Students of the New Testament are well aware that many parables exist in more than one version. The attempt to reconstruct the “original version” has given way to an assessment of each version in its own context. Even when parables are quite similar, there may be considerable differences in their respective context in the gospel. More often, both wording and context show peculiarities of their own, such as the parable of the Talents in Matt 25 compared with the parable of the Pounds in Luke 19, the parable of the Meal in Luke 14 and Matt 22, and the parable of the Vineyard and the Wicked Tenants in all three Synoptic Gospels. Many rabbinic parables exist in more than one version, but there are nearly always vast differences in context.
The four rabbinic parables, in two pairs, that I want to discuss here are quite unique in their kind, because they stem from two highly synoptic texts: Avot de Rabbi Nathan version A (Avot R. Nath. A) and Avot de Rabbi Nathan version B (Avot R. Nath. B). Both are commentaries on the tractate Mishnah Avot, also called Pirkei Avot. The sequence of the wisdom sayings commented upon in Avot de Rabbi Nathan differs somewhat from the sequence in tractate Pirkei Avot as we know it from the Mishnah. Although the final redaction of Pirkei Avot was later than that of the rest of the Mishnah, the basic structure of Avot de Rabbi Nathan A and B betrays a structure of Avot from before 220 CE. In spite of this, much narrative material may have been added later on, in the course of the third to fifth centuries CE.1
Although the parallel between the two tractates is somewhat less than suggested by Schechter’s edition (in which certain chapters are rearranged to fit the synoptic presentation of the text), the overall similarity between Avot de Rabbi Nathan A and B remains striking.2 Nevertheless, mutual influence can hardly be proven, and it is more probable that the two had a common Vorlage. While several studies have tried to establish the relationship between versions A and B, these efforts have not yielded a satisfying conclusion.3 Likewise, the many manuscripts containing the text of Avot de Rabbi Nathan A (eight) and Avot de Rabbi Nathan B (three) have not yet been arranged according to their stemmas. Our study will be limited to a synoptic comparison of the selected texts in the manuscripts, even enabling a reconstruction of a rabbinic parable in its integrity. Although we will not propose a causal relationship and chronological sequence between the manuscripts, our parables may offer important new insights into the relationship between them.
1 The First Pair of Parables: Two Versions of the Parable of the Inferior Field
The two parables about the inferior field featuring in Avot de Rabbi Nathan A and B deal with a striking paradoxical theme: the frailty or even wickedness of the human condition.4 Both parables are told in the context of an exposition on the yezer haraʿ, the evil inclination.
1.1 The First Version of the Parable of the Inferior Field: Avot R. Nath. A 16
Let us first deal with the parable in Avot R. Nath. A 16. The yezer haraʿ is supposed to be present in each human being (but not in animals) from birth, “for the first drop a man puts into a woman is the yezer haraʿ, which truly lies at the opening of the heart,” referring to Gen 4:7 (Avot R. Nath. A 16 [Becker 168]). This opening is followed by the parable itself. There are seven manuscripts available for the parable in question in Avot de Rabbi Nathan A, which show no essential differences. The dating of the manuscripts, which come roughly from the fifteenth to the sixteenth century CE, has little to tell us about the priority of the versions. I follow the text of the editio princeps Venedig:
1.1.1 The Mashal Proper of the Parable of the Inferior Field: Avot R. Nath. A 16
Let us take a closer look at this curious parable. Rabbi Shimon bar Yoḥai is, like many other rabbis quoted in Avot de Rabbi Nathan, a tanna from the beginning of the second century CE. We cannot be sure, however, of the date of this parable. Furthermore, the parable is a so-called king-parable, which does not mean that a king was the main character from the outset: there is a tendency in parables to transform a parable into a king parable even if a landlord or master of the house (Heb. baʿal ha bayit; Gk. oikodespotēs) would be more suitable, as in our case.8 In addition, the king does not appear as a contrast with God’s behaviour, but serves as an illustration of it.9
As in other parables, the parable of the Inferior Field has an element of astonishment to it, meant to shock the audience: the king demands ten kor, probably not in advance, but from the harvest (cf. Luke 16:7 for a kor). The tenant (Heb. ʾarīs; Gk. geōrgos; cf. the wicked tenants in Mark 12:1) are to be distinguished from both the servant/slave (Heb. ʿeved; Gk. doulos; cf. Matt 25:14 and esp. Luke 17:7–10) and the labourer (Heb. poʿel; Gk. ergatēs; cf. the labourers in the vineyard in Matt 20:1).10 A slave does not receive a salary but may be rewarded and a labourer agrees to work for a fixed wage in cash, but a tenant must give a considerable part of the harvest to the owner of the field.11
The relationship between ʾarīs and landlord is quite a delicate one: both could suffer under the selfish behaviour of the other. Especially when the amount from the harvest to be ceded to the owner has been agreed upon ahead of time and the harvest fails to meet expectations, the tenant can find himself in a difficult plight. In rabbinic literature, tenants are advised to flatter their landlord, especially when the harvest is bad.12 At the same time, the midrash criticizes a landlord when he praises his own vineyard for a good harvest, but chides his tenants in case of a poor harvest.13 The moment when the harvest was presented to the landlord must have been a delicate one: Would the landlord be satisfied, or would he suspect the tenants to have kept more than the agreed share of the harvest for themselves? And if the landlord demanded more than was offered him, what would that imply for the tenant’s daily life? It is no wonder that regulations were needed to prevent landowners from staking a claim on the land tilled by the tenant (see y. B. Bat. 14a/3.6[4]).14 On the other hand, one parable describes how tenants (ʾarīsim) rob the king who owns the field (Sifre Deut. 312), a mashal possibly reflecting real-life problems between tenants and the landowner. Again, the king comes in the place of the landowner as the regular protagonist of parables.15
Using parables to assess the socio-cultural background is a tricky business. Parables may describe a “pseudo-realistic” state of affairs meant to astonish the hearer. In our case, however, the astonishment is not provided by the mashal about the severe landlord. As is often the case in parables, the narrative embellishments (fertilising, tilling, etc.) do not add to the message of the parable, and precisely because of that they may contain reliable information about how such work was done. In contrast, the portion of the harvest demanded by the owner may be exaggerated.16
We have seen how non-parabolic texts likewise describe a sometimes-problematic relationship between landlord and tenant. The element of surprise is not lacking in our parable, however, but is created by the application of the severe landlord’s behaviour to God!17 Hence, in this case it is the nimshal that contains a genuine surprise or shock for the audience.
