Jesus in the Talmud

The Torah Teacher 45in the Temple (in order to redeem a vow). The question that arises iswhether this money is forbidden only for cultic purposes but can be usedfor some other purposes, or whether it is prohibited altogether. R. Eliezer,expressing the more stringent halakhic view, prohibits the prostitutionmoney altogether, whereas Jesus/Jacob takes the more lenient approachand permits the money to be spent in the public interest: to build with itbathhouses and privies. Both bathhouses and privies are institutions thatdeal with the disposal of filth—and what better use could be made withmoney that owes its origins to filth (the Bavli almost ironically goes a stepfurther: the money may even be used for building a privy for the HighPriest, presumably on the site of the Temple)? R. Eliezer not only acceptsJacob/Jesus’ halakhic ruling but enjoys in particular the biblical proof textMicah 1:7 and its application to the present case.There is nothing peculiarly Christian about this halakhic discourse.That one rabbi expresses a more stringent and his opponent a more lenientview is commonplace, as is the result that the more lenient decisionbecomes the accepted one. So shall we dismiss R. Eliezer’s own “discovery”—thathe was convicted of heresy because he enjoyed this particularhalakhic exposition—as completely unreliable? Two answers to this questionare possible that do not exclude but mutually supplement each other.The first, and quite obvious, answer is that the question of whether or notthe contents of the Halakha as such point to Christianity is irrelevant. Thebiblical command “Remove your way far from her, and do not come nearto the door of her house” (Prov. 5:8) refers, according to R. Eliezer’s owninterpretation, to heresy and the ruling Roman power. He transgressedthis verdict in getting involved with someone who was known as a studentof Jesus and notorious for his heretical views. In other words, it is not importantwhat has been said and taught but rather who did it. Even if theteachings of the heretic are concordant with the rabbis and hence halakhicallycorrect—this does not matter: they are invalid and dangerousbecause they come from a heretic.But still, even if any contact with a heretic is forbidden (the correctnessof their halakhic deductions notwithstanding), this does not seem to be thefull story. If we take a closer look at the biblical verse from Proverbs (5:8),we may discover a deeper meaning. This verse, with which R. Eliezer concludeshis self-searching in all three versions of our story, originally refers