Elisha Price
Introduction
R. Moses Maimonides, or Rambam, one of the greatest theologians to ever live, famously excludes four groups of people from the Mishnaic principle that all Jews have a portion in the World to Come[1] on the basis of wrongful theology: minim, epikorsim,[2] koferim ba-Torah (deniers of Torah), and koferim be-tehi’at ha-meitim u-ve-vi’at ha-go’eil (deniers of the Resurrection and of the Messianic Era).[3] The latter categories are readily understood: to deny a certain theological principle of a faith is to distance oneself from that faith. As such, one cannot claim to be deserving of heaven by dint of their status as “Jew” if they have removed themselves from the Jewish faith community. The other two, however, are much less clear. Hazal’s use of each term varies, making their core sense difficult to pin down. Maimonides himself provides a descriptive definition:
Five individuals are described as minim:
a) one who says there is no God nor ruler of the world;
b) one who accepts the concept of a ruler, but maintains that there are two or more;
c) one who accepts that there is one Master [of the world], but maintains that He has a body or form;
d) one who maintains that He was not the sole First Being and Creator of all existence;
e) one who serves a star, constellation, or other entity so that it will serve as an intermediary between him and the eternal Lord. …
Three individuals are described as Epikorsim:
a) one who denies the existence of prophecy and maintains that there is no knowledge communicated from God to the hearts of men;
b) one who disputes the prophecy of Moses, our teacher;
c) one who maintains that the Creator is not aware of the deeds of men. …[4]
For Maimonides, apparently, each term may be better described as a category of heresies than as a particular heresy. And yet, one cannot escape the feeling that there is more to these terms.
Epikorsut
Indeed, Epikorus (singular) is likely a derivative of the Greek Επίκουρος, i.e. Epicurus, the name of a philosopher of the fourth century BCE whose worldview was predicated on a radical materialism that rejects supernaturalism.[5] Thus, it may be said that an epikorus is, in fact, an Epicurean.[6] Indeed, this fits Maimonides’ list quite nicely: Epicurus, who believes that maximalization of hedonistic pleasure is the purpose of life,[7] must deny the notion of Divine Law or Lawgiver, even if he can accept the concept of a God or gods (as he does), for such would imply greater purpose and impose limits on one’s pleasure-seeking activities. Thus, for an Epicurean, providence is a nonstarter, even if there is a God or gods.[8] It is therefore no surprise that when Maimonides refers to those philosophers who reject providence, he uses the term epikorus.[9]
The Sages say very little about the epikorus to confirm or deny this thesis. In three places, they address the term, but in all three cases they provide what may be more properly termed an “indication” rather than a definition:
The epikorus: R. Joḥanan and R. Elazar, one said [that an epikorus is] like him who said [scornfully] “this book” [i.e., the Torah] and one said, like him who said [scornfully] “these rabbis” (y. Sanhedrin 10:1).
“Because he has despised the word of the Lord” (Num. 15:31): this is a reference to an epikorus (Sanhedrin 99a).
Epikorus: Rab and R. Ḥanina both say: This is one who treats a Torah scholar with contempt. R. Joḥanan and R. Joshua b. Levi say: This is one who treats another with contempt before a Torah scholar (Sanhedrin 99b).
In all three places, rather than define the term, the Sages opt to indicate the epikorus by describing his most noticeable deviancies. Nowhere in the writings of the Sages can a proper definition for the epikorus––that is to say, a breakdown of where an epikorus differs from a rabbinic Jew theologically––be found. An epikorus may be characterized, though not defined, by his irreverent behavior towards Torah and her scholars. The lack of definition is itself telling: the only reason the Sages would fail to provide a definition for such a ubiquitous term is if they felt it unnecessary. Said otherwise, the absence of definition in the writings of the Sages demonstrates that the term was popularly known. It is often unnecessary for a twenty-first-century author to define terms like “Aristotelian” or “communist”; such terminology can be assumed in most contexts. So too was Epicureanism in the times of the Sages: as a philosophy that denied the transcendent, it was a main combatant of Judaism and, more acutely, Christianity in (approximately) the first five centuries CE, and was thus a known entity.
