The Figure and Work of Rabbi Yosef Shlomo Delmedigo through the Generations: The Attitude of the Sages of Israel toward the Yashar of Candia
29 min read5,836 words
Summary
This survey analyzes the multifaceted figure of Rabbi Yosef Shlomo Delmedigo (the Yashar of Candia), a 17th-century Jewish sage who sought to bridge the world of Torah and the new empirical science of his teacher, Galileo Galilei. The text examines the complex attitude of the sages of Israel toward him through the generations, ranging from admiration for his mathematical knowledge to sharp criticism of his theological positions and of his critical attitude toward Kabbalah and the Book of the Zohar. The study seeks to refute historical myths, such as the existence of a ban against him, and shows how his influence remained significant in the fields of astronomy and science while it was pushed out of traditional halakhic discourse. Ultimately, the article presents the Yashar as a figure who represents the built-in tension between tradition and modernity, as one who tried to create a bold synthesis between the laws of nature and the secrets of the Divine.
Executive Summary
Rabbi Yosef Shlomo Delmedigo (1591–1655), known in Torah and scientific literature by the appellation the Yashar of Candia (Yosef Shlomo Rofe, "the Physician") [cite: 1], represents an extraordinary historical crossroads in the encounter between the traditional rabbinic world and the beginnings of the scientific revolution in 17th-century Europe. The aim of this in-depth study is to analyze systematically and exhaustively the attitude of the sages of Israel through the generations toward the Yashar of Candia, relying closely on primary Torah sources, on his own writings and on the approbations of his contemporaries, while avoiding the application of anachronistic modern categories.
The study shows that the attitude of the sages of Israel toward the Yashar moves along a fascinating polar axis: from deep admiration for his scientific and mathematical knowledge on the part of his contemporaries, such as the author of the Tosafot Yom Tov, through religious suspicion and incisive criticism of his theological positions and his attitude toward Kabbalah on the part of Rabbi Yaakov Emden [cite: 2], to later attempts at an intellectual synthesis in the writings of Rabbi Abraham Isaac HaKohen Kook. This report takes apart the Yashar's scientific positions, analyzes the controversy over his attitude toward the Book of the Zohar and Kabbalah [cite: 3], clarifies his halakhic standing, discusses the question of whether a ban was imposed on his works [cite: 2], and presents a systematic comparison between the praises of him and the criticisms of him over the generations.
Historical Biography According to Primary Sources
Yosef Shlomo Delmedigo was born on 25 Sivan 5351 (16 June 1591) in the city of Candia (today Heraklion), the capital of the island of Crete, which was at that time under the rule of the Republic of Venice [cite: 1]. He was born into a distinguished family of sages, philosophers and physicians; his father, Rabbi Eliyahu Delmedigo, served as rabbi of the community in Candia and was a descendant of the renowned Jewish philosopher Rabbi Eliyahu ben Moshe Delmedigo (author of "Bechinat ha-Dat").
He acquired the beginnings of his Torah learning from his father and from the sages of Crete. At the age of fifteen he left Crete for higher studies at the University of Padua in Italy, which was at that time the only academic institution that permitted the admission of Jewish students to the study of medicine. In Padua he studied medicine, philosophy, mathematics and astronomy, and there he had the privilege of studying directly under the renowned Italian astronomer Galileo Galilei [cite: 4]. According to his own testimony in the introduction to "Sefer Elim," his studies with Galileo shaped his empirical scientific outlook and distanced him from the old Aristotelian physics.
After completing his studies in Padua in 5373 (1613), the Yashar set out on a long and winding journey of wandering through the Jewish communities of Europe and the Ottoman Empire. At first he returned to Crete, but he soon moved to Egypt, where he debated scientific matters with the local sages and with the philosopher Ali ben Ramadan. From Egypt he continued to Constantinople, where he came into contact with the sages of the Karaite community, and in particular with Yaakov Lutski, who addressed many questions in the sciences and mathematics to him, questions that would later form the basis of "Sefer Elim."
