Talk:Vilna Gaon

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

Shalom all!

I'd like to discuss modern developments & studies of GRA.--Fivetrees 19:37, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Page move

This article has been renamed after the result of a move request:

Elijah ben Solomon → Vilna Gaon

Simple issue of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names). Many Jewish sages have been known primarily by something other than their 'full and correct' name.--Pharos 15:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• support. He had dozens of other names but this one seems to have stuck. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• support, I think this is the single name he is best known as. Rje 21:37, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)
• support. "Elijah ben Solomon" is used in academia, but "Vilna Gaon" is the common name. The Google test says "Elijah ben Solomon" gets 3,100 hits, whereas "Vilna Gaon" gets 17,500. The six to one ratio is pretty compelling imho. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:33, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose The redirect works fine as it is...it is not like Vilna Gaon is redirecting to some other guy known as the "Genius of Vilnius." Secondly, we don't move Albert Anastasia (Umberto Anastasio) the boss of Murder, Inc. to an article titled by either of his nicknames Lord High Executioner and the Mad Hatter (both of which appeared in the headlines of the New York Times more often than his actual name)...nor do we redirect Dwight Eisenhower to an article entitled Ike, John F. Kennedy to JFK or philosophers like Roger Bacon as a redirect to Doctor Mirabilis . Though, in these examples, the nicknames (as is the case with "Genius of Vilnius") were just as ubiquitous if not moreso. —ExplorerCDT 18:33, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• support under the "name most commonly used in English" principle. Jonathunder 02:17, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

• Have you looked through the 17,500 google responses for "Vilna Gaon" to see if all of them are English? I take it that you haven't as a summary of the first 1000 (I like 100 results per page), shows quite a few pages of transliterated Hebrew and Lithuanian. Google test shouldn't be the basis for everything, and should be taken with analysis...the proverbial bucketloader of salt. —ExplorerCDT 02:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

When I searched on it, google returned about 16,900 English pages for "Vilna Gaon" and only about 2,020 pages in English for "Elijah ben Solomon" Jonathunder 02:38, 2005 Feb 13 (UTC)

Adereth Eliyahu (one of the Vilna Gaon's works)

Translating this title as "The Splendor of Elijah" or something similar is OK, I suppose, but like many titles of rabbinic works, this one makes a play on words. Its meaning recalls most forcefully to someone who knows the bible in Hebrew "the cloak of Elijah" in the book of Kings (the words for that phrase are identical to the title: "adereth Eliyahu"). I think more Hebrew readers think of that than of any other meaning for this title. It may make sense, then, to mention the pun in addition to the translation given.

66.135.106.50 00:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Cy

Small vs. regular size references

What is the issue here? Why is one preferred over the other? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:04, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

For this particular case, I find it of textural benefit in having them footnote-sized. This is how I originally authored it here, and having not seen a convincing reason (which is to say, any) for why they should be changed, I reverted to the original. Of course, I remain open to persuasion. El_C 17:30, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems that the vast majority of articles have regular size references, and small ones are harder to read, especially if someone is visually challenged. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:59, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I've had this argument before, Jay, more than once, and to reiterate my answer: if footnote-sized is considered too small for references, then the same would be true for footnotes, thus, more fundamental changes wrt these (& wiki code) would need to be implemented. As it stands, footnotes are used in Wikipedia in that size and I have not heard any such complaints to that effect directed towards (the embedded size of) footnotes, only references. The way I see it, it's (informally) within the guidelines of the MoS. As for the visually impaired, they can increase the text-size or use other tools, but again, this is a problem they will encounter just the same in footnotes — and we're both in agreement, I'm sure, that Wikipedia articles need more footnotes, and more references, in general. That said, if two editors revert me, I'll probably back down, which would not however be the case for other, lengthier reference sections where a footnote-sized reference section makes a significant difference in terms of the size of the respective section viz. the body and the rest of the article. In summary, if you, as a 2nd editor, disagree with its use in this particular article, by all means, remove the small tag, I will not revert or object (though, again, this might not be the case for other articles). Hope that clarifies my position. El_C 23:00, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The small tag should not be used at all. Apart for obvious formatting issues, such as the 2 in O₂, there is no argument to insert additional code for this. If all footnotes should be small, which I would disagree with, the template should be edited accordingly. JFW | T@lk 07:06, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Following that logic, one would have difficulties distinguishing between O₂ and O₃ — you can't have it both ways, Jfdwolff... El_C 10:57, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. I'm putting in a request for comments on this, as you cannot force consensus on formatting on one single page. Your response about oxygen/ozone is just silly. My point is not readability, my point is that there is no consensus to format footnotes in the way you are doing it. JFW | T@lk 11:36, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. I did not format footnotes here, nor am I forcing consensus. [1] El_C 11:46, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

El C, you are being annoying. Using the rollback button when I offered a good reason for removing the "small" tags is not very polite[2]. The manual of style says nothing about making footnotes/endnotes small, and consensus appears to be that footnotes are not made small.

