Aggadat Bereshit and the Triennial Lectionary Cycle Lieve Teugels, Utrecht University As long as the late rabbinic homiletic Midrash 1 Aggadat Bereshit (AB) has been studied by scholars, it has been related to the triennial lectionary cycle. 2 It has played an especially prominent part in the discussion about the possible triennial reading of the Writings, and more particularly of the Psalms. The reason for this is that AB, unique in its kind, contains interrelated homilies on Torah, Nevi’im and Ketuvim. These homilies have been explained as expositions on synagogue readings from the three parts of Tenakh in the triennial cycle. In other words, the Sitz im Leben of AB is said to be found in homilies in the synagogue, or at least in literary reflections on these. In this paper, this theory is called into question and an alternative solution is given for the purpose of AB’s homilies on the three parts of Tenakh. Based on a literary study of the individual homilies and on their comparison with triennial lectionary portions, it will be demonstrated that AB is a well-considered literary composition which focuses on the unity of the tripartite Tenakh. It was most probably intended for personal or collective study without a direct link to any synagogue reading practice at the time of its composition. Because AB is relatively unknown, I will first provide some general information about this work. 3 1. Introduction to Aggadat Bereshit The current text of AB is Solomon Buber’s critical edition of 1903. 4 Besides the text of the first printed edition which is taken over in all the subsequent editions until Buber, 5 Buber used a manuscript which he discovered in the Bodleian Library. 6 Meanwhile, I have found three other manuscript witnesses 7 which might be an 1 In this paper, ‘Midrash’, with a capital, refers to entire works or compositions, whereas ‘midrash’ denotes individual units of commentary within such works. 2 E.g. A. Büchler, “The Reading of the Law and Prophets in a Triennial Cycle,” in J. J. Petuchowski (ed.), Contributions to the Scientific Study of Jewish Liturgy (New York 1970) 181-302, esp. 192, 250-2 (= JQR, Old Series 5 (1892) 420-468 and 6 (1893) 1-73); I. Elbogen, Der jüdische Gottesdienst in seiner geschichtlichen Entwicklung, Frankfurt-a.M 3 1931, 186 (with reference to S.L. Rapoport, àôè  à in Erekh Milin, Prague 1852). For an overview of research about the triennial lectionary cycle in general, see C. Perrot, La lecture de la Bible dans la Synagogue. Les anciennes lectures palestiniennes du Shabbat et des fetes, Hildesheim 1973, 24-31. 3 For more extensive introductions and treatments of different aspects of AB, I refer to my “Concern for the Unity of Tenakh in the Formation of Aggadat Bereshit”, in L.V. Rutgers, H.W. Havelaar, P.W. van der Horst and L. Teugels (eds.), The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World, Leuven 1998, 187- 202; “The Background of the Anti-Christian Polemics in Aggadat Bereshit”, JSJ 30 (1999) 178-208 and “New Perspectives on the Origins of Aggadat Bereshit. The Witness of a Geniza Fragment”, in J. Targarona Borras and A. Saenz-Badillos (eds.), Jewish Studies at the Turn of the 20th Century. Proceedings of the 6th EAJS Congress, Toledo 1998, Vol.I Biblical, Rabbinical and Medieval Studies, 349-357. 4 S. Buber (ed.), Aggadat Bereshit, Krakau 1903 (= New York 1973). This edition has been used in this paper. 5 The first printed edition appeared in Menachem di Lonzano, Stei Yadot, Venice 1618. For the subsequent printed editions of AB, see Buber, Aggadat Bereshit, xxxiv-xxxvi. 6 Ms. Oxford 2340. 7 1) Ms. T-S Misc. 36.121, covering large parts of chs. 67-68 and 79-80 (see Teugels, “New Perspectives”); 2) Ms. Oxf. Mich 410, an abbreviated version of AB, presenting the chapters in a different order; and 3) Ms. L 899a, ff. 41r-45v (JTS), covering part of chs. 1-14 and 20-22 of AB. The whole Ms. is a copy of the Commentary on the Pentateuch by Samson of Worms, but the part which