From Constantinople the Yashar wandered to Eastern Europe, passing through the communities of Poland, Lithuania and White Russia. In Lithuania he served as the personal physician of the Polish-Lithuanian prince Janusz Radziwiłł [cite: 4]. In 5383 (1623) he arrived at the community of Hamburg in Germany, where he served as rabbi, preacher and physician of the Sephardi community [cite: 4]. From there he moved to Amsterdam, where he befriended Rabbi Menashe ben Israel, who printed the Yashar's monumental work, "Sefer Elim," at his press in 5389 (1629). In the following years he was active in Frankfurt, and at the end of his life he settled in Prague in Bohemia, where he engaged in medicine and Torah until his death in 5415 (1655) [cite: 4]. He was buried in the Old Jewish Cemetery in Prague, and his tombstone was engraved with titles of honor that attest to the community's esteem for his wisdom in Torah and in medicine alike.
Historical Timeline
His Image in the Eyes of His Contemporaries: Torah Scholar, Physician and Philosopher
The contemporaries of the Yashar of Candia saw in him an extremely multidimensional and complex figure, one that was hard to fit into a single defining category. The primary sources show that he was perceived at one and the same time as an immense Torah scholar, an expert physician, a profound philosopher and a controversial personality.
His Perception as a Torah Scholar and Kabbalist
The approbations of the great sages of the generation to his books attest that the sages of his time recognized his greatness in Torah. First and foremost, Rabbi Yom Tov Lipmann Heller (author of the "Tosafot Yom Tov") treated him with enormous respect and in poems of praise that were printed at the opening of "Sefer Elim." Recognition of him as a Kabbalist, however, was far more reserved. Although his book "Matzref la-Chochmah" was ostensibly written as a defense of the Kabbalah of the Ari [cite: 3], his contemporaries sensed that his engagement with Kabbalah did not stem from traditional mystical devotion but from a philosophical-scientific attempt to decipher its secrets as a rational cosmological system.
Philosopher, Physician and God-Fearing Man
The title "Rofe" (physician) accompanied the Yashar at every station of his life and was an inseparable part of his public appellation [cite: 1]. He earned great esteem for his medical expertise, which brought him to the courts of princes [cite: 4]. As a philosopher, he was perceived as continuing the path of Maimonides (Rambam) and the Ralbag (Gersonides), but unlike them he integrated the new empirical science into his philosophy.
The question of his fear of Heaven was the weak point in his relations with the various communities. The fact that he wandered ceaselessly, came into close contact with Karaite sages and frequently quoted foreign and Greek sources aroused suspicion among some members of the conservative communities through which he passed. The primary sources reveal that the community of Hamburg, although it appointed him rabbi and preacher [cite: 4], experienced internal tensions over his sermons, which some considered to lean excessively toward philosophy and rational inquiry at the expense of simple faith in the Sages.
His Attitude toward Science and His Acceptance of the Heliocentric Model
According to a textual analysis of the writings of the Yashar of Candia himself, his attitude toward science is not merely an external auxiliary tool but a profound religious essence.
Defining the Role of Science
In his book "Elim," the Yashar defines the investigation of nature as a religious duty and as a way of attaining knowledge of the Creator. He argues that one who does not study the laws of mathematics and astronomy remains blind to the wonders of the divine creation. Science, in his view, is the language in which the book of nature is written, and there is no true separation between the laws of nature and the laws of the Torah, since both flow from a single divine source.
His Attitude toward Galileo Galilei and the Heliocentric Model
The Yashar was among the first of the sages of Israel to accept, fully and with reasoned argument, the heliocentric model of Copernicus as refined by his teacher Galileo Galilei [cite: 4]. In "Sefer Elim," in the part called "Shivchei Chochmah," the Yashar presents Galileo's observational evidence (such as the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter) and explains why the Ptolemaic-Aristotelian geocentric model collapsed scientifically. He describes Galileo with open admiration and calls him "my master and teacher, the great and venerable sage." In his book "Ma'ayan Ganim" he even provides the first Hebrew description of the thermometer, based on Galileo's invention [cite: 4].
