50 Azzan Yadin-Israel
Th e question “Why was this stated?” is linked with the repetition of the
phrase “the second lamb” in Numbers 28:4 and 28:8. Th e fi rst occurrence
establishes that one lamb is to be off ered in the morning and a second at
twilight. Why, then, does the Torah fi rst discuss the meal off ering and li-
bation of the fi rst off ering and then repeat the command that the second
lamb be off ered at twilight? According to the Sifre, the second statement is
necessary because it resolves a legal ambiguity. Exodus 12:6 commands the
sacrifi ce of the paschal lamb at twilight, so the paschal lamb and the daily
burnt off ering are to be sacrifi ced at the same time, though the order of
sacrifi ce is unclear. Is the paschal lamb sacrifi ced before the daily off ering,
or vice versa? Numbers 28:8 responds to this question: the repetition of
“the second lamb” indicates that the daily twilight burnt off ering remains
the second sacrifi ce of the day at Passover; that is, it is not pushed down
into the third position by the paschal off ering.
Of course, we are not concerned here with the actual legal conclusions;
what is important is that Sifre Numbers sets its conclusion up as a response
to an ambiguity within Scripture. It is as though the rabbinic reader must
be invited to intervene by Scripture. Th ough this may sound like an over-
statement, there are, in fact, a number of passages that counsel the inter-
preter to refrain from interpreting until Scripture provides a defi nitive an-
swer to the question:
“He who insults his father and his mother shall be put to death” [Exod.
21:17]: I thus know only about one who curses both his father and his
mother. How about one who curses only his father or only his mother? . . .
Rabbi Yonathan says: It can mean both of them together and it can mean
either of them until Scripture [ha-katuv] should expressly decide in favor
of one of these. (Mekhilta Neziqin 5, pp. 267 – 68; Lauterbach 3:47)Th e letter vav in the phrase “he who insults his father and [vav] his mother”
is ambiguous: it may mean that one who insults both his father and his
mother will be put to death, or it may mean that one who insults either his
father or his mother shall be put to death. Rabbi Yonathan, a prominent
member of the school of Rabbi Ishmael, recognizes that both readings are
possible and does not essay a resolution. Instead, he suggests the ambiguity
remain unresolved “until Scripture [ha-katuv] should expressly decide in
favor of one of these.” In terms of determining that an interpretive inter-
vention is justifi ed, Scripture plays an important and in some cases even a
leading role.