¹ In order to avoid overcluttering this paper with footnotes, I would like to list here the principal texts and studies on which so much of the discussion is based, and subsequent reference to these will therefore be kept at a minimum:

S. Schechter, Ἀbot de-Rabbi Natan (Vienna, 1887).

J. Goldin, The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (New Haven, 1955).

L. Finkelstein, “Introductory study to Pirke Abot” JBL 57 (1938), 13–50.

Idem, “The Maxim of the Anshe Keneset Ha-Gedolah,” JBL 59 (1940), 455–69.

Idem, Mabo le-Massektot Abot ve-Abot d'Rabbi Natan (N.Y., 1950).

The following abbreviations will be employed:

ARN = Ἀbot de-Rabbi Natan

ARN^A = Version A of ARN

ARN^B = Version B of ARN

Mabo = L. Finkelstein's Mabo, see above

Unless there is some special reason for doing so, I shall not refer to any of the notes I had already written in The Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan (see above). Therefore, for the translations which appear in the body of this paper, that volume may be consulted directly.

² Note, however, Schechter's n. 4, p. 15.

³ Ἀbot 1:1.

⁴ See further n. 34 below.

⁵ An echo in actuality of the tensions already encountered in the “Hellenistic” world. See H. I. Marrou, History of Education in Antiquity (N.Y., 1956), pp. 39f., and cf. his reference to Jaeger, Paideia, on p. 368.

⁶ Cf. further Mabo, p. 178.

⁷ See Mabo, p. 28.

⁸ So he already proposed in his 1938 JBL study.

⁹ On possible omissions of yod, cf. J. N. Epstein, Mabo le-Nusah ha-Mishnah (Jerusalem, 5708), pp. 1237ff.

¹⁰ Cf. Finkelstein's 1938 JBL paper.

¹¹ And perhaps this accounts for the attaching of the beginning of chapter three to the end of chapter two in the MSS.

¹² Ed. J. Z. Lauterbach, I, 46.

¹³ 1:16, Section 16, ed. L. Finkelstein, p. 25; cf. ARN^A, p. 2; ARN^B, p. 2 (top).

¹⁴ While Finkelstein (in JBL [1938], p. 30, end of n. 31) is correct in calling attention to the reading of ARN^B, p. 2, bottom, he seems to have ignored the reading on p. 2, top.

¹⁵ In the essay in Studies and Texts, III, ed. A. Altmann (now being published).

¹⁶ ARN^A and ARN^B, p. 3.

¹⁷ That words and phrases get themselves into our talmudic texts for a variety of reasons (not only shitfa) is a recognized phenomenon; see for example J. N. Epstein, Introduction to Amoraitic Literature (Heb.) (Jerusalem, 1962), p. 176 (on B. Pesahim 30a — correct misprint in Epstein accordingly).

¹⁸ I so translate for convenience sake or out of habit. It is clear that hu' hayah 'omer in these passages does not mean anything like “he was in the habit of saying,” but something like “he was also the author of the following statement.” Cf. Proceedings, American Academy for Jewish Research 27 (1958), 56, n. 51.

¹⁹ There are some minor ones too. And note also the text in M. Gaster, Exempla (London-Leipzig, 1924), pp. 68f.

²⁰ Note ʻAqiba's statement in the Mishnah, ibid., just before the story.

²¹ This round figure means “very much, a very great amount.” For instances of this use cf. ARN^A, p. 60; the story in Sifre Numbers 115, ed. Horovitz, p. 128; M. Ketubot 1:5 (on the priestly bet din); B. Bekorot 31a; and frequently. Ultimately this goes back to the story in Gen. 23:1–20; and this too will explain Gen. 32:7.

²² Note the Mishnah Baba Qamma, ibid.

²³ Literally: She wet (her hand with the oil) and laid her hand on her head (i.e., she rubbed into her hair the oil in her hand).

²⁴ See L. Ginzberg, “Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Mischnah,” Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstage D. Hoffmann's (Berlin, 1914), pp. 311–45.

²⁵ See, for example, B. Berakot 6b–7a.

²⁶ And see also above, n. 9.

²⁷ Neither p. 137 nor p. 154 in ed. Schechter is of any help here.

²⁸ Note, for example, the beginning of Leviticus Rabba, ed. Margulies, pp. 1–6 (top).