The Question of the Contradiction between Torah and Science and the Interpretation of the Words of the Sages
The Yashar courageously confronts sayings of the Sages that appear to contradict the new science. His principled position is that science based on sensory evidence and mathematical proofs cannot be set aside in favor of a literal interpretation of verses or of sayings of the Sages. When the Sages spoke on matters of nature and of astronomy, they spoke in accordance with the scientific knowledge available in their time (chiefly Babylonian and Greek science), and this does not detract in the slightest from their metaphysical and halakhic authority.
In addition, he establishes that difficult sayings of the Sages on cosmology were often written as parables and riddles with a deep spiritual meaning, and they are not to be understood in their literal physical sense. For example, the debate in the Gemara in Tractate Pesachim (folio 94b) between the sages of Israel and the sages of the nations of the world about the course of the sun at night is interpreted by him as evidence that the sages of Israel themselves conceded to the sages of the nations of the world in those scientific matters in which the scientific proof was clear.
The Theological Complexity: The Question of His Attitude toward Kabbalah and the Book of the Zohar
The attitude of the Yashar of Candia toward Kabbalah in general and toward the Kabbalah of the Ari in particular is one of the most complex and controversial subjects in the eyes of the sages of Israel, a perplexity that stems directly from the extreme contrast between his various works.
The Contradiction between "Nofet Tzufim" and "Matzref la-Chochmah"
Within his book "Ta'alumot Chochmah" (Basel, 5391) these two works were printed side by side [cite: 3]:
- Nofet Tzufim: a rationalist-philosophical work in which the Yashar levels sharp criticism at the doctrine of the sefirot and at Kabbalah. He presents the views of the Kabbalists as a deviation from pure philosophy and as an allusion to polytheistic positions, and he casts doubt on the antiquity of the Book of the Zohar.
- Matzref la-Chochmah: a comprehensive book in defense of Kabbalah and of the authenticity of the Book of the Zohar, written ostensibly in response to the questions and doubts of his student [cite: 3]. In this work he praises the Ari and establishes that his Kabbalah is absolute truth, continuing the ancient esoteric tradition of the Rashbi (Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai).
Nevertheless, even within the defense "Matzref la-Chochmah" (chapter 21), an exceptional and highly significant sentence slipped in, attesting to the Yashar's historical-critical view of the redaction of the Zohar:
"That all the matters of the Amoraim mentioned in it [in the Book of the Zohar] are later additions" [cite: 3].
This quotation later served as a first-rate weapon in the hands of those who doubted the antiquity of the Zohar, since the Yashar here admits openly that the text of the Zohar underwent redactions, changes and additions in periods much later than the period of the Tannaim [cite: 3].
The Attempts at Synthesis
In his works the Yashar tries to build a conceptual bridge between Kabbalah and science. He interprets the kabbalistic term "tzimtzum" (contraction) in spatial-mathematical terms, and explains the emanation of the sefirot as a model parallel to the laws of physics and of the optics of the refraction of light. These attempts met opposition from two sides: traditional Kabbalists saw in them a corporealization and a desecration of the esoteric concepts, while rationalist philosophers saw in them a spiritual compromise that has no place in pure rational inquiry.
His Halakhic Rulings and the Use of Science
The Yashar of Candia held official rabbinic posts, particularly in the community of Hamburg [cite: 4], and engaged in ongoing halakhic decision-making, but he did not leave behind an orderly collection of halakhic responsa like his contemporaries. His rulings and decisions are scattered in his various letters and within his scientific works.
The Integration of Science into Halakhic Decision
The Yashar supported the unreserved use of modern mathematical and astronomical tools for the purpose of halakhic decisions. This use found clear expression in two areas:
Calculation of the calendar and sanctification of the new month: The Yashar argued that precise astronomical calculations based on modern observations (as presented in "Sefer Elim") should be preferred over outdated calculation formulas that did not match the observations of reality of that time.
