Roman Hegemon and Divine Judgement: R’ Eliezer’s Heresy Trial and a Teaching Attributed to Jesus on Using a Prostitute's Earnings to Fund a Temple Bathroom (Avodah Zarah 16b-17a)
Outline
R’ Eliezer’s Trial Before the Romans for Heresy and Acquittal
R’ Eliezer’s Refusal of Consolation and R’ Akiva’s Insight
A Follower of Jesus and His Teaching on Using Prostitute's Earnings to Fund a Temple Bathroom (Deuteronomy 23:19; Micah 1:7)
The Passage
R’ Eliezer’s Trial Before the Romans for Heresy and Acquittal
The Talmud quotes a baraita that recounts an incident where R’ Eliezer (fl. early 2nd century CE) was arrested and charged with heresy (מינות) by the ruling Roman authorities.1
When brought before a tribunal2 for judgement, the judicial officer3 asked R' Eliezer why “an elder such as yourself“ (זקן שכמותך) should have engaged in “in these frivolous matters“ (דברים בטלים הללו).
R' Eliezer responded that he trusted "the judge" to rule correctly, referring to God. Misunderstanding this, the officer believed R' Eliezer was referring to him and, feeling trusted, acquitted him.4
ת"ר:
כשנתפס ר"א למינות, העלהו לגרדום לידון
אמר לו אותו הגמון: זקן שכמותך יעסוק בדברים בטלים הללו?!
אמר לו: נאמן עלי הדיין
כסבור אותו הגמון: עליו הוא אומר,
והוא לא אמר אלא כנגד אביו שבשמים
אמר לו: הואיל והאמנתי עליך, דימוס, פטור אתה
The Sages taught:
When R' Eliezer was arrested and charged with heresy by the authorities, they brought him up to a tribunal to be judged.
A certain judicial officer [hegemon] said to him: Why should an elder like you engage in these frivolous matters of heresy?
R' Eliezer said to him: The Judge is trusted by me to rule correctly.
That officer thought that R' Eliezer was speaking about him;
but in fact he said this only in reference to his Father in Heaven. R' Eliezer meant that he accepted God’s judgment, i.e., if he was charged he must have sinned to God in some manner.
The officer said to him: Since you put your trust in me, you are acquitted [dimos]; you are exempt.
R’ Eliezer’s Refusal of Consolation and R’ Akiva’s Insight
When R' Eliezer returned home, his students tried to console him, but he refused their consolation.
R' Akiva then suggested that perhaps some heretical statement had come to R' Eliezer, which he enjoyed, and this (divinely) led to his arrest (נתפסת) and trial.
כשבא לביתו, נכנסו תלמידיו אצלו לנחמו, ולא קיבל עליו תנחומין
אמר לו ר"ע: רבי, תרשיני לומר דבר אחד ממה שלימדתני
אמר לו: אמור
אמר לו: רבי, שמא מינות בא לידך, והנאך, ועליו נתפסת?
אמר לו: עקיבא, הזכרתני
When R' Eliezer came home, his students entered to console him for being accused of heresy, which he took as a sign of sin, and he did not accept their words of consolation.
R' Akiva said to him: My teacher, allow me to say one matter from all of that which you taught me.
R' Eliezer said to him: Speak.
R' Akiva said to him: My teacher, perhaps some statement of heresy came before you and you derived pleasure from it, and because of this you were held responsible by Heaven.
R' Eliezer said to him: Akiva, you are right, as you have reminded me
A Follower of Jesus and His Teaching on Using Prostitute's Earnings to Fund a Temple Bathroom (Deuteronomy 23:19; Micah 1:7)
R' Eliezer acknowledged this, recounting an encounter in the “Upper Souk" (שוק העליון) of Tzippori with Ya’akov of Kefar Sekhanya, a student of Jesus (ישו הנוצרי):5
Ya’akov asked about the biblical law prohibiting using payment from prostitution to buy a sacrifice,6 if the payment from prostitution could be used to pay for making a bathroom for the High Priest (in the Temple).
R' Eliezer didn't respond.
Ya’akov went on to say that Jesus taught it was permitted, as derived from Micah 1:7, interpreting it to say that “money from filth should be used for a place of filth”.
R' Eliezer admitted deriving pleasure from this interpretation, which divinely led to his arrest for heresy, as it went against a halachic prohibition to listen to heresy, based on a homiletic interpretation of Proverbs 5:8.7
פעם אחת, הייתי מהלך בשוק העליון של ציפורי
ומצאתי אחד ומתלמידי ישו הנוצרי, ויעקב איש כפר סכניא שמו
אמר לי:
כתוב בתורתכם (דברים כג, יט): "לא תביא אתנן זונה [וגו']",
מהו לעשות הימנו בית הכסא לכהן גדול?
ולא אמרתי לו כלום
אמר לי:
כך לימדני ישו הנוצרי:
(מיכה א, ז): "כי מאתנן זונה קבצה,
ועד אתנן זונה ישובו"
ממקום הטנופת באו, למקום הטנופת ילכו
והנאני הדבר
על ידי זה נתפסתי למינות
ועברתי על מה שכתוב בתורה:
״הרחק מעליה דרכך״ — זו מינות,
״ואל תקרב אל פתח ביתה״ — זו הרשות.
