Mar 7, 2015 By: jtaubes
The Gaon of Vilna, Elijah ben Shlomo Zalman Kremer (1720-1797), was the topic of a special Revel lecture on Thursday, February 19th, āVilna Gaon: Halakhist, Moderate Maskil or Kabbalist?ā by Dr. Raphael Shuchat of Bar-Ilan University. This event was sponsored by the
As the lecture title itself suggests, the Vilna Gaonās persona, as well as his multifaceted scholarship and contribution to Jewish learning, are complex.
The persona of the Vilna Gaon is elusive for two reasons. To begin with, he spent his life secluded in the confines of his books, and actually taught only a small group of students. Furthermore, despite his great scholarship, the Gaon published nothing in his lifetime. His marginal glosses on the classic works of Judaismā such as the Bible, the Talmud, and Shulhan Arukhā were published after his death by his students. The only independent book (i.e., not a commentary) of the Gaonās is Ayil Meshulash, a work on trigonometry published from his manuscript posthumously. The many other books attributed to the Vilna Gaon were actually compiled by his studentsāour only source of knowledge regarding the persona and scholarship of the great sage.
The first of the Gaonās printed works was his commentary on Proverbs, published by his student Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Shklov, who in some of his later introductions celebrated the breadth of his teacherās learning, including secular disciplines, such as mathematics and astronomy. The appearance of that biographical side of Gaon, troubled Rabbi Hayyim Volozhināconsidered by many to be the Gaonās main discipleāwho wished to keep the Gaon's interest in science and mathematics private. As Dr. Shuchat explained, Reb Hayyim was wary of what he considered to be misleading portrayals of the Gaonās orientation. He therefore composed the introduction to the next publication of the Gaonās writings: Shenot Eliyahu, his commentary on Seder Zeraāim (1799). There, Reb Hayyim describes the Gaon as a scholar singularly dedicated to Torah study, constantly donning tefillin, always remaining within the āfour cubits of halakhah.ā Conspicuously absent is any reference to secular learning. In contrast, Rabbi Israel of Shklov, in his introduction to Peāat Hashulhan (the commentary of the Gaon on Shulhan Arukh), emphasized the Gaonās knowledge of secular wisdom, echoing the depiction by Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Shklov. Likewise, Rabbi Yehuda Leib, the Gaonās son, and his nephew Rabbi Yaakov Moshe of Slonim wrote an introduction to Beāurei HaZohar (commentary on the Zohar) that prominently mentions the expertise of the Gaon in astronomy, astrology, and algebra.
Some of the Gaonās students acknowledged his expertise in secular wisdom, but found other ways to marginalize that aspect of his legacy. Rabbi Yitzhak Haver and Rabbi Eliyahu Rogeler, in their separate works dedicated to disseminating their masterās learning, denounced secular studies as an ideal: though the Gaon himself learned secular sciences, that path was permissible only to him, due to his outstanding level of Torah knowledge; others, however, must restrict themselves to studying the Talmud alone.
Through these examples, Dr. Shuchat demonstrated the struggle amongst the Vilna Gaonās students to portray the image of their master in accordance with their own views regarding secular knowledge. Dr. Shuchat briefly pointed to a similar divergence of portrayals of the Gaonās mystical learning. While all admit that the Gaon studied and commented on kabbalistic works such as the Zohar and Tikunei Zohar Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Shklov was the first to to describe the Gaon as a mystic in his own right in the theoretical and ecstatic sense. In fact, the Gaon's interest in kabbalistic literature created a renewed interest in this often neglected field of Jewish learning. Evidence for the latter can be seen in the many kabbalistic books published in the Gaonās name in the decades after his death as well as the many kabbalistic works published in Lithuania in the 50 years after his death.
Toward the end of his lecture, Dr. Shuchat noted another dimension of the Gaonās legacy that was realized only in his students: a strong connection to Eretz Yisrael. The Gaon himself wished to make Aliyah, and even set out to settle in the holy landābut for some unknown reason was forced to return to Vilna. Yet a number of his students did, in fact, settle successfully in Eretz Yisrael.
In conclusion, Dr. Shuchat emphasized the multifaceted nature of the Gaonās profound scholarship, which lends itself to multiple, even conflicting, portrayalsā conveyed to us by his different students. The Gaon thus remains today the ever complex mystery, much as he was in his lifetime in Vilna, where, despite being a pillar of the community, his true essence was inscrutable, and his rich legacy irreducible to simple classification.
This review was written by Miriam Khukhashvili SCW '15 and Revel '17