Sometimes God’s behaviour is contrasted positively with that of a human landlord/king of flesh and blood. For instance, the human agent only gives a single coin to a labourer who has worked, ploughed, sown, and weeded. God, in contrast, gives human beings children, wisdom, and possessions (Mekh. R. Ishm. Shirata 8 [Lauterbach]). But the opposite happens in our parable: the cunning behaviour of the landlord is compared to God’s dealings with human beings. In spite of all the efforts they exerted, the tenants do not manage to harvest more than one kor.
1.1.2 The Nimshal of the Parable of the Inferior Field: Avot R. Nath. A 16
In a way, the application (nimshal) of the story points to the impossibility of fulfilling one’s obligation, which is described as a kind of dead-end street, a road without issue.18 In addition, one is reminded of the parable of the Talents in the Gospel of Matthew, in which the metaphor of the harvest plays a central role as well, in spite of the fact that the parable itself deals with talents.19
Although the context deals not with tenants but with slaves, the New Testament parable likewise refers to harvest, while alluding to the absence of the large estate owner. The social situation of the tenant and the large estate owner is particularly apt for parables, as the king/owner of the estate/master is often portrayed as temporarily absent. This absence is often due to a journey, but here it reflects the social circumstances of the large estate owner who receives his income from the estate while living in the city. On the level of the nimshal, this absence denotes the responsibility granted to humankind to act responsibly in view of the final reckoning, indicated by the return of the master.20 The predominance of tenants over slaves in “king” parables about a field is as such no proof of their predominance in the social reality, but demonstrates the particular aptitude of this Bildfeld for illustrating the human condition before God.21
The harsh behaviour of the master who, according to Matt 25:46, reaps where he has not sown, has baffled many commentators. Joachim Jeremias is convinced that Jesus would never have applied this clause to himself, as the returning Son of Man, the master being “raffgierig hinter dem Gelde her … rücksichtlos auf den eigenen Vorteil bedacht.”22 There is no doubt, however, that the rabbinic parables, which do not reckon with a returning Messiah, apply this behaviour to God himself. Likewise, there is no reason to doubt that the parable in the Gospel of Matthew originally contained an application to God.23 Craig Evans argues that the original version would have been preserved in Gos. Naz. 18, in which the servant who hides the money entrusted to him may have been accepted with joy and in any case was not subjected to punishment.24 In my opinion, this version of the parable is rather an attempt at harmonization, which was effected when the anomalous character of the parables was no longer understood.
The anomaly in the parable of the Talents is as clear as in our parable of the Tenants. The servants were not given any instructions, hence the behaviour of the one who hid the talent in the ground is fully comprehensible.25 Nevertheless, his master charges that he chose the wrong course of action.
It is necessary to distinguish between two different motifs in these parables: parables that emphasize the return of an entrusted deposit in its integrity, and parables that demand gain. While the latter motif of growth can be related both to harvesting and to increasing the entrusted sum, the motif of the return of the deposit—often a treasure, a pearl, or a deposit entrusted by a friend—emphasizes the importance of careful preservation.26 This is the case in the parable about the Deposit of a King Returned Unharmed.
In contrast, the motif of increase may be applied to human responsibility to work productively with that with which one has been entrusted. Often, but not always, the entrusted good has to be returned. However, the parable, which is quoted below, deals with a gift, applied to the land: A king gives his servant a field as a gift, and the servant plants a vineyard upon it. Hence he improves the gift (Sifre Deut. 8). In rabbinic literature, this increase is related to such maxims as: “If you have studied much Torah, do not claim merit for yourself, for to this purpose you have been created” (m. Avot 2:8), or Hillel’s maxim: “Whoever does not increase diminishes” (m. Avot 1:14).27
Our rabbinic parable of the Entrusted Field, as well as the parables of the Talents and the Pounds, emphasize the obligation to increase. Still, the demands are out of proportion. Later on we will see that in the second version of the rabbinic parable of the Entrusted Field, the king’s behaviour is even worse and should be considered outright insulting and greedy. At the same time, both versions want to emphasize the tenants’ futile aspirations to satisfy the master’s greed. Even that is no reason to desist from the effort.
Similar to the parable of the Talents and the Pounds, our parable of the Inferior Field emphasizes the master’s greed. However, our parable gives a remarkable twist to this master’s severe demand by giving the tenants’ protest its due. This becomes particularly clear in the nimshal in which the demanding master forms only one aspect of God’s attitude to Israel.
1.1.3 The Meaning of the Nimshal of the Parable of the Inferior Field: Avot. R. Nath. A 16
The nimshal of the parable is not meant as an accusation, but as an excuse for Israel’s poor moral behaviour. Due to the evil inclination which takes possession of a person from birth, the struggle cannot be but uneven. God knows about the evil inclination—He created it Himself—and He should take that into account. This explains why, according to our parable, in a paradoxical way, precisely because of the poor human condition, Israel will not see the inside of Gehenna. This may be an allusion to the well-known dictum that “all of Israel has a share in the World to Come” (m. Sanh. 10:1), incidentally followed by some noteworthy exceptions.28 The parable does not focus explicitly upon the fate of the gentiles, but one may assume that they will only escape Gehenna in exceptional cases, since they do not possess the antidote against the evil inclination, namely the Torah. Hence, Israel will not be saved from Gehenna because of its exemplary behaviour, but because of the poor human condition.