Once I was walking in the upper marketplace of Tzippori,
and I found a man who was one of the students of Jesus the Nazarene, and his name was Ya’akov of Kefar Sekhanya.
He said to me:
It is written in your Torah: “You shall not bring the payment to a prostitute, or the price of a dog, into the house of the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 23:19).
What is the halakha: Is it permitted to make from the payment to a prostitute for services rendered a bathroom for a High Priest in the Temple?
And I said nothing to him in response.
He said to me:
Jesus the Nazarene taught me the following:
It is permitted, as derived from the verse: “For of the payment to a prostitute she has gathered them,
and to the payment to a prostitute they shall return” (Micah 1:7).
Since the coins came from a place of filth, let them go to a place of filth and be used to build a bathroom.
And I derived pleasure from the statement,
and due to this, I was arrested for heresy by the authorities,
because I transgressed that which is written in the Torah:
“Remove your way far from her, and do not come near the entrance of her house” (Proverbs 5:8). “Remove your way far from her,” this is a reference to heresy;
“and do not come near the entrance of her house,” this is a reference to the ruling authority.
This trial is likely related to both the aftermath of the Bar Kochba rebellion, as well as the Roman persecution of Christians.
גרדום.
Jastrow: “place of torture and execution, (Roman) executioner’s scaffold, gallows.”
See examples here: גרדום - ויקימילון. The word likely stems from Latin gradus, meaning “step, stage", and should be read as gradum, see Hebrew Wiktionary there.
In Latin, the Hebrew name Ya’akov is typically transliterated as Jacob. The Ya’akov here has been speculated to be James son of Alphaeus (יעקב בן חלפי) mentioned in the New Testament, see Hebrew Wikipedia, יעקב איש כפר סכניא, section פרשנות, and bibliography cited there.
As stated in Deuteronomy.23.19 (with adjustments to the translation, as needed):
לא־תביא אתנן זונה
ומחיר כלב
בית יהוה אלהיך
לכל־נדר
כי תועבת יהוה אלהיך גם־שניהם
Thou shalt not bring the fee of a prostitute (אתנן זונה),
or the price of a dog (מחיר כלב),
into the house of the LORD thy God
for any vow;
for both these are an abomination unto the LORD thy God. .
See the rabbinic elaboration of the law in this verse at Hebrew Wikipedia, אתנן זונה ומחיר כלב.
Notably, see the opinion and biblical interpretation of R’ Eliezer (the protagonist in our story) in Mishnah_Parah.2.3, regarding the fee of a prostitute (אתנן זונה) or the price of a dog (מחיר כלב) in the context of the red heifer (פרה אדומה), with adjustments to the translation as needed:
יוצא דפן
ואתנן
ומחיר —
פסולה.
רבי אליעזר מכשיר,
“שנאמר (דברים כג): “לא תביא אתנן זונה ומחיר כלב בית ה' אלהיך,
ואין זו באה לבית.
[One that is born] “from the side” (יוצא דפן - i.e. from a Caesarean section)
the fee [of a prostitute] (אתנן)
or the price [of a dog] (מחיר) —
is invalid.
R’ Eliezer says that it is valid,
as it says, "You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the price of a dog into the house of the Lord your God," (Deuteronomy 23:19)
and this [=the red heifer] is not brought into the house (i.e. the Temple).
Homiletically interpreting the “seductress” as a metaphor for heresy (מינות).
General analysis, from a literary and historical perspective:
Christian-Jewish Interaction
The passage reflects a historical moment of interaction between early Christians and Jews, before the final split of Christianity and Judaism (often referred to as the “parting of the ways“). The reference to a "student of Jesus" and his halakhic reasoning suggests that early Christians still operated within a framework of Jewish law and exegesis.
The use of Jesus’ name emphasizes the perceived threat of Christian teachings to Jewish tradition.
Roman Context
R' Eliezer’s arrest points to Roman authorities’ suspicion of Jewish leaders, especially those seen as engaging in deviant or rebellious ideas. Heresy could be interpreted as a political threat in addition to a religious one.
This reflects broader Roman surveillance of both Jewish and Christian movements during the aftermath of the Bar Kochba rebellion.
Compare Roman persecution of Christians in general, mentioned in a previous footnote, and the talmudic story of the trial of Jesus' five disciples, in my piece “Joy, Waterskin, and Students of Jesus: Talmudic Wordplay on the Names of Heretics (Sukkah 48b; Sanhedrin 43a)“, section “The Trial of Jesus's Five Disciples (=Apostles): A Narrative of Names, Scriptural Wordplay, and Verdicts (Sanhedrin 43a)“.
Tzippori as a Setting
Tzippori (=Sepphoris) was a significant urban center in Late Roman Galilee. The mention of its marketplace as the setting highlights the cosmopolitan and multi-religious nature of the region, where Jews, Christians, and pagans interacted regularly.
Talmudic Polemic
The passage likely serves a polemical purpose, warning against the allure of Christian teachings. By showing a revered rabbi punished for his engagement with such ideas, the text reinforces the dangers of biblical interpretations of non-rabbinic personalities.
Compare my previous series on dialogues over the correct interpretations of biblical verses, which clearly includes many debates with Christians: “Defending God, Biblical Monotheism, and Jewish Distinctiveness: Twelve Dialogues Between Sages and Challengers in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 38b-39a)“, final part here.