This page is now on requests for comments, so I think you should not have reverted but rather awaited community input. JFW | T@lk 12:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

You feel I am being annoying is a more diplomatic way to phrase it. I, for one, am of the opinion that you should not have reverted then issued the RFC. There was no harm in using rollback once (the first and only time) since all you said was "References - no <small> in references." You can count my singular rollback, then, as a "References - yes <small> in references," no? And yet you call that edit summary a reason? The way I see it, a reason would involve a because, not merely be limited to a description of the action per se. Furthermore, there is no consensus to enforce size uniformity for those sections, I belive you grossly misunderstand the purpose of the MoS in this case. Finally, you should not get so upset over such a minor an issue —it seems to me that the only other participant in this discussion, Jayjg, found it minor enough not to adopt a position either way. Note what I said to him "if two editors revert me, I'll probably back down." Sheesh. That is all. El_C 12:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I feel that references should be regular sized, but I am certainly willing to be convinced otherwise, and in any event am not willing to edit war over the issue. I do think that use of the administrator revert is best reserved either for cases of vandalism, or for cases when the original editor made no comment as to the reason for the edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I seem to recall, Jayjg, speaking in your defence in a certain bogus Arbitration case, arguing that the rollback counts as a normal edit revert (since your accuser saw it very differently, and I don't believe vandalism was involved). Perhaps my memory is failing me (it's likely), but regardless, let me be clear: if I feel like reverting someone and their edit summary only depicts their action (which, once again, isn't a reason, let alone, a "good reason," as was claimed), I will save the time of copying and pasting and writing out the edit summary "rv," and I will use the rollback function for that as I see fit (unless I know in advance that that person find it objectionable). One bothers to change something, whether they choose to explain why, is their preogrative; it's nice that they describe what they did, but I can see that in the diff anyway. As for small, I am certain that if it ever becomes a factor, it can be added to the MoS, relatively effortlessly for that matter (I don't see it being that much of a difficulty to gain the consensus for that). At the event, I'm pretty sure the only time I add small is when I am sole author of the reference section in question. In some articles it remains, in some articles it was reverted by more than one person and I let it go, and others I will not so easily. All in all, it isn't such a big deal to begin with, and I don't like how people consider any revert quantitatively as a 'war,' without looking at the qualitative aspect —quantitatively it's just a click of the mouse and a couple of k of info sent (and the same, in that sense, goes for rollback), with a maximum of 3 per day (And yet there's all this tensions, as if it is necessitated by proceduralism alone). I also don't like how I feel the need to clarify something this trivial at such length and with such precision. El_C 07:27, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

When I was a new administrator I made liberal use of the rollback feature, and was admonished for it. I know that people tend to see rollbacks as insulting, so I was telling you the circumstances under which I will typically use them, which is, when someone has obviously vandalized, or when someone has made an obviously POV or otherwise policy-violating edit without a comment (particularly if they mark it as minor and in fact they turn out to be major). My comment was not meant as rebuke; I was just sharing my own views (admittedly unasked for) as to more generally accepted uses of the rollback, and (indirectly) why someone might take umbrage. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. At the event, it was a minor edit, and I still don't see why anyone would be offended by it (it dosen't sound as if it would have offended you). Oh well, I'll keep that consideration in mind, but otherwise, I stand by my aforementioned comments. El_C 22:19, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

