In a practice popularly known as “the lottery of the Vilna Gaon,” a sage poses a question and then opens a Torah or Hebrew Bible seven times at random. A verse on the final page to be opened is then taken as an omen, and interpreted as an answer to the question. While the attribution of this rite to the 18th-century Rabbi Elijah Kramer of Vilna is mistaken, writes Shraga Bar-On, it does date back several centuries, and has even more ancient precursors:

Based on [the 1st-century-CE historian] Josephus’ account, it would seem that diligent study of the words of the prophets assisted the Essene seers in soothsaying. Use of the Torah as a tool of divination can also be found in the books of Maccabees. . . . [In talmudic literature], too, use of verses from the Torah [in this fashion] was quite common. One of the most prominent techniques, . . . involves asking a child to recite the verse he happens to be studying; the child then quotes the verse, which is regarded as having divinatory power. . . .

At times, a biblical book or verse appears as [an] omen within a different prophetic medium—namely, a dream—or alternatively springs to a person’s mind upon waking up: “If one rises early and a Scriptural verse comes to his mouth, this is a kind of minor prophecy” (Babylonian Talmud, Brakhot 55b and elsewhere). At other times, the verse does not appear in the dream itself but can be used to interpret the dream. . . .

[Even Bible] commentators and Jewish legists with a sharply rationalistic orientation . . . accorded bibliomancy exceptional status. Moses Maimonides (1138-1204), the most outspoken opponent of magic, astrology, and divination, himself ruled that “if one asks a child, ‘What verse are you learning?’ and he responds with a verse from [Moses’] blessings [of the Israelites], it is permitted for one to rejoice and say, ‘That is a lucky sign.’” Still, he limited the power of the omen to revealing information about events already in the past and to situations where receiving the sign would not lead to any sort of practical course of action.

Surveying news websites and social media on Sunday morning, I immediately found some intelligent and well-informed observers arguing that Iran deliberately warned the U.S. of its pending assault on Israel, and calibrated it so that there would be few casualties and minimal destructiveness, thus hoping to avoid major retaliation. In other words, this massive barrage was a face-saving gesture by the ayatollahs. Others disagreed. Brian Carter and Frederick W. Kagan put the issue to rest:

The Iranian April 13 missile-drone attack on Israel was very likely intended to cause significant damage below the threshold that would trigger a massive Israeli response. The attack was designed to succeed, not to fail. The strike package was modeled on those the Russians have used repeatedly against Ukraine to great effect. The attack caused more limited damage than intended likely because the Iranians underestimated the tremendous advantages Israel has in defending against such strikes compared with Ukraine.

But that isn’t to say that Tehran achieved nothing:

The lessons that Iran will draw from this attack will allow it to build more successful strike packages in the future. The attack probably helped Iran identify the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Israeli air-defense system. Iran will likely also share the lessons it learned in this attack with Russia.

Iran’s ability to penetrate Israeli air defenses with even a small number of large ballistic missiles presents serious security concerns for Israel. The only Iranian missiles that got through hit an Israeli military base, limiting the damage, but a future strike in which several ballistic missiles penetrate Israeli air defenses and hit Tel Aviv or Haifa could cause significant civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure, including ports and energy. . . . Israel and its partners should not emerge from this successful defense with any sense of complacency.