Interestingly, this definition of epikorus loses traction in the centuries after Epicureanism lost its cultural prevalence. In the fifteenth century, the great Mishnaic commentator, R. Obadiah of Bartenura (c. 1445-1515), defines the epikorus like this:
To an epikorus: This is an expression of ownerlessness [or surrender] (hefkeir), since he disgraces the Torah and treats it as if it were ownerless. Alternatively, he makes himself as though he were ownerless [for] he cares not for his soul, lest evil come upon him [in retribution] for his desecration of the Torah and her scholars.[10]
For this commentator, the Sages’ indication is treated as though it were a definition. This is hardly surprising: such legalists and Talmud commentators as Rambam or Bartenura would be expected to maintain Talmudic “definitions” rather than supply their own.[11] Thus, working with the very limited information he had, R. Obadiah was cornered into this definition (though he does postulate a linguistic connection between the root of “hefkeir” [P-K-R] and “epikorus” in support). Broadly speaking, this more vague definition has been the one preserved by the rabbinic tradition ever since.
Minut
More interesting, especially within the writings of the Sages, is the other term Maimonides mentions: the min. Usually translated ‘heretics,’ minim are typically understood to be Jews who have left the faith––not those who convert to other religions, but those who reject certain basic tenets of the Jewish faith.
Traditional minut normatively refers to the acceptance of a pantheon of gods (often most closely associated with Trinitarian Christianity),[12] and not the atheistic rejection of God (though such is not unfounded in the writings of the Sages).[13] Thus, the Mishnah states that the “minim declare that there are multiple forces in Heaven.”[14] In a similar vein, the Talmud records a min asking R. Simlai (c. 250-290) “how many gods created the world,” intrigued as he was by the plural language employed in Genesis 1.[15] These generic uses of the term indicate the general scope of its use: a min is a Jew whose views of God are so maverick as to constitute heresy, usually on the issue of His singularity or simplicity.
Thus, Heinrich Guggenheimer writes in his notes on the Jerusalem Talmud that the word ‘min’ “always denotes a Jewish Christian.”[16] Christianity is indeed the most obvious candidate for minut; to the rabbis’ eyes, it was neither proper idolatry nor was it a correct understanding of the God of Abraham. Hence it was often deemed heretical rather than idolatrous. One of the clearest examples of min being used in reference to a Christian in the Talmud is the following incident:
It so happened with R. Eliezer b. Dama, the son of R. Ishmael’s sister, that a snake bit him, and Jacob, a man from Kfar Sekhanya, came to heal him [MS Vienna adds, “in the name of Jeshua ben Panteira[17]”] and R. Ishmael did not allow it. He said to him, “You are not allowed, b. Dama!” [R. Eliezer b. Dama] said to him, “I will bring you proof that he can heal me,” [i.e., that it is permitted to allow him to perform the healing,] but he did not have enough time to bring him proof before he died. R. Ishmael said, “[R. Eliezer] b. Dama is fortunate that he departed to eternal peace, and did not tear down the fences of the Sages, before [divine] retribution came upon him,” as it is said (Ecc. 10:8), “He who tears down a fence will be bitten by a snake” (Tosefta Hullin 2:6).[18]
Details of the story aside, what is important to us is that Jacob of Sekhanya, a known Christian of second-century Judea, is here considered to be a min, ostensibly for the crime of being Christian. This story––and the many stories like it––represents the strongest evidence for the claim that minut was meant to slyly refer to Christianity. A second very compelling bit of evidence is the Tosefta’s ruling that “the [Torah] scrolls of heretics are not saved from burning” on the Sabbath, as saving the scrolls would constitute a violation of the laws of the Sabbath, something only permissible to save proper Torah scrolls, but not those of heretics.[19] Why, though, would a common heretic have a Torah scroll? Certainly neither atheist nor pagan would feel the need to commission one (a hefty expense), so the most likely candidate is the Christian. This is not absolute proof––after all, the heretic in this passage may be a Jew who regards himself as pious but has maverick positions about the nature of God––but it is indicative, when considered along with the previous argument, that the term min is often used to refer to Christians, or––at least––to Jewish Christians. Another potential bit of evidence may be gleaned from the Talmudic sage R. Sheshet’s aversion to praying while facing East. As he explains to his companion, the reason he is so averse to facing East during prayers “is not because [the East] does not contain the Divine Presence, but because such is the instruction of the minim.”[20] This may be yet another hidden reference to the Christians; several Church Fathers do indeed instruct their followers to pray while facing East.[21]
However, as we will argue, this is not the primary meaning of the term in the writings of the Sages. That honor belongs to the early Gnostics,[22] not the mainstream Christians. There are several early rabbinic sources that indicate the correctness of that assertion, but the most explicit of them is the following injunction, found in the Mishnah:
One who says “May the good ones bless you,” this is the way of minut (Megillah 4:9).
