ABSTRACT Lost Aggadic Works Known Only from Ashkenaz: Midrash Abkir, Midrash Esfa and Devarim Zuta A Thesis submitted to the Senate of the Hebrew University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, December 2006 By Amos Geula This study concerns Midrashei Aggada on the Torah that are of exclusively Ashkenazi provenance. It focuses on three such midrashim – all of them lost – Midrash Abkir, Midrash Esfa and Midrash Devarim Zuta. Scholars had not noticed that these midrashim were known only in Ashkenaz and this fact is one of the basic findings of this work. Moreover, defining these midrashim as belonging to one group is another major finding. The structure of the study: There are five chapters in the study: an introduction, three chapters constituting the main body of the work and a concluding chapter. Each of the central chapters is an independent study on one of the lost midrashim: Abkir, Esfa and Devarim Zuta. Each chapter covers the following topics: the history of research, the name of the midrash, its circulation, its structure, its sources and parallels, linguistic matters, literary characteristics, historical-cultural context, time of composition and provenance. The fifth chapter points out that which is common to all three midrashim, seeking to prove that they all belong to one group and stem from a single source. This chapter also discusses the relation between this group of midrashim and others known as well from Ashkenaz, giving a number of examples. This chapter concludes with an attempt to identify the source that created these anonymous compositions, outlining its character and creativity. The second part of the study, in a separate volume, presents quotations from the three midrashim along with an introduction discussing the I Abstract surviving fragments, an evaluation of the primary textual witnesses, lists and appendices. Chapter I: Introduction: 1. The starting point of the study: This study grew out of the findings in my master’s thesis on Midrash Abkir. In that study I found that the map of circulation of Midrash Abkir and of additional compositions – among them Midrash Esfa and Devarim Zuta – centers primarily on the circle of pietists of thirteenth-century Ashkenaz, around the Roqeah (R. Elazar of Worms), his teachers and disciples. No manuscript of these writings has survived. They are quoted in Yalqut Shimoni on the Torah, in commentaries on liturgical poetry (piyyutim), in Ashkenazi commentaries on the Torah, in writings of Roqeah etc. 2. The state of research and the confusion about the lost midrashim: Up to now the study of these lost midrashim has been characterized by confusion. S. Buber made an earlier attempt to characterize them mainly on the basis of Yalqut Shimoni, but he relied on the references in late printed editions, which contain many errors. For example the famous story of Shamhazai and Azael, who fell from heaven (Yalqut Shimoni, Genesis no. 44, p. 154) was attributed to Midrash Abkir, even though there are no grounds for doing so either in any manuscript of Y.S. or in any other source. Likewise the story of R. Matya b. Harash who put out his own eyes (Ibid., Vayehi, 161, p. 848), which was also attributed to Midrash Abkir without any evidence. Midrash Esfa was presumed to have been written in Iraq during the time of the Geonim, as a result of a passage in Yalqut Shimoni attributed erroneously to that midrash. On the basis of that attribution, more conclusions were drawn, but a thorough examination shows that it is clearly taken from Midrash Yelamdenu and not to Midrash Esfa. Manuscript fragments were attributed to the lost midrashim on the basis of baseless hypotheses, and came to be thought of as authentic, genuine fragments of the midrash itself. In order to avoid these kinds of errors, my study is based only on quotes that cite the midrash from which they were taken. 3. The reasons that the midrashim were lost: The very fact that these midrashim were lost is evidently highly significant. The study points out several reasons for the loss of works, or of the manuscripts being scarce: their length – brief or long, the need for them, their rarity at the time they were copied and even the contents of the II Abstract midrashim and their disposition. Throughout this study a number of hypotheses have been made suggesting possible reasons for the loss of these midrashim. 4. The Ashkenazi library in the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries: The fact that these midrashim are part of the Ashkenazi library is also of significance. Scholars have pointed out the uniqueness of this library between the eleventh and thirteenth centuries, which included compositions that were not known from any other source or were found outside it only in other versions. Among these are Pesiqta Rabbati, Pesiqta Hadatta, Midrash wa-yehullu, the adaptation of the Yerushalmi and others. Some of the traditions and compositions unique to Ashkenaz reached there from Italy. This fact is pertinent with regards to our midrashim. 