Description: 爱游戏app官网让用户能拥有更好的上网环境！,这是因为爱游戏app官网游戏比较的简单易学,爱游戏app官网方便玩家进行娱乐体验,最新送彩金。
In his 2012 article, “Concepts of Scripture in the Schools of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Ishmael,” Azzan Yadin-Israel lays out less his principals’ concepts of Scripture and more their presuppositions when engaging in the midrashic process. He argues that the midrashists of Sifra, when compared with those of Mekhilta deRabbi Ishmael (MdRI), eschew, more often than not, midrash as an interpretive tool for Scripture, using it instead as a palette upon which they may attach the extra-scriptural traditions importan
In the body of this post, I shall present evidence that Yadin-Israel employs to corroborate his thesis, comment on that evidence, and then introduce what I believe to be a broader purpose that successive editorships of the Sifra attempted to demonstrate through their rhetoric. I will suggest that this more comprehensive objective encompasses some of the separate observations that Yadin-Israel surfaces, and resolves some of his self-admitted “conflicting and perhaps antithetical” views (60), at least on the
Yadin-Israel makes inter alia three observations. First, he observes that the Sifra exposes a “tendency to juxtapose scriptural elements … and legal conclusions without the slightest attempt at justification or explanation” (56). Second, he asks as regards, what I call, a “Preclusion,” a rhetorical package that begins with the hermeneutical marker, “ yakhol ”: 2 “[I]f the legal cases proposed by yekhol (sic) are rejected by the verse itself – that is, if the incorrectness of the interpretation is evident