As the Jerusalem Talmud elucidates, the clear implication of this passage is that the min believes in “two powers,”[23] one of which is evil and the other of which is good. This is clearly referring to a Jewish Gnostic; that is to say, a Jew who follows the teachings of the Gnostics.
Other early rabbinic sources also indicate that min refers to a Jewish Gnostic. In another passage, the Mishnah is concerned with the minim who believe that “there are many forces in heaven.”[24] This statement would not make sense coming from a Jewish Christian; though a Christian may believe that God is Trinitarian, they affirm His essential oneness wholeheartedly. Only a pagan or a Gnostic could have uttered this statement, and it is inconceivable that the Mishnah would use so tame a term as min to describe a pagan.[25] Other, more obscure sources demonstrate the same. Twice, the Mishnah proscribes the dual recitation of “modim, modim (we give thanks; we give thanks)”[26] in one’s prayer because it sounds like they are praying to two different gods.[27] Though Abraham Cohen links this to Persian dualism,[28] we would expect a much firmer response to such acute idolatry, especially from the Mishnah. Hence, Gnostic dualism practiced by Jews seems like a far more fitting candidate for the source of the Mishnah’s concern.
Though we have not presented every available source for each position, the reader has likely realized that the view we are arguing for––namely, that the min is a Jewish Gnostic, rather than an atheist, Jewish Christian, or generic heretic––can hardly boast its quantity of sources, which is roughly similar to those of the other views. However, those other positions are largely supported by later Talmudic and Midrashic traditions, whereas the Gnostic theory is primarily borne out from earlier Mishnaic sources. This indicates that the original definition of min was in line with our Gnostic theory, but that the meaning later evolved to one or all of the other options, in accordance with communal need. After all, Gnosticism largely faded from the public discourse sometime in the fifth century, about a century before the Talmud was completed. It seems quite reasonable that the Talmudic sages would appropriate this Mishnaic term for their own purposes, stripping away its archaic––and now meaningless––connotations and interpolating their own, more relevant, definitions in their place.
With all this in mind, we will now take another look at Maimonides’ description of the min:
Five individuals are described as minim:
a) one who says there is no God nor ruler of the world;
b) one who accepts the concept of a ruler, but maintains that there are two or more;
c) one who accepts that there is one Master [of the world], but maintains that He has a body or form;
d) one who maintains that He was not the sole First Being and Creator of all existence;
e) one who serves a star, constellation, or other entity so that it will serve as an intermediary between him and the eternal Lord…
Right away, we notice that no single definition can satisfy all of Maimonides’ descriptors. For example, though a Jewish Christian may believe that God can take human form (c),[29] he would surely deny that He was not the sole Creator (d). Rather, Maimonides’ list contains one or two heretical positions taken by each type of min. Thus, the atheist denies God’s existence (a); the Christian denies His singularity (b)[30] and his formlessness (c); the pagan (a later definition of min) serves stars and constellations as intermediaries (e);[31] and the Gnostic maintains that the Hebrew God was not the First Being and Creator of all existence (d).