One may be inclined to think here of a polemical thrust against the idea of original sin in Christianity, understood as the condemnation of all the non-baptized—i.e., non-Christians—to hell.29 The yezer haraʿ does show some similarities with the notion of original sin, since both reign from birth on. However, according to the parable, neither redemption nor baptism is necessary, and God’s benevolent understanding will be enough. However, the text is too succinct to assess the parable as a polemical thrust against early Christianity with certainty. The quotation from Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai is lacking in the parable of Avot R. Nath. B, and may be considered a “floating logion,” betraying as it does a somewhat different context.
1.2 The Second Version of the Parable of the Inferior Field: Avot R. Nath. B 30
This brings us to the parallel parable in Avot R. Nath. B 30. For this parable there are two manuscripts, including a Spanish manuscript from the thirteenth century, which is extremely early for a Hebrew manuscript (see Becker, p. xvii). I follow this manuscript, MS Parma de Rossi 327 (Becker 363), even though its early date does not necessarily imply priority over the (later) manuscripts, either here or in the case of Avot de Rabbi Nathan A. The other manuscript of Avot de Rabbi Nathan B, MS Vatican 303, is defective ad locum.
Again, the context deals with the yezer haraʿ, albeit in a much more condensed way than in Avot de Rabbi Nathan A. The parable is anonymous, and, as stated earlier, it lacks the introductory statement about Israel not seeing the inside of Gehenna present in Avot R. Nath. A 16. Instead, the text deals with the difference between animals and human beings, where the latter alone possess the evil impulse, “[f]or the evil impulse has been cast into him”:
1.2.1 The Mashal of the Parable of the Inferior Field: Avot R. Nath. B 30
Let us take a closer look at this parable. The mashal is slightly different compared to our first parable. The first parable only speaks of one field. It remains unclear whether the king knew of its bad condition; it could be that the tenants only discovered this while harvesting. In the second parable, things are worse: the king possesses several fields and seems to rent the worst one to the tenant deliberately, knowing that he himself will have little success with it. No produce has been agreed upon beforehand. We should note that the plural of the first parable (bene Adam) has become a singular tenant here, which renders him even more vulnerable before the king in this situation. The field yields ten kor (which, incidentally was the portion of the produce agreed upon in the first parable, in which the field only produced one kor). The king is not satisfied and demands “the rest.” In a way, the demands of the king are even more outrageous than they were in the first parable, for nothing had been agreed upon in regard to the yield ahead of time. The king seems, in fact, to be asking for the whole produce, which may even be interpreted as a violation of the tenant’s rights. The tenant can only state that he has already brought the whole produce into the king’s house. This parable emphasizes the visibility of the produce before the king more powerfully than our first parable does, which creates a harsher confrontation.
Like many parables, the story breaks off without a conclusion, and we do not get to hear whether the tenants and the king come to an agreement. Referring to Lessing’s fable theory, David Flusser emphasizes that the hearer/reader of the parable is left behind, as it were, “at the middle of the road.” The narrator is not prepared to satisfy the curiosity of the hearer/reader.33 We will never know the end of the parable, probably because the hearer/reader is supposed to draw the conclusion himself. This constitutes the appealing aspect of the parable.
1.2.2 The Nimshal of the Parable of the Inferior Field: Avot R. Nath. B 30
The application of the nimshal is similar to that of our first parable, with the exception that it adds one more scriptural reference. And that reference is telling, since the context in Scripture concerns the situation of the world after the flood. Noah brings a sacrifice, and God decides not to curse the earth anymore because of the human beings, “for the inclination (yezer) of the human heart is evil from his youth” (Gen 8:21). Although this statement is often interpreted as a sign of divine compassion on humanity, one might just as well interpret it as an avowal that human nature cannot be remedied. In that case, the divine compassion is rather directed at the earth, which had to suffer the flood due to human wickedness! The destruction of the earth has no use. It is possible that our parable takes the quotation in that sense, as if to suggest that human beings will never live up to God’s demands due to their evil inclination.34 One may even detect an allusion to the inferior field in the quotation that the human being “is but dust” (Ps 103:14).35 The fact that God has decided not to destroy the earth anymore is taken as an indication that God is well aware of the frailty of the human condition. Again, God’s benevolence is called upon—yet not because human beings deserve it, but because they cannot help acting in a poor way.36
In contrast with our first parable, antagonism between Jew and non-Jew does not play a role here. In our first parable, this antagonism was already somewhat awkward anyway, since the poor human condition is, after all, shared by all mankind and not a special prerogative of Israel. So how could this poor human condition explain a privileged position for Israel? It is not clear then why only Israel would escape Gehenna. This would hold good for all of humankind. The possible antidote of Torah does not play a role at all in our parable. It should furthermore be noted that the biblical prooftext is pre-Mosaic, which might render a reference to the Torah as antidote problematic.
1.3 Conclusion
Both parables emphasize God’s extraordinary demands upon human beings. The plight of human nature, which is badly adapted to such demands, forms the surprising clue to both parables. The second parable is in its motif far more striking than the first: the tenants do not know how much they are supposed to hand over to the king; the king seems to be fully aware of the deplorable condition of the field in advance, while the tenants probably find out later; and the king insists that even the total harvest does not suffice as his share. Obviously, both parables want to emphasize the same application (nimshal), which is the poor human condition for which God Himself is held responsible, but the second parable is much sharper than the first in drawing a nearly malevolent portrait of the king.
