A word on the Avot deRabbi Natan

Earlier today Matthew Herbert posed the following question for members of the Ask the Beit Midrash Facebook Group:

Regarding the non canonical Mishanic/Talmudic tractate - Avot D Rabbi Natan which is now included in printed editions of the Talmud. As one from the non canonical tractates such as Cutim, Gerim, Soferim which is pretty much a follow up version to the canonical tractate- Avot

What was the reason for writing such a tractate since the tractate Avot already exist?

Did the author compose it, in the hope that it would or may replace Avot in the rabbinic canon ?

I cannot understand why the book exist otherwise

Anyone has any scholarly ideas or scholarly responses to this ?

A number of comments and responses have already been posted. Interested members of the Avot Today are invited to pitch in and share their own thoughts on the topic. You can follow the discussion here.

My interest in the Avot deRabbi Natan (ADRN) was more than theoretical. When writing my book I had to decide what to do about this work, which duplicated or enlarged much of the content of Pirkei Avot at much greater length (ADRN spans 41 chapters, as against the 6 perakim of mishnayot and baraitot of Pirkei Avot).

In the end, I decided to refer to ADRN quite sparingly. Many people like to treat the ADRN as a sort of gemara on Avot, but if one reads its content one does not get the feeling that it is performing a process of refining and clarifying the meaning of the teachings in Avot that is comparable to the way the gemara works in relation to other mishnaic tractates. To me, at least, the ADRN felt more like a venerable body of source materials which Rabbi Yehudah HaNasi would have known and studied before redacting the altogether more succinct content of Avot that we have today.

There is a further point to note. One is that no teachings in Avot are recorded in the name of Rabbi Natan. This may have been a consequence of an unfortunate incident involving Rebbi's father Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Natan (Horiyot 13b-14a) which resulted in a decision that neither Rabbi Natan's name nor that of Rabbi Meir were to be mentioned in connection with any halachic ruling given by them. While the gemara reflects a degree of ill feeling between these great sages, it need not provide the explanation for the absence of Rabbi Natan's teachings from Pirkei Avot: after all, quite a few eminent sages of the period are also absent from Avot, and other extremely important ones are scarcely cited at all.