Concepts of Scripture in the Schools of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael 57the Temple purity on its own and the purity of the Temple vessels on their
own, even in cases of a single bout of forgetfulness, one is liable only for
one, [Scripture] teaches saying, “in any,” asserting liability for each and ev-
ery action. (Hova pereq 14.2 – 3; Weiss, 23b)Th is passage contains very little interpretation, as the Sifra anchors the
exclusion of all these legal cases in a single scriptural element: Leviticus’s
statement that one is guilty “in any of these matters” is proof that the legal
scenarios introduced by yekhol are incorrect. Th e Sifra does not introduce
a second verse to clarify the matter (as the Rabbi Ishmael midrashim regu-
larly do), which raises a diffi culty: if the legal cases proposed by yekhol are
rejected by the verse itself — that is, if the incorrectness of the interpreta-
tion is evident from the verse — why propose it in the fi rst place? Unlike
Rabbi Ishmael’s shomea‘ ’ani arguments, which introduce a plausible read-
ing but reject it as untenable in light of another verse, yekhol introduces a
slew of legal scenarios that are not connected with the verse in any imme-
diately visible manner. Nor, for that matter, is any interpretive reason given
to suggest that “in any of these matters” in Leviticus 5:5 aims specifi cally at
the case of a public adjuration or of distinct oaths involving the temple and
its sancta, and so forth.
Th e same disconnectedness from the verse is apparent in the many
dera shot that begin with minayin, “whence.” Structurally, minayin derashot
are the mirror image of yekhol: whereas yekhol introduces legal rulings to
be rejected, minayin introduces rulings that will ultimately be accepted.
For example,
“If his off ering . . . is from the fl ock, of sheep or of goats” [Lev. 1:10]: . . .
whence [minayin] to include the surplus of the purifi cation off ering and
the surplus of guilt off erings, the surplus of the tenth of the efah, the sur-
plus of the bird off erings of men suff ering from genital discharge, the sur-
plus of the bird off erings of women suff ering from genital discharge, the
surplus of the bird off erings of women who have given birth, the surplus of
the off erings of the nazirite and the leper; and one who dedicates his prop-
erty to the temple and they included things that are fi t for sacrifi ce — wines
and oils and birds — whence [minayin] that these should be sold and the
funds used for burnt off erings? [Scripture] teaches, saying [both] “from
the fl ock, of sheep or of goats,” to include all these cases. (Nedava parashah
5.4, Weiss, 7b; TK, 27 – 28)