From a theological point of view, God manifests Himself in two ways in these parables: on the one hand, as the demanding, severe master who will harvest even what he has not sown; on the other hand, and in the application, God is supposed to be full of understanding. He himself created human beings, including their evil inclination, and should understand the human predicament. It would be no exaggeration to see an example here of what Dov Weiss has felicitously called “pious irreverence.”37 Implicitly, God is taken to account for the creation of humankind. The evil in humankind is not denied, on the contrary, but the field was “lousy” from the outset. The human evil inclination has been there from the beginning, and it is not the consequence of human acts (as original sin is in a way, being caused by Adam). Hence, there is no prospect of getting rid of evil, which is ingrained in human existence. Complaints about it should not be directed to the human being but to his Creator. All this sounds very bold and irreverent, which may be why these thoughts have been wrapped in parables and attributed to biblical texts, instead of being packaged as the personal convictions of named rabbis.
However, this feature of parables should not be confined to the later type of rabbinic parables, in Amoraic literature, as Weiss argues.38 Nor should it be attributed exclusively to the parables of Jesus.39 We have here a salient feature of some parables, old and new, New Testament and rabbinic, which has probably been obscured by centuries of harmonising explanations.40 It is worthwhile to throw full light upon this hidden challenge to mainstream religion. Although the protest element is not lacking in New Testament parables, Weiss’s argument about church fathers doing away with protest against God remains a challenge. It would imply a discontinuity of the creation of parables as a living narrative genre in Christian tradition (which is true) in favour of an allegorical reading of them (which is plausible as well). On the other hand, Weiss seems to recognize in the stories of Desert Fathers and monks a continuation of the bold narratives confronting rulers. Likewise, the Syriac Christian dialogue poems contain many bold assertions, such as Sarah’s complaint about Abraham wanting to sacrifice his son, which implicitly challenge God’s command.
The treatment of the existence of evil in these parables is both pious and irreverent. It may be understood as a way to deal with existential tensions caused by the eternal antagonism between human desires and the dictates of divine law.
2 The Second Pair of Parables: About One versus Many Fields
The second pair of parables, again from Avot de Rabbi Nathan A and B, involve many scribal errors and textual variants among the manuscripts, apparently due, at least in part, to controversies over the content. Textual variants should not always be explained as scribal errors, but may relate to debates about the actual contents of a text. Tractate m. Avot 1:6 recommends the provision of a teacher. In the commentaries, the saying is problematized: does it recommend you provide yourself with one teacher? This is the starting point for a long, confused debate, which also features a parable. We will trace the whole debate and try to clarify the confusion, which extends to different readings in the manuscripts of Avot R. Nath. A 3 and Avot R. Nath. B 18.
2.1 The Context of the Parable of the One versus Many Fields: Avot R. Nath. A 8
In the case of the advice to study with one or with more teachers, two conflicting recommendations can be found within one and the same document: one a saying, another a parable, both in the name of rabbi Meir, a tanna from the second century:
Rabbi Meir says: “If you have studied with one master, do not say: enough! But go to a sage and learn Torah and don’t go to anyone but first go to someone close to you, as it is said: ‘Drink water from your own cistern and running water from your own well’ (Prov 5:15).”
Avot R. Nath. A 3 [Becker 58], editio princeps
Some confusion can be detected in MS New York Rab. 25, which reads: “But go to someone to learn Torah and don’t go to some sage, but first go to someone close to you” (Avot R. Nath. A 3 [Becker 59]). The confusion can be explained by the phrase “go to someone close to you,” which this manuscript has clearly understood as a contrast with “some sage.” However, when we turn to another saying, this time commenting the dictum in m. Avot 1:6 (i.e., “Provide yourself with a teacher”), the confusion increases:
“Provide yourself with a teacher,” how so? It teaches that one should provide oneself with one fixed teacher and learn from him Scripture and Mishna and halakhot and aggadot. The argument that he (the teacher) neglects for him in Scripture he will eventually tell him in the Mishna, the argument that he neglects in Midrash he will eventually tell him in halakhot, the argument that he neglects in halakhot he will eventually tell him in aggadah. That man will find himself full of goodness and blessing.
Avot R. Nath. A 8 [Becker 98−99], all eight manuscripts with only minor differences
The idea seems to be that one and the same teacher can correct himself by adding later on what he had initially neglected. If one studies with several different teachers, this possibility is not an option. However, MS Oxford Opp. 95 continues the debate in Avot R. Nath. A 8 (Becker 100) by adding the following: “Whoever learns from many teachers, the argument that he [the teacher] neglects for him in Scripture, he [the teacher] will eventually tell him the one in the Mishna” (italics are mine). The text continues in the same vein as the one quoted above, but here to buttress the argument that you should provide yourself with more teachers, and not just one. It apparently confused the argument, since it did not agree that having a single teacher is actually an advantage.41 The text then continues with the parable, likewise attributed to Rabbi Meir, recommending the use of only one teacher, which serves to refute the dictum of rabbi Meir which had actually just been quoted!
2.2 The Parable of the One versus Many Fields: Avot R. Nath A 8
Rabbi Meir’s parable about the advantage of a single teacher is available in eight manuscripts of Avot R. Nath. A 8, four of which have a corrupt text. I quote the editio princeps Venedig, which numbers among those four and whose text reads as follows:42
This text is corrupt, probably due to the similar lines in the two parts of the parable. The copyist omitted part of the parable by jumping from the one to the same expression further on (i.e., “he plants”; error by haplography), thereby conflating the case of one field with the case of many fields. However, the confusion should also be explained by reason of the content, since studying with several teachers does not seem as bad as rabbi Meir makes it out to be here, as he himself had argued otherwise in Avot R. Nath. A 3.
