THEOLOGICAL CONTEXT 43
Jesus the Nazarene, Doeg, Ahitophel, Gehazi, and Elisha-Aher, and
those who follow their ways— may the name of the wicked rot. It is
possible to know that a person belongs to this faction when one sees
that he contemptuously shakes off any of the commandments, with-
out deriving any benefi t from this act.^68The individuals included in Maimonides’ list of heretics are indeed those
we would expect to see in such a list: Jesus and Elisha Ben Abuya, along
with three of the four biblical fi gures whom the Mishnah (in Sanhedrin
11.2) lists as “commoners” (hedyotot, as opposed to kings) who have no
share in the World to Come: namely, The Edomite Doeg (1 Sam. 21:8–
22:23), Ahitophel (2 Sam. 16:14– 17:14–23) and Gehazi (2 Kings 5:20–
27). These fi gures are mentioned in the Talmudic discussion in Hagigah
(in connection with Elisha Ben Abuya’s preoccupation with Greek music
and heretical books) as having been remarkably learned.^69 Of these fi ve,
the most elaborate picture is given in the Talmud to the fi rst- century El-
isha. Prior to his apostasy, this arch- heretic was considered to be one of
the great sages of his day. But after his apostasy he became anathema to
his former colleagues. His sin was considered to be so great that, accord-
ing to a Talmudic saying, a divine decree singled him out as the only
person for whom no repentance remains possible. His sobriquet aher (lit.
“other”) came to indicate his complete alienation from Judaism.^70 Tal-
mudic literature recounts various stories concerning the reasons and the
nature of Elisha’s apostasy. He is said to have been appalled by the pres-
ence of unjustifi ed and inexplicable suffering in this world; he is described
as having been attracted to Greek learning; he is claimed to have reached
the conclusion that “there are two powers in heaven.” Perhaps the most
ancient anecdote about his apostasy associates it with his unsuccessful
mystical experience, a failed attempt “to enter pardes.” Spiteful contempt
for the commandments— contempt that, according to this passage, char-
acterizes a “heretic”— fi ts the Elisha of the Talmud. Also fi tting to this
image is Maimonides’ insistence in his Commentary on the Mishnah in
Sanhedrin, on the fact that the three commoners, like Elisha, were re-
nowned for their great erudition (izm darajatihim fil-ilm).^71 But some
fundamental elements in the image of Elisha in the Talmud, such as his
confrontation with Metatron and the matter of “two powers in heaven,”
or the concern with theodicy (for example, Elisha’s exclamation, “Is this
Torah and is this its reward?”), are completely absent in the image of the
(^68) Commentary on the Mishnah, Hullin 1.2, Qodashim, 175.
(^69) Commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 10, “Introduction,” in Neziqin, 217.
(^70) On the meaning of this sobriquet, see G. G. Stroumsa, “Aher: A Gnostic,” in B. Layton,
ed.,The Rediscovery of Gnosticism, (Leiden, 1981), 2:808– 18.
(^71) Commentary on the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 10, “Introduction,” in Neziqin, 217.