David Nieto (1654-1728), minister to the Spanish and Portuguese Jewish community of London in the early 18th century (see “An 18th-century Defender of the Faith” in COMMENTARY, July 1954), was trained in medicine and astronomy as well as in Rabbinics. Attempting to square the Copernican revolution with traditional Judaism, Nieto felt impelled to reject the heliocentric conception of the universe, inasmuch as it represented a clear contradiction of explicit statements in the Bible, but he was quite prepared to accept other conclusions and implications of the new astronomy—among them the view that life exists on planets other than ours. Far from clinging to the old anthropocentric view of the universe as being essential to religious faith, Nieto invokes the name of the Provence scholar, Jedaiah ben Abraham Bedersi, surnamed “The Orator,” who in the 14th century hinted at the possibility that the stars might have more functions than merely to provide illumination for the earth. In this Bedersi was preceded by Maimonides, who had asserted that “. . . man should know his station, and not erroneously imagine that the whole universe exists only for him.”

The following selection—in my own translation—comprises paragraphs 130-145 of the Fourth Dialogue of Nieto’s Matteh Dan or “ The Second Kuzari,” published in London in 1714 both in Hebrew and in Spanish. Nieto here adopts the form of Judah Halevi’s Kuzari—an imaginary dialogue between a Jewish scholar (the Haver) and the King of the Khazars (the Kuzari) , ultimately leading to the latter’s conversion to Judaism.—Jakob J. Petuchowski

_____________

 

Haver: The earth on which we dwell is a planet. On it are seas and rivers, mountains and valleys, human beings endowed with the gift of speech, and dumb animals. A cycle of four seasons marks our earthly year. Why, then, should the like of it not be found on other planets? . . .

Kuzari: I would never have thought that the claims of the latter-day astronomers were sound.

Haver: They certainly dò recommend themselves to Reason. It is just that we are unable to accept that particular aspect of the modern concept which denies the revolution of the sun. For in the Book of Joshua it is written: Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon. . . . And the sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and hastened not to go down about a whole day [Joshua 10:12f.]. From this it follows that normally the sun does revolve like the rest of the planets. And even though the protagonists of this view have gone into contortions to resolve this contradiction, they have labored in vain, for their reply is unsatisfactory. I have, therefore, rejected this view, and prevented it from being grafted on to the Heritage of the Lord.

Kuzari: Do let me hear how they attempt this harmonization.

Haver: They argue that the Prophet said, “Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon” only on account of the multitude who consider the sun to be a moving body, and who do not know about the movement of the earth.

Kuzari: There is no substance to this attempt at harmonization. . . . But I do want to know whether you believe what they say about the planets’ being inhabited worlds.

Haver: This latter greatly appeals to my mind. For I concur heartily in the words of our Sages who taught us: “Rabbi Meir found a nut. Its kernel he ate; its shell he discarded.” We ought to do the same with the arguments of the Gentile sages. Whatever is opposed to our holy and perfect Torah, whether it be the Written or the Oral Law, we must not believe. But in matters which do not contradict its words or its amplifications every individual Jew is free to believe or to reject as his reason sees fit. And, since there can be no possible harm in the belief that all the stars—be they planets or fixed in the Eighth Sphere—are worlds containing all kinds of living creatures, I maintain strongly, and without fail, the correctness of this view. It is, moreover, possible that our Rabbis, of blessed memory, had just this in mind when they wrote, at the end of the Tractate Uktzin, that “God will in future cause every single righteous person to inherit 310 worlds.”

Kuzari: The words of the Sages cannot serve as sufficient proof. Perhaps they referred to spiritual worlds.

Haver: It is for this very reason that I spoke of the possibility that such might have been their intention rather than of the certainty. . . . I remember seeing long ago in the days of my prime, words in a book by Jedaiah ben Abraham Bedersi which would tend to support this modern view.

Kuzari: Let the word of the wise man be spoken, and we shall honor you for it!

Haver: He took up his parable about the heavenly bodies and said: “For this reason, too, has their Creator endowed them with power. . . .placed them in changing positions and opposite directions, necessitating activity among the intelligences to direct lifeless, inert bodies, and by giving them the ability of taking on forms to avert the shame of formless matter. Not for this were they created: to be subservient to perishable creatures whose betters they are.” . . .

Kuzari: What the wise “Orator” has to say would seem to be completely irrelevant. . . .

Haver: On the contrary! His words are the very essence from which everything is derived. For Reason could not tolerate the thought that the Divine Creator created bodies myriads of times bigger and more valuable than the earth for the sole purpose of giving light to those who dwell on it. Particularly so would this apply to the tremendous number of stars suspended from the Eighth Sphere which have no other relation to, or influence upon, the earth except to teach the children of man the strength of God’s power and wisdom. This being so, we must needs say that they were created for some other purpose as well. Bedersi, however, could not mention this other purpose in his book, for, in his day, about 400 years ago, everybody believed in the words of Aristotle as though the very spirit of the Lord were talking through him.

But closer to our day and age, about 150 years ago, wise and understanding sages arose, and they said: “Why is this philosopher different from all other philosophers? And why should we have to believe those words of his which have been hewn from the mine of his own intellect? Was it by him alone that all of God’s actions were weighed? Do we not have a mind, just as he did, to penetrate the deep layers of Natural Philosophy? . . .” So they examined his writings, and found in them any number of things contrary to sense perception. And thus they . . . proclaimed: “We have no portion in Aristotle, and no inheritance in his wisdom!” . . . And they arose and invented a new science, more rational, and geared, as far as ever possible, to the evidence of sense perception. With this new science they refuted the words of Aristotle and the early astronomers, particularly the view of those who maintained that the forms of the Eighth Sphere exert an influence, by means of their light, upon all the dwellers on earth. They suggested, instead, that the stars of that Sphere and their constellations are each and every one of them a sun in its own right, which gives light and heat to the particular world immediately underneath it. This cannot, of course, be seen by us on account of their great distance from us. . . .

It is, indeed, possible that Bedersi did not know anything about this, and it is for this reason that he did not mention it in his book. But it is, at any rate, certain that he thought these stars and constellations served a great purpose which is unknown to us.

Kuzari: I am convinced that this is the correct and logical view.

_____________

 

+ A A -
You may also like
Share via
Copy link