Used in The Talmud
There are, however, some exceptions to the rule; e.g., Sifre 110 compared with ib. 281 and B. M. 115a; ib. 219 with Sanh. 45b (the last-cited passage, however, may also be so interpreted as to harmonize with R. Simeon's opinion). Sifre 230 likewise contradicts R. Simeon's view, according to Kil. vii. 7. But, since it has not been claimed that the Sifre to Deuteronomy represents R. Simeon's midrash in its original form, these few exceptions prove nothing. The editor certainly drew upon other midrashic works besides R. Simeon's midrash, especially upon that of R. Ishmael, as appears from a comparison with Mekilta to Deuteronomy (see D. Hoffmann in Hildesheimer-Jubelschrift, p. 91), as well as from the fact that several passages introduced by תנא ר"י occur in the Sifre (e.g., 71 and 75 compared with Yeb. 73; ib. 229 with Shab. 32a; ib. 237 with Yer. Ket. 28c).
Sifre 107, however, by no means corresponds with the passage תני ר"י in Yer. Er. 20c (Hoffmann, Zur Einleitung, etc., p. 67), but expresses just the opposite view. Sifre, Deut. 171, s.v. ד"א, corresponds perhaps with Meg. 25a, s.v. תנא דבי ר"י ; and Sifre 104 with the view of R. Ishmael in Mek., Mishpaṭim, 201, according to the correct reading of Yalḳuṭ, which has ר"י instead of ר"ש. It thus appears that the editor introduces the midrashim from R. Ishmael's midrash with the phrase ד"א. D. Hoffmann (l.c. p. 70) concludes from Pes. 68a and 71a that the editors of the Babylonian Talmud possessed the Sifre in another edition than the present one, which he takes to be a Palestinian edition. But the former passage indicates merely that the Amoraim occasionally had not memorized the baraitot perfectly, an instance of inaccuracy with regard to the Sifre being evident in Ḥul. 74a (comp. Tos. ad loc., s.v. להאי).
It may be said in general of the Sifre to Numbers and also of that to Deuteronomy that they are defective in many passages, and that the Amoraim probably possessed more trustworthy copies (comp. D. Hoffmann, l.c. pp. 53, 68). Even Rashi and the Leḳaḥ Ṭob quote from the Sifre passages which are no longer extant (comp. Grätz Jubelschrift, p. 4, notes 5, 7-10). While the middle, halakic portion of the Sifre to Deuteronomy belongs to Akiba's school, the haggadic portions preceding and following it seem to come from works of R. Ishmael's school. This appears clearly in the first part, which shows many formal and material similarities with the Mekilta. In regard to the latter portion, it may be said that Sifre, Deut. 344 reproduces R. Ishmael's view on the question at issue (comp. B. Ḳ. 113a). As for the halakic midrash, it may be said that, in contradistinction to the haggadic part, the collector used, aside from R. Ishmael's midrash, that of R. Simeon (comp. Sifre 28 with Lev. R. i.; ib. 37 with Gen. R. lxxxv.; ib. 40 with Lev. R. xxxv.; ib. 47 with Gen. R. xii.; ib. 336 with Gen. R. lxxxii.; ib. 313 with Tan., ed. S. Buber, p. 72).
The final redaction of the Sifre must have been undertaken in the time of the Amoraim, since some of them, e.g., Rabbai Bannai and Rabbi Jose ben Ḥanina, are mentioned therein. Both the Sifre to Numbers and that to Deuteronomy are divided into sections. The earliest extant edition of the Sifre is that of Venice, 1545. Other editions are: Hamburg, 1789; Sulzbach, 1802; with commentary by David Pardo, Salonica, 1804; with commentary by Abraham Lichtstein (זרא אברהם), part i., Dyhernfurth, 1811; part ii., Radwill, 1820; ed. Friedmann, Vienna, 1864. A translation of the Sifre is found in Biagio Ugolini, Thesaurus, vol. xv.
Read more about this topic: Sifre