INTRODUCTION
PART 1: BRIEF HISTORY OF THE TEACHING, WRITING, DISTRIBUTION, EDITING AND PRINTING OF THE TANYA
The work of the Tanya is a work of Jewish mysticism regarded as the foundational work[1] of Chabad philosophy (Torat Chassidut Chabad), authored by Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, known as the Alter Rebbe (1745-1813). It was first taught orally over a number of years, beginning in 1782 (5542), and then a second time over a three-year period, beginning on Rosh Hashanah, in September, 1789 (5550). The first three chapters were taught on Rosh Hashanah, and then continuing once a month on Shabbat, and other special occasions. This concluded on 14 November, 1793 (10 Kislev 5554).[2]
Similar to the teaching of the Tanya, its development and distribution as a text also happened in stages. Rabbi Shneur Zalman first began to write the Tanya in 1776, three years after the passing of his teacher, R. Dovber, the Maggid of Mezritch.[3] The first few chapters were released to be copied in 1785, after it had been taught for the first time. The main distribution of the work, in pamphlet form, took place in 1792. First, thirty chapters were given to copyists, followed by an additional thirteen chapters, and then the remaining chapters, completing the work as a compilation of fifty-one chapters.[4] The work was then known as Sefer ha-eitzos (book of advice), Sefer ha-birur (book of clarifications) and Sefer ha-avodah (book of service), in addition to commonly given name by the Chassidim, Tanya.[5]
In 1796, due to many errors corrupting the text, both, accidental by copyists, and intentional by detractors of the Chassidim, the pamphlets were turned into a single work, producing the first printed edition, together with an additional part, Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, in Slavita, on 20 December, 1796 (20 Kislev[6] 5557).[7] Over a two-year period, R. Shneur Zalman edited the entire work, including adding and omitting parts of chapters, as well as adding two whole chapters, which completed the work in its current form, consisting of 53 chapters. The two additional complete chapters that were added were what is now chapter thirty, originally written by Rabbi Shneur Zalman as part of a separate work, Igeret ha-teshuva,[8] and chapter 32, on the subject of love for one’s fellow. The expansion of the Tanya into 53 chapters became of significance when Rabbi Shneur Zalman was imprisoned in the Petropavlovsk (The Peter and Paul Fortress), in St Petersburg, in 1798 (5559), on trumped up charges of treason, for those amount of days, until his release on 27 November, 1798 (19th Kislev, 5559) by the order of Paul I of Russia.[9] His imprisonment for 53 days was seen by Chassidim as corresponding to the 53 chapters of the Tanya, where he reveals the inner teachings of the Torah (Chassidut) in intelligible discourses.[10]
A further printing during the lifetime of R. Shneur Zalman took place in 1806, including also Igeret ha-Teshuvaah.[11] While the printing of the Tanya in 1796 took place due to many errors, the editing of the text continued also after the life of R. Shneur Zalman, to, both, fix obvious errors that had not been corrected by Rabbi Shneur Zalman, and many that had crept into to the text since the printing. Within a hundred years since the first printing of the Tanya in 1796, thirty four printings of the Tanya took place, with many printing errors infiltrating the text. In 1896, the fifth Chabad Rebbe, R. Shalom Dovber, asked his chassid, R. Asher Grossman, known as Reb Asher of Nikolayev, to edit the Tanya, and correct all typographical errors. This included many minor changes, like the spelling of words and changing of word orders, by comparing the text against earlier manuscripts.[12] A total of a thousand corrections were made at this point. Unlike the first editing by the author, these corrections would not have added or omitted any part of the text that would have led to a different meaning in the text, unless they were found in an earlier manuscript. This work was completed in December, 1899, on 19 Kislev (5660), and given to the printers in Vilna, on the first day of Chanukah.[13] Due to the sensitivity of this work, R. Shalom Dovber did not allow his name to be mentioned, even as an acrostic, in connection with the editing of the work.[14] This printed edition basically closed the text of the Tanya, providing templates for almost all subsequent printings of the Tanya. Nevertheless, further editing of the Tanya took place with some minor changes being made within the text of the Tanya. This included a single correction to Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah, Igeret Hakodesh and Kuntres Acharon respectively in the 1809 Vilna edition.[15]
