Commentators:R. Eliyahu of Vilna (Vilna Gaon – GR"A)/0

R. Eliyahu of Vilna (Vilna Gaon – GR"A)

This page is a stub.
Please contact us if you would like to assist in its development.

Vilna Gaon

Name	R. Eliyahu b. Shelomo Zalman, Vilna Gaon ר' אליהו בן שלמה זלמן, הגר"א
Dates	1720-1797
Location	Lithuania
Works	Aderet Eliyahu on Tanakh, Beur HaGRA
Exegetical Characteristics
Influenced by
Impacted on

Background¹

Life

• Name – 
  • Hebrew name – ר' אליהו בן שלמה זלמן²
  • _ name – 
• Dates – 1720-1797
• Location – Born in Selets, Grodno province, lived most of his life in Vilna.³
• Education – To say the GRA was a child prodigy would be an understatement, based on various reports of amazing incidents in his youth.⁴ From a young age, the GRA studied mainly on his own, always with great diligence and fortitude.⁵
• Intellectual pursuits –
• The GRA’s interests and teachings encompassed the entire world of Torah, both exoteric and esoteric.⁶
• He studied secular subjects such as algebra, geometry, astronomy, medicine, and music theory,⁷ and valued such fields as providing assistance in understanding the Torah.⁸ In contrast, he had a rather negative view of philosophy.⁹
• Occupation –
• The GRA led a life of secluded study until the age of forty,¹⁰ when he started lecturing to a group of elite Torah scholars who became his close disciples, and began assuming a communal leadership role.¹¹
• One of his main endeavors as a leader was to oppose the emerging Chassidic movement, and it was the GRA himself who was the main driving force behind the anti-Chassidic campaign.¹²
• In practice, though not in any official capacity, the GRA became the spiritual leader of Lithuanian Jewry.
• At some point before 1783, the GRA set out for Eretz Yisrael, intending to send for his family later. However, he never reached his destination – for unknown reasons¹³ – and returned to Vilna.¹⁴ Nevertheless, he famously encouraged his students to emigrate to Eretz Yisrael, and it was a group of his students and their families who comprised one of the first major waves of modern Jewish settlement in Eretz Yisrael.¹⁵
• Family – The GRA came from a well-known rabbinical family. He married his first wife Channah around the age of eighteen. After she died in 1782, he married Gitel. He had three sons¹⁶ and four daughters, all from his first wife.¹⁷
• Teachers – R. Moshe Margolioth of Keidany¹⁸
• Contemporaries – R. Yonatan Eybeschuetz,¹⁹ R. Yaakov Emden, R. Yaakov Krantz (the Maggid of Dubno)²⁰
• Students – R. Chayyim of Volozhin, the brothers R. Menachem Mendel and R. Simchah Bunem of Shklov, R. Yisrael of Shklov,²¹ R. Menashe of Ilia, R. Barukh of Shklov, R. Hillel Rivlin of Shklov²²
• Time period – 
• World outlook – 

