A rationalist 19th century British interpretation of a Talmudic oracle

Being that we are on the eve of Tisha B'av, I thought it would be interesting to see an interpretation, or rather reinterpretation, of a famous incident from Gittin 56 (the Gemara which recounts the fall of Jerusalem, which many people study on Tisha B'Av).

The specific piece reads as follows

שדר עלוייהו לנירון קיסר כי קאתי שדא גירא למזרח אתא נפל בירושלים למערב אתא נפל בירושלים לארבע רוחות השמים אתא נפל בירושלים א"ל לינוקא פסוק לי פסוקיך אמר ליה (יחזקאל כה) ונתתי את נקמתי באדום ביד עמי ישראל וגו' אמר קודשא בריך הוא בעי לחרובי ביתיה ובעי לכפורי ידיה בההוא גברא ערק ואזל ואיגייר ונפק מיניה ר"מ

He [the Emperor] sent against them Nero the Caesar. As he was coming he shot an arrow towards the east, and it fell in Jerusalem. He then shot one towards the west, and it again fell in Jerusalem. He shot towards all four points of the compass, and each time it fell in Jerusalem. He said to a certain boy: Repeat to me [the last] verse of Scripture you have learnt. He said: (Ezekiel 25) And I will lay my vengeance upon Edom by the hand of my people Israel. He said: The Holy One, blessed be He, desires to lay waste his House and to lay the lame on me. So he ran away and became a proselyte, and R. Meir was descended from him.

In 1882, שבת שקלים, Hermann Adler (1839-1911), Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Empire, delivered a sermon about the plight of Russian Jewry, a theme which justly occupied the attention and concern of Western Jews at that time.



As you can see, the sense of the passage is that Nero asked the boy what verse of Scripture had learned and took it as an oracle. R. Adler, however, responding to the needs of his time interprets it very differently:

"Now, think not, my brethren, that this was a superstitious practice, or a kind of divination. Our Synagogue fathers knew full well that, in a time of national stress, the wise schoolmaster would teach his young charges such Bible texts as would afford some comfort, guidance, and wise practical counsel how to meet the crisis."

But it can easily be seen that such a method was seen as oracular by the Sages themselves, by comparing this with the other instances where the פסוק לי פסוקיך method occurs; e.g., Gittin 67b-68a

א"ל ריש גלותא לרב ששת מ"ט לא סעיד מר גבן א"ל דלא מעלו עבדי דחשידי אאבר מן החי א"ל מי יימר אמר ליה השתא מחוינא לך א"ל לשמעיה זיל גנוב אייתי לי חדא כרעא מחיותא אייתי ליה אמר להו אהדמו לי הדמי דחיותא אייתו תלת כרעי אותיבו קמיה אמר להו הא בעלת שלש רגלים הואי פסוק אייתו חדא מעלמא אותיבו קמיה אמר ליה לשמעיה אותביה נמי להך דידך אותבה אמר להו האי בת חמש רגלים הואי אמר ליה אי הכי ליעבדו קמיה <שמעיה> דמר וליכול א"ל לחיי קריבו תכא קמייהו ואייתו קמיה בישרא ואותיבו קמיה ריסתנא דחנקא חמתא גששיה ושקלה כרכה בסודריה לבתר דאכיל אמרי ליהאיגניב לן כסא דכספא בהדי דקא מעייני ואתי אשכחוה דכרוכה בסודריה אמרי ליה חזי מר דלא מיכל קא בעי אלא לצעורן אמר להו אנא מיכל אכלי וטעמי ביה טעמא דחיורא אמרי ליה חיורא לא עביד לן האידנא אמר להו בדקו בדוכתיה דאמר רב חסדא אוכמא בחיורא וחיורא באוכמתא לקותא היא בדוק אשכחוה כי קא נפיק כרו ליה בירא ושדו ליה ציפתא עילויה ואמרי ליה ליתי מר לינח נחר ליה רב חסדא מאחוריה אמר ליה לינוקא פסוק לי פסוקיך אמר ליה (שמואל ב ב) נטה לך על ימינך או על שמאלך אמר ליה לשמעיה מאי קא חזית אמר ליה ציפיתא דשדיא אמר ליה הדר מינה לבתר דנפק אמר ליה רב חסדא מנא הוה ידע מר אמר ליה חדא דנחר לי מר ועוד דפסק לי ינוקא פסוקא ועוד דחשידי עבדי דלא מעלו

