Jacob the Heretic and Zecharia Meshulam

The Talmud is full of stories of heretics and their early polemics with the rabbis — often over verses in the Bible, and much has been written about these interactions and the verses under question. This essay focuses on one largely anonymous figure in these debates, Jacob the Heretic, by closely considering the biblical verse chosen for his disputes with the sages. Jacob’s true intentions and religious background are far from clear, and this essay will look at the content of his biblical polemics to uncover additional details about his persona.

In three different occasions, the Talmud discusses the dealings of the sages with Jacob the Heretic, but each of the three fails to provide explicit, accurate background and context for the figure, the religion he represented, or why he became a heretic. In one of the three sources, Jacob the Heretic engages in biblical polemic about the identity of the figure “Zecharia¹ Meshulam” in Nehemiah 8:4, and this essay addresses why this figure was of interest to the heretics and sages of the early Talmudic period. More is known about a different heretic, with a similar name but a different identity, Jacob of Kfar Sachnia. The latter was an early Christian of the Mishnaic period, living in Israel, who met Rebbi Akiva once in Tzipori (TB Avodah Zara 17a), and also Ben Dama the nephew of R. Yishmael (TB Avodah Zara 27b, Tosefta Hullin 2:6) according to uncensored versions of the Talmud.² However, Jacob the Heretic lived more than a century later, around the year 300, in Israel, Babylon or both (see Tosafot Avodah Zara 17a, s.v. Jacob; Sefer Ha-Yashar 464). Furthermore, whereas Jacob of Kfar Sachina is explicitly identified as being a Christian, Jacob the Heretic is referred to as a heretic (“Ya’akov Minah”), without any additional information about his specific religion or type of heresy. We shall demonstrate that it is perhaps his debate about Nehemiah 8:4 which provides the greatest insight about his background and character.

Nehemiah 8:4 lists thirteen names for Ezra’s students. “Ezra the scribe stood upon a wooden tower made for the purpose, and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Uriah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah at his right, and at his left Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchijah, and Hashum, and Hashbaddanah, and Zecharia, Meshullam.” Notably, the first twelve names on the list are preceded by a copulative vav, and the last one, Meshulam, is not. The copulative vav can be used in many different ways when it appears in long lists, and this unique sentence structure with the final entry missing the vav does appear on Ibn Ezra’s list of permutations of uses of the copulative vav (Ex. 1:4). Still, it is unusual and surprising, and this begs the question whether there are thirteen students listed, or twelve, with the last of twelve students having two names. Though uncommon, other biblical figures also had two names appearing side by side in one verse, such as Isaiah’s children (Isa. 7:3 and 7:14, II Kgs. 21:1), and one of the figures who sent a question to Zecharia the prophet (Zech. 7:2).³ Thus, the verse can be read in one of two ways, albeit each with significant difficulty: referencing either one individual with two names, or two individuals whose names are missing a conjunction in between them.

Jacob the Heretic appears in three different contexts in the Talmud. Avodah Zara 28a makes clear that he was a heretic, and outside the Jewish faith. There, the Talmud discusses receiving medical care from idolaters and heretics, such as from Jacob of Kfar Sachnia, and later concludes that a Jew could not have received medical attention from Jacob the Heretic because he was a heretic or idol-worshiper. Indeed, Jacob the Heretic once attempted to kill the sage R. Avahu by poisoning him while treating him medically — even at the risk of Jacob’s own life,⁴ and the risk of a loss of his medical license.

TB Hullin 84a further demonstrates the discomfort the sages had with Jacob the Heretic. Here, the conflict is an exegetical concern posed upon Leviticus 17:13, which does not challenge a core principle of Judaism. Jacob asks why the blood of a domesticated animal is not included in the law of covering the blood in Leviticus 17:13, “And if any Israelite or any stranger who resides among them hunts down an animal [chaya] or a bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth,” as the rabbis had argued. Rava replies “Concerning you the verse says upon the ground you should spill it like water (Deut. 12:16).” Rava’s response is clearly a pun: on its surface level, he replied to the legal question by saying the blood of a domesticated mammal does not need to be covered because it is compared to water in the verse. Yet, below the surface, Rava hints at Jacob himself, “concerning you” — a heretic,⁵ the verse says that your blood ought to be spilled on the ground like water, a statement consistent with the way rabbis spoke about heretics at the time of the Talmud.⁶ The exegetical problem posed by Leviticus 17:13 is rather minor; indeed, the simple reading of the verse supports the rabbis’ exclusion of domesticated animals, as the verse explicitly mentions only birds and undomesticated animals and consequently likely excludes domesticated mammals. Though the argument is largely inconsequential, the format of the argument demonstrates the tension between Jacob and the rabbis.

These first two appearances of Jacob the Heretic, clearly polemical in nature, shed important light on the third and final occasion where he appears, the context discussing Nehemiah 8:4. Since this text is not overtly polemical, commentators both in the modern period⁷ and in the middle ages⁸ mistakenly argue that the third context actually refers to a different Jacob. Yet, the use of the same unusual name in the three polemical contexts strongly suggests it was the one same heretic in all cases.