This brings us to MS Oxford Opp. 247, which, in my view, has preserved the entire parable in its integrity.44 I have followed the division of lines in the manuscript, and have added italics to indicate what has been left out in the editio princeps (and in three manuscripts):
Apparently the editio princeps quoted earlier jumped from the first “he plants” to the second “he plants,” skipping the text in between. Probably, the editio princeps has been misled by the problematic ending of the second part of the parable: “full of goodness and blessing.” How can the negative, second part of the parable end with “goodness and blessing,” just like the first part? It may well be that the narrator intended to say that the fields do contain goodness and blessing, but that the owner cannot really enjoy it due to the great distance separating the fields. The shorter parable has thus done away with this problem, and yet it cannot be but secondary, since it is hardly possible to reconstruct the longer version of the parable from the shorter version.
2.2.1 The Mashal of the Parable of the One versus Many Fields: Avot R. Nath. A 8
When we limit ourselves to what is stated in the mashal, we are warranted to conclude that ownership of large estates is frowned upon and that the preference is for possession of a small field. Although the description of the mashal may have been influenced by what is stated in the nimshal, it still seems plausible to deduce this glimpse of a social reality from the parable.
It should be noted that the conclusion of the positive part of the parable in MS Oxford Opp. 247 speaks about someone “seated in his place” (
2.3 The Parallel Parable of the One versus Many Fields: Avot R. Nath. B 18
The text that forms a parallel to Avot R. Nath. A 8 is Avot R. Nath. B 18. There are two quite similar versions extant, and we have chosen to follow MS Vatican 303 (Becker 349). The confusion continues here. Commenting upon the same saying from m. Avot 1:6, albeit with a minor variant (“Provide yourself with a teacher for wisdom”; italics added), a saying, this time anonymous, states:
Who learns from one teacher, he will transmit him something about halakhot and he will make him understand midrash, he hears from him something about midrash and he will transmit him aggadot and he will make him understand aggadot. He hears from him aggadot and he will understand him in every place.46
Who learns from many teachers, they will transmit to him something about halakhot and he will understand halakhot. They will transmit to him something about midrash and they will make him understand midrash. He will hear from them something about aggadot and he will understand from them aggadot. He will not understand him in every place.
After that we find a parable somewhat similar to that in Avot R. Nath. A 8:
The ending
Still, the parable is not easy to understand. The field of one kor is equal to thirty seʾah, making the second field much larger. With some effort, one can extract from this parable the same lesson that emerged from the parable of the many fields in Avot de Rabbi Nathan A, namely that dispersion on such a large field is unfruitful. Turning to the rather rambling description of the learning process with many teachers, one might conjecture that the point being made is that studying with many teachers creates a fragmentary learning process in which the different fields of Scripture, halakhah, and midrash are not organically interconnected.
As Avot R. Nath. B 18 continues, it is not Rabbi Meir (who transmitted the kernel of this saying in Avot R. Nath. A 3) who speaks, but his teacher, the famous Rabbi Akiva:
If you learn with one teacher and you will find that all his words remain with you, do not sit down and say: “enough”, but go to someone else and learn from him midrash, halakha, and aggada, as it is said: “She is like the ships of a merchant, she brings her food from afar” (Prov 31:14).49 Is it possible that one studies with someone far away and afterwards with someone nearby? Scripture states: “Drink from your own cistern”.
Prov 5:1550
Apparently, Avot de Rabbi Nathan B has arranged the material in such a way that the saying which initially featured in Avot R. Nath. A 3 has been moved to Avot R. Nath. B 18. As a consequence, the tension between this statement and the parable preceding it becomes even more apparent. Avot de Rabbi Nathan B therefore seems to have attempted to improve the readings of Avot de Rabbi Nathan A or its Vorlage, but failed to dispel the confusion.51
2.4 The Content of the Debates
The point of departure was the counsel in m. Avot 1:6 to provide oneself with a teacher. The first debate introduced an issue that was not explicit in the saying. The debate revolved around the question as to whether one teacher would suffice. The parables of the fields then spell out the advantages of a single teacher over multiple teachers. The corrupted readings in some of the manuscripts demonstrate the uncertainty about this conclusion. Some of these readings suggest that several different teachers could teach about the different topics at least as well as only one teacher could.
A new element is introduced by distinguishing between a teacher nearby and a teacher far away. The authoritative saying of Rabbi Akiva states that one should not be satisfied with only one teacher, but should rather pursue greater wisdom.52 Two scriptural quotations play a seemingly contradictory role: The one recommends drinking from one’s own cistern, that is, choosing a teacher from nearby. The other quotation, however, recommends searching for “food” (i.e., Torah) far away, which might be best interpreted as a recommendation to search for a teacher far away. These two points of view can be harmonized in first searching for a teacher nearby and only afterwards for a teacher further away.
Interfering with these debates is the distinction between a teacher and a sage, where the latter is apparently someone famous but often also further away. The text dismisses the option of studying with such sage instead of a teacher nearby. It is quite possible that the statements were initially mutually exclusive, and that later editorial activity managed to harmonize them by distinguishing different occasions. The overall emphasis on studying close to home may have to do with the burden incurred by the family when a young father leaves for a long time.
The confusion in the manuscripts is not caused by textual errors alone, but relates to a continuing debate about the content of the different sayings. The ambiguity of the different points of view contributed to different versions. The ensuing attempts at correction only served to add to the variety of readings, thereby witnessing to an ongoing debate about the best path to choose: staying with one’s own teacher nearby, or going out to a famous sage further away.
3 The Social Background of the Parables
The social background of the parables of the fields and the recommendation to stay close to home may be sketched as follows: In Palestine of the first centuries, agriculture often took place on fields owned by a landlord. As has been noted, the tenant (Heb. ʾarīs; Gk. geōrgos, cf. the Wicked Tenants in Mark 12:1) was not a slave, since he had the right to wages. Hence, as in our first pair of parables, the tenant must be distinguished both from the servant/slave (Heb. ʿeved; Gk. Doulos; cf. Matt 25:14 and esp. Luke 17:7–10) and the labourer (Heb. poʿel; Gk. Ergatēs; cf. the Labourers in the Vineyard in Matt 20:1).53 The delicate relationship between tenant and owner has been illuminated in our first pair of parables above. Often the rich landowner, who generally did not work on the land himself, was absent for prolonged periods of time, which makes the confrontation between landlord and tenants especially tense, as some sort of a “final reckoning.”