Works²³

• Biblical commentaries – 
• Much of the GRA’s biblical commentary was published under the name Aderet Eliyahu,²⁴ with one volume covering the Pentateuch,²⁵ and another²⁶ including partial commentaries to Yehoshua, Shofetim, Shemuel, Melakhim, Yeshayahu,²⁷ Yechezkel,²⁸ Hoshea, Yonah, Nachum, Chavakkuk, Iyyov, and Divrei HaYamim, as well as a chronology of the kings, and a discussion of the description of the Third Temple in Yechezkel.
• Commentaries to Esther,²⁹ Rut, and Shir HaShirim,³⁰ have been published,³¹ as well as commentaries to Eikhah³² and Mishlei.³³ 
• A compilation of comments on the Torah, collected from all of the GRA’s works, was published as MiPerushei HaGRA Al HaTorah,³⁴ and a similar compilation of the GRA’s comments on verses in Tehillim was published as Be’urei HaGRA LeTehillim.³⁵ 
• Other works containing biblical commentaries by the GRA include:
  - ³⁶ברק השחר
  - צורת הארץ לגבולותיה סביב ותכנית בית המקדש מספר מלכים ומספר יחזקאל³⁷
  - נבואת חבקוק עם פירוש רבנו אליהו מוילנא³⁸
  - ביאור על כ"ח עתים של קהלת ג³⁹
  - A small section of commentary to Kohelet⁴⁰
  - ⁴¹ביאור לתפילת חנה בספר שמואל
  - ⁴²ליקוטי הגר"א מכת"י
  - ⁴³פירוש הגר"א לתהלים קי"ד
• There are several published lists of citations where the GRA discusses apparent biblical synonyms – see the list published in Barak Hashachar (see above), one published as שמות הנרדפים מהגר"א⁴⁴, and the list compiled by M. Tzuriel (Otzerot: 253 ff.).
• Rabbinics – 
  • Commentaries on Rabbinic literature – Commentaries of the GRA to the Mishnah have been published under the name Shenot Eliyahu.⁴⁵ The GRA also wrote commentaries and glosses⁴⁶ on the Babylonian Talmud,⁴⁷ the Jerusalem Talmud,⁴⁸ the Midreshei Halakhah,⁴⁹ parts of the Tosefta, aggadot of the Talmud,⁵⁰ Seder Olam, the Minor Tractates, Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer, Pesikta, the Haggadah⁵¹ (and Chad Gadya).
  • Halakhic codes – Be’ur HaGRA,⁵² and novellae on Mishneh Torah and Piskei HaRosh⁵³
  • Kabbalah – The GRA wrote commentaries to many Kabbalistic works, including: Sefer Yetzirah,⁵⁴ Sifra DeTzniuta,⁵⁵ Zohar,⁵⁶ Tikkunei HaZohar,⁵⁷ Ra’aya Meheimna,⁵⁸ and Sefer HaBahir.⁵⁹
  • Other works – Iggeret HaGRA,⁶⁰ Dikduk Eliyahu,⁶¹ Dikdukei Torah,⁶² Ayil Meshullash⁶³
  • Responses to the works of others – 
  • Responsa – 
• Jewish thought – 
• Misattributed works – 

Torah Commentary

Characteristics

• Verse by verse / Topical – 
• Genre – 
• Structure – 
• Language – 
• Peshat and derash – 

Methods

• – 

Themes

• – 

Textual Issues

• Manuscripts – 
• Printings – 
• Textual layers – 

Sources

Significant Influences

• Earlier Sources – 
• Teachers – 
• Foils – 

Occasional Usage

Possible Relationship

Impact

Later exegetes

Supercommentaries

¹ Sources for this section include: I. Etkes, The Gaon of Vilna: The Man and his Image (Berkeley, Los Angeles, London, 2002) (hereafter: Etkes, Gaon), and the Encyclopedia Judaica entry Elijah Ben Solomon Zalman.

² Commonly referred to by the acronym גר"א - for גאון רבי אליהו. Also known as the Vilna Gaon. Regarding the possible surname Kramer or Kremer, see the following blog post by C. Freedman: Kremer – the Vilna Gaon had no Surname

³ Soon after his marriage, the GRA spent some time traveling throughout Poland and Germany.

⁴ For example, his sons (in their introduction to Aderet Eliyahu) relate that when the GRA was eight years old, a group of senior scholars in his city decided to study the laws of sanctification of the new moon, which require complex astronomical knowledge. After six months of study, these scholars convened to assemble an astronomical model that would help them better understand the relevant astronomy. But a mistake was made in the construction of the model, and the scholars struggled for hours to make sense of it. The child Eliyahu, having previously spent a mere few hours looking into such matters, was able to show these distinguished scholars the solution to their problem. His sons further report how, at the age of eleven, the boy Eliyahu learned – with perfect retention - the entire tractates of Zevachim and Menachot (with the commentaries of Rashi and Tosafot) over the night of Simchat Torah, achieving a pace of approximately 25 folio pages per hour. While it is easy to doubt this impossible-sounding feat, it is striking that the GRA’s sons themselves report this incident, no less with corroborating details about that evening including the identity of an eyewitness who tested the boy on the material.
Both the GRA’s sons and his closest disciple, R. Chayyim of Volozhin, report that the GRA possessed a deep knowledge of Kabbalah even as a child. R. Chayyim relates (in his introduction to the GRA’s commentary on Sifra DeTzniuta) that even before the age of 13 the GRA attempted to create a golem, abandoning the project when he sensed that God disapproved.
Regarding the biographical accounts of the GRA’s sons and students, I. Etkes has this to say (Etkes, Gaon: 35): “Even if we assume that in the portrait before us there is some degree of exaggeration and idealization, we cannot avoid the conclusion that it expresses an encounter with a personality endowed with extraordinary intellectual abilities and psychic powers.”