Determining the halakhic times of the day: The Yashar used spherical trigonometry to calculate the times of dawn, sunrise and sunset for communities situated at northern latitudes (such as Hamburg), where phenomena of atmospheric optics make it difficult to determine the times by simple visual signs.
The Reception of His Responsa in Traditional Halakhic Decision
The responsa and rulings of the Yashar were hardly cited at all in the major responsa literature of the 17th and 18th centuries. This lack of halakhic reception stemmed from two main reasons: first, the Yashar's reputation as a philosopher and physician overshadowed his image as a classical halakhic decisor [cite: 1]; second, the theological suspicion that Rabbi Yaakov Emden raised against him caused later decisors to avoid relying on him as a binding halakhic source [cite: 2]. Nevertheless, scholars and rabbis who dealt specifically with matters of astronomy and the intercalation of years (such as the sages of Yemen) continued to use his mathematical calculations as a valuable internal aid.
The Question of the Ban and Excommunication: A Historical Clarification
In scholarly and popular literature the rumor sometimes circulates that an official ban was imposed on the Yashar of Candia or on his books. A meticulous examination of the primary sources, the communal record books of Prague, Hamburg and Amsterdam, reveals an entirely different picture that distinguishes between historical reality and later scholarly conjectures:
- Absence of a personal ban: There is no primary source or historical testimony of the imposition of an official ban (cherem, niddui or shamta) against Rabbi Yosef Shlomo Delmedigo himself during his lifetime. The Yashar continued to act as rabbi, preacher and physician in major Jewish communities until the day of his death [cite: 4]. He was buried with great honor in the main cemetery of Prague, and the text of his tombstone, which praises his wisdom and his Torah, entirely refutes the conjecture that he died excommunicated or under a ban.
- Restrictions on his books: Whereas the man himself was not banned, his books – especially the philosophical parts of "Ta'alumot Chochmah" – aroused fierce opposition among some of the sages of Poland and Eastern Europe in the 18th century. Reading them was unofficially forbidden to young people, and they were regarded as books containing alien opinions that should be kept away from the beit midrash.
The source of the historical confusion: It seems that the rumors of a ban stem from a historical confusion between the Yashar's books and the book of Rabbi Yaakov Emden, "Mitpachat Sefarim," which dealt with the Yashar's criticism of the Zohar [cite: 2]. The book "Mitpachat Sefarim," printed in Altona in 5528 (1768), met immediately upon its publication with a fierce ban on the part of a number of rabbis in Poland and Germany who refused to accept any doubt about the antiquity of the Book of the Zohar, and this led to the banning of the work and its suppression for many years [cite: 2]. The ban was thus imposed on the book of the Yaavetz and not on the books of the Yashar himself [cite: 2], although the controversy revolved around the same claims that the Yashar had raised in "Matzref la-Chochmah" [cite: 3].
A Survey of the References of the Sages of Israel through the Generations
What follows is a detailed account of the attitude of the great sages of Israel toward the Yashar of Candia, in chronological and intellectual order:
Rabbi Yom Tov Lipmann Heller (Tosafot Yom Tov)
Rabbi Yom Tov Lipmann Heller was the greatest admirer of the Yashar among the sages of Ashkenaz. He met him in Prague and was deeply impressed by his mathematical and astronomical knowledge. At the opening of "Sefer Elim" a detailed poem of praise was printed that the Tosafot Yom Tov wrote in honor of the Yashar, in which he describes him as one who masters all the secrets of the sciences and is able to enlighten the eyes of Torah scholars in the laws of the sanctification of the new month. The Tosafot Yom Tov saw in the Yashar a holy instrument for returning the science of astronomy to the world of Torah, and even made indirect use of astronomical knowledge he received from him for points of precision in his commentary on the Mishnah [cite: 5].