You started reverting. You are introducing more formatting than is strictly necessary. Uniformity is the whole purpose of the MoS, and the absence of instructions to make footnotes small should be taken to mean that they are to be the normal size. You still haven't given a good reason why they should be small. JFW | T@lk 12:47, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, Jfdwolff, I urge you to adopt a more diplomatic phraseology. 'No reason which you feel is good.' And this is not related to necessity, is my argument, in fact. As mentioned, I consider it of relatively minor import. Really, I suggest you relax wrt this; it isn't such a big deal, I have argued these same points before, always under far more calm cirscumstances. As I said in my very first comment, if one other editor agrees with you, I'll back down. So you issued the RFC, I, therefore, instruct you to follow your own advice and wait for input. Either that, or opt for more collegial, less tense approach to discussing this. El_C 13:18, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd rather not get involved in the debate about Wikiquette & reverts & the rest, but I must admit that I don't like the use of the 'small' tag; it can indeed make text difficult to read for users with smaller monitors, or whose eyesight is poor, and I think that readability should be paramount. Looking above, the only reason that I can see for making them small is "textural benefit", but that's a bit too vague to be useful. I agree with El C that it doesn't seem to be an issue worth getting angry about, though. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:50, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no further argument here then (and I limit myself to here, depsite the borader comment of dislike). I will note, though, that this is not the end of me employing <small> for footnotes and references, esp. when these are of considerable length. I do not accept Jfdwolff's argument wrt to what is presumably implicit in the MoS. If he wishes for me to subscribe to his view, let him gather consensus and note explicitly in the MoS that, unlike in scholarly articles, where the convention is for footnotes and references to be denoted in print smaller than that of the body, in Wikipedia this is prohibited (accept for O₂, etc.). El_C 17:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

El_C stop being difficult. While small size refernces may be more aesthetic, they are damned nuisance to read. I support keep[ing] WP acessible by avoiding small formating whenever possible. Klonimus 18:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Klonimus should be made aware that until I (and Mel, for that matter) am offered an apology, I shall refuse any interaction with him unless it is absolutely necessary. Luckily, the matter is already resolved here (we got a 2nd editor to voice an opinion, Klonimus is 3rd, an hour after my sel-revert), so I direct him to gain the consensus and change the MoS in accordance with the standards he favours. El_C 22:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Klonimus, the point of an RfC is to get other editors to come in and try to help sort out and perhaps defuse the situation, not to ask them to barge in throwing insults at one or other of the disputants, which really doesn't help. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:23, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Ayil Meshulash

I'd like to have a source that the Gra composed Ayil Meshulash in the loo. It is probably encyclopedic, as it is a common explanation when Rabbis publish secular stuff, but to have it sourced is better (which may be hard). As for Cramer's rule, this is not by him. If it has been attributed to him, this attribution should ideally be sourced as well. JFW | T@lk 07:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I am coming over from Cramer's Rule. Someone attempted to insert this attribution ("some people say ...") to our article as well. I have never heard of this being attributed to Vilna Gaon. I have, however read a reproduction of the book in which it was first formulated: Cramer, G. "Intr. à l'analyse de lignes courbes algébriques." Geneva, 657-659, 1750. Does anyone have any evidence that Gaon mentioned this at any time prior to 1750? S.N. Hillbrand 03:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It is very unlikely that Ayil Meshulash was composed in the loo. Firstly, such is not the philosophy of the GR"A. I think Ayil Meshulash is not a secular book. Secondly, the GR"A encoded Secrets of Torah in Ayil Meshulash, particularly in Sha'ar 10.

It was a bit odd, and I have not come accross a reliable source for this. I've removed the whole "loo" statement for now. JFW | T@lk 04:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Like you guys, I've read that the Vilna Gaon made tremendous contributions to secular studies, and while in the bathroom (where Torah cannot be studied) he developed Kramer's theorem, a major underpinning of modern math. What I can't find (no matter how much I google) is what Kramer's theorem IS. What is it? What is it related to? If his connection to this theorem is a myth, what did the Vilna Gaon contribute to science? I know it was something big. I'm just curious as to what. NickDupree 08:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC) NickDupree (User talk:NickDupree)

You seem to refer to Cramer's rule. I have heard this attributed to the Vilna Gaon, but I am unaware of a reliable source refuting the attribution mentioned in the Cramer's rule article. The Vilna Gaon was indeed a formidable mathematician (and he produced the mathematical work Ayil Meshulash), but it seems less likely that he developed Cramer's rule. HKT 15:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the link for now. There is no credible source that the Vilna Gaon was the source of Cramer's rule. Yossiea 14:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys, The Vilna Gaon was credited to have written a book on Trigonometry called the Ayil Meshulash. There's an urban myth among unintelligent anti-modernists that the Vilna Gaon composed the Ayil Meshulash in the bathroom. However, this is problematic on two counts. One, the state of outhouses back then were incredibly inhospitable, stank, wasn't lit, very tiny, was out in the cold, and was designed to make one want to spend as little time as possible there. Second, the Ayil Meshulash was written in Hebrew, and the Jewish rule forbids one to talk or write in Hebrew (Lashon HaKodesh) in disgusting places. As for the legend of the Vilna Gaon (Rabbi Eliyahu Kremer) coming up with Cramer's rule or Cramer's Theorem, this is untrue as well. The Vilna Gaon did not invent Cramer's Theorem or Rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhecht (talk • contribs) 00:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Kramer vs Kremer

