Sifre - The Present Sifre

The Present Sifre

Such questions, however, are unimportant in reference to the Sifre now extant; for this work is certainly not identical with the Talmudic Sifre; and, on closer investigation, it is found to be not a uniform work, but one composed of parts which did not originally belong together. Z. Frankel in his Darke ha-Mishnah (p. 319) drew attention to the difference between that portion of the Sifre which refers to Numbers and that which refers to Deuteronomy, though, curiously enough, he misunderstood this difference and consequently arrived at false conclusions. D. Hoffmann has correctly defined the relation between the two in his Zur Einleitung in die Halachischen Midraschim. pp. 52 et seq.

The Sifre to Numbers is evidently a midrash which originated in R. Simeon's school, and which has all the peculiarities and characteristics of such a work. It follows the same principles of exposition as does the Mekilta; the same group of tannaim appears, and the same technical terms are employed (see Mekilta; to the examples there given may be added טעמו של דבר מגיד מפני מה, Num. viii., for which the Sifra to Lev. xxi. 12 uses the expression להגיד מה גרם). There are also many material points of similarity with the Mekilta: thus Sifre 2 agrees literally with Mek., Mishpaṭim, 6; Sifre 65 with Mek., Bo, 5; Sifre 71 with ib. 15; Sifre 142 with ib. 5. The haggadic portions likewise contain many parallel passages (comp. the collation in D. Hoffmann, l.c. p. 54, though Sifre 64 and Mek., Beshallaḥ, 1 should not be included, since these two passages disagree on one point).

It is an especially noteworthy fact that the explanation in Sifre, Num. 7 of the law regarding a woman charged with adultery corresponds with a view expressed by R. Ishmael, and also with the prescribed halakah, according to which, one witness being sufficient to convict, the water-test is not necessary. The explanation given in the Sifre to Numbers thus contradicts the explanation in Soṭah 31a and in Sifre, Deut. 188. The view expressed in Babli is curious: it cites (Soṭah 2a and 31b) the explanation of the Sifre to Numbers, and adds thereto: ואמר רחמנא תרי לית בה אלא חד והיא לא נתפשה אסורה, whereas the deduction should read to the contrary, תרי לית בה אלא חד היתה שותה. Babli, which evidently does not know R. Ishmael's view, tries to interpret the baraita in the sense of the prescribed halakah. But the baraita must in fact be interpreted in the opposite sense, namely, as following the view of R. Ishmael, who, because עד always implies "two," as appears from Yer. Soṭah 20d, demands also in the case of a woman charged with adultery two witnesses of the alleged crime.

The passage introduced by the phrase סתם ספרי (Sifre 161) likewise echoes R. Ishmael's views; and the same is true of Sifre 21 as compared with Sifre 7. The beginning of Sifre 7 appears to be, strangely enough, an anonymous halakah expressing the opposite opinion (comp. Yer. Soṭah 16b), though this also may at need be harmonized with R. Ishmael's view. Sifre 39 likewise follows R. Ishmael's view, according to Ḥul. 49a. These and other less cogent reasons seem to indicate that the Sifre to Numbers originated in R. Ishmael's school, though this does not exclude the assumption that the editor in addition borrowed much from R. Simeon's midrash (comp. D. Hoffmann, l.c. p. 54) and other less-known midrashim.