²⁹ “He used to say: If a poor man came to thee in the morning and after thou gavest him an issar he went on; and then another came in the afternoon (for alms); do not say, ‘I've already given to the first one.’ On the contrary, better that thou give to the latter (also), ‘for thou knowest not’ (etc.). Rabbi Joshua ben Qorhah says: If thou didst wed a wife in thy youth and she bore thee children, and then died — it is not (right) for thee to sit back and say ‘Enough for me.’ On the contrary, in thine old age (too) add (harbeh) fruitfulness and increase, ‘for thou knowest not’ (etc.). He used to say: …” Now come the statements, familiar to us from ARN^A, about casting one's eye on the wife to inherit her or to marry another (and the woman acting the same way), scattering coin and being destructive in a rage. One additional statement occurs, but the text is garbled.

Incidentally, the clause in ARN^B, “He who casts his eye on his wife … in the hope that she die so that he might take to himself another wife,” is probably not just a “façon de parler.” Note the statement attributed to Rabbi Judah ben Batyra in ARN^B, p. 9: “Job kept deliberating with himself: ‘For what would be the portion of God from above, and the heritage of the Almighty from on high” (Job 31:2) — had it been fitting that Adam be given ten wives, He would have given (them) to him. But it was not fitting that any more than one wife be given to him. So too for me: sufficient unto me is my wife, sufficient unto me my portion.” Comp. C. Rabin, The Zadokite Documents (Oxford, 1958), pp. 16ff.

What is more, while the statement in ARNA obviously reflects the possibility of marrying one's widowed sister-in-law, the wife's sister or the brother's wife, nothing like this is even alluded to in ARN^B.

³⁰ B. Pesahim 49b.

³¹ ARN^A, p. 74. Cf. L. Ginzberg, Commentary on the Palestinian Talmud (N. Y., 1941), III, 223.

³² Corresponding to twice the twelve tribes of Israel and to the twenty-four books of Holy Scripture? “Pairs” — Grace Goldin suggests: because a student ought to have a companion, haber? Cf. Ἀbot 1:6 and ARN, pp. 36 and 40.

³³ ARN^B, p. 29. Note indeed Gen.R. 61:3, ed. Theodor-Albeck, p. 660.

³⁴ I believe this is indeed the literal translation. Up to this point I have translated “descended” because the verb is a bit ambiguous. Note the use of yaṣa' as “born” in ARN^A, p. 12.

³⁵ See Schechter's note ad loc, and see also the interesting reading in Appendix II, p. 154. With this cf. ARN^B, p. 39, Mabo, p. 118, and N. Tur-Sinai in Mordecai M. Kaplan Jubilee Volume (Heb.) (N. Y., 1953), p. 84.

³⁶ Note Rabbi Me'ir, however, in ARN^A, p. 36; observe this anonymously in ARN^B, p. 39.

³⁷ Cf. this reading with Ἀbot 1:6, and note also ARN^B's attribution.

³⁸ Cf. Schechter's n. 5 ad loc.

³⁹ So ed. Schechter; but cf. below in body of paper.

⁴⁰ But see Schechter's note, p. 137, for which I see no sufficient justification. Note the order in the quotation from the Passover Haggadah, below.

⁴¹ See note 38 above.

⁴² Haggadah shel Pesah, ed. E. D. Goldschmidt (Jerusalem, 1960), p. 118, and see ibid., pp. 19f. On these sages, see also Mekilta, ed. Lauterbach, II, 280f.

⁴³ And perhaps our explanation will serve to account for their becoming a stock example. In essentials, as we have said, this midrash appears also in ARN^B, p. 39; however, observe not only the textual difficulties ibid., but the point at which it is introduced.

⁴⁴ And see also B. Berakot 27b. On ʻAqiba being extraordinarily talented, cf. ARN^A (R. Ṭarfon's testimony) and ARN^B (the same testimony in R. Eliezer's name), p. 29. Note also ibid, the statement by R. Simeon (ARN^A, ben Eleazar; ARN^B, ben Menassiah), and cf. Mark 11:23.