Is there any reason to prefer one over the other here? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:38, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Google say Kramer is more popular; the Vilna Gaon Jewish State Museum uses Kremer. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Question on Family

Did the Vilna Gaon marry and have children? If so, did any of his descendents become notable? This info should be added. Dinopup 16:47, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

He did indeed have children, but none are particularly notable. JFW | T@lk 02:50, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

He did have a notable son Rabbi Avraham who authored many works.

Kramer?

Modern research has found that the Vilna Gaon did not actually go by the last name of Kramer, nor did/do his descendants. A notable ancestor of his was Rabbi Moshe "Kramer". However, Kramer was not Rabbi Moshe's surname but rather a nickname (meaning "shopkeeper". His wife was a shopkeeper). Some descendants of a brother of the Vilna Gaon did adopt that nickname as a surname, but Rabbi Eliyahu did not. This has led to some confusion for some of those claiming descent from the Vilna Gaon. (See the book "Branches of Eliyahu", about the Vilna Gaon's genealogy, by researcher Chaim Freidman. [3]) HKT 21:03, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Yet almost every biographical resource mentions this name, making it worthwhile to mention it. If you want you can state (using Freidman as a source) that he never used this surname. JFW | T@lk 21:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Edit my new revision as needed if you find it unsatisfactory. HKT 23:35, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

HKT: What exactly is "modern research"? It is obvious that during the era of the Vilna Gaon, the usage of surnames was not yet common. It was in the aftermath of Napoleon and his armies, and their "laws", that Jews were required to commence taking surnames, which for Litvaks was usually connected to their family's work or trades, thus while the Vilna Gaon may not have had any real use or much reason to use the name Kremmer (the Lithunaina way of saying "Kramer") nevertheless it is accepted that that was the family name that was associated with him/his family in Vilna and which he/they presumably used. Otherwise why would the name have any connection to him/them? Do you think that there were "who's who" publications or "VIP" directories, published in those days? If there is a widely accepted mesorah that the Gaon's family name was Kremmer then why should good Jews doubt it just because some "modern researcher" decided to dig into realms of information that are in all probability not suited for "modern research" in the first place? Unless of course the non-Jews kept records of Jewish names that can be traced to the Gaon, which seems unlikely for Lithuanians. IZAK 12:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't confuse common conception with mesorah. Mesorah is never determined by common belief. The name "Kramer" was not associated with the Vilna Gaon, and most of his descendants (even direct-line patrilineally) did not adopt that name. The name apparently became associated with the Vilna Gaon for the reason given above (see the link to the shemayisrael.com article). Feel free to find another qualified researcher who explicitly disagrees with the Friedman. Numerous mentions of "Rabbi Eliyahu Kramer" simply demonstrate that it is a common conception that the Vilna Gaon associated with the name Kramer, though a common conception hardly amounts to a well researched conclusion by someone devoted to researching the Gaon's genealogy. HKT 18:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Panentheism

It is sort of odd to say that Chassidim accept "Panentheism," since that term is predated by the Chassidic movement's foundation. I would be shocked indeed if anybody could produce a document in which that word was used to describe something other than Chassidism or Kabbalah. Given tha the word essentially means "what Chassidim believe," to say that Chassidim accept Panentheism becomes a little circular.--Meshulam 21:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Meshulam: Tell us what Sefer Tanya teaches about teva ("nature"). Thanks. IZAK 07:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

question about opening of volozhiner yeshiva

is there any proof that the vilna gaon requested from his disciple r' chaim volozhiner to open an academy (yeshiva). i've heard several times that when r' chaim (v.) initially approached the gr"a about the issue, the gr"a frowned upon the idea. only a little later (half a year or so) did the gr"a acquiesce and condone r' chaim's notion to open an academy (yeshiva). Adam 08:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)Adam

Memorising the Bible at age three??