5. The attitude of Ashkenazi sages towards Aggada: The attitude of the sages of Ashkenaz towards Aggada was unique. Unlike the sages of Iraq or Spain, the scholars of Ashkenaz regarded Aggada as an authoritative source – even for determining Halakha. They made extensive and exceptional use of midrashim in their commentaries on piyyutim and commentaries on the Torah, copied midrashim and explicated them, and even prepared handbooks and indices of the midrashim, the most famous of which is, of course, Yalqut Shimoni. 6. The provenance of Ashkenazi culture: There are a number of opinions regarding the geographical extent of the rabbinic culture of Ashkenazi Jewry in the eleventh to the thirteenth centuries. Some scholars view Germany and Northern France as one cultural unit, in this period as well as earlier. Others regard Germany as separate from France on a number of matters, and the findings of this study conform to the latter hypothesis. One purpose of this study is an attempt to identify and characterize the school in which these midrashim were compiled. I have made an intensive study of the quotes from the midrashim from a number of aspects. On the other hand, I have not tried to discover manuscripts of these lost midrashim – and I doubt whether they exist – but I have tried to collect quotations from them as much as possible and to reconstruct them in their original order. Chapter II: Midrash Abkir 1. The state of research: There is no systematic study of Midrash Abkir or of any of the midrashim discussed in this study. A few comments and selections from it have III Abstract been recorded by some scholars. This sub-section provides an exhaustive list, arranged chronologically of everything published to date on Midrash Abkir. 2. The Name of the Midrash: N. Brill explained the name on the basis of a quote from =) אמן במהרה כן יהי רצון:Roqeah, according to which it is the initials of the expression “Amen, speedily, so may it be [His] will”), which concluded each section of the midrash. Here I discuss the problems this creates in identifying midrashim quoted from the work on the basis of this expression since midrashim from other sources could also conclude with it. On the other hand, it is possible that the midrash was known elsewhere by another name, such as Tanhuma. 3. The dissemination of the midrash: This midrash was first mentioned in Ashkenaz at the end of the twelfth century. All of the quotations from it in the period immediately after that are exclusively from Ashkenaz, and even there only in a small group of scholars from the circle of Ashkenazi Pietists. From the sixteenth century on there is evidence of its having been used in Italy and even in Egypt. We do not know until when a copy of the manuscript survived, and the last evidence of it may be one from Poland in the eighteenth century. Today no manuscript of the midrash is known. 4. The structure of the midrash: From the evidence I have there are no grounds to assume that it went beyond Genesis and Exodus. The midrash was evidently arranged in the order of the weekly portions of the Torah, following the tradition of Eretz Israel, much like Tanhuma. However it does seem that the custom that was actually practiced in the time of the editor was that of the annual reading. From a study of the quotations it does seem that the midrash did not only discuss the beginning of each portion, but has homilies on verses from all parts of the portions as well. In this respect the midrash has an exegetical character. However, from the testimony of Roqeah it is evident that the midrash was arranged according to derashot [= sermons] that concluded with words of consolation. And indeed there are indications of homiletics in several quotes. It seems that the general framework of the derasha was only a formal one. 5. Sources and parallels: Midrash Abkir is familiar with classic sources from Eretz Israel, such as Mishna Sheqalim, Sifrei Bemidbar, Yerushalmi, Bereshit Rabba, Mekhilta and Mekhilta de-Rashbi and Baraitha de Malekhet Hamishkan as well as Midrash Tanhuma-Yelamdenu and Pirqei de-Rabbi Eliezer. A group of later midrashim reveal a particular connection to Midrash Abkir, among them the works attributed to R. Moshe Ha-darshan – Bereshit Rabbati, Midrash Aggada and the first part of Bemidbar Rabba – and also sections of Pesiqta Rabbati, Shemot Rabba and Midrash Vayosha. IV Abstract The use that Abkir makes of classical sources goes beyond gleaning them to create an anthology. The redactor of the midrash selected them, edited them and, moreover, adapted them, adding material of his own.