⁵ His sons report that the GRA slept no more than two hours a day, half an hour at a time. See Etkes, Gaon:23 ff. for a discussion of the GRA’s piety, especially how it differed from the Chassidic view of piety and how it related to his approach to Kabbalah and mystical experiences.

⁶ His involvement in esotericism included not only the study of the entire corpus of Kabbalistic texts, but also mystical experiences and practical Kabbalah. In addition to an attempt to create a golem (see note above in this section), the GRA is reported to have refused to receive revelations offered him by angelic maggidim, and to have attributed higher value to Torah secrets discovered through conventional intellectual endeavor than those obtained through an “ascent of the soul” (a kind of mystical experience that R. Chayyim of Volozhin infers the GRA indeed had. Regarding both this and the GRA’s encounters with maggidim, see R. Chayyim’s introduction to the GRA’s commentary on Sifra DeTzniuta). For a discussion of why the GRA devalued knowledge obtained in mystical ways, see the discussion in Etkes, Gaon: 27-32, where he suggests, among other things, that the GRA may have been responding to the Frankists, a secret Sabbatean sect whose antinomian nature came to the fore in the 1750s, creating a controversy that had a strong impact throughout Poland and Lithuania.

⁷ His student, R. Yisrael of Shklov, reports (in the introduction to his Pe'at HaShulchan) regarding the GRA's attitude towards music:
‏הוא היה אומר אז כי רוב טעמי תורה וסודות שירי הלויים וסודות תיקוני זהר אי אפשר לידע בלעדה, ועל ידה יכולים בני אדם למות בכלות נפשם מנעימותיה, ויכולים להחיות מתים בסודותיה הגנוזים בתורה. הוא אמר כמה ניגונים וכמה מדות הביא משה רבנו מהר סיני והשאר מורכבים

⁸ In a very famous passage, the early maskil R. Barukh of Shklov writes (in his introduction to his Hebrew translation of Euclid’s Elements) of his teacher the GRA: “I heard from the holy one that, to the extent that a person is lacking in knowledge of secular subjects, he will lack one hundredfold in the wisdom of the Torah. For the Torah and secular knowledge are bound together. . . He commanded me to translate whatever possible of the secular subjects into our holy tongue…” The GRA is also reported (by R. Avraham Simchah of Amcislaw, R. Hayyim of Volozhin’s nephew) to have desired a Hebrew translation of Josephus (see Etkes, Gaon: 53). For a discussion of the relationship of the GRA to the Haskalah, and whether he can be viewed as a harbinger of the Haskalah, see Etkes, Gaon: 37 ff. It is further worth noting that the GRA did not know foreign languages and thus learned all his science from Hebrew texts, which mostly were composed in medieval times and therefore reflected pre-modern scientific views. The GRA was thus unaware of Newton’s theories and the beginnings of modern chemistry. He maintained the Aristotelian theory of the four elements, even sometimes incorporating it into his interpretations.

⁹ See Be’ur HaGra to Shulchan Arukh Yoreh De’ah 179:6, where he famously criticizes Rambam for being led astray by “accursed” philosophy. The word “accursed”, which appears in the first printing of Be’ur HaGra, was removed by later publishers. For a discussion of this issue, and Eliyahu Stern’s theory (in his book The Genius: Elijah of Vilna and the Making of Modern Judaism (New Haven, 2013) that the GRA did not oppose philosophy, see M. Shapiro’s review of Stern’s book: “The Vilna Gaon, Part 1: How Modern Was He?” .
See also the introduction to Pe'at HaShulchan, where R. Yisrael of Shklov reports of the GRA's attitude towards philosophy:
ועל חכמת הפילוסופיא אמר שלמד אותה לתכליתה ולא הוציא ממנה רק ב' דברים טובים, והם שבעים כוחות הנפש ועוד דבר א'. והשאר צריך להשליכה החוצה

¹⁰ He received a maintenance from the bequest of a wealthy ancestor, and later also received an allowance, and rented apartment, from the Vilna community board. Circa 1785 this allowance was raised to a level higher than that paid to the city’s rabbi, despite the fact that the GRA held no official position.

