The Vilna Gaon, Aristotle, and The Solar System

How to understand the argument the Gra would have used to convince Aristotle

In the introduction to his edition of the Vilna Gaon's commentary to Avos (מרכבת אליהו), R' Mendel M'Shklov relates how he and the Gra had once discussed Aristotle. The Gra noted his conviction that Aristotle had willfully denied God's existence and that his views weren't simply the result of error. How did the Gra know that? Here's how R' Mendel recorded the Gra's response:

אלו בא לפני הייתי מראה לו סיבוב החמה והלבנה עם כוכביהם מאירים על השולחן הזה כאשר יאירו ברקיע השמים

"If Aristotle had been brought before me I would have shown him the orbits of the sun, the moon, and their stars shining on the table the same way they shine in the heavens. How could he have denied (the existence of God) to claim that the world runs through nature? Would it have been impossible for Shimon Hatzadik (a presumed contemporary of Aristotle) to show him such wonders from the power of God?"

In response to R' Mendel's shocked reaction, the Gra explained how that would have worked:

"Why are you amazed? Through one (kabbalistic) name I have done all that, and the gaonim from after the time of the Gemara knew that also."

I think that there’s a lot to unpack here. First off, I should put what I’ve quoted in context: it’s what was represented in the book’s introduction as a memory of an historical conversation. As reliable as that source might be, it’s not the same as reading it from the Gra’s own written words.

Second, I’m going to work on the assumption that this account is accurate and ask questions about it. But, while we’re always free to disagree with positions held by the Gra, we’d be foolish to underestimate him. So my questions should be understood in that light.

Here’s what I don’t understand:

1. The Gra seems to assume that Aristotle must have been aware of this argument (and rejected it). But is that necessarily true? Even if Aristotle was a contemporary of Shimon Hatzadik, and even if the two did meet, who’s to say that they would ever have discussed this particular topic?

2. Even if Aristotle did meet Shimon Hatzadik and even if they did talk about God, who says that Shimon would have had access to the kind of kabbalistic tools necessary for making the Gra’s argument? After all, I don’t believe that there are any historical claims for such things predating 17th Century Tzfas.

3. Even if Shimon did somehow have this access, who is to say he would have felt it appropriate to disrupt the workings of God’s universe by forcing this kind of intervention? After all, the Ramban (Beraishis 6:19) teaches us that miracles should be minimized wherever possible.

4. And why would the Gra feel that this particular argument would be effective?Again: what was the Gra’s argument? “How could he have denied (the existence of God) to claim that the world runs through nature?” But nearly all rishonim teach that the world does run through nature - albeit the nature that God designed (see Ramban to Beraishis 9:12). If the Ramban wouldn’t have accepted that kind of proof, why should Aristotle?

But there’s something else here that caught my attention. Let’s take another look at the Gra’s reported words:

"If Aristotle had been brought before me I would have shown him the orbits of the sun, the moon, and their stars shining on the table the same way they shine in the heavens.”

Notice how it’s the orbits of “the sun, the moon, and their stars” - but not the orbit of the earth. Also, it’s “their stars”, not “the stars”.

Was the Gra assuming that the sun orbited around the earth and that the stars were attached to spheres and locked into the orbit of the sun and/or the moon? That’s remarkable, considering how the Gra lived two centuries after Nicolaus Copernicus published his "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres) in 1543.

UPDATE: A helpful comment to this post alerted me to the introduction (page 10) of “Gaon Yisroel”, a recent Hebrew biography of R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach. You can read the original in the comments below. But R’ Auerbach reportedly used this story as an example of narratives that present little value and that, in their simple form at least, shouldn’t be believed. R’ Shach also reacted in a similar way to this particular story.