Scholarly discussion concerning rabbinic conceptions of the nature of halakhah—realist vs. nominalist—has for the most part focused on halakhic content and discourse. However, as Schremer has shown, non-halakhic passages may present conceptions that differ from those found in halakhic sources. Following Schremer’s suggested distinction, in this study I examine non-halakhic texts which use various metaphors or linguistic styles to characterize the miṣwot. In the cases I examine, I will demonstrate that the authors could have formulated their content in more than one way, and thus their choice of a particular linguistic style reflects their particular conception of the nature of the miṣwot. My suggestion is that non-halakhic sources that display both modes of thought, realist and nominalist views of Jewish law, offer more accurate reflections of the multifaceted conceptual world of the rabbis than do halakhic texts.

关于哈拉卡本质的拉比概念——现实主义与唯名论——的学术讨论主要集中在哈拉卡的内容和话语上。然而，正如施雷默所表明的那样，非哈拉克语的段落可能呈现出与哈拉克语源中发现的不同的概念。遵循 Schremer 建议的区分，在这项研究中，我检查了使用各种隐喻或语言风格来表征miṣwot 的非哈拉克语文本。在我研究的案例中，我将证明作者可以用不止一种方式来表述他们的内容，因此他们对特定语言风格的选择反映了他们对miṣwot本质的特定概念. 我的建议是，与哈拉克文本相比，非哈拉克文献显示犹太法律的现实主义和唯名论两种思维模式，可以更准确地反映拉比的多方面概念世界。