Rabbi Yaakov Emden (the Yaavetz)
The Yaavetz represents the sharpest critical line against the Yashar. In his book "Mitpachat Sefarim" [cite: 2], devoted to examining the authenticity of the Zohar, the Yaavetz analyzes the Yashar's "Matzref la-Chochmah" at length [cite: 3]. According to the Yaavetz, the Yashar was a "fickle" man and did not believe in Kabbalah at all [cite: 2]. The Yaavetz establishes that the Yashar's defense of Kabbalah in "Matzref la-Chochmah" was merely lip service [cite: 3], and was made as a kind of sophisticated mockery (irony) or out of fear of social excommunication [cite: 2]. The Yaavetz quotes the Yashar's statement about later additions in the Zohar as proof that the Yashar himself also knew that the Zohar is not ancient [cite: 3].
The Chida (Rabbi Chaim Yosef David Azulai)
The Chida refers to the Yashar in his bibliographical book "Shem ha-Gedolim" [cite: 1]. He defines him as an outstanding sage and appreciates his immense knowledge of medicine and the sciences:
"The perfect sage Rabbi Yosef Shlomo Rofe of Candia... and he was a great sage in astronomy and geometry and all the external sciences and medicine..." [cite: 1].
Nevertheless, the Chida immediately afterwards brings the words of the Yaavetz in "Mitpachat Sefarim" warning against his books [cite: 2], and concludes on a reserved note according to which one must be very careful when reading the Yashar's books, since philosophical and investigative opinions crept into them that are not consistent with the tradition of the simple faith of the Sages.
Rabbi David Gans
Rabbi David Gans, the student of the Rema and of the Maharal of Prague and author of the astronomical work "Nechmad ve-Na'im" and of the historical work "Tzemach David," died in 5373 (1613), exactly in the year in which the Yashar completed his studies in Padua. For this reason no direct reference to the Yashar of Candia has been found in the writings of Rabbi David Gans, even though both were active in the same scientific-Torah milieu of Prague and were in contact with the great Christian astronomers of their time.
The Maharsha (Rabbi Shmuel Eliezer HaLevi Edels)
The Maharsha was active in Poland in the same years in which the Yashar wandered in Eastern Europe. Nevertheless, no reference to the Yashar of Candia, to his work or to his rulings has been found in the writings of the Maharsha (Chiddushei Halakhot and Aggadot), since the Maharsha concentrated on traditional Talmudic commentary and kept entirely away from engagement with philosophy and science of the new kind.
The Maharal of Prague
The Maharal of Prague died in 5369 (1609), when the Yashar was a young man studying in Padua. Therefore there is no connection to or reference to the Yashar of Candia in the writings of the Maharal.
The Rema of Fano (Rabbi Menachem Azaria of Fano)
The Rema of Fano, one of the great Kabbalists of Italy, died in 5380 (1620). Although the Yashar studied and was active in Italy in those years, no reference to him has been found in the writings of the Rema of Fano, apparently because the Yashar had not yet published his kabbalistic and scientific works at that time.
The Holy Shelah (Rabbi Yeshayahu HaLevi Horowitz)
The Holy Shelah served in the rabbinate in Prague and in Frankfurt before he immigrated to the Land of Israel in 5381 (1621). Although he was active in the same geographical areas through which the Yashar passed, no reference to him or to his books has been found in his work "Shnei Luchot ha-Brit."
Rabbi Moshe Chagiz
Rabbi Moshe Chagiz, who stood at the forefront of the struggle against Sabbateanism and wrote the book "Mishnat Chachamim" in defense of faith and tradition, did not explicitly mention the Yashar of Candia in his writings, although he opposed any approach that questioned the absolute authority of the Sages or the antiquity of the Zohar.
Rabbi Yair Chaim Bacharach (author of "Chavot Yair")
In the responsa "Chavot Yair" and in the other works of this distinctly Ashkenazi sage, who shows great interest in the sciences and mathematics, no direct reference to the Yashar of Candia has been found, which indicates that the Yashar was not perceived as a current halakhic authority in the German sphere at the end of the 17th century.
The Noda BiYehuda (Rabbi Yechezkel Landau)
The famous rabbi of Prague in the 18th century knew well the Yashar's grave and tombstone, which are located in his community, but in his extensive halakhic writings (the responsa Noda BiYehuda, Tziyun le-Nefesh Chayah) no reference to the Yashar's rulings or opinions has been found.