The Talmudic discussion in TB Megilah 23a is perplexing, and we reproduce the discussion below, before a few observations about the discussion. Jacob the Heretic asked Rav Yehudah: Why are there 6 aliyot on Yom Kippur? Rav Yehudah answered, corresponding to the 6 men who stood at Ezra’s right, and the 6 men who stood at Ezra’s left, as it says (Neh. 8:4) “And Ezra stood on a platform of wood, which was made for this purpose, and they stood beside him on his right 1 Matityah, and 2 Shema, and 3 Anayah and 4 Uriyah and 5 Hilkiyah and 6 Ma’aseyah, and from his left 1 Pedayah, and 2 Miyshael, and 3 Malkiyah, and 4 Hashum, and 5 Hashbadanah and 6 Zechariah Meshulam.” But these are seven [people]? Zecharia is Meshulam; but why did they call him Meshulam? Because he was complete (Shaleim) in his work.

Quite a few questions present themselves:

1. Of all matters to interest a heretic, why are the number of Aliyot on Yom Kippur of interest?
2. How does the story of Nehemiah chapter 8 — which took place on Rosh Hashanah⁹ — serve to answer the question? And even if 6 people stood beside Ezra, why would this become the precedent for the number of Aliyot on Yom Kippur?¹⁰
3. Why did R. Yehudah answer that there were 6 on the right and 6 on the left, if a simple reading of the text indicates there were 7 on the left?
4. Even if there were 6 to the right and 7 to the left, why can’t the 6 on the right serve as the precedent for the Aliyot of Yom Kippur and seven to the left as the precedent for the aliyot on Shabbat? Why is the Talmud so insistent that it was 6 and 6?
5. Wouldn’t a simpler answer to the question of aliyot be to use logic and not a Biblical verse? Since Yom Kippur is one step lower than Shabbat (since it does not carry the death penalty, Ex. 31:15), but one step above a regular holiday (since it does carry the penalty of kareit, Lev. 23:20), is it not logical that it has 6 Aliyot, not 7 like Shabbat and 5 like holidays?¹¹
6. By what argument could R. Yehudah have legitimately claimed Zecharia Meshulam to be one person?

In an effort to answer these questions, I posit that the polemical argument should be read in reverse; namely that the debate begins with the identity of Zecharia Meshulam and concludes with the Torah reading on Yom Kippur. This is reasonable, as an early Christian would easily argue about the meaning of a difficult passage in the Bible but would likely not argue about the number of aliyot in rabbinic practice.

The major exegetical question in Nehemiah 8:4 is the total number of disciples present, whether there were 12 students or 13. A story of a charismatic Jewish leader during the Second Temple period who stands with his 12 disciples would have been of interest to Jews and Christians engaged in early polemics and debates, and so one sees in R. Yehudah’s reading a desire to reassert Jewish control over the story of the “leader and 12 disciples.” R. Yehudah would be telling Jacob the Heretic that the original or true story of the leader and his 12 students comes from the time of Ezra, and not from the time of early Christianity and the destruction of the temple.¹²

To this reading, the Talmud insists on 6 students to the right and 6 to the left to clarify a polemical argument, and only later moves on to the legal argument which appears first in the Talmudic discussion. Once the specific number six — and exactly six (6 x 2 = 12) — is established in the context of Torah reading, the Talmud then circles back and adds that the 6 aliyot of Yom Kippur are designed to recall this moment. Thus, the holiday Torah reading reaffirms the polemical reading of the verse; it is not the origin point of the discussion.

Beyond the polemical considerations of this particular verse, the connection between the two names “Zecharia” and “Meshulam” is intriguing. More than a dozen different people in the Bible are named Meshulam, with the name appearing a total of 25 times, almost exclusively in the books written in the early second temple period. The most prominent is Meshulam son of Berchya, who appears three times in Nehemiah (3:4, 3:30, 6:18), but the name also belongs to multiple Kohanim (10:4, 11:11, 12:13-16), a Benjaminite (11:7), a Levite (12:25), a son of the leader of the return Zerubavel (I Chron. 3:19; see Radak), a Gadite (1:5:13) and others. Surprisingly, the name Meshulam is paired with the name Zecharia on three occasions (12% of the time): our verse, Ezra 8:16 and II Chronicles 34:12. The recurrence of these two names near each other is statistically noteworthy, but it is hard to imagine why the two names would often go together. It is possible that the two were brothers and this was the reason they would often appear together side by side and even on one occasion without a copular vav.¹³ It would be mere conjecture, but it is otherwise difficult to make sense of this statistical irregularity.

Whether or not one grants that the verse has polemical overtones, the core exegetical problem with Nehemiah 8:4 must be addressed by any commentator: the Bible presents a list of 13 names, with the final two names appearing without a vav in between. The Talmud adopts one view (that there were indeed only 12 people present), for potentially polemical reasons. The rules of grammar do allow one to argue that the vav is merely missing, although the reasons for this departure from expectation in this one context have still not been fully established or explained. Were there 12 or 13 students? We may never know for certain. But any serious student of the Bible would grant that this is a difficult verse, worthy of consideration and thought.

Often, Jewish biblical exegesis has been shaped and informed by the polemics and debates between Judaism and other faith systems, and the interpretation of several key passages in the Bible clearly reflects this charged atmosphere.¹⁴ Serious students of the Bible must always be aware and mindful of situations when the interpretation is prompted by external considerations as much as internal ones. Nehemiah 8:4 is a good example in which to consider both the internal/grammatical and external/polemical considerations and what indeed was the primary precipitant for a particular piece of exegesis.