56; in Vatican 285 [30] and JTS 2499 [30]; and in SHB 21–22. This pattern is a good illustration of how single paragraphs circulated. Even when blocks of paragraphs appear in two or more manuscripts, some individual paragraphs do not appear in all of the parallel blocks.
Another illustration of how individual paragraphs circulated from manuscript to manuscript is seen in Zurich Heid. 51. It consists of unnumbered single paragraphs on different topics, some of which have single parallels elsewhere. The first three paragraphs are about women and have single parallels in SHP (and its parallels not listed here) in a topical notebook on women (SHP 1084–1193): Zurich [1]=SHP 1169 and former JTS Boesky 45, 471; Zurich [2]=SHP 1136 and SHB 498; and Zurich [3]=SHP 1154 and SHB 506. Following this we find single paragraphs about prayer: Zurich [4] is parallel to SHP 574 in a topical notebook on prayer (SHP 391–585); Zurich [PUSHD 5] on hasidut is parallel to SHP 1049 in a topical notebook on that subject (975–1065), and so on.27
From an annotated published version of Oxford Mich. 568 (Neubauer 1098), we see that most of the single paragraphs are about praying or writing liturgical items connected to prayer. Only [1] and part of [6] and [8] have any parallels. The manuscript is mid-thirteenth century, and in the same codex is a copy of Judah he-hasid’s “Shir ha-Kavod (Song of Glory).”28
The Zurich Fragment consists of two short blocks of topically related paragraphs. The first block, [1–8], is on the dead and has parallels in SHP 331–337, former JTS Boesky 45, 147–148, and also in SHB 733–739, but Zurich Fragment [5] is also found in Vatican 285 [52] and its near twin, JTS 2499 [52].
The second block, Zurich Fragment [9–12], is on prayer and is parallel to SHP 394–397, former JTS Boesky 45, 167–168, and SHB 754–757, but [10] is also found in Vatican 285 [60] and JTS 2499 [60]. Large notebooks on the two topics of the dead and prayer appear in the same order in SHB III, and nearly together in other topical editions in SHP I and SHB I and II. When we compare the parallel blocks, individual paragraphs are found in some manuscripts but not in others.29
Vatican 285 A, a separate edition of Sefer Hasidim, consists of 37 paragraphs that have single parallels mainly in SHB and not in SHP or former JTS Boesky 45. A significant number of them are from the first 152 paragraphs of SHB, that is, the separate text known as Sefer ha-Hasidut. Vatican 285 A is now numbered in PUSHD with paragraph numbers added to the longer text in Vatican 285 from [148–184]. A new numbering just of this text would run from [1–37]. Although some paragraphs may be unique [1–2], and others found as single parallels in SHB, the largest part is a block parallel to SHB 68–113 with several single paragraphs missing from Vatican 285 A.
Another example of parallel blocks of text that differ with respect to single parallel paragraphs is seen in the torn Freiburg manuscript. It consists of three short groups of paragraphs that have blocks of parallels in SHP. Freiburg [966–969] is parallel to those numbered paragraphs in SHP I in a topical block about honoring parents (kibbud av va-em) (SHP 929–974); Freiburg [979–986] is parallel to those numbered paragraphs in SHP I in a topical block on pietism (hasidut) (SHP 975–1065); and Freiburg [1056–1073] is parallel to those numbered paragraphs in SHP I in a topical block on pietism and ritual slaughter and purity (hasidut, shehitah ve-taharah) (SHP 1066–83).