The Chatam Sofer (Rabbi Moshe Sofer)
The Chatam Sofer, who led the conservative Orthodox struggle against modern changes in the 19th century, referred to the Yashar in his sermons and his writings on worldview. He saw in the Yashar a tragic figure and a historical warning: a sage with immense Torah potential who turned to secular studies and external philosophy, and as a result lost his spiritual peace of mind and remained a restless wanderer without true rest in Torah. The Chatam Sofer presents the Yashar as an example of the fact that external sciences, even when they are studied by a genius, end up bringing about confusion of faith and spiritual dissatisfaction.
The Maharam Schick (Rabbi Moshe Schick)
The foremost student of the Chatam Sofer and a prominent Orthodox leader in Hungary. In his halakhic writings and his writings on worldview no reference to the Yashar of Candia has been found, in continuation of the line of his teacher, who kept away from any use of intellectual sources that do not come from the conservative beit midrash.
Rabbi Abraham Isaac HaKohen Kook (the Re'iyah)
Rabbi Kook presented an original and deeply defending approach toward the Yashar of Candia. In his letters (such as "Iggerot ha-Re'iyah," letter 104) he describes the Yashar as a "great and conflicted soul" and as a "spiritual giant" who sought to carry out an immense intellectual revolution – to unite all the expanses of the new physical science with the secrets of Kabbalah and the Divine. Rabbi Kook does not ignore the historical criticism of him, but he sees in the Yashar a pioneer of spiritual progress who suffered from the lack of understanding of his contemporaries, and emphasizes that the aspiration to unite science and Torah is a holy aspiration for whose full realization the intellectual conditions had not yet ripened in the Yashar's days.
The Chazon Ish (Rabbi Avraham Yeshayahu Karelitz)
The Chazon Ish, who firmly opposed any attempt to integrate modern scientific theories into the interpretation of the Torah and of faith, did not mention the Yashar of Candia at all in his writings, and his intellectual approach stands in absolute contrast to the scientific rationalism of the Yashar.
Rabbi Yosef Qafih
Rabbi Yosef Qafih, one of the great scholars of Maimonides and of the thought of Yemenite Jewry, referred to the Yashar with great esteem in the framework of his research on the sages of Yemen. He noted that the Jews of Yemen, who held a rich scientific-astronomical tradition from the days of Maimonides, showed immense interest in the Yashar's "Sefer Elim." The sages of Yemen copied extensive parts of the book by hand and used its mathematical formulas for calculations of the Hebrew calendar and the intercalation of years. Rabbi Qafih saw in the Yashar an exemplary model of a Jewish sage who combines pure science with loyalty to Jewish rationalist thought.
Rabbi Ovadia Yosef
In all the dozens of volumes of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's rulings (Yabia Omer, Yechaveh Da'at and others), which excel in immense erudition and in the citation of thousands of authors, no halakhic or ideological reference to the Yashar of Candia has been found, a fact that confirms that the Yashar remained outside the bounds of traditional Sephardi halakhic discourse.
Methodical Comparison: Praise and Criticism
Is the Yashar of Candia a Herald of the Haskalah
An objective examination of the Torah sources shows that none of the traditional sages of Israel described the Yashar with the term "herald of the Haskalah," since the Jewish Haskalah (Enlightenment) movement arose and was active chiefly at the end of the 18th century and in the 19th century, long after his death in 5415 (1655) [cite: 4]. The sages of Israel in the generations after him saw in him an individual deviation from the tradition accepted in Ashkenaz, but did not see him as part of an organized movement or as the founder of a new school.