Further corrections were made by the seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, prepared as an addendum for the printing of the Tanya in Brooklyn, 1954. They were inserted in two sections of an addendum: 160 corrections were included in: ‘Luach haTikun’ (index of corrections)[16] and approximately 270 suggested corrections in ‘ha-orot ve-tikunim’ (notes and corrections). The former are obvious corrections, like incorrect spelling of words, like ‘Zohar’ with a ‘yud,’ and ‘me’od’ without a ‘vav’; the latter are suggested corrections that may be read correctly also without the amendment. For the 1954 edition, some of the corrections documented in ‘Luach haTikun’ were amended inside the text, while still being recorded in the ‘Luach haTikun;’ many others were recorded only in the ‘Luach haTikun’ – not amended in the text.[17] Further corrections appear to have been made inside the text for the 1958 edition.[18] Although these emendations were incorporated in 1983, in the printing of the ‘Lessons in Tanya,’[19] by R. Yosef Weinberg (d. 2012), they remained an index of corrections in all the standard editions of the Tanya. The final stage of this editorial history of the Tanya took place in 2010, when Rabbi Yoel Kahan (1930 – 1921), who served as the chief editor of Chabad Chassidut from 1950, instructed for all the corrections, placed in ‘Luach haTikun,’ to be incorporated in the main text of the Tanya, while suggested correctionsin ‘Ha-orot ve-tikunim’ remain in the addendum.[20]
Other corrections were made by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, but were included only as footnotes in a separate commentary on the Tanya, ‘Lessons in Tanya,’ published in 1983. This work benefited from being examined and edited by the Rebbe, as well as containing many footnotes with his comments, including suggested corrections to the text.[21] An example of such a correction may be found in the approbation: ‘on seeing the saintly hands (ye-dei ko-desh) of the author.’ The Rebbe suggests amending: ‘hands of’ to ‘handwriting of.’[22] A further suggested correction is found in chapter 40 in the printed version (38 in the manuscript),[23] where it states: ‘u’vo hen gu-fe ha-lachot she-b’mishnah’ (wherein are the ‘bodies’ of the halachot of the Mishnah). The word ‘u’vo’ (wherein) - spelled vav, vet, vav – appears to be a typographical error, and should be corrected with the spelling of the Hebrew letter ‘vav’ - spelled vav, alef, vav. This wouldoffer the following meaning: the Hebrew letter ‘vav’ represents the ‘body’ of the laws in the Mishnah (since Mishnah is at the level of Yetzirah).[24]
The manuscript version of the Tanya found at the British Library, totalling 48 chapters,[25] thus, represents a rare extant copy of the work of the Tanya in its early manuscript form, before or in the early stages of the editing of the Tanya by Rabbi Shneur Zalman for the purpose of its printing in 1796. The aim of this work is to present a detailed study of the textual history of the Tanya, and thereby also its intellectual history. This will be done by documenting and offering explanations, mostly culled from the various commentaries on the Tanya, to many of the textual variants in the BL Tanya, compared to the printed version, with the aim of offering a deeper and enriched understanding of the final text of the Tanya that is so commonly studied today.
PART 2: STUDYING THE EARLIER EDITION OF THE TANYA
With the printing of the Tanya in 1796, an effort was made to gather all the earlier editions of the Tanya that contained errors. This is indicated by the fact that only nine manuscripts are known to exist in the world today and for centuries the study of the Tanya has been focused only on the printed version. Commentaries on the Tanya, by the leaders of Chabad and prominent Chassidim, dwell on the printed text. They explain, elucidate, and footnote the printed text but rarely discuss the earlier version or variants between the manuscript versions and the printed edition. This is unlike the earlier edition of the Shulchan Aruch by Rabbi Shneur Zalman – his major other work, printed also during his life time - that is discussed at length.[26]
A reason for this may be connected with a reluctance to offer interpretation on one’s own to the work of the Tanya beyond explaining and elucidating the plain meaning of the text. In an open letter to chassidim in 1913,[27] Rabbi Sholom Dovber Schneersohn (1860-1920) strictly prohibited offering one’s own explanations (p’shetelech) to the text of the Tanya. The reason being that the work was carefully worded, guided by layers of ideas drawn from the esoteric teachings of the Torah, and intentions pertaining to the choice and spelling of words were known only to the author. Certain chapters that may be expounded were done by the author’s grandson, Rabbi Menachem Mendel of Lubavitch, known as the Tzemach Tzedek (1789-1866), in his commentary on the Tanya. However, any further attempt to elaborate on the work, while it may produce logical explanations, will not reach the depth of the intention of the text, almost definitely not be consistent with the true intention of the author, and will thus be erroneous, causing a neglect of Torah study and the usurping of the text. If this was a correct method of study of the Tanya, there would have been surely a tradition of such a method from the earlier Chassidim, which is unknown to us. The only exception, permitting extrapolating on one’s own the text of the Tanya, was suggested by the father of the Rashab, the fourth leader of Chabad, Rabbi Shmuel of Lubavitch, known as the Maharash (1834 -1882). He stipulated that when it serves to inspire a person in one’s service of G-d, even if it is not consistent with the true meaning of the text, one may extrapolate the text. In fact, he said, one should consider, after studying a chapter in the Tanya, what personal spiritual path in the service of G-d, meditation or practical advice can be derived from the text.