Is there any reference showing proof of such an incredible feat? And how much of the Bible are we talking about here, both old and new testament? -CuriousReader. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 196.43.76.116 (talk) 05:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

There are several references listed at the end of the article, so it's possible that this detail can be found in one of those references. However, ideally there should be in-line citations so that we can know which facts are specifically corroborated by sources - so I added a tag at the top of the article to that effect. --DLand^TALK 06:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Judaism doesn't know a "new testament" (may the Merciful One save us). Most likely the text refers to the Torah (Chumash), the 5 books of Moses. The full Jewish bible, known as the Tanach, consists of what Christians call the "old testament." --Rabbeinu 00:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

- I have just added sources for the statements made. Been 12 years, but no-one has done it yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eli Rubenstein (talk • contribs) 22:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Anachronism

Isn't listing him as a charedi anachronistic? Basejumper 20:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think so.--DLand^TALK 21:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Needs Serious Editing

This entry is quite repetitive and needs tightening.

The section on Methods of Study needs substantiation: sources and footnotes. As it is, it is simply a pious recitation.

Teneriff (talk) 14:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree. The claims of memorizing the entire Tanakh at the age of three and his other nigh-superhuman feats seems like the work of a fan indeed.. Without inline citations from truly reliable sources those claims are likely to be removed.. The article is also in dire need of re-organizing. Cilibinarii (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

--- I have just added sources. Been a while, but only just saw this article and these comments. The sources, as you can see, are reliable. (Eli Rubenstein, 4/10/2018) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eli Rubenstein (talk • contribs) 22:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Need Some Help with Rewrites and Sources Here

Anyone/Everyone, I believe that the below can greatly contribute to the Vilna Gaon page. However, I need sources to back it up. Please help with any sources you may have. -Rafi

Ayil Meshulash Myth

The Vilna Gaon was known not only as a Rabbi, but as someone well-versed in the realm of Mathematics. He was credited to have written a book on Trigonometry called the Ayil Meshulash. There's a myth that the Vilna Gaon composed the Ayil Meshulash in the bathroom. However, this is problematic on two counts. One, the state of outhouses back then were incredibly inhospitable, stank, unlit, very tiny, was out in the cold, and was designed to make one want to spend as little time as possible there. Second, the Ayil Meshulash was written in Hebrew, and the Jewish rule forbids one to talk or write in Hebrew (Lashon HaKodesh) in disgusting places.

That last halakha seems pretty questionable; does that mean native Israeli can't think in the restroom, because they think in Hebrew? (Oh, and please sign your talk posts using ~~~~! Thanks. -- ypnypn (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"Thinking" and speaking are not the same --- it is quite possible to do one without the other ;) For example, mentally reviewing a prayer does not count as praying in Jewish law --- ideally, during silent prayers such as the Amidah (not its repetition aloud by the prayer leader), one should recite it so quietly one can hear oneself but nobody else can. And yes, there have been numerous rabbinical admonishments against answering cell phones in the bathroom for this very reason. I am not Orthodox myself but do agree with that ruling ;) 132.77.64.151 (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)!

It's not true that one may not use the Hebrew language in the bathroom. One may not pray, recite blessings, or study Torah (even just by thought) in the bathroom, and these are usually in Hebrew, so the confusion is understandable. But let's say I want to study a book on programming in the bathroom, and the book is written in Hebrew, even in Biblical Hebrew (Lashon Hakodesh)--that would be fine. On the other hand, I may not read a book on some Torah topic--for example, a commentary on Genesis--even if it's in English or some other language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.226.56.231 (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Cramer's Theorem and Rule Myth

As for the legend of the Vilna Gaon coming up with Cramer's rule or Cramer's Theorem, this is untrue as well. The Vilna Gaon did not invent Cramer's Theorem or Rule, contrary to popular legend (being that his (grandfather's) last name was Kremer, hence the similarities in the last name. Cramer’s Theorem (the result that if X and Y are independent real-valued random variables whose sum X + Y is a normal random variable, then both X and Y must be normal as well) has been attributed to Harald Cramer (September 25, 1893 – October 5, 1985), a Swedish statistician and probabilist, and

Cramer’s Rule (an explicit formula for the solution of a system of linear equations with as many equations as unknowns, valid whenever the system has a unique solution) was attributed to Gabriel Cramer (1704–1752). At the same time, this shouldn't diminish his standing as a leading Rabbi, well-rounded in the maths and sciences.

I am compelled by my loving kindness of all people to speak the truth

I fail to see any genius or Saintly qualities in a man whom others have stated as an example of his genius the assertation two things are independent and unrelated as a crowning crux of observation or scholarly insight.

