(a) The age of the child is not mentioned. Perhaps he was only two or three years old; a three-year old who is able to instantly complete a Pasuk in Yeshayah must be quite smart. Remember also, that he was imprisoned, possibly alone, in a Roman prison, where his conditions would have been unbearable and the food, minimal. Most people would have lost their minds, but this child seemed to be quite perky. Someone who is able to retain his Torah under such conditions has a promising future in the Torah world.

(b) Nevertheless, it is unclear what knowledge of Tanach has to do with being a Moreh Hora'ah. The Cheshek Shlomo basically asks this, and also asks why Rebbi Yehoshua predicted that he would be a 'Moreh Hora'ah', not a Moreh Hora'os.

He therefore explains that Rebbi Yehoshua's prediction was based not on the child's answer, but on Ru'ach ha'Kodesh. What he foresaw was that this child would one day issue a triple ruling in one statement (with regard to the Mitzvah of Chalitzah), demonstrating deep wisdom in so doing.

The reason that he called out the first half of the Pasuk it seems, was in order to ascertain that Yishmael ben Elisha (a grandson of the Kohen Gadol who was one of the martyrs) was indeed located in that prison, without the Romans being aware of his inquiries.

(c) Interestingly, the Yerushalmi in Horiyos (3:4) cites the same story, but with a number of changes. One of those changes is the omission of Rebbi Yehoshua's prediction that the child would become a Moreh Hora'ah. See the Mar'eh ha'Panim there.

Be'Virchas Kol Tuv,

Eliezer Chrysler

The Vilna Ga'on, in Kol Eliyahu for Gitin 58, asks your question.

In answer to the question, he cites the Gemara in Berachos 4a and Sotah 36a which states that in reality, during the redemption from Bavel we were destined to witness miracles as great as those of the redemption from Egypt. This did not transpire, however, due to our sins, which made us less deserving.

This is learned from the verse (Shemos 15:16), "Ad Ya'avor Amcha Hash-m, Ad Ya'avor Am Zu Kanisa." In the first "Ad Ya'avor," which refers to the crossing of the Yarden and the Yam during the redemption from Egypt, Bnei Yisrael are called "Amcha Hash-m " - the nation of Hash-m. In the second "Ad Ya'avor," which refers to the return to Eretz Yisrael during the redemption from Bavel, they are called "Am Zu Kanisa" - this nation you have acquired. They are not called outright "the people of Hash-m." This means that even if the Jews will sin and be sent into exile, they will again be redeemed. Hash-m will not forsake them, because he has "acquired" them. However, if they will be worthy (i.e. the people of Hash-m ), they will be redeemed miraculously, a full redemption, just like the redemption from Egypt in the first "Ad Ya'avor." If not, they will be redeemed, but it will not involve miracles and it will not be a full redemption.

This was the theme of the interchange between Rebbi Yehoshua and the child. Rebbi Yehoshua cited the beginning of the Pasuk, "Who caused Ya'akov (i.e., the Bnei Yisrael, when they sinned and were exiled to Bavel) to be exiled, and Who caused Yisrael (i.e. the Bnei Yisrael, when they were more worthy and were redeemed from Bavel) to be looted (with the destruction of the Second Mikdash)?" That is, why was the Second Mikdash destroyed and the Ge'ulah from Bavel not a full and lasting Ge'ulah?

The child replied, "Is it not 'Hashem-Zu'? We have sinned to him." That is, the reason the redemption from Bavel was not a full redemption was because instead of being "Am Hash-m ," we only were "Am Zu , and we were not worthy of a full redemption (as the Gemara in Berachos says). That is why we are again back in exile.

In the verse, there is an "Esnachta" under the word "Hash-m," and "Zu" begins the next phrase. The wisdom of the child was to juxtapose the words "Hash-m" and "Zu", putting the break after "Zu." This emphasized the Drashah of Chazal on the verse in Shemos, showing that the verse in Yeshayah (that Rebbi Yehoshua quoted) alluded to the Drashah and pointing out why the Jews did not merit a full redemption when they left Bavel, and why the Second Mikdash was destroyed.

(This is how I understood the words of the Vilna Ga'on.)

Best wishes,

M. Kornfeld