One of the parallel paragraphs found in both Freiburg and SHP is not in the parallel block in SHB. Although Freiburg [966, 967, and 969] are found in SHB 579 and 580, Freiburg [968] is not there. This difference also shows how single paragraph parallels can vary within parallel blocks of text in different manuscripts.30
Single Paragraphs in Editions with More Than One Manuscript
The independence of single paragraph units can be further illustrated when we compare Sefer Hasidim editions that each contains two manuscripts. Some manuscripts were copied from others, resulting in sets of two manuscripts that resemble each other in much of their sequencing. Editions of Sefer Hasidim with two manuscripts each are Parma Heb. MS 3280, De Rossi 1133 (SHP), and former JTS Boesky 45; Cambridge Add. 379 and Oxford Add. Fol. 34 (Neubauer 641); Vatican 285 and JTS 2499; Oxford, Opp. 614 (Neubauer 2275) and Oxford Or. 146 (Neubauer 782); Nîmes 26 and Oxford, Mich. 155 (Neubauer 1984).
Even when the majority of paragraphs in both manuscripts of the same edition are in the same sequence, some individual paragraphs are found in one but not in the other manuscript, testifying again to the independent circulation of individual paragraphs.
For example, the text of former JTS Boesky 45 follows the structure of SHP. Parallel passages are in the same sequence most of the time, but a few paragraphs found in former JTS Boesky 45 are not in SHP, and some two hundred individual paragraph passages found in SHP are not in former JTS Boesky 45.
Similarly, Cambridge Add. 379 and Oxford Add. Fol. 34 (Neubauer 641) are structurally similar to each other. Both of these manuscripts consist of three large blocks of text: Sefer ha-Hasidut, a version of SHB I and a version of SHP II. Although many passages are present in the same order in both, other passages are missing in one or the other, especially in the second and third blocks of text.
So, too, Vatican 285 is closely related to JTS 2499, but some paragraph parallels are missing in the latter that starts with Vatican 285 [10]. Most of the text has single parallels either in SHP and former JTS Boesky 45 or SHB or all three, but Vatican 285 [123–147] has parallels only in JTS 2499.
Oxford Or. 146 (Neubauer 782) is very close to Oxford Opp. 614 (Neubauer 2275), but individual paragraphs are not always in both manuscripts of each set. These two manuscripts are made up of single paragraphs many of which have parallels in SHP, plus former JTS Boesky 45, or SHB and its parallels. These two Oxford manuscripts consist of two texts joined together here: PUSHD [1–9] and [10–19] that begins with a separate title: “This, too, is from Sefer Hasidim” (gam zeh mi-sefer hasidim). If the second text were located in a different manuscript or separated from the first part by other passages, it would be listed as an independent edition. Joined together, it is more like a compound edition, like SHP I and II, rather than as two separate ones.
Many of the paragraphs in the first text, and one in the second, have parallels in Frankfurt 94 as well as in single parallels of SHP and SHB. All these texts, then, are related and there is no closer relationship between these two Oxford texts and SHP than to the others. It is not clear if Oxford, Or. 146 (Neubauer 782) is a copy of Opp. 614 (Neubauer 2275) or the other way around or if both derive from a third manuscript.31
In addition to the six editions of Sefer Hasidim that exist in single manuscripts and the five found in two manuscripts each, SHB itself constitutes a compound text that contains three topical editions that I referred to as SHB I, SHB II, and SHB III, making a total of fourteen editions of Sefer Hasidim.32 Thus, although we have over twenty manuscripts, there are only fourteen editions. None of these editions can be reduced to the author’s original single composition. All of them are parallel versions of Sefer Hasidim. A parallel paragraph in any one of them can contain better readings than the parallels found in the other editions, regardless of the date of the manuscript. Late manuscripts can contain better readings of a parallel paragraph than early manuscripts.
Some of the editions of Sefer Hasidim probably go back to R. Judah hehasid himself, who wrote, copied, and recombined many paragraphs in different ways in multiple parallel topical notebooks and combined them into parallel editions. A few of his students or his son may have copied down other editions. Throughout, it is the single paragraph and small groups of them that need to be examined for establishing the best text of any passage, not any one edition in which a paragraph appears, regardless of when a manuscript was copied.
The conclusion that follows from the structural variance in single manuscript editions, in the sets of Sefer Hasidim manuscripts, and from the structure of SHB is
