Composing Arugat ha-Bosem : How Piyyut Commentary Became Associated with Ḥasidei Ashkenaz

Jewish History https://doi.org/10.1007/s10835-021-09381-8 © The Author(s) 2021 Composing Arugat ha-Bosem: How Piyyut Commentary Became Associated with H . asidei Ashkenaz ELISABETH HOLLENDER Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany E-mail: Accepted: 3 September 2019 Abstract Based on Ivan Marcus’s concept of “open book” and considerations on medieval Ashkenazic concepts of authorship, the present article inquires into the circumstances surrounding the production of Sefer Arugat ha-Bosem, a collection of piyyut commentaries written or compiled by the thirteenth-century scholar Abraham b. Azriel. Unlike all other piyyut commentators, Abraham ben Azriel inscribed his name into his commentary and claims to supersede previous commentaries, asserting authorship and authority. Based on the two different versions preserved in MS Vatican 301 and MS Merzbacher 95 (Frankfurt fol. 16), already in 1939 Ephraim E. Urbach suggested that Abraham b. Azriel might have written more than one edition of his piyyut commentaries. The present reevaluation considers recent scholarship on concepts of authorship and “open genre” as well as new research into piyyut commentary. To facilitate a comparison with Marcus’s definition of “open book,” this article also explores the arrangement and rearrangement of small blocks of texts within a work. Keywords Abraham b. Azriel · Arugat ha-Bosem · Piyyut commentary · German Pietism · Authorship · Medieval Ashkenaz For several decades medieval texts have been perceived as lacking textual stability. This understanding has informed much of medievalist research and led to discussions on how medieval texts were created and transmitted. Variants, insertions, and omissions have been treated as more than scribal errors or interventions,1 and—influenced by Roland Barthes’ claim of the “death of the author”—agency in transmission has been credited with shaping the variant recensions.2 Jewish Studies distinguishes the transmission of rabbinic texts, considered to be the anonymous product of long processes involving successive groups of rabbinic scholars,3 on the one hand, and medieval texts 1 Daniel Poirion, “Écriture et ré-́écriture au moyen âge,” Littérature 41 (1981): 109–18. 2 Stephen G. Nichols, “Mutual Stability, a Medieval Paradox: The Case of Le Roman de la Rose,” Queeste: Journal of Medieval Literature in the Low Countries 23 (2016): 71–103. 3 An important debate that shaped the understanding of texts and their transmission took place between Peter Schäfer and Chaim Milikowsky, see Peter Schäfer, “Research into Rabbinic Literature: An Attempt to Define the Status Quaestionis,” Journal of Jewish Studies 37, no. 2 (1986): 139–52; Chaim Milikowsky, “The Status Quaestionis of Research in Rabbinic Liter- E. HOLLENDER composed by known (or anonymous) authors, on the other. Scholars have invested great effort in search of the respective Urtexts, while consideration has also been given to the possibility that transmission might account for major variants.4 Unlike medieval Christian vernacular literature, where the quest for the author follows from the search for the stable text,5 in the study of Jewish culture in the Middle Ages, the Hebrew medieval texts are oftentimes the less prominent entity; they serve as vehicles for gaining knowledge about the author.6 To account for major differences between versions while preserving the authority of the author intact, Israel Ta-Shma suggested the term “open book” in describing multiple editions of the same work created by an author who continued to develop, edit, and emend his work even after publishing a version that circulated in manuscript. Owing to certain characteristics of Ashkenazic textual transmission and aggressive intervention by editors and scribes, Ta-Shma had to allow for other actors involved in the variant versions.7 In pursuit of the process of production of an Ashkenazic ature,” Journal of Jewish Studies 39, no. 2 (1988): 201–11; Peter Schäfer, “Once Again the Status Quaestionis of Research in Rabbinic Literature: An Answer to Chaim Milikowsky,” Journal of Jewish Studies 40, no.1 (1989): 89–94. 4 For an excellent example is the quest for Rashi’s original Bible commentary and the role his student/scribe Shemaya may have played in shaping this text, see, e.g., Avraham Grossman, “Marginal Notes and Addenda of R. Shemaiah and the Text of Rashi’s Biblical Commentary” [in Hebrew], Tarbiz 60, no. 1 (1991): 67–98; Elazar Touitou, “Does MS Leipzig 1 Reflect the Authentic Version of Rashi’s Commentary on the Pentateuch? (After the Study of A. Grossman)” [in Hebrew], Tarbiz 61, no. 1 (1992): 85–115; Elazar Touitou, “MS Leipzig 1 and the Authentic Version of Rashi’s Commentary on the Pentateuch” [in Hebrew], Tarbiz 62, no. 2 (1993): 297–303; Avraham Grossman, “MS Leipzig 1 and Rashi’s Commentary on the Pentateuch” [in Hebrew], Tarbiz 62, no. 4 (1993): 621–24. For the newest development that reacts to the instability of medieval mystical texts, see Daniel Abrams, Kabbalistic Manuscripts and Textual Theory: Methodologies of Textual Scholarship and Editorial Practice in the Study of Jewish Mysticism, 2nd rev. ed. (Jerusalem, 2013), and the contribution of Daniel Abrams to this collection. 5 See Stephen G. Nichols, “The Medieval ‘Author’: An Idea Whose Time Hadn’t Come?” in The Medieval Author in Medieval French Literature, ed. Virginie Green (Basingstoke, UK, 2006), 77–102, 79: “Textual philology requires an author. Without an author, there can be no philology.” 6 Cf., e.g., the approach in Avraham Grossman, The Early Sages of Ashkenaz: Their Lives, Leadership and Works (900–1096) [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1981); Avraham Grossman, The Early Sages of France: Their Lives, Leadership and Works [in Hebrew] (Jerusalem, 1995); Ivan G. Marcus, Sefer Hasidim and the Ashkenazic Book in Medieval Europe (Philadelphia, 2018). For a critique of this approach, see the contribution of David Shyovitz to this collection. 7 Israel M. Ta-Shma, “The ‘Open’ Book in Medieval Hebrew Literature: The Problem of Authorized Editions,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 75, no. 3 (1993): 17–24. This understanding of “open book” is not related to Umberto Eco’s concept of “open book” in which the reader contributes to the meaning of the text; see Umberto Eco, Opera aperta: Forma e indeterminazione nelle poetiche contemporanee (Milano, 1962). The additional actors in the COMPOSING ARUGAT HA-BOSEM work, Ivan Marcus recently redefined the term “open book” as follows: The meaning I am giving to “open book” in the case of Sefer Hasidim and of many other Ashkenazic books refers to an author: • composing a work in short text units that he sometimes rewrites; • combining them disjunctively (without linear coherence); and • producing more than one parallel edition that the author or someone else revises one or more times. The term “open book” here refers to writing parallel editions of a book so that there never was only one original editi (...truncated)