In 1942, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn, son of Rabbi Sholom Dovber, once again discussed this prohibition, while citing the above[28] concession. Similarly, in 1956, the Rebbe[29] cited the content of this open letter by the Rashab, while proceeding to elaborate on the Tanya, offering a comment, based on the statement in Sefer Yetzirah 1:7: ‘the end is rooted in the beginning,’ connecting the closing of the fifth book of the Tanya, where it closes with the idea: ‘The state of "Observe" in the inwardness (of Shabbat) is refraining from speech about material affairs, as G‑d ceased from the Ten Utterances through which physical heaven and earth were created. For one parallel to the other,’ with the opening phrase of the Tanya: ‘Compiled from (sacred) books and from sages, exalted saints, whose souls are in Eden; based on the verse (Deuteronomy 30:14): "For it is exceedingly near to you, in your mouth and in your heart, to do;" to explain clearly how it is exceedingly near, in a lengthy and short way, with the aid of the Holy One, may He be blessed.’ The suggested connection is that in both instances it presupposes that man is essentially connected with the Essence of the Divine, despite the gulf between G-d and man, being a soul enclothed in a physical body. For this reason, a. man is commanded to refrain from speech on Shabbat, just as G-d refrained from the Ten Utterances through which physical heaven and earth were created, and b. love of G-d is ‘exceedingly near to you.’ Recognising the innovation of this comment, since the part of the Tanya that includes letters of Rabbi Shneur Zalman – Igerot ha-Kodesh - was included as part of the main work only after the lifetime of the author, for the 1814 edition in Shklav.[30] Furthermore, the final letter that is now part of Kuntres Acharon – the fifth section of the Tanya- was possibly included by mistake, due to a note on the manuscript of the letter that suggested it belonged with the other letters, but is in fact unrelated. Despite this, the Rebbe justified the comment, since a lesson many be derived in the service of G-d.[31] This reluctance to probe the text of the Tanya on one’s own may have led to a reluctance to study the text of the Tanya based on the earlier version that had been viewed as corrupted by innumerable copyist errors, and corrected by the author himself, producing the printed edition.
Despite this, in 1978, on the second day of Shavuot, the method of the study of the Tanya, focusing on the variants between the earlier version (mahadura kamma) and the printed edition, and amongst the manuscripts themselves, was validated by the Rebbe. He initially questioned its validity, since the author of the Tanya seemed to have desired the replacement of the manuscripts, when he went through the process of editing the manuscripts for printing.[32] The Rebbe argued, however, that, as with earlier editions of other works, there is value in studying and analysing the earlier edition of the Tanya, offering two reasons: firstly, the earlier version was not a first draft that was not intended to be studied until corrected and final draft completed, but, rather, an authorised text, distributed widely by the author, and studied over many years, before the printing of the Tanya with its many modifications.
Secondly, there is, in any event, value in studying an earlier version of a text, as it reveals the intellectual history of a text and the thought process of its author. This gives a deeper understanding into the final version of a text. Interest into an earlier version of a text, even if subsequently replaced, may be found in other instances in Jewish thought, as the Mishna states in Ketubot (57a): ‘This set of rulings, concerning the permission granted a betrothed woman whose wedding date has arrived to partake of teruma, is in accordance with the initial version of the mishna’ (Mishna rishonah).’ Similarly, in tractate Yevamot (30a): ‘However, a mishna does not move from its place,’ – even after it had become succeeded by a later text and is deemed as no longer necessary.’ In the 16th century, in the work of Rabbi Isaac Luria, there are numerous instances where it alludes to a first version and second version of the text.