Nevertheless, one can find in the conservative Torah sources references to the Yashar as a "breacher of the fence" who heralds spiritual danger. The Chatam Sofer and his students identified in his writings what they saw as the beginning of the modern process of preferring human reason and empirical scientific inquiry over the simple acceptance of the tradition of the Sages. On the other side, it was the Jewish maskilim of the 19th century (such as the members of "Chochmat Yisrael," the Science of Judaism) who adopted the figure of the Yashar of Candia and presented him as an official herald of their movement, relying on his textual criticism of the antiquity of the Book of the Zohar and on his extraordinary scientific openness [cite: 3].
His Historical and Torah Influence
The influence of the Yashar of Candia spread along three entirely different paths:
Scientific and Astronomical Influence
This is the field in which his influence was the broadest and most lasting. His books, and above all "Sefer Elim," served for generations as central textbooks for Jews who sought to acquire knowledge of mathematics, geometry and astronomy in the Hebrew language. This influence is especially prominent in Yemenite Jewry, as Rabbi Yosef Qafih testified; the sages of Yemen copied entire booklets from "Sefer Elim" for calculations of the intercalation of years and of the seasons of the year, and relied on his astronomical tables without any religious misgiving.
Kabbalistic Influence
Among the Kabbalists of Eastern Europe the book "Matzref la-Chochmah" achieved considerable circulation [cite: 3]. Despite the suspicions that the Yaavetz raised about the Yashar's sincerity [cite: 2], many Kabbalists used the defensive arguments the Yashar presented in this book to repel attacks by rationalists against Kabbalah, while ignoring his critical remarks about the late redaction of the Book of the Zohar [cite: 3].
Halakhic Influence
The Yashar's influence on halakhic decision was negligible. Apart from focused mathematical discussions on matters of the sanctification of the new month, the major halakhic decisors did not rely on his rulings and did not bring proofs from his words, as a direct result of his being pushed away from the rabbinic consensus in the wake of the incisive criticism of the Yaavetz and his circle [cite: 2].
A Methodological Distinction between Facts, Traditions, Interpretation and Conjectures
In order to maintain scientific-historical precision, one must distinguish clearly between these four categories when we come to analyze the figure of the Yashar of Candia:
- Facts: The dates of the Yashar's birth and death [cite: 1, 4]; the fact that he studied in Padua under Galileo [cite: 4]; the printing of his books in Amsterdam and in Basel [cite: 3]; his service as physician to Prince Radziwiłł [cite: 4]. These facts are backed by historical documents, university archives and the title pages of the original books.
- Traditions: The tradition among the Jews of Yemen that ascribes importance and absolute scientific precision to the Yashar's astronomical calculations in "Sefer Elim," a tradition preserved through many handwritten copies of the work in these communities.
- Interpretation: The famous interpretation of Rabbi Yaakov Emden, according to which the Yashar was a man coerced in his opinions who deliberately lied in his book "Matzref la-Chochmah" in order to save himself from religious persecution [cite: 2, 3]. This is a legitimate psychological and textual interpretation, but it is not a proven historical fact, since it is possible that the Yashar truly experienced a genuine inner conflict and sincerely tried to bridge the two worlds.
- Conjectures: Various scholarly conjectures according to which the Yashar was an active participant in secret Sabbatean networks or held hidden pantheistic heretical views that influenced the young Baruch Spinoza in Amsterdam. These are merely circumstantial conjectures that have no foothold or proof in the primary sources of the Yashar or of his contemporaries.
A Critical Review of the Academic Research
After examining the primary sources, it is appropriate to review critically the central claims raised in modern academic research about the Yashar of Candia:
The Thesis of the "Early Maskil" and the "Dual Personality"
Prominent scholars in the 20th century (such as Yitzchak Barzilay in his comprehensive monograph on the Yashar, and Gershom Scholem in his studies of Kabbalah) presented the Yashar of Candia as a figure with a "psychological duality" or a "dual personality." According to them, the Yashar was at bottom a distinctly modern rationalist who entirely rejected mysticism, but was compelled to write the defense "Matzref la-Chochmah" out of social and economic constraints and in order to preserve his standing in the Orthodox communities in which he lived [cite: 3].