I cite the below example copied and pasted from the article as it existed before this post (in it's final form below with exclusions allowed):

rounded in the maths and sciences.

I am compelled by my loving kindness of all people to speak the truth I failed to see any genius or Saintly qualities in a man whom others have stated as an example of his genius the assertation two things are independent and unrelated as a crowning crux of observation or scholarly insight, before I did.

I cite the below example copied and pasted from the article as it existed before this post: (exlusions disallowed by vow of intent still possible)

An example of the Gaon's genius can be seen in his commentary on Genesis in his text "Aderes Eliahu", published by his son. The medieval Spanish Jewish community leader Ramban asks (though the Gaon never mentions Ramban's question, his grandson made the connection to the Ramban's question in his commentary on his grandfather's commentary) "Is light the absence of darkness as Thomas Aquinas and others derived from the Prophets?". The commentary in Aderes Eliahu is on verse 1:4 of Genesis. And God divided the light from the darkness "I must infer from the verse that darkness is a separate creation from light and unrelated, rather than the physical absence of light"... "is different from 'the darkness' mentioned in the first verse."[4]

First refuation: 1:1 There is no darkness, there never was, only such is the absence of light. For God divided the greater light from the lesser light and turned the qualities we have seen into the heavens as day and night and the passing of seasons and years and days in months. In other words the dividing of the light into the darkness as the removal of light gave us the creation of time. Yet even in the darkness there was light from God to rule over it, though it was lesser it was nonetheless subjected to rule of God by the creation of God whom also created the lesser light to rule over it in tandem. For though there was light and darkness continually never once were those in darkness kept whole apart from the light of the God who created them who gave the light for the day and giving of life and the night for the time and teaching of his creation to accomplish his purposes as he saw suited us best to serve him both he and us who refuse to stay down for the sake of the risen or refuse to be ascent for the sake of the fallen. By their wayward words if one is reason another thinks one is fallen on the same account, but Oh Lord this is the Wisdom of Men and not your wisdom! For your wisdom teaches us your ways are not the ways of men who have taught and believed the gain of one shall always come at the expense of another. You who hung the heavens as a sheet canopied above the stars and told them the measure to obey as you saw fit may do as you like for this must be the case for you are greater than I might in all the evil in my heart imagine is truth in love with you and bonded to a severe desire always kept in repair by your everpresent hand. For once good took the light and saw it was good and divided it into greater and lesser lights, in the heavens where the lesser light was the expanse of time. For in creation there was never such a being as able to shine a light into the heart of men other than their creator who endowed them with unalieable drive to satisfy their search for purpose in the heavens. For what man was given was subjected to the possessions and assertions of men, such as man who asserted other living things as property later asserted non-living things the same. Yet there was never such a thing as a man owned a single thing other than to teach the man his place in his creation was to be subject to the creator or to be separate from him at their own so choosing. For there was never any glory or incentive for God to force us to love him, for such love awesome as it is in the similitude of the minds of men who held the the heavens and heavenly masses in check with a keystroke or jot or tittle (iota to the Greek) in the estimation of learned masses and sinful men--in the eyes of God a violation of the will and agency of creation was perpetrated for the sake of men God was about to do something mankind had completely unforseen. Our creator was to surprise us. For in his place in creation God had given him surmise the very property man claimed to own whether it was living or non-alive it all returned to the same dust from which the man was made. So whether to insist man comes from the dust or God who made the dust there is only the certainty in the end both the living and the non-living things in all creation return eventually to neither be owned by the flesh nor anything the flesh ordained, for the treasures of men became the dust of the earth, in their own wealth, in their bodies, in their souls. Yet in the reliance on their creator they must have somehow been given insight into this quest ever foredestined beneath the hands of time. For from light in the heaven the creator ordained time for the living and the dividing of the heavens into darkness and light, being as this was done to each and to each one in each for the sake of either, each exchange of a lifetime or the costs to it in time were given for the benefit of a living thing and a place for them to dwell eternally beyond their estimations held in their flesh until such as the time arrived God ordained the heavenly harvest plentiful enough to spread forth knowledge. Sprung forth like living water from wellspring of truth to carry no name of significance or claim the lives of those who would have rather mined or suffered for their precious dust in metals to please the eyes, a tool of the slave trade adopted by wicked men for subjugation of the masses mankind was enslaved to their own fearful possibilities and starved each other in exchange for universally acknowledged and accepted as religously right and true universally adopted and condoned slave labor for the benefits of few, the deception of many, and the suffering of the greatest many and reward for them at the passing of the age as a wage for the servititude they had subjected themselves to which God by the allowance of the wickedness of men to flourish in the earth did allow in his Sovereign rule over all creation. God who provided the agency of creation given to those who were created to do with it as seemed best to them, and according to the successful deception they would be able to perpetrate over each other he chose to tolerate perpetrated in his name to teach them this life lesson. A time times half of a time, never rung so true in their hopes who loves the hearts of the prophets less and loves the heart of God most of all. Let us pray you forever may take to heed these words of caution at the behest of the prophet aforementioned and recorded before me and before you in the ancient of days. From the scrolls of Bablyon to their birth in Africa let their memory be told from death to life lifted in ascent from Colonial rule and enslavement to their selling of their own souls in exchange for the promise of their blessing at the terror and behest of all the living. Oh Lord, I pray for my enemies they are greater than the stars this day. They are too great too number. They are greater than the number of grains of sand in the surf and greater than measure of the heavens in the breadth and ability to conspire against me and destroy at your call to them to rise against me. Oh Lord, I shall hear it in near earnestness to the best of my ability. In sweet song to their creator, Oh Lord the children call to you as best they can and I chief sinner amongst them do humbly beg the post to sit by your side and take wrath and none of the glory from your chosen one whom you have ordained with love and a promise of life to give abundantly before the world began. Oh God, I will always be your Lord, let him cry out from the heavens. Let the heavens having heard them in rejoicing in joyous laughter submit to them who loves you most. It shall be their delight, his glory, my torture and my hope for their sakes to sit in the judgment seat and refuse mercy for the sake of my enemies. I shall always love my enemies in a special way forever because of the life you have given me afforded me a place as chief amongst them whom despise me. I who delight in the positive to state and plead my case before the most high in the heavens. "Never was there such a thing as darkness having being or existance or quality of life giving creation." Therefore the darkness came about under rule of the lesser light and was also sent by God who made the stars also and the heavens and all that is in them. Therefore I say let them no longer call the night evil or the absence of light the pain of death. Lord hear my prayer to you, who made all things for your creation and who keep it. Amen. 74.3.4.112 (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)!

