56 Azzan Yadin-Israel
inherits, or receives as a present? [Scripture] teaches saying ’ish ’ish.
(Ah.arei Mot pereq 11.1; Weiss, 84b; TK, 364)- “When any man [’ish ’ish] has a discharge” [Lev. 15:2]: . . . From this I
learn only regarding the man [‘ish], whence do I include the woman
and the minor? [Scripture] teaches saying, ’ish ’ish. (Metzora Zavim
parashah 1.1; Weiss, 74b; TK, 311) - “If anyone [’ish ’ish] . . . off ers up a burnt off ering or a well-being off er-
ing . . .” [Lev. 17:8]: . . . why does [Scripture] state ’ish ’ish? To include
two individuals who off ered an off ering — the words of Rabbi Shimon.
(Ah.arei Mot pereq 10.2; Weiss, 84a; TK, 361) - “No one [’ish ’ish] shall approach anyone of his own fl esh to uncover
nakedness” [Lev. 18:6]: . . . why does [Scripture] state ’ish ’ish? To in-
clude the gentiles, who are warned against sexual transgressions when
among Israel. (Ah.arei Mot pereq 13.1; Weiss, 85b; TK, 370)
And there are more. As this list demonstrates, the elements “included” by
’ish ’ish are a fairly arbitrary set. In some cases, they are discrete groups
such as “the gentiles” or “women” or combinations of groups, for exam-
ple, “women and minors.” In other cases, they represent very specifi c le-
gal scenarios, such as the case of an individual who receives or purchases
an edible animal or bird rather than hunting it, as Leviticus 17:13 speci-
fi es. Th e list gathered here — representative but not exhaustive — points to
the Sifra’s tendency to juxtapose scriptural elements (here the repetition
’ish ’ish) and legal conclusions without the slightest attempt at justifi cation
or explanation.
Finally, consider the terms yekhol and minayin. Th e former introduces
interpretations that the Sifra ultimately rejects (“It could mean X, but this
is not so . . .”); the role Scripture plays in these derashot is unclear and in
any case minimal:
“And it shall be when he is guilty in any of these matters . . .” [Lev. 5:5]: It
could be [ yekhol ] that in imparting impurity to the Temple and its holy
vessels, a transgression punished by karet, that is, being cut off from the
nation, one is liable for each and every action, but regarding transgres-
sions related to hearing a statement regarding a public adjuration or the
utterance of an oath — transgressions not punished by karet — perhaps one
is liable only for one action. Scripture teaches, saying “in any,” asserting
liability for each and every action. It could be [ yekhol ] that concerning