Critical assessment of the sources of the thesis: These scholars based their view mainly on the analysis of Rabbi Yaakov Emden in "Mitpachat Sefarim" [cite: 2]. They adopted the Yaavetz's determination that the Yashar was not sincere in his kabbalistic writings [cite: 2, 3], but unlike the Yaavetz, who saw this as a moral flaw and heresy, the modern scholars saw it as an expression of coerced modern thought fighting for its scientific freedom.
Alternative conclusion: A close reading of the Yashar's writings shows that this thesis sometimes suffers from anachronism. In the 17th century, the attempt to combine new empirical science with mysticism and theology was not considered hypocrisy or a split personality, but was the royal road of the greatest scientists (such as Isaac Newton, who engaged in alchemy and in biblical interpretation, and Johannes Kepler, who sought a mystical harmony in the motion of the stars). It is therefore entirely reasonable that the Yashar saw in Kabbalah a supreme metaphysics capable of coexisting with the physics of Galileo [cite: 4], without any need to ascribe to him insincerity or religious coercion.
The Controversy over the Authenticity of the Book "Matzref la-Chochmah"
An extensive academic dispute rages around the question of whether the Yashar of Candia is indeed the author of the book "Matzref la-Chochmah" in its entirety [cite: 3], or whether it is a work that was edited, altered or even partly fabricated by his students or by the printers in Amsterdam in order to legitimize his scientific book "Elim."
- The view of the doubters: Some scholars argue that the florid style and the traditional arguments in "Matzref la-Chochmah" differ essentially from the scientific and ironic style that characterizes "Nofet Tzufim" [cite: 3], and therefore it is a pseudepigraphic work intended to serve as a religious "fig leaf."
- The view of the upholders: Other scholars prove, by comparing distinctive terms and the use of mathematical sources, that both works came from the hand of the same author. They explain the difference in style as a conscious expression of dialectical, multilayered writing, characteristic of members of the intellectual elite of that period.
Summary and Conclusions
Rabbi Yosef Shlomo Delmedigo, the Yashar of Candia, remains one of the most fascinating and stormy figures in the history of Jewish thought. Weighing the primary sources and the testimonies of his contemporaries leads to the following conclusions:
- A synthesis between worlds: The Yashar was neither a disguised heretic nor a typical conservative Kabbalist. He was a Jewish Renaissance man who courageously sought to bridge the new science of Galileo and the Jewish world of esoteric lore and Kabbalah [cite: 4], out of a deep belief that truth is one and that its source is divine.
- A gap in reception: Whereas the Yashar earned immense admiration for his scientific and mathematical achievements and profoundly influenced secular studies among Jews (and in particular in Yemenite Jewry), he was almost entirely rejected from the halakhic and theological consensus of the Jewry of Ashkenaz and Eastern Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, mainly under the influence of the incisive criticism of Rabbi Yaakov Emden [cite: 2].
- Historical correction: The attitude of the sages of Israel toward him reflects the built-in tension that the rabbinic world experienced in its encounter with modernity. From the almost total rejection of the Yaavetz and the Chatam Sofer, this attitude moved to a dialectical and complex appreciation among the rabbis of the 20th century (such as Rabbi Kook and Rabbi Yosef Qafih), who see in him a pioneer who was ahead of his time in his attempt to place the wisdom of Israel at the forefront of general human science.
Sources5
- 1.יוסף שלמה דלמדיגו - ויקיפדיה, he.wikipedia.org/wiki/יוסף_שלמה_דלמדיגו
- 2.מטפחת ספרים - ויקיפדיה, he.wikipedia.org/wiki/מטפחת_ספרים
- 3.שאלות בנושא קדושת הזוהר והאר"י - הרב מיכאל אברהם, mikyab.net/שות/שאלות-בנושא-קדושת-הזוהר-והארי-2/
- 4.על שפינוזה, הרפואה, המדע והרופאים, ohrybros.com/post/על-שפינוזה-הרפואה-המדע-והרופאים
- 5.משנה ברכות א א - ויקיטקסט, he.wikisource.org/wiki/משנה_ברכות_א_א