In the first chapter of Griffiths' Electrodynamics, he introduces some math that will be used.
There is a section on second derivatives.
One type of second derivative is $\nabla \cdot(\nabla T)$, where $T$ is a scalar function.
$$\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\hat{i}+\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\hat{j}+\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\hat{k}\right )\cdot \left ( \frac{\partial T}{\partial x}\hat{i}+\frac{\partial T}{\partial y}\hat{j}+\frac{\partial T}{\partial z}\hat{k}\right )$$
$$= \frac{\partial T^2}{\partial^2 x}\hat{i}+\frac{\partial T^2}{\partial^2 y}\hat{j}+\frac{\partial T^2}{\partial^2 z}\hat{k}\tag{1}$$
which we call the Laplacian of $T$.
Then he says
occasionally, we shall speak of the Laplacian of a vector $\nabla^2\vec{v}$. By this we mean a vector quantity whose x-component is the Laplacian of $v_x$, and so on.
$$\nabla^2 \vec{v} \equiv \nabla^2v_x\hat{i} + \nabla^2 v_y \hat{j} + \nabla^2 v_z \hat{k}\tag{2}$$
$(1)$ is obtained via definitions of dot product and gradient (del) operator. $(2)$ on the other hand seems to be a definition. After all, in $\nabla \cdot (\nabla \vec{v})$, the term $\nabla \vec{v}$ doesn't seem to make sense. We can't use simple multiplication between two vectors. Is $(2)$ derivable as $(1)$ is from previous definitions?