igio.] The Legend of the "Resurrection Bone." 47 



why it is thus called and was told that it was because it was the most 

 deceitful of all bones from the very beginning (i. e., all other bones tasted 

 of the tree of Knowledge, it did not) ; as Rabbi Simeon has taught us, 

 why does that bone remain after the destruction of all others ; because it 

 enjoys not the relish of human foods and on this account it is the strongest 

 of all bones and will be the nucleus of the body at the Resurrection. Rabbi 

 Simeon hath further said it is deceitful, has from the very first been deceit- 

 ful and is neighbour to the evil impulse, which is also deceitful, and both 

 are together as a yoke of oxen." 



The existence of this "Resurrection bone" seems to have been ac- 

 cepted during the Middle Ages not only by theologians but also by anato- 

 mists, Ibn Roschd (Averroes), for example, considering the legend true, 

 according to Kohler,* and Hyrtl states that the bone was known as the 

 "Judenknochlein" by the old German anatomists. This same author 

 also quotes a statement from Cornelius Argippaf assigning to the bone the 

 qualities predicted for it in the Talmudic legend and concluding with the 

 words "et hae virtutes non declarantur ratione, sed experientia." The quo- 

 tation from the Bereschit Raba given above shows that the bone was 

 believed to belong to the vertebral column, although no definite position 

 in the series of vertebra is assigned to it. J Mr. Birnbaum has, however, 

 drawn my attention to the concluding words of the quotation from the 

 Mid rash Neelom as possibly indicating a location for it. It is there 

 described as being "neighbour to the evil impulse," and both in the 

 Midrash and in the Talmud the "evil impulse" is stated to have its seat 

 in the heart. Consequently to be a neighbour to the evil impulse the bone 

 must have been one of the thoracic vertebrae. 



It seems, however, very doubtful whether the early Rabbinical 

 writers had any intention of giving the luz a definite location. The 

 Talmudic anatomy does not give evidence of any considerable amount of 

 scientific definiteness, the vertebral column, for instance, being described 

 as consisting of but eighteen vertebrae, and, furthermore, for reasons to 

 be considered later, it is probable that the Rabbi Simeon was more intent 

 on the collocation of the deceitful elements of the body, than on a definition 

 of the anatomical position of the luz. Attempts were not lacking, how- 

 ever, on the part of later writers to assign it to a definite position, the 

 Baal Aruch stating that "It is a small vertebra at the end of the eighteen 



*Jewish Encyclopaedia. Vol. VIII. 1904. 



fDe occulta philosophia. Lib. I, cap. 20. 1530. 



JHyrtl (/. c.) was apparently in error in stating that it is placed by the Bereschit 

 Raba "in fine octodecim vertebrarum". This location of it was made by later com- 

 mentators. 