Study of the variants
This led, at the behest of the Rebbe,[33] in 1981, to the publication, by R. Shalom Ber Levin, of a full manuscript version of the Tanya, entitled: ‘Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma (m’ktav yad).’ The main text is a transcript of what is regarded as the oldest extant manuscript of the Tanya, with all the variants amongst the 12 manuscripts referenced in footnotes, together with suggested explanations for the variants, in some cases arguing for the preference of one version of the other. An earlier referencing of the variants may be found in the margin of the first printed edition of the Tanya, discovered by R. Yehoshua Mondshine (1947-2014), copies of which is held at the Lubavitch Library.[34]
R. Aaron Chitrik (d. 2011), in Likkutei Amarim Tanya Betziruf Marei Mekomos, also on occasion refers to the earlier manuscript editions. This can be found[35] for example in chapter 16, where it states in the printed edition of the Tanya: ‘The love and fear referred to as tevunah, although not heartfelt emotions, nevertheless serve as “wings” for one’s Torah and mitzvot in the same way as if he practiced them with real (mamash) fear and love as revealed in the heart.’ In this context, he references the omission of the word: ‘mamash’ in two of the manuscripts.
PART 3: TANYA MANUSCRIPTS
There are seven extant manuscript versions of the first part of the Tanya, Likkutei Amarim. Six may be found in the Lubavitch Library and one at the British Library, known as BL Or 10456 (1775-1796), and referred to in Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma asMS 9. The oldest of these manuscripts is thought to be MS no. 7, published in Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma (m’ktav yad) (Kehot, 1981). This is known in the Lubavitch Library as MS Tanya 750.[36] Other Tanya manuscripts at the Lubavitch Library are: MS Tanya 263 (MS 2 in Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma); MS Tanya 265 (MS 3 in Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma); MS Tanya 1118 (MS 5 in Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma); MS Tanya 262 (MS 6 in Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma); MS Tanya 268 (MS 8 in Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma). In addition, four folios exist from chapters 10 and 12, in the handwriting of R. Shneur Zalman himself.[37] These folios were first published in the Chabad journal Hatomim, vol. 2 (1935-8), and then in all standard editions of the Tanya, published since 1957.
The BL manuscript of the Tanya, thus, reflects an edition of the Tanya that is called Mahadura Kamma (earlier version), before it was printed in 1796, with many variants that we do not have in the printed version today. This includes omissions that were later added; additions that were later removed; additions in the margin as replacement for wrong words in the text, and as additions to omitted words. These corrections may reflect a work written during the process of the editing of the text by Rabbi Shneur Zalman, thus including some corrections. Alternatively, it may point to the fact that during the pamphlet stage of the Tanya, corrections were being made by copyists or others, scholars or otherwise, on their own, as was thought to be necessary from the meaning of the text or by comparing the text to other extant manuscripts that were abound.
PART 4: THE BRITISH LIBRARY TANYA MS
1. Details
The original owner of the manuscript is documented on the first page as being Rabbi Yosef of Slutsk[38] - a mitnagdic town, that was known for its strong opposition to Chassidism, as recorded by Rabbi Shneur Zalman in 1801.[39] The manuscript, somehow, made its way to Israel, where German born Jewish missionary Joseph Wolf (b. 1795, Wielersback, Bavaria), son of a German rabbi, bought it and sent it to England for his patron Henry Drummond (1786-1860). It was subsequently deposited with the ‘London Society for promoting Christianity amongst the Jews.’ On 25 September 1912, it was bought[40] by the leader of the Spanish and Portuguese Jewish congregation in London, Moses Gaster (1856 - 1939), who held a lectureship, in 1886 and 1891, in Slavonic literature at the University of Oxford, while becoming the Hakham of the Spanish and Portuguese Jewish congregation in London, in 1887. It was finally acquired by the British Museum in 1925.