¹¹ See below, Works, regarding the fact that at this age he ceased writing Torah works.

¹² The reasons for the GRA’s opposition to Chassidism are not clear, and are the matter of some controversy. See H.H. Ben-Sasson “אישיותו של הגר"א והשפעתו ההיסטורית,” Zion 31, 1 (1966): 39-40 for a summary of some of the approaches appearing in scholarly literature.

¹³ See M. Tzuriel, Otzerot Gedolei Yisrael Vol. 2:139-142 for a discussion of possible reasons.

¹⁴ While on his journey, he wrote a letter to his family. See below, Works.

¹⁵ For an account of this immigration, see A. Morgenstern, Hastening Redemption: Messianism and the Resettlement of the Land of Israel (New York, 2006).

¹⁶ Two of these sons, Avraham and Yehudah Leib, published the GRA’s Torah commentary and other works.

¹⁷ See B. Landau, הגאון החסיד מוילנא (Jerusalem, 1978): 267-268 and notes, and S. Leiman, “Who is Buried in the Vilna Gaon’s Tomb?”

¹⁸ Author of Penei Moshe, commentary on the Jerusalem Talmud. The GRA studied with him for a time starting at age seven.

¹⁹ In 1756, supporters of R. Eybeschuetz requested that the GRA arbitrate in the controversy with R. Yaakov Emden. The GRA, however, demurred. Nonetheless, the incident shows the extremely high regard in which the GRA was held, despite his relative youth, reclusive lifestyle, and geographical distance from the controversy’s main protagonists.

²⁰ Despite his reclusive tendencies, the GRA actively sought the Maggid’s friendship and invited him to his home.

²¹ Author of Pe’at Hashulchan.

²² Author of Kol HaTor. This work was published by R. M.M. Kasher in 1968, in his book HaTekufah HaGedolah. It was reprinted by Y. Rivlin in Jerusalem, 1994, including several chapters that were omitted by R. Kasher.
This work cites teachings of the GRA regarding the process of redemption, including the concept of dual messiahs (Mashiach ben Yosef and Mashiach ben David), and the idea that mass emigration to Eretz Yisrael can lead to the coming of the Messiah. According to this work, The GRA saw himself as playing a role in the redemptive process associated with Mashiach ben Yosef, especially in his encouragement of his students to emigrate to Eretz Yisrael.
The work has been championed by contemporary religious Zionists as supporting their outlook that recent Jewish history is essentially the preliminary messianic age. R. Moshe Shternbuch, a Charedi leader, has argued that the work is a modern forgery.
There is also a chapter discussing the importance of the sciences and their convergence with Kabbalah (this chapter was omitted by R. Kasher; see Tzuriel, Otzerot: 217-18).

²³ Works of the GRA fall into two basic categories: those written by the GRA himself, and those written by his students based on his teachings. When possible, this section will note whether a given work falls into the former or latter category. According to several reports by disciples (see Etkes, Gaon: 19-20), all works written by the GRA himself were composed by the age of forty. After that, according to these reports, the GRA’s pace of Torah creativity and innovation increased to such an extent that he no longer wished to be slowed by the need to formulate and record the ideas in writing – a task that he then delegated to his disciples. Notwithstanding when they were composed, all of the GRA’s works were published posthumously.
The list of works here is not exhaustive. For a more complete account of the GRA’s works, see M. Tzuriel, Otzerot Gedolei Yisrael Vol. 2 (available at the following link: http://hebrewbooks.org/48846, hereafter: Tzuriel, Otzerot): 28-42, and for an exhaustive bibliography of all editions of the GRA’s works, see Y. Vinograd, Otzar Sifrei HaGra (Jerusalem, 2003). The fact that this latter work comprises several hundred pages speaks to the volume of the GRA’s commentaries and teachings, and to the complexity of the history of publication of the GRA’s works.

²⁴ Published by Sinai, Tel Aviv. Publication date is not noted. See Tzuriel, Otzerot: 29, who notes that this edition is apparently a photo offset of the Warsaw, 1887 edition, although according to the page numbering 32 pages are missing. In the above editions, the commentary is accompanied by two helpful supercommentaries: Be’er Avraham, written by the GRA’s son Avraham, and Be’er Yitzchak, written by a student of R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov.

