"the books of the school of Abba Arikha") is used by Chananel ben Chushiel,[1] Isaac Alfasi,[2] and Rashi;[3] it occurs likewise in Makkot 9b.
[12] It is especially noteworthy that the explanation in Sifre[13] of the sotah law corresponds with a view expressed by Rabbi Ishmael (and also with the prescribed halakha), that one witness being sufficient to convict, the ordeal of the bitter water is not necessary.
The view expressed in the Babylonian Talmud[14] is curious, for it cites 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.
But the baraita must in fact be interpreted in the opposite sense, namely, as following the view of Rabbi Ishmael, who, because עד always implies "two," as appears from Jerusalem Talmud Soṭah 20d, demands also in the case of a woman charged with adultery two witnesses of the alleged crime.
The beginning of Sifre 7 appears to be, strangely enough, an anonymous halakha expressing the opposite opinion,[15] though this also may at need be harmonized with Rabbi Ishmael's view.
These and other less cogent reasons seem to indicate that the Sifre to Numbers originated in Rabbi Ishmael's school, although this does not exclude the assumption that the editor in addition borrowed much from Shimon bar Yochai's midrash[16] and other less-known midrashim.
[18] All these points indicate that the Sifre to Deuteronomy originated in Rabbi Akiva's school; and, as several anonymous passages may be cited to express the views of Shimon bar Yochai, this midrash may with a fair degree of certainty be ascribed to him.
Such anonymous passages are found in Sifre 72–74, several sections of which Makkot 17a identifies as Shimon bar Yochai's interpretations.
But, since it has not been claimed that the Sifre to Deuteronomy represents Shimon bar Yochai's midrash in its original form, these few exceptions prove nothing.
[23] Sifre 107, however, by no means corresponds with the passage תני ר"י in Jerusalem Talmud Eruvin 20c,[24] but rather expresses the opposite view.
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 Hullin 74a.
[26] 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.
[30] The Christian polemicist Raymundus Martini in the 13th century claimed in his Pugio Fidei that Sifre contained the following passage, which is however not present in any modern copy:[31] Go and learn the merit of Messiah the King, and the reward of the righteous from the first Adam, on whom was laid only one commandment of a prohibitive character, and he transgressed it.
And Messiah the King, who was chastened and suffered for the transgressors, as it is said, “He was wounded for our transgressions,” and so on, how much more shall he justify (make righteous, by his merit) all generations; and this is what is meant when it is written, “And Jehovah made to meet upon him the sin of us all."
Reuven Hammer translated the sections related to Deutoronomy in "Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy" (1987).