For God had ordained the greater light and the lesser light to rule over day and night. In them all things were given being and creation and subjugated to the rule of God and the plan for his everlasting love and salvation for all souls. We worship a benevolent and understanding and loving God who uses all things to the good ends of things and for the goodness of their being in his creation in their own eyes. As through all things in time, there have been times we have fallen short of truly grasping and realizing the necessity and goodness in all things we have perpetrated and been subjected to in creation, we take solace in the knowledge our creator reassures us they are all necessary, of them who have being, and of them all of them who are true to their creator in their purpose and desiring to understand and to serve their creator and each other, there was never for them a fallen purpose or dismissal by the divine who loved them always and always will.

My prayer is the words of the Father's of Israel echo in kindness the crowning movement and achievement in the suffering of the sons of the Fathers who at the hands of God turned upon themselves wrath for the sake of redemption, they bit into love and the divine with full zeal and love held in bond by true authenticity in their purpose as the trait they so admired in each other and mutually respected despite their differences in the eyes of all the living. For his good ends and accomplishments of goodness in all creation, no God calls us to punish those who love us. But those who seek to end the punishment as such of them who have loved us sincerely, today and every day may they be realized in his words, "Let us pray all things in his image be made new."

[4]!74.3.4.112 (talk) 02:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing beats your love, because your love is all things. 74.3.4.112 (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)factorial

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vilna_Gaon&oldid=554683991" plain priority parameter+

I will do as they told me and not as they did. 74.3.4.112 (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)!74.3.4.112 (talk) 03:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)74.3.4.112 (talk) 03:43, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Rabbi?

