Zachary Ottenstein
Professor Leiman
Book of Proverbs- BRGS 8250
11.30.20
Rabbi Elijah of Vilna: His Life and Commentary on the Book of Proverbs
Rabbi Elijah of Vilna, the Vilna Gaon or Gr”a, was one of the most famous Jewish
thinkers and legislators of the 18th century. Born in 1720, the Gaon was of Polish origin and
spent his childhood in the city of Sialiec in what is modern day Belarus1. As a child he was
taught by Rabbi Moses Margalit, the author of the Pnei Moshe commentary on the Jerusalem
Talmud2. Elijah showed tremendous intellectual potential as a young student and it is said, albeit
with little to corroborate it, that by the time he was four years old he had committed the entire 24
books of the Hebrew Bible to memory3. It is more well known, and verified by one of his
primary students, that the Gr”a could “quote by heart the entire Babylonian and Jerusalem
Talmuds, and the Mekhilta, and Sifri,and the Tosefta.4” In adulthood Rabbi Elijah settled in
Vilna and refused to accept any official title due to his modesty; he lived an ascetic lifestyle as he
believed literally the words of the Sages that Torah knowledge can only be acquired through
self-negation and abstention from pleasure.
Not only was the Vilna Gaon famous for his scholarship, but he was also famous for his
feud with the early founders of the Hasidic Judaism5. The Gr”a participated in many of the
orders of cherem that were enacted in order to curb the efforts of the Hasidim; in 1781 he
personally enacted a cherem against Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, the founder of the Habad
1
Cohn-Sherbok, 67
Shechter and Seligsohn, 1
3
Ibid
4
Etkes, 12
5
Satlow,282
2
movement. The Gaon had some biting word to describe the Hasidim including “pantheist6” and
“heretic”; his attacks on the Hasidim were one of the few times that he made a venture into
public life. Since the Gr”a was more or less a recluse, he wrote prolifically about all areas of
Jewish law, the Bible, and Kabbalah, but never published any of his works himself. It was the
students of Rabbi Elijah that published his works after his death in 1797. The importance of the
Gaon’s students in publishing his writings cannot be overstated; without them the current student
would have no access to one of the most influential figures of modern Torah scholarship.
The Vilna Gaon wrote commentaries on many books of the Hebrew Bible with his
commentary on Proverbs being only a small portion of what he had to offer the world of Biblical
commentary. His commentary to the Book of Proverbs was published only a year after his death
in 1798. The student responsible for having the commentary printed was Menahem Mendel of
Khasilovitch, who would later become Menahem Mendel of Shklov. Rabbi Menahem Mendel
would eventually move to the Ottoman Palestine along with many of the Gaon’s other disciples.
Often the student of the Gaon responsible for bringing a given work to press would write the
introduction to that work, thus the introduction to the Gr”as’ commentary on Proverbs was
written by Rabbi Menahem Mendel7.
A large percentage of the introduction to the Gaon’s commentary is simply Rabbi
Menahem Mendel giving hagiographic praise to his teacher whom he refers to as the “crown of
Israel and their glory,” but he also provides many useful insights into the composition and goals
of the commentary. It is interesting to note that according to Rabbi Menahem Mendel the first of
the Gr”a’s works that he wished to be published after his death was his commentary on Proverbs.
6
7
Schechter and Seligsohn, 1
Katznellenbogen,11
Dozens, if not hundreds, of commentaries were composed by the Gr”a, but it seems as though
this one held a unique importance to him as it contained “fear of God and the beginning of
wisdom.8” The Gaon was not necessarily seeking peshat in his commentary, according to his
student, but rather wanted to combine a search for the plainest meaning of the verses with
deeper, often kabbalistic, insights; he described peshat as being the base of a ladder, but the total
gamut of interpretations is a ladder with its top in the heavens, alluding to Jacob’s dream in
Genesis 28:12. Even R. Menahem Mendel’s introduction to the work contains an insight into the
masterful kabalistic insights of the Vilna Gaon. The Gaon believed that the Book of Proverbs is
composed of three distinct sections- one from chapter 1 to 10, one from 10 to 25, and a third
from 25 to the end of the book. To the Gr”a this 3-part division symbolized three parts of
wisdom: Hokhma- wisdom, Mussar- loosely translated as “ethics”, and Imrei Binah- literally
“passages of understanding; each one of the named sections was assigned a theme by the Gr”a.