Conclusion
What we have observed over the course of this article is an evolution of terminology. It is important to stress that it is not theology that changed––that, for example, originally Gnosticism was problematic, then it became acceptable but Trinitarianism became taboo––but the meaning behind the terms. Epikorus, as we have shown, originally referred to Jewish adherents of Epicurean philosophy, i.e., the Jews who subscribed to the tenets of Epicurean materialism. This was and is a repugnant heresy: the insistence on materialism characteristic of Epicureanism belies the supernaturalism at the heart of all revealed faiths, including Judaism. However, as Epicureanism faded into history, it no longer became necessary to reserve a term for them; hence, epikorus evolved to include all sorts of apostasies, including the denial of prophecy or Mosaic revelation.
Parallel to this, the definition of the term ‘min’ also underwent an evolutionary process. Though it now refers to heresy in the most generic sense of the word, it once had a very specific connotation. Though several hypotheses have been presented, we have argued here that the term was originally intended to refer to Jewish Gnostics; that is, Jews who subscribe to the Gnostic worldview. Over the course of the first few centuries CE, as Gnosticism faded and Christianity rose (and as Trinitarianism became the official doctrine of the Church after the Council of Nicea in 325 CE), the word was given new meaning to reflect the needs of the day. By the time of the Talmud’s composition, few Jews were falling prey to the doctrines of Gnosticism, but Christianity––including Jewish Chrstianity––was in full bloom. It thus became necessary to adapt the rabbinic terminology to reflect these more relevant concerns. In the following centuries, as Christianity became a truly separate faith and willful conversions between Judaism and Christianity grew sparse, even this was no longer needed. Hence, min became the generic term for Jewish heretics, parallel to the use of epikorus for Jewish apostates. And, though it is these latter definitions which are reflected in the writings of Rambam, we have shown that the earlier meanings are preserved in the comments of the Sages.
[2] Translation for these phrases will be developed over the course of the article. Preliminarily, we might say that minim means “heretics” and epikorsim means “apostates.”
[3] Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Laws of Repentance 3:6.
[4] Ibid. 3:7-8. Trans. Eliyahu Touger, Moznaim Publishing, with adaptations by author. Other translations below are by the author, unless otherwise specified.
[5] See David Konstan, “Epicurus”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2025 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.).
[6] This is not a novel idea. For example, Heinrich W. Guggenheimer employed this definition of epikorus in his 1999-2015 translation of the Jerusalem Talmud. For an overview of the Sages’ thoughts about Epicureanism, see Yaakov Jaffe, “The Fourth Chapter of Avot as an Extended Reflection on Epicurean Philosophy,” The Lehrhaus (December 25, 2019).
[7] Ibid.
[8] See Tim O’Keefe, Epicureanism (University of California Press, 2010), 155-156.
[9] Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed 3:17:1. This is not to say that the definition of epikorsut we have just suggested would have been accepted by Maimonides. Just that, since the term originally referred to Epicureanism in the early Hazalic writings, Maimonides’ examples often reflect that definition.
[10] Bartenura to Avot 2:14, s.v. “le-Epikorus.”
[11] This definition can also be found in the writings of Maimonides; see commentary to Mishnah Sanhedrin, intro. to ch. 10. Maimonides himself gives a second definition of Epikorus which is somewhat lacking in critical boundaries. That is to say, it is extremely vague and extremely general:
The epikorsim are those who stray after the thoughts of their hearts, concerning themselves with the foolish matters mentioned above, until they ultimately transgress against the body of Torah [law] arrogantly, with scorn, with the intent of provoking God’s anger, and yet say that there is no sin involved. (Mishneh Torah, Laws of Foreign Worship and Customs of the Nations 2:5)
As commentators note, this definition is incongruous with Maimonides’ previous characterization of the Epikorus. (See, e.g., R. Joseph Karo’s Kesef Mishneh, ad loc.) Thus, they argue, and compellingly so, that this passage does not inform our discussion. This view has since been vindicated by manuscripts that read “minim” rather than “epikorsim” in this passage (as well as in the Laws of Murder and the Preservation of Life 4:10).
