one example of the
former, in a discussion of the laws for the daily burnt off ering of ancient
Israel’s sacrifi cial worship:
“Th e second lamb you shall off er at twilight” [Num. 28:8]: Why was this
stated, because it says, “and all the assembled congregation of the Israelites
shall slaughter it at twilight” [Exod. 12:6 — a law concerning a similar but
distinct burnt off ering sacrifi ced on the eve of Passover]. I do not know
which comes fi rst, the daily burnt off ering or the paschal off ering, thus
[Scripture] teaches, saying: “second,” second to the daily burnt off ering,
not second to the paschal off ering. (Sifre Numbers §143, p. 191) 7