²⁵ According to Tzuriel, ibid., the commentary to Shemot through Devarim was written by the GRA himself, while the commentary to Bereshit was published in a manner that obscures what came directly from the GRA and what was written by students. Based on style, Tzuriel (based on the work Aliyat Kir), surmises that the commentary to Bereshit was written by one of the GRA’s sons, R. Avraham. Furthermore, there are sections throughout the commentary introduced by the word “ליקוטים” which were not written by the GRA himself, unless the comment is noted to be from a manuscript of the GRA (“כת"י”). The GRA’s commentary (Shemot-Devarim) includes abbreviated versions of the Midreshei Halakhah (as the GRA apparently wished to encourage study of the Torah together with traditional Rabbinic interpretation), which sometimes incorporate novellae from the GRA himself. Tzuriel compares the GRA’s abbreviated Midreshei Halakhah to R. Yitzchak Alfasi’s abbreviation of the Talmud – both works focus on conclusions rather than the confusing and lengthy dialectic.
Most of the GRA’s commentary is of an esoteric nature (employing methodologies commonly referred to as Remez (including things such as interpretation of the word count in certain verses, and other numerological correlations) and Sod (Kabbalistic teachings), with a smaller component comprised of Peshat commentaries. In characterizing the uniqueness of the GRA’s commentary, his sons (in their introduction to Aderet Eliyahu) claim that other commentaries: “לא השגיחו על פרטי הכתוב ודקדוקיו”. They especially note as a pillar of his methodology the GRA’s insistence that ostensibly synonymous words and phrases in fact express different meanings (rejecting the widely accepted exegetical idea of “כפל ענין במלות שונות”). The GRA’s grammatical expertise (see below in this section regarding his grammatical works) also played an important role in his exegesis. For example, according to M.Z. Kaddari (see the end of the Encyclopedia Judaica entry “Elijah Ben Solomon Zalman”): “His entire exegesis on the first verses of the Torah is a morphological analysis, a summary of the rules of vocalization.”

²⁶ This collection of commentaries was for the most part not written by the GRA himself, but rather by his son R. Avraham and others. His grandson, R. Yaakov Moshe of Slonim, emended and corrected the text (signifying his contributions with the abbreviation אנ"ה (אני נכד המחבר)). According to the work Aliyat Kir (chapter 30), the commentary to Yonah is based on a manuscript written by the GRA himself.

²⁷ Up to chapter 13. Omissions from the commentary to Yeshayahu were published in the periodical Yeshurun, 1998, pp. 17-42. Furthermore, a different manuscript of the commentary on Yeshayahu was published by Mechon HaGra in New York, in the book Likutei HaGra (1999), pp. 183-220.

²⁸ From chapter 40 and on.

²⁹ In his introduction to the edition of the GRA’s commentary to Esther published in Jerusalem 1992, C.D. Nobel attributes the work to a student and notes that most of the work is a compilation of commentaries from the work Yosef Lekach of R. Eliezer Ashkenazi. Tzuriel (Otzerot: 30) argues that the work should therefore be viewed as that of a student who anthologized material from both Yosef Lekach and the GRA, rather than as a commentary of the GRA that heavily borrows from Yosef Lekach.

³⁰ There are two versions of the commentary to Shir HaShirim.

³¹ These were not written by the GRA himself.

³² Published in Barak HaShahar, see below.

³³ Be’ur HaGra Al Mishlei, Shklov 1798. This work (up to chapter 29) was written by R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov while he was studying under the GRA. He attests in his introduction that the sections relating to esoteric matters (Sod) were dictated to him directly by the GRA. He showed the work to the GRA, who instructed him to publish this work before any other work by the GRA. In the edition published by R. Moshe Phillipe (Petach Tikvah, 1980) additional material was included, based on manuscripts.

³⁴ Jerusalem, 1986.

³⁵ Jerusalem, 1986.

³⁶ Vilna, 1863. Including commentaries on the end of Mishlei omitted from previous editions of the GRA’s commentary, commentaries to parts of Eikhah and Kohelet, and a commentary (according to the publisher, “על דרך הפשט”) to Maaseh HaMerkavah in Yechezkel.

³⁷ Shklov 1802. Published by his sons from the GRA’s own manuscript.