The section designated as Hokhma by the Gaon is dedicated to the “seductions of the evil
inclination and how to counteract them9. The next section, that titled Mussar, is an exploration of
what the Gr”a refers to as daat. He elaborates on this section and explains its structure. Almost
every verse in these chapters is a discussion of something along with its opposite. Each verse
stands alone and bears no connection to the previous one; this is in order to actualize knowledge
of God’s ways and their inverse, as this is the essence of knowledge. The section designated as
Imrei Binah is in reference to the Torah as many of the verses in these chapters speak of the
Torah and its greatness. As great as the introduction is at contextualizing and thematizing
8
9
Katznellenbogen,12
Ibid
Proverbs, if the structural view maintained by the Gr”a is too closely adhered to, other thematic
points and nuances may be lost.
The Gr”a again discusses the structure of the Book of Proverbs in his comments to 10:1
along similar lines to his introduction, but his comments on this verse are an excellent vista into
the Gr”a’s unique ability to combine peshat analysis with kabbalistic ideas. Proverbs 10:1 reads
“[Proverbs of Solomon:] a wise son gladdens his father and the foolish son is his mother’s
sorrow10.” The verse is logical in that it is understandable that parents desire intelligent children
and are saddened by a child that is of low mental capacity, but it is unclear from the verse itself
why the father, only the father, is gladdened by his wise son and why only the mother has the
ability to be upset at her son’s stupidity? Although the context is by no means explicit, the Gr”a
explains this verse to be referring to the context of Torah study. The wise son studies with his
father and thus his father takes pleasure at hearing his insights, whereas the mother is not in the
Beit Midrash to witness her son’s scholarly abilities in action. If the son acts foolishly, his father
would not take him to the study hall and thus his mother alone would be witness to his childish
behavior. It can definitely be argued that the Gr”a superimposed his own social reality, a society
in which men study and women remain at home, onto the verse, but given his social reality it is
a sensible interpretation. Other commentaries may contextualize this verse differently, but this is
not a problem as the peshat interpretation of the verse can morph over time11.
The Gra”s second comment to Proverbs 10:1 is a glimpse at the Vilna Gaon’s amazing
kabbalistic knowledge and his ability to use it in interpreting a biblical verse. Kabbalah is a
10
All translations of the Hebrew Bible are my own in consultation with the translations of JPS (1917 and 1985),
Robert Alter (2018), and Michael V. Fox (2015)
11
See the comments of R’ Samuel ben Meir (Rashbam) on Genesis 37:2 for a further discussion of the changing
nature of peshat
system of thought that involves many uses many binary opposites as symbols; light versus dark,
male as opposed to female, and existence versus nonexistence all play significant roles in
kabbalistic thought. This particular verse describes the nature of the mother-son and father-son
relationship and thus it is only natural that the kabalistic interpretation of the verse would be one
that uses the male and female as prototypes. The Gr”a writes, based on the works of other
kabbalists, that in every person there are two “forces”, a fatherly force and the force of the
mother. This idea of a fatherly and motherly force in a child is most likely based on a Talmudic
passage which states, “there are three partners in the creation of a child- G-d, his father, and his
mother12.” The Talmud assigns to positive or negative values to each of the parties involved in a
child’s creation, but kabbalah, as quoted by the Gaon, says that when the fatherly attribute is
dominant, the child will be wise and righteous. If the motherly attribute is dominant in the child,
the child will be a fool.
This comment may seem a bit shocking, especially to the modern reader who does not
see a fundamental difference between the intelligence of men and women; but it should not be
forgotten that the Gaon lived in an era that did not value the education of women and thus did
not create educational opportunities for them. The women may have appeared to be less
intelligent than the male population, but it was by no fault of their own that they could not reach
the same intellectual heights as the men. Even an average man was not usually afforded the
opportunity to study in a yeshiva, only a few elites who demonstrated tremendous intellectual
acumen would be selected to study in the yeshiva. With the historical background in mind, it is
definitely possible that the Gr”a did not mean to appear chauvinistic in his comment about the
nature of men and women, but was simply stating a fact- a child would gain more knowledge
12
BT Kiddushin 30a
from spending time around his father as it was the father who himself had received some
education, whereas the mother’s education was most likely quite minimal.
