Concepts of Scripture in the Schools of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael 59“Who will remove the earth from your eyes, Rabbi Yohanan ben Zakkai,
for you used to say that a future generation will declare the third-level loaf
clean since it is not scriptural — but your disciple Rabbi Akiva adduced a
scriptural prooft ext for its impurity” (Sifra Shemini, parashah 7.12; Weiss,
54a; TK, 226; parallel at Mishnah Sotah 5.2).15 Th e critical point for our
purposes is that, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, his teacher, Rabban Yo-
hanan ben Zakkai, feared that a purity law will be forgotten or ignored by
future generations since it “is not scriptural.” Rabbi Akiva, however, is able
to interpret Leviticus 11:33 so as to support this ruling and thus posthu-
mously allay Rabbi Yohanan Ben Zakkai’s fears. Rabbi Yehoshua states in
no uncertain terms that Rabbi Akiva’s midrash did not establish the ruling
in question; it was authoritative to the previous generations of sages who
knew nothing of his interpretation.
Th e idea that scriptural interpretation serves as ex post facto support for
existing (nonscriptural) legal traditions is also expressed in a fascinating
debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Tarfon, a senior contemporary, as
to the proper understanding of Leviticus 1:5, “Th e off erer shall slaughter
the bull before the Lord; and Aaron’s sons, the priests, shall off er the blood,
dashing the blood against all sides of the altar which is at the entrance of
the Tent of Meeting.”16 Th e sacrifi cial details that animate the debate are
not relevant to the question at hand. What is important is that Rabbi Akiva
off ers an interpretation that Rabbi Tarfon rejects out of hand: “Rabbi Tar-
fon said to him, Akiva, how much longer will you pile up [verses] against
us? May I lose my sons if I did not hear a clear distinction between the col-
lection of the blood and its dashing, but I cannot explain it.” Rabbi Tarfon’s
language is important: he has heard — that is, he has received an extrascrip-
tural, oral tradition — regarding the sacrifi cial procedures in question, and
he disparages Rabbi Akiva’s midrash: “how much longer will you pile up
verses against us?” Rabbi Akiva, in response, does not insist that Scripture
is the ultimate source of rabbinic authority; he accepts Rabbi Tarfon’s scold-
ing but points out that on his interpretation too there is a distinction be-
tween the procedures. His midrash, in other words, is not mutually exclu-
sive of Rabbi Tarfon’s halakhah. At this point, Rabbi Tarfon is swayed and
exclaims, “May I lose my sons! You have not swerved to the right or the left.
It was I who received the oral tradition but was unable to explain while you
explicate [doresh] and agree with the oral tradition. Indeed, to depart from
you is to depart from life itself.” What a robust celebration of Rabbi Akiva’s
midrashic prowess! But what precisely is being celebrated? Contrary to the
claims of some scholars,17 it is Rabbi Akiva’s ability to interpret Scripture in