465) Did R. Chaim of Volozhin intentionally alter the image of the Vilna Gaon?

 

A 1704 manuscript of an early Hebrew translation of Euclid’s Elements. Later, in 1780, the first printed Hebrew edition of Euclid's Elements, was published in Amsterdam, translated into Hebrew by R. Baruch Schick of Shklov, on the instruction of the Vilna Gaon. 

Abstract

Based on a comparison between the various representations of the Vilna Gaon’s worldview by his different students, it seems that his main student, R. Chaim of Volozhin, meticulously selected, if not shaped, only certain aspects of his teacher’s ideology to present to future generations. We shall examine how R. Chaim of Volozhin crafted an image of the Vilna Gaon as: 

1) a religious scholar not interested in the secular scholarship; 

2a) a theoretical or theosophical master of mysticism with no interest in theurgical or practical Kabbalah;

2b) a master practical Kabbalist (the previous characterisation of the Vilna Gaon as a 'theoretical Kabbalist' was later changed to present him as 'practical Kabbalist'), and

3) a spiritual innovator who intended to present an ‘authorised’ version of mysticism, in lieu of Chassidism, to the Lithuanian Mitnagdim. 

These representations are then compared to how other students and family members charactersied and witnessed the Vilna Gaon, and to what the Gaon himself had expressed on these matters.

285) UNDERSTANDING THE NEFESH HACHAIM:

The Nefesh haChaim by R. Chaim of Volozhin (1749-1821)

Another Guest Post by Rabbi Boruch Clinton.

This article is meant to somehow become a part of my Finding Tradition in a Modern Torah World project:

https://marbitz.com/home/rabbi-s-r-hirsch/finding-tradition-in-the-modern-torah-world/

Introduction:

Among my many sins, I spent years teaching Torah for a living. During those years I was often forced to confront - both for myself and for my students - why some answers and explanations are more likely true than others. To large measure, I eventually settled on a variation of Occam's razor which, roughly described, states that a problem's true resolution is probably the one which requires the least interpretation. For all intents and purposes, the Talmud does this on nearly every page; rejecting a proof whenever another equally (or more) likely possibility is presented.

I would often apply the tool during debates. To briefly illustrate (based on another of my articles): Is the Chasam Sofer's way of understanding Rabbi Yishmael's interpretation of Deut. 11:14 a possible meaning of the Gemara in Berachos 35b (which the Chasam Sofer insists would only apply within geographic Israel)? Of course. But, given the fact that Rava explicitly applies the Rabbi Yishmael’s position to his students – most of whom surely lived outside Israel – suggests that possible is not synonymous with likely. And derush is not the same as pshat.