The Exilarch once said to R. Shesheth, Why will your honour not dine with us? He replied: Because your servants are not reliable, being suspected of taking a limb from a living animal. You don't say so, said the Exilarch. He replied, I will just show you. He then told his attendant to steal a leg from an animal and bring it. When he brought it to him he said [to the Servants of the Exilarch], place the pieces of the animal before me. They brought three legs and placed them before him. He said to them, This must have been a three-legged animal. They then cut a leg off an animal and brought it. He then said to his attendant, Now produce yours. He did so, and he then said to them, This must have been a five-legged animal. The Exilarch said to him, That being the case, let them prepare the food in your presence and then you can eat it. Very good, he replied. They brought up a table and placed meat before him, and set in front of him a portion with a dangerous bone. He felt it and took and wrapped it in his scarf. When he had finished they said to him, A silver cup has been stolen from us.1 In the course of their search for it they found the meat wrapped in his scarf, whereupon they said to the Exilarch, See, sir, that he does not want to eat, but only to vex us. He said, I did eat, but I found in it the taste of a boil. They said to him, No animal with a boil has been prepared for us to-day. He said to them, Examine the place [where my portion came from]. since R. Hisda has said that a white spot on black skin or a black spot on white skin is a mark of disease. They examined and found that it was so. When he was about to depart they dug a pit and threw a mat over it, and said to him, Come, sir, and recline. R. Hisda snorted behind him. and he said to a boy. Tell me the last verse you have learnt. The boy said. Turn thee aside to thy right hand or to thy left. He said to his attendant, What can you see? He replied. A mat thrown across [the path]. He said, Turn aside from it. When he got out, R. Hisda said to him, How did you know, sir? He replied. For one thing because you, sir, snorted [behind me], and again from the verse which the boy quoted, and also because the servants are suspect of playing tricks.

in this case, the servants of the ריש גלותא were laying a trap for רב ששת and he used a schoolchild's verse to let him know what to do. Was this a time of national or person stress? רב ששת is using פסוק לי פסוקיך for it's oracular ability.

Finally, and more clearly, Hullin 95b

רב בדיק במברא ושמואל בדיק בספרא רבי יוחנן בדיק בינוקא כולהו שני דרב הוה כתב ליה רבי יוחנן לקדם רבינו שבבבל כי נח נפשיה הוה כתב לשמואל לקדם חבירינו שבבבל אמר לא ידע לי מידי דרביה אנא כתב שדר ליה עיבורא דשיתין שני אמר השתא חושבנא בעלמא ידע כתב שדר ליה תליסר גמלי ספקי טריפתא אמר אית לי רב בבבל איזיל איחזייה א"ל לינוקא פסוק לי פסוקיך אמר ליה (שמואל א כח) ושמואל מת אמר ש"מ נח נפשיה דשמואל ולא היא לא שכיב שמואל אלא כי היכי דלא ליטרח רבי יוחנן

Rab used to regard a ferry-boat as a sign. Samuel a [passage in a] book, and R. Johanan [a verse quoted] by a child. During the lifetime of Rab, R. Johanan used to address him thus in his letters: Greetings to our Master in Babylon! After Rab's death R. Johanan used to address Samuel thus: Greetings to our colleague in Babylon! Said Samuel to himself, ‘Is there nothing in which I am his master’? He thereupon sent [to R. Johanan] the calculations for the intercalation of months for sixty years. Said [R. Johanan], ‘He only knows mere calculations’. So he [Samuel] wrote out and sent [R. Johanan] thirteen camel loads of questions concerning doubtful cases of trefah. Said [R. Johanan], ‘It is clear that I have a Master in Babylon; I must go and see him’. So he said to a child, ‘Tell me the [last] verse you have learnt’. He answered: ‘Now Samuel was dead’. Said [R. Johanan], ‘This means that Samuel has died’. But it was not the case; Samuel was not dead then, and [this happened] only that R. Johanan should not trouble himself.