³⁸ Published by Reuven Gershon, 1992.

³⁹ Published at the end of the work פתחי שערים of R. Yitzchak Isaac Chaver, and as an addendum to Mikraot Gedolot, Etz Chayyim edition, Jerusalem, 1974.

⁴⁰ Mikraot Gedolot, Etz Chayyim edition, Jerusalem, 1974. According to Tzuriel, Otzerot: 30, this was written by the GRA himself.

⁴¹ Published together with the GRA’s commentary to חד גדיא, with commentary by R. Shlomo Brevda, Bnei Brak, 1987.

⁴² An edition of the GRA’s biblical commentaries based on manuscripts, consisting of material authored by the GRA himself.

⁴³ Published in the work Berit Yitzchak (Warsaw, 1888), by R. Yitzchak Isaac Chaver, and as an addendum to Mikraot Gedolot, Etz Chayyim edition, Jerusalem 1974. In 2000, it was published as Tehillot Eliyahu by Mechon HaGra.

⁴⁴ Republished in an expanded edition in Toledot HaGra (Mossad HaRav Kook 1970).

⁴⁵ The GRA’s commentaries to Zera’im and Tohorot are appended to the edition of Mishnah El Hamekorot (1955). This edition also reprints (before Shenot Eliyahu to Zera’im) the commentary of the GRA to Kilayim 3:1 (a section of Mishnah known as “Arugah”). Proper interpretation of this Mishnah demands an understanding of geometry, which the GRA excelled in. The GRA’s commentary to Arugah became especially well-known in scholarly circles after its publication. There is also a commentary to Avot (see Tzuriel, Otzerot:33).

⁴⁶ The GRA’s determination to establish the correct text is evident in many of his glosses, which often suggest emendations, sometimes of a radical nature.

⁴⁷ Published in standard editions of the Babylonian Talmud.

⁴⁸ Published in standard editions of the Jerusalem Talmud.

⁴⁹ Mekhilta (1844), Sifra (1911), Sifrei (1866).

⁵⁰ Including a booklet of commentary on the Aggadot of Rabbah Bar Bar Chanah. See Tzuriel, Otzerot: 34.

⁵¹ Written by his student R. Menachem Mendel of Shklov.

⁵² A commentary to Shulchan Arukh, originally published as follows: Orach Chayyim, Shklov 1803; Yoreh De’ah, Grodno 1806; Even Ha’Ezer, Vilna and Grodno 1819; Choshen Mishpat, Koenigsberg 1855. The GRA championed an approach that sought to anchor Halakhah in the Talmud as far as possible. Combined with a strong sense of autonomy in interpreting the Talmud and deciding the Halakhah, this approach led the GRA to many distinct halakhic practices that were carried on by his students and followers. The fact that many of those students founded a new and influential community in Eretz Yisrael has led to the situation where the GRA’s practices enjoy widespread adherence throughout Ashkenazic communities of contemporary Israel.
In their introduction to this work, the GRA’s sons mention his opposition to pilpul (a casuistic methodology of studying Talmud).

⁵³ In Toledot HaGra (Mossad HaRav Kook 1970): 242-251. See also the S. Frankel edition of Mishneh Torah, where comments of the GRA on Mishneh Torah are compiled from Be’ur HaGra to Shulchan Arukh and other works.

⁵⁴ Grodno, 1806.

⁵⁵ Vilna and Grodno, 1820.

⁵⁶ Vilna, 1810.

⁵⁷ 1867.

⁵⁸ 1858.

⁵⁹ 1883.

⁶⁰ A letter written by the GRA to his family during his aborted journey to Eretz Yisrael. It has been recently published in Tzuriel, Otzerot: 134-138. See there regarding previous editions, and regarding the fact that the letter was apparently originally written in Yiddish and then translated to Hebrew using masculine form, despite the fact that it is mostly addressed to his wife. To correct this error, Tzuriel changes the gender to feminine for most of the letter.

⁶¹ 1833. A work of Hebrew grammar later republished by A.L. Gordon as Mishnat HaGra, 1874).

⁶² Warsaw 1876. A work analyzing the grammar of the words in the opening section of Bereshit.

⁶³ 1833. A work on geometry. The GRA was also reported to have written works on astronomy and calculation of the seasons and planetary motions, but these were never published.