Our pair of parables in their non-corrupted state clearly favour small estates over large estates, and may even imply the advantage of owning a field of one’s own instead of working as a tenant for the owner of a large estate. Add to this the emphasis on staying at home instead of going to another teacher abroad, and it becomes clear that the social background plays its role in the Bildfeld of these parables.
In spite of the serious textual corruption in our parables, caused not only by scribal errors but also by implicit debates about the content (concerning the number of teachers, and the choice to stay at home or to go abroad for wisdom), we have managed to reconstruct the parables in their integrity and to catch a glimpse of the social background behind them.
4 Conclusion
The two pairs of “synoptic” parables which we have studied here have offered a glimpse of the harsh social reality behind the tenant-master relationship. The bringing of part of the harvest to the master could serve as a gripping and even shocking image of the final reckoning of the human being before God. As such, the first pair of parables can be numbered among those dealing with the so-called intrepid piousness.
In spite of the significant textual confusion in the manuscripts, the second pair of parables clearly advocates small estates over large estates. The advantages of working on a small field serve to illustrate the controversial opinion that it is better to study with one teacher than with many. Although social reality may once again have been an influential factor (i.e., a Torah student cannot take care of his family and household if he goes far away), the other opinion recommending a plurality of teachers interferes with the overall formula of the parables. It shows that different readings in manuscripts are not just scribal errors, but witness to an ongoing debate.
Bibliography
Becker, Hans-Jürgen. Geniza-Fragmente zu Avot de-Rabbi Natan. TSAJ 103. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004.
Becker, Hans-Jürgen. Avot de-Rabbi Natan: Synoptische Edition beider Versionen. TSAJ 116. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.
Dalman, Gustav. Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina. Hildesheim: Olms, 1964.
Feldman, Asher. The Parables and Similes of the Rabbis, Agricultural and Pastoral. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1924.
Flusser, David. Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus. Vol. 1. Das Wesen der Gleichnisse. JudChr 4. Bern: Lang, 1981.
Hezser, Catherine. Lohnmetaphorik und Arbeitswelt in Mt 20, 1–16: Das Gleichnis von den Arbeitern im Weinberg im Rahmen rabbinischer Lohngleichnisse. NTOA 15. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990.
Jeremias, Joachim. Die Gleichnisse Jesu. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1978.
Kister, Menahem. Avot de Rabbi Nathan: Schechter Edition with References to Parallels in the Two Versions. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1997 (Hebrew).
McArthur, Harvey K., and Robert Johnston. They Also Taught in Parables: Rabbinic Parables from the First Centuries of the Christian Era. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1990.
Milikowsky, Chaim. “Further on Editing Rabbinic texts.” JQR 90 (1999): 137–149.
Poorthuis, Marcel. “Between Jesus and Kafka: The Parables of Seder Eliyahu.” NTT 70 (2016): 224–235.
Poorthuis, Marcel. “The Invasion of the King: The Virtual Mashal as Foundation of Storytelling.” Pages 205–225 in Parables in Changing Contexts: Essays of the Study of Parables in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism. Edited by Eric Ottenheijm and Marcel Poorthuis. JCP 35. Leiden: Brill, 2020.
Safrai, Ze’ev. The Economy of Roman Palestine. London: Routledge, 1994.
Saldarini, Antony J. Scholastic Rabbinism: A Literary Study of the Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan. BJS 14. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982.
Schechter, Solomon. Avot de Rabbi Nathan. New York: Feldheim, 1967.
Stern, David. “Rhetoric and Midrash: the Case of the Mashal.” Prooftexts 1 (1981): 261–291.
Weiss, Dov. Pious Irreverence: Confronting God in Rabbinic Judaism. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017.
Antony J. Saldarini, Scholastic Rabbinism: A Literary Study of the Fathers According to Rabbi Nathan, BJS 14 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), 140−141. Menachem Kister (see footnote 3) even claims a post-Amoraic final redaction of Avot de Rabbi Nathan, but the difference between late additions and a late redaction must be kept in mind. In any case, none of our four parables seem to contain traces of a post-Amoraic redaction.
Hans-Jürgen Becker, Avot de-Rabbi Natan: Synoptische Edition beider Versionen, TSAJ 116 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), hereafter “Becker,” offers all the manuscripts of both versions. He rightly states: “Die Fassungen stimmen längst nicht so weitgehend überein wie sich ihre synoptische Darstellung bei Schechter auf den ersten Blick vermuten lässt” (ix). Becker has devoted a separate edition to the Genizah fragments.
The most thorough study remains Menahem Kister, Avot de Rabbi Nathan: Schechter Edition with References to Parallels in the Two Versions (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1997 [Hebrew]), and even more elaborate are his Studies in Avot de-Rabbi Nathan: Text, Redaction and Interpretation (Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1998 [Hebrew]). In spite of this, he has not succeeded in preparing a stemmatic analysis. Becker’s edition offers a much more transparent overview, but he leaves out the quotations of Avot de Rabbi Nathan in later commentaries. Chaim Milikowsky has been rightly critical of synoptic editions without any attempt at a stemmatic analysis, but one should acknowledge the tremendous advantage which Becker’s editions of the manuscripts of Avot de Rabbi Nathan A and B and of the Genizah fragments have over Schechter’s edition, let alone over searching all kinds of “minor midrashim.” See: Chaim Milikowsky, “Further on Editing Rabbinic texts,” JQR 90 (1999): 137−149.
I thank the members of the Talmud study group at the Tilburg School of Theology (Esther van Eenennaam, Jan de Pagter, Jonathan Pater, Martijn Stoutjesdijk, and Zohar van Tijn) for discussing these parables with me.
