54 Azzan Yadin-Israel
of impure locust is pure” (Shemini pereq 5.10; Weiss, 51a; TK, 212); “Th is is
the testimony Hezekiah the father of ‘Aqesh bore before Rabban Gamliel,
when he said in the name of Rabban Gamliel the Elder: Any earthen vessel
that does not have an internal space [tokh], no regard is paid its external
space [ah.orayim]” (Shemini parasha 7.4; Weiss, 53b; TK, 224); “Rabbi Yose
ben Yoezer of Tzereda testifi ed regarding the liquids of the house of slaugh-
ter that they are pure” (Shemini parasha 8.5; Weiss, 55a; TK, 230). In addi-
tion, the Sifra contains several statements as to the legitimacy and binding
nature of nonscriptural traditions. For example, “If this is halakhah [extra-
scriptural tradition], we accept it but if it is a logical argument based on
Scripture [din] rebuttal is possible” (Hova pereq 1.12; Weiss, 16b; TK, 71 [in
the margins]). Another example is the set of statements in the Sifra that
attribute a legal decision to a decree of the scribes (soferim), sometimes in
explicit contrast to those derived from Torah: “Rabbi Yose says, Th e im-
purity of liquids in vessels is not from Torah but from the words of the
scribes” (Shemini parashah 8.5; Weiss, 55a; TK, 229). Not surprisingly, the
Sifra presents many legal rulings without reference to Scripture — a con-
spicuous tendency in a verse-by-verse interpretation of Leviticus.
But what of the Sifra’s interpretive practices? Here too we fi nd dramatic
diff erences from those of the Rabbi Ishmael midrashim. For one thing, the
Sifra is not committed to the idea of hermeneutic markers, at least not in
the same manner and with the same consistency as the Rabbi Ishmael mid-
rashim. Here is one example:
“And if anyone [’ish ’ish; literally, “person person”] of the house of Israel or
of the alien who reside among them ingests any blood . . .” [Lev. 17:10]: . . .
why is “ ’ish ’ish” [person person] stated? Rabbi Eliezer the son of Shimon
says, to include the off spring of an Israelite woman from a gentile or from
a slave. (Ah.arei Mot parashah 8.1 – 2; Weiss, 84b; TK, 363)I have omitted much of the derashah, to better focus on the point at hand
that has to do with the Sifra’s question “why is ’ish ’ish stated?” Clearly
the Sifra presents ’ish ’ish as a redundancy12 that hermeneutically marks
the verse and invites the rabbinic reader to include elements not stated by
Scripture. So far so good — the procedure appears quite similar to that of
the Rabbi Ishmael midrashim. But just a few verses earlier we read,
“If anyone [’ish ’ish] of the house of Israel slaughters an ox or sheep or goat
in the camp, or does so outside the camp . . .” [Lev. 17:3]: Might it be that