In this case we see most clearly that פסוק לי פסוקיך is regarded as a sign. (And, as it happens, in this case the sign was misleading, albeit deliberately so). The practice itself, called bibliomancy, was used and taken quite literally among Jews in early modern Europe. A variation, called gorel ha-gr"a, persists even today.

This specific sermon was printed in R. Adler's collection Anglo-Jewish memories, and other sermons (1909: New York). In the introduction, he notes that he had recently reached his 70th birthday: "During the present month I shall, by Divine mercy, complete the threescore years and ten ordinarily allotted to man." In addition, it had been about 50 years since he had delivered his first derasha on behalf of his father R. Nathan Adler, who was sick on that occasion. In honor of these anniversaries he decided to publish some of his discourses, with prominence given to "those delivered on occasions which moved our hearts both as Englishmen and as Jews."

You can download the entire "Cry of Our Russian Brethren" sermon here.

All in all, a most interesting, very 19th century interpretation of a well-known Talmudic passage.

Lonely tefillin in an Indian mound.

One day in 1815 Captain Joseph Merrick of Pittsfield, Massachusets plowed his field on his farm, built on what had been called "Indian Hill" in the 18th century (later a fort was established there in 1754, and so in his time it was called "Fort Hill."

In turning up the earth out popped tefillin--which is what it proved to be, although he didn't know it. A local resident named Elkanah Watson (note the last name; don't be fooled by the first) heard about it and went to investigate. At Merrick's house he found several Christian clergymen, all of whom were excited, realizing it must have belonged to a Jew. This Watson knew of the theory that the Native American Indians were descended from the ten lost tribes of Israel, and was excited.

What is interesting is that he claimed to compare "this phylactery with those described in the Old Testament." I'd like to know where! In any case, he wrote that they "are described in Scripture as composed of five folds of raw hide or leather, sewed completely together by the entrails of animals. In order to understand the appearance of this discovery, imagine five pieces of leather or raw hide, or some composition similar to India rubber, and capable of resisting the ravages of time and exposure, cut into squares of two inches, sewed together with entrails. Suppose, also a hole in the center, half an inch in diameter made to admit a tube two and a half inches long with eyelet holes at the corners to receive strings--and you will have an idea of this article."

In any event, Watson described the difficulty of opening it and how he "drew out from the tube three of four scrolls of parchment, which it contained when found, and inscribed with texts of Scripture, written in beautiful Hebrew in an elegant manner, and the ink of a beautiful jet black. The parchment, writing, ink, were all perfectly fresh."

Locals declared that it belonged to early Jewish settlers in Pittsfield, perhaps one from Germany who was remembered, who had since gone.

On the other hand, some investigators wished that it were Indian, and so declared that it was (the hill happened also to be an Indian burial ground).

Lee M. Friedman, whose article "The Phylacteries Found at Pittsfield, Mass," PAJHS, 1917, 25, pp. 81-85 is where this info comes from, noted that upon investigation an Isaac Isaacs appeared on the Pittsfield military rolls of 1780-1781. However, he sees no evidence that this person was Jewish and in fact might have belonged to the non-Jewish Isaacs of Connecticut.

On the other hand, five separate men called Isaac Isaacs show up in the 18th century in A Biographical Dictionary of Early American Jews by Joseph R. Rosenbloom. However, they are all in New York City or Long Island, and even if one of them is also Isaac Isaacs in the army in Pittsfield, we still haven't even come close to showing that the tefillin were his.

So....

?