Proverbs 10:20 is an especially difficult verse to interpret; the new JPS translates it as
“The tongue of a righteous man is choice silver, But the mind of the wicked is of little worth.13”
It may seem problematic to translate the word lev as “mind”, but many times throughout the
Bible the “heart” is used symbolically to connote the conscience and thoughts of an individual or
group14. The contrast between the “tongue of the righteous man” and the “mind of the wicked” is
immediately apparent; this seems to be in contradiction to the direct antithetic parallelism found
in many other verses found in Chapter 10. While less important than the issues raised above, it is
notable that for much of human history silver was considered more valuable than gold15 and thus
the comparison to “choice silver” is a non-issue.
Beside for his usage of peshat and kabalistic concepts to interpret verses from Proverbs,
the Vilna Gaon also used many passages from the Talmud, both the Babylonian and Jerusalem,
to interpret verses from Proverbs. Most of the legal material found in the Talmud would not be
suitable for interpreting the largely poetic and philosophically- driven Book of Proverbs, but the
Talmud contains many sections of narrative and ethical teachings that are useful as exegetical
tools. The Gra”s comments to Proverbs 10:20 revolve heavily around a passage from BT Sotah
40a. The Gaon, in a similar style to that of many Midrashic works, quotes a verse, not
necessarily related to the text, before explaining the rabbinic texts that he wants to explain. In
this case the Gaon chose Daniel 12:3 which reads, “And the knowledgeable will be radiant like
the bright expanse of sky, and those who lead the many to righteousness will be like the stars
13
New JPS translation accessed at https://www.sefaria.org/Proverbs.10?lang=bi
See Genesis 31:20, Deuteronomy 29:3, and I Kings 12:27 etc.
15
Weeks, 56
14
forever and ever.” According to the Gaon there are two types of righteous people- those that are
“maskilim” and those that are referred to as “matzdikim.” It is related in the Talmud that R.
Hiyya bar Abba would expound the law and that R. Abbahu would expound the aggedata. The
word aggegdata is difficult to translate neatly into English, but the majority scholarly opinion is
that it comes from the Hebrew word lehagid, to recite1617, thus referring to the non-legal material
of the Talmud. In the mind of the Gr”a the “maskilim” are called as such because they educate
the nation [of Israel] by teaching them the law. Likewise, those that teach the aggedata are called
the “matzdikim” because they help draw the hearts of the people to the ways of God, thus
helping them to become righteous people; these people are worth gold and silver for their desire
to help improve the quality of a person’s spiritual life.
The same passage from the Talmud goes on to relate that one-day R. Abbahu and R.
Hiyya bar Abba taught their respective disciplines in the same place, many students left R.
Hiyya’s lecture and went to that of R. Abbahu. R. Abbahu noticed the frustration his colleague
and explained that “if two people are selling items, one is selling precious stones and the other is
selling small items, the masses will gravitate to the seller of the small items; aggedata was
accessible and thus it was popular. The Gra goes on to connect this piece of the Talmudic
narrative to Proverbs” Gold is only required by wealthy people who use it to buy expensive
items. Silver is used by all people, both rich and poor, to purchase common items. Even the
wealthy require the less valuable silver to purchase items as gold cannot be used in all
instances.”
16
Lifshitz,23
A minority scholarly opinion says the word aggedata comes from the Hebrew neged. Rashi on Exodus 13:15
seems to believe this to be the etymology and says that it is aggedata which draws the heart of man closer.
17
The
(Proverbs 10:20)
A discussion of the Vilna Gaon and his writings mandates that the claims regarding the
Gr”a and his relationship to the Haskalah be investigated, especially with regard to how his
commentary on Proverbs may be reactive to the Haskalah. There is much speculation regarding
how the Gaon related to the beginnings of the Jewish enlightenment, the Haskalah. Rabbi Barukh
of Shklov, a maskil who was responsible for translating Euclid into Hebrew, claims in the
introduction