⁴⁵ See the biographical sketches on each of these Sages in the Jewish Encyclopaedia, under the respective headings. In an oral communication, Professor A. S. Rosenthal suggested to me that perhaps the four sages selected by ARN^A might signify respective representatives of both Shammaite and Hillelite points of view; thus, R. Eliezer and R. Ţarfon would represent Shammaites, and R. Joshua and R. ʻAqiba, Hillelites.

⁴⁶ I would like to suggest that in this statement we can overhear echoes of Rabbi Joshua's “response” to the contemporary reactions to the destruction of the Temple and defeat by the Romans; see for example T. Soṭah 15:11f. (cf. S. Lieberman, Tosefeth Rishonim [Jerusalem, 1938], II, 67), and cf. also the mood reflected in B. Baba Batra 60b (end of chapter 3). Note also Mabo, pp. 129f.

⁴⁷ I am not sure, of course, but I cannot help feeling that there is an element of irony at play here, suggesting that even in their death women won't shut up. And that hasid too in the end, because he could not keep his mouth shut, lost the advantage he had enjoyed.

⁴⁸ Neither in the ARN^A version, nor in the version of B. Berakot 18b, nor in the version of Midrash ha-Gadol, Genesis, ed. Margulies, p. 804, nor in Gaster's Exempla, p. 73, is there any suggestion that this time he was driven to leave home.

⁴⁹ Perhaps only a printer's error; note the clearly feminine form of the verb, for example, in ed. Schechter, p. 155, and in Exempla, p. 69.

⁵⁰ Cf. Mabo, pp. i4Sf. For the clause “hath chosen … the words of the Sages” in Rabbi ʻAqiba's exclamation, see the version of the story in B. Yebamot 121a. Observe indeed that in the Yebamot version there is no talk of one who gave charity! The Exempla version, loc. cit., is essentially like that of ARN^A (note the end of the Exempla version, however). As for the version of the story in Eccl. R. 11:1, cf. Schechter's note 56 on p. 17 of ARN.

⁵¹ On the terms hasid and ṣaddiq, see S. Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine (N. Y., 1942), pp. 69–71. Note well “that the Jews in Palestine were not too eager to confer this title (ṣaddiq) even on a deceased person, that in practical life this epithet was not abused in the first centuries C. E., despite its frequent appearance in Rabbinic literature.” Except for this Benjamin and the famous Simeon the Righteous of the beginning of ʻAbot (and, of course, except for biblical worthies like Joseph who in legend are called ṣaddiq — in Scripture only Noah is, Gen. 6:9, except for God), I cannot recall one talmudic person so called. I would therefore like to suggest the following: ṣaddiq is indeed a very high compliment, and whenever it is used, it is intended to convey that the individual in question is one who in the agon of life has overcome some great trial or temptation — as in the case of Joseph and Potiphar's wife; cf. ARN^A, p. 63 — and is therefore worthy of being crowned with a kind of Stephanos, ʻaṭarah (see for example LXX on Cant. 3:11) — note ARN^A, p. 5, bottom, on the ṣaddiqim, and parallels — or, as we might put it, is deserving of the highest rewards. I hope to discuss this more fully in a future study. On the ṣaddiq see also R. Mach, Der Zaddik in Talmud und Midrasch (Leiden, 1957). Professor S. Lieberman once called my attention to the Sifra on Lev. 25:10, ed. Weiss, 106d, that in the Jubilee Year, according to Rabbi Yohanan ben Baroqah (and cf. B. Rosh ha-Shanah 8b), the emancipated slaves are also crowned with an ‘aţarah. Now cf. Weiss’ note ad loc, and see also Rashi in B. Rosh ha-Shanah, ibid. In Wisdom of Solomon 5:16, the righteous will receive a diadem of beauty.

⁵² See Mabo, p. 147; but the widow and her seven sons is a “dramatic” stereotype. See also G. D. Cohen in Mordecai M. Kaplan Jubilee Volume (Heb.), pp. 109ff.

⁵³ Cf. for example ARN^A, p. 30 (but see ARN^B, ch. 13, p. 30, and Pirqe R. Eliezer, ch. I!) and p. 32; and see the Index Volume (by B. Cohen) to L. Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, VII, s.v. “twenty-two.”

⁵⁴ See Ginzberg, Legends, V, 67; Schechter's note 59 (end) on the MS reading and Appendix II, p. 155. Cf. Mabo, pp. 84 f., n. 138.

⁵⁵ Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, p. 182, n. 28.