I translate “cleared” (< KSḤ), emending it from the other versions. MS New York Rab. 25 adds: “they twisted it”; the meaning of this clause is uncertain, but it was undoubtedly meant as a narrative embellishment.
MS Oxford Opp. 95, MS New York Rab. 25, MS New York Rab. 50, and MS Oxford Opp. 247 read: “we collected” (Becker 170).
“For He knows how we were made; He remembers that we are dust” (Ps 103:14 NRSV). In translations, “yizrenu” is often interpreted as “our formation,” but in our parable as “our (evil) impulse.”
Cf. the parable of the Banquet in Luke 14:15−24 (“somebody”) and in Matt 22:1−14 (“a king”); parable of the Talents in Matt 25:14−30 (“a human being, somebody”) and of the Pounds in Luke 19:11−27 (“a highborn person to become king”); and see the two parables about the Jar and the Scorpion in Avot R. Nath. A and B 1.
David Stern, “Rhetoric and Midrash: the Case of the Mashal,” Prooftexts 1 (1981): 261−291, overestimates the king’s parables as contrast (268). For a comparison between king’s parables as contrast and as similarity, see Marcel Poorthuis, “The Invasion of the King: The Virtual Mashal as Foundation of Storytelling,” in Parables in Changing Contexts: Essays of the Study of Parables in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Buddhism, ed. Eric Ottenheijm and Marcel Poorthuis, JCP 35 (Leiden: Brill, 2020), 205–225.
For a collection of rabbinic parables about a po’el, see Catherine Hezser, Lohnmetaphorik und Arbeitswelt in Mt 20, 1–16: Das Gleichnis von den Arbeitern im Weinberg im Rahmen rabbinischer Lohngleichnisse, NTOA 15 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990), 301–310. Our parables do not deal with labourers who receive wages.
See Gustav Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina (Hildesheim: Olms, 1964), 155–159. In addition, there is the ḥoker and the sokher, the difference between them having to do with paying a fixed sum of money, irrespective of the harvest. This does not need to detain us further. Cf. t. Demai 6:2.
Lev. Rab. 5:8.
Pesiq. Rab Kah. 16; Pesiq. Rab. 29–30(A9). Cf. Exod. Rab. 43:9.
Ze’ev Safrai, The Economy of Roman Palestine (London: Routledge, 1994), 335.
Safrai, The Economy, 336.
Cf. Matt 18:24: a debt of ten thousand talents; or Sifre Deut. 26: a loan of 1000 kor each year, which amounts to roughly 230 m3.
See also Teugels’s contribution in this volume.
See Marcel Poorthuis, “Between Jesus and Kafka: The Parables of Seder Eliyahu,” NTT 70 (2016): 224−235, in which the “impossibility” of parables plays a central role.
“Then the one who had received the one talent also came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew that you were a harsh man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed; so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here you have what is yours.’ But his master replied, ‘You wicked and lazy slave! You knew, did you, that I reap where I did not sow, and gather where I did not scatter?’” (Matt 25:24–26, italics are mine).
In New Testament parables, the return of the master should not always be interpreted as the return of Christ, since many rabbinic parables likewise contain this motif of the master’s absence and return.
Safrai, The Economy, 336, possibly jumps too quickly from the level of the Bildfeld to the social reality.
Joachim Jeremias, Die Gleichnisse Jesu (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1978), 41.
Cf. the similar parable of the Corn and Flax Entrusted to Two Servants in S. Eli. Rab. 2. One slave/servant uses the corn and flax to prepare a banquet for his master upon his return from his journey, while the other hides it in the ground.
Craig Evans, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature (Michigan: Baker Academics, 2005), 330–333.
For a recommendation to hide money in the ground, see b. B. Mets. 42a.
The nimshal emphasizes the importance of returning the soul as pure as one has received it. See also Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai’s son, who died as a young Torah scholar (Avot R. Nath. A 14). Even the Torah can be symbolized with a precious and unique treasure to be guarded carefully (cf. Deut. Rab. 8:5).
The confusion about the servant in the parable of the Talents according to the Gospel of the Nazarenes mentioned above, who did nothing with what had been entrusted to him and was still not punished for it, may have been caused by a conflation of these two motifs.
The same topic is dealt with in Avot R. Nath. A 36, and at the end in Avot R. Nath. A 41.
As such, this is of course a misguided depiction of the Christian conviction, but we are dealing with its possible perception within Judaism and not with the theological intricacies.
The status of an ’arīs, a tenant, differs from that of a servant or a slave in that he is allowed to keep the rest of the profit. According to Asher Feldman, The Parables and Similes of the Rabbis, Agricultural and Pastoral (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1924), 39, an ’arīs tills the owner’s ground for a fixed share of the produce. Feldman quotes a midrash which advises an ’arīs to flatter his landlord when he discovers that his crop will be insufficient (40). Cf. also the parable by Rabbi Judah Hanasi about the vineyard of the king handed over to a tenant, who has the right to a certain portion, even when the king takes his own possession (Eccl. Rab. 5:10).
In the translation I follow Schechter’s emendation to read NRH instead of GDH, GRH or GWYH.
MS Vatican 303 jumps from the first “you know” in the mashal to the second “you know” in the nimshal, skipping what is in between. I give what is lacking in italics: “You know that this field that you gave us, from the outset you did not collect anything from it and even now that we fertilized it, cleared, and irrigated it with water, they collected no more than one kor of wheat. Likewise, in the future Israel shall say to the Holy One blessed be He: Lord of the world, You know.”
David Flusser, Die rabbinischen Gleichnisse und der Gleichniserzähler Jesus, vol. 1, Das Wesen der Gleichnisse, JudChr 4 (Bern: Lang 1981), 53, points to the New Testament parable of the Workers in the Vineyard (Matt 20:1−16). We will never know whether the earlier workers were eventually persuaded by the boss’s explanation to give an equal wage to the “workers of the eleventh hour.”