This person has the title "Rabbi" in his categories. On the one hand, a rabbinic scholar and authority of the first calibre is what he was, and he is easily as important as any rabbi in Judaism. On the other hand, his modesty was such that he never even accepted the title for himself. So, what to do? 74.141.69.51 (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Mention this fact and stick to RS which grant him the title. Chesdovi (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Siblings

Does anyone have any reliable source about any of the Gaon's siblings? (Efroim Snyder (talk) (yellowtshicken@gmail.com) claims that a document he has mentions the GrA's brother, Yissocher Dov Klatzki.) -- -- -- 10:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The Gaon had a brother, R' Avroham Rogaler who was a famous Torah scholar and author of the sefer מעלות התורה (Ma'alos HaTorah). This is well documented and universally agreed, but if you want proof look in Ma'alos HaTorah where R'Avroham repeatedly refers to him when quoting him as "אחי הגאון" - "My brother, the Gaon." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:E29A:9500:1028:4474:A7A5:82EF (talk) 23:41, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

His brother Rabbi Yissocher Dov (Yissocher Ber) is mentioned in כתבי הגאונים page 5 [4] and page 8 [5] (הערה [ד]) as well as in חכמי ישראל by דוד הלחמי (Tel Aviv 5718) see Hebrew Wikipedia. -- -- -- 04:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Style

The writing style of this article (and its content, too, I am afraid) leaves much to be desired. The following incorrect use of "implicate" is just one example:

   However, nothing of his was published in his lifetime (which in itself may
   implicate that it was not him who actually recorded his comments in writing.)

Toddcs (talk) 00:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed the above sentence as per Wikipedia:No original research. Any more suggestions for what needs to be fixed? -- -- -- 22:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Misnagdim preferred to Mitnagdim

I made this minor but important edit: misnagdim is the preferred spelling over mitnagdim. Especially because misnagdim was an ashkenaz Jewish experience using sefard spelling is inaccurate. Furthermore the page on 'misnagdim' uses the (correct) ashkenaz transliteration, and as such it makes more sense to keep them the same. Noxiyu (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Jewish Encyclopaedia

Much of this seems to come straight from the Jrwish Encyclopedia and needs a serious re writePngeditor (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Possible OR.

This sentence may contain unsourced OR. The disciples of the Vilna Gaon, known as Perushim due to how they isolated themselves from worldly concerns to study Torah, originally settled in Safed because the Muslim authorities in Jerusalem prevented Ashkenazi Jews from settling there. I am referring to the text in bold. I can't find an RS that states that this was specific to Ashkenazi Jews. I found the below which makes no reference to this claim. In the early 19th century, the disciples of the Vilna Gaon, a prominent rabbi in Eastern Europe, who were known as the Perushim, settled in the land of Israel. They came almost a decade after the arrival of two of his pupils, R. Hayim of Vilna and R. Israel ben Samuel of Shklov. In all there were three groups of the Gaon's students which emigrated to the land of Israel. They formed the basis of the Ashkenazi communities of Jerusalem and Safed. Their arrival encouraged an Ashkenazi revival in Jerusalem, whose Jewish community was mostly Sephardi following the expulsion of the Ashkenazim nearly a century earlier. Many of the descendants of the disciples became leading figures in modern Israeli society. The Gaon himself also set forth with his pupils to the Land, but for an unknown reason he turned back and returned to Vilna, where he died soon after. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_and_Judaism_in_the_Land_of_Israel

I suggest that this part of the sentence should be deleted if it cannot be sourced.Pngeditor (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

This may be referring to "the expulsion of the Ashkenazim nearly a century earlier," as it appears in your text. It needs to be checked. The first place I would check for improving this article is the related entries in the 2007 (2nd edition) Encyclopaedia Judaica. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:24, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I saw that the article so far was missing not only the EJ (Encyclopaedia Judaica - 2007, 2nd edition) link, but also the basic JE (Jewish Encyclopedia - 1906) link. I've added the two missing links to the "External Links" section of the article at the bottom. Enjoy your editing! 17:49, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Help improving

I am interested in improving this article, can anyone point me to a few good books/articles about him?

I am aware of Dov Eliach's book Hagaon and The Genius by Eliyahu Stern. A list of reliable books would be helpful FergusArgyll (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Looking for others who want to help this article keep to sourcing standards. Add any important refs below.

I made the changes about his stance on secular studies based on the refs I cited. Anything I'm missing?

Added some refs for people who considered him one of the rishonim based on 3 sources I cited.

FergusArgyll (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Methods of study section is going to be hard, here is one source I found, anyone have others? FergusArgyll (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

another academic article discussing his methods of study FergusArgyll (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

another resource (full book, hebrew) FergusArgyll (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

and this, not a RS by itself but points to some good ones. FergusArgyll (talk) 19:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

more sources

Should be enough to rewrite/source the 'methods of study' section FergusArgyll (talk) 19:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Rabbi Eybshutz controversey

[6] seems like this episode is more complicated than the article would lead one to believe. Any other sources anyone? FergusArgyll (talk) 23:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)