[12] At the most extreme, R. Solomon Isaacides (Rashi) defines Minim as “idolaters” in his commentary to Berakhot 12a, s.v. “ha-minin.”
[13] See, e.g., Berakhot 12b and Sifra Devarim 320:10, which identify minut as atheism. It is clear that, as time went on, the term came to be the equivalent of the generic English word ‘heresy,’ without any particular meaning, see, e.g., Sanhedrin 38b.
[14] Sanhedrin 4:5. Though this statement has been taken out of context, it retains its original meaning.
[15] y. Berakhot 9:1. See also Sanhedrin 38b; Genesis Rabbah 8:9.
[16] See Guggenheimer to y. Berakhot 1:5, note 216. It seems unlikely that his claim is entirely correct––that is to say, that every reference to a min is a veiled reference to a Christian (see, e.g., Mishnah Berakhot 9:5 which is clearly not a reference to mainstream Christianity). Nevertheless, his assertion that there is a link between the two terms is well-founded.
[17] A Christian or proto-Christian leader (see Avodah Zarah 17a). His identity is not known; some speculate that this was Jesus, others that this was a forerunner of Jesus. In either case, the Tosefta is simply attempting to demonstrate why R. Ishmael refused Jacob’s services.
[18] See also Avodah Zarah 27b, for another variant of this story.
[21] Tertullian, Apologeticus 9; Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book VII, ch. 7; Origen, In Numeros Homilia V.
[22] For our purposes, it is sufficient to say that Gnostics believe in a dualistic world wherein a God of light rules in heaven and a god of darkness (sometimes called a demiurge) rules the physical world. Thus, for the Gnostic, physicality is seen as inherently bad and spirituality inherently good, as they each connect you to their respective God or god. In later Christian Gnostic thought (e.g., Marcionism), this divide can be represented by the God of the Old Testament (the god of darkness) and the God of the New Testament (the God of light).
[25] Pagans are typically called “ovedei kokhavim,” those who serve stars, or else “ovedei avodah zarah,” those who practice foreign rites of worship. These are much more severe termswhich connote actual idolatry, as opposed to “minim,” which simply connotes heresy. As we have previously shown, the word eventually develops to become the generic term for heresy of any kind (see note 13), so it is not inconceivable that, by the time the Talmud was completed, it was being used in that way as well. What we object to here is only the assertion that such connotation can be inferred from the Mishnah, a much earlier text.
Another factor that must be weighed is that sometimes words like ‘min’ or ‘epikorus’ or even ‘kuthi’ (Kuthite) were used in place of ‘Roman’ or ‘Christian’ so as to avoid censorship by those more dominant groups. See, e.g., Pesahim 87b, where ‘min’ is clearly used in place of ‘Roman’.
[26] Berakhot 5:3; Megillah 4:9.
[27] See Berakhot 33b; Megillah 25a; y. Megillah 4:10.
[28] Abraham Cohen, The Babylonian Talmud: Tractate Berakhot (2021) at 33b, note 14.
[29] Incarnated within the person of Jesus
[30] In the eyes of the rabbis, at least. Much ink has been spilled attempting to demonstrate how the Trinity does not violate the doctrine of God’s oneness, not least by the Church Fathers Hilary and Augustine, who each wrote voluminous treatises on the subject. Whatever the case, the rabbis, by and large, were not convinced.
[31] This may also be a veiled reference to Christianity, because Christians view Jesus as an intermediary between man and God.
Site Operations and Technology by The Berman Consulting Group.