The same prooftext (Gen 8:21) to account for the frail human condition can be found in the more elaborate and later midrash of Exod. Rab. 46:4, in which the yezer (inclination) is connected to a parable about a potter (yozer) who is responsible for the flaws in the pottery. Likewise, God as Creator (yozer, Jer 18:6) is held responsible for the yezer.
I owe this insight to Adiel Kadari. The combination of Gen 8:21 and Ps 103:14 can be found in Gen. Rab. 34:10 as well.
One gets the impression that the second parable is a reworking of the first parable, to render its message even more gripping. However, the relationship between the two parables can only be determined after investigating the entire text of Avot de Rabbi Nathan A and B, while also taking into account oral transmission.
Dov Weiss, Pious Irreverence: Confronting God in Rabbinic Judaism (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017). Weiss limits the “protest-genre” to the time after the Tannaitic period. If our text is really from the Tannaitic period, his periodization should be challenged. In addition, the New Testament parable of the talents, as quoted above, likewise contains “pious irreverence”!
Weiss, Pious Irreverence, 65−70, identifies a transition from anti-protest in early rabbinic literature to pro-protest in later rabbinic literature, often put in the mouth of a well-known biblical hero.
Harvey K. McArthur and Robert Johnston, They Also Taught in Parables: Rabbinic Parables from the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 1990), 114: “The parables of the Rabbis seem to resolve perplexities, the parables of Jesus create them.” This seems untenable to me, as proved by our rabbinic parables of the tenants treated unmercifully.
For a striking example in the New Testament, see the end of the parable of the Pounds: “I tell you, that to every one who has will more be given; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slay them before me” (Luke 19:26−27). See also Marcel Poorthuis, “The Invasion of the King: the Virtual Mashal as Foundation of Storytelling,” in Parables in Changing Contexts, 205−225.
MS New York 10848 (MS Epstein, available until chapter 13) also has an addition, but it reads: “Whoever learns from many teachers, the argument that he [the teacher] neglects for him in Scripture, he [the teacher; perhaps “another teacher” is meant?] will eventually tell him another (reading: aḥer, not eḥad, “one”) in the Midrash.” This reading may consider “many teachers” as a bad circumstance after all, for the teacher forgets to teach what has been skipped over.
More or less the same reading, with an equally corrupt text, can be found in MS Oxford Heb. c. 24 (Halberstam), MS Oxford Opp. 95, and MS New York Rab. 50. These manuscripts more often share readings that differ from MS Oxford Opp. 247, New York Rab. 25 (in general a quite deviant MS), and New York Rab. 1305 (Avot R. Nath. A 6, about Rachel feeding the children, cf. Becker 82 bottom; about a hedge (seyag) Avot R. Nath. A 7 [Becker 98–99]; a parable only in these three manuscripts in Avot R. Nath. A 12 [Becker 130–131]). For MS Oxford 24 and MS Oxford Opp. 95 against all others, see: Becker 204 (Avot R. Nath. A 25). In a few cases, MS Oxford Opp. 247 and MS New York Rab. 25 share a reading different from all other manuscripts (cf. Becker 68–69: saying of Rabbi Joshua (Avot R. Nath. A 4), omitted in all other manuscripts by homoioteleuton; Becker 71: once again, only MS Oxford Opp. 247 and MS New York Rab. 25 have the addition: “Kaḥ hayah mazkir” (N.B. in MS New York Rab. 25 “makriz!”). MS Oxford Opp. 95 frequently skips a line by homoioteleuton (Avot R. Nath. A 20 [Becker 184]; cf. Avot R. Nath. A 29 [Becker 222] and Avot R. Nath. A 30 [Becker 224]). Kister, Avot de Rabbi Nathan, 8, divides the manuscripts of Avot de Rabbi Nathan A into two branches, but that is not supported by my observations.
This strange use of “one” will be clarified presently.
MS New York Rab. 25, MS New York Rab. 1305, and MS New York 10484 (Epstein) contain more or less the same reading. I hesitate to say whether these manuscripts deserve a general priority over the other four. MS New York Rab. 1305 contains an error by homoioteleuton, in the saying of Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob in Avot R. Nath. A 23 (Becker 194). Regrettably, Menahem Kister’s meticulous research in Studies in Avot de-Rabbi Nathan does not, as far as I can ascertain, deal with our parable, although in this case the differences between the manuscripts are quite revealing.
Solomon Schechter, Avot de Rabbi Nathan (New York: Feldheim, 1967), 36, emends “full (maleʾ) of goodness and blessing” into “without (beloʾ) goodness and blessing.” Although the mem and the bet are quite similar and the emendation would solve an inherent tension, there is no textual warrant for it whatsoever.
“Place” is probably meant in the sense of “topic.”
Lit. “as a house of one seʾah,” which means a field that needs one seʾah of seed.
Note that the ending of the parable in Avot R. Nath. A 8 (“he will be seated in his place full of goodness and blessing”) is lacking here. The continuation of the text in Avot de Rabbi Nathan B makes this conclusion problematic.
Food is interpreted as Torah. Cf. Midr. Prov. 31:14.
In Midr. Prov. 5:15, this quotation is explained not as a prohibition on learning Torah far away, but as an exhortation to study nearby first and far away only afterwards.
Unfortunately, the Genizah fragments of this text do not contribute to a reconstruction. See Hans-Jürgen Becker, Geniza-Fragmente zu Avot de-Rabbi Natan, TSAJ 103 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004), 33 (facsimile) and 39 (comment).
The addition to the saying of Pirkei Avot in Avot de Rabbi Nathan B (“provide yourself with a teacher for wisdom”) can be explained as an anticipation of this debate.
For a collection of rabbinic parables about a poʿel, see Hezser, Lohnmetaphorik, 301–310.