The BL manuscript of the Tanya is entitled ‘Kitzur Likkutei Amarim’ and was written between 1775-1799 in Ashkenazi semi-cursive, cursive and square script. The text of the manuscript was composed by three hands: Chapters 1-39 (folios 3a-32a), corresponding to chapter 41 in the printed version, by one hand, in semi cursive script, called Rashi. To indicate the end of the work, as this manuscript was originally copied, it states: se-li-kah lah bi-se-ya-a-ta di-she-ma-ya’ (completed with the assistance of Heaven).[41] Chapter 40 (folios 32b-35a), corresponding to chapter 42 and 43 in the printed version, by a second hand, in cursive Ashkenazi script. Chapters 42-48, corresponding to chapters 44-50 in the printed version (chapter 41 is not indicated) by a third hand, also in cursive Ashkenazi script (folios 35a-42b).[42] Like the first part, the second and third parts, written in different hands, are also mahadura kamma (first version), with many variants, including additions and omissions, minor and significant, compared to the printed version.
2. Scholar scribe
It is difficult to determine whether the scribe was a scholar or laymen hired as a scribe. One way to ascertain the kind of scribe is by analysing the nature of the errors in the text. In chapter 23, it suggests that the scribe was not necessary a scholar, as the error – a change from a mem to a vav changes the meaning of the text, in a way that the text loses its meaning. It states: Moreover, their unity, i.e., the unity of the divine soul and its faculties with G-d that is attained through Torah study, is even more exalted and more powerful than the unity (me-a-cher) of G-d’s infinite light with the upper (spiritual) worlds.’ In the BL manuscript (fol. 17) it states: ‘and the unity’ (ve-a-cher). This mistake, as opposed to other variants, indicates the scribe was either a hired scribe, or at this point in the text, not paying attention to the meaning of the text he was transcribing. A further mistake in the text is a citation from Likkutei Torah of the Arizal, in chapter 34 in the BL manuscript (chapter 36 in the printed version), where the source given is Yalkut Torah, instead of Likkutei Torah. This is an obvious mistake regarding a work that is quite well known.[43] While there are other obvious mistakes in the manuscript unique to the BL Tanya copy, they may be copied from a copy that also had the particular mistake. It is however difficult to say that a mistaken reference regarding a known work was from an earlier copy, as it would have likely been corrected. This may suggest that the copier was not a scholar scribe.
A similar proof can be made from a mistake in which the text does not make sense, as copied. This can be found in chapter 36 (38 in the printed version) where two mistakes appear that renders the text incomprehensible. A first case is the word ‘And the illumination (ve-ha-arat) of the supernal will that radiates and is clothed in this kavanah is infinitely greater and loftier than the illumination of the supernal will that radiates and is clothed in the performance of the mitzvot themselves, in action and speech, without kavanah.’ In the MS, it had a prefix ‘mem’ (from/than) before ‘ha-arat’ (the illumination). In a different hand, it was corrected with a ‘vav’ added over the ‘mem’ to replace it. Similarly, in the same chapter, the Tanya writes: ‘Similar to the superiority of the light of the soul over (al) the body.’ In the MS, it states: ‘with the body’ (im ha-guf). These mistakes make the text incomprehensible.
In chapter 40 (43 in printed version), it states: ‘Ahavat olam, however, is that which comes (hi ha-ba-ah) from the understanding (me-ha-te-vu-nah) and knowledge of the greatness of G-d, the blessed Ein Sof, Who fills all worlds, and encompasses all worlds.’ In the BL Tanya MS, however, instead of: ‘hi ha-ba-ah’ (is that which comes), it omits ‘hi’ and shortens ‘ha-ba-ah’ (comes) to ‘ha-ba’ (to come), producing the reading of the text: ‘Ahavat olam ha-ba’ (love of the world to come).[44] This mistake, which is not found in any other of the manuscripts, appears to reflect a scribe who was copying a text without understanding what he was copying. When he saw the word: ‘olam’ and then: ‘ha-ba’ in close proximity – despite the word ‘hi’ in between, he omitted the word: ‘hi’ and wrote: ‘olam ha-ba’ (the world to come), since these words appear together in other contexts, but makes no sense in this case. This suggests a scribe who was either ignorant or was not concerned with the meaning of the text while copying.
3. Change in the text size
There is a change of the size of the script on fol. 16, in ch. 21 of the BL Tanya, thoughthe same hand. The reason for this may be to enable the text to fit within the folios of the manuscript.
4. End of chapters – illuminations
Most end of chapters in the BL Tanya manuscript are indicated by a colon. At the end of chapter 26, and sporadically afterwards, including chapters: 27, 28, 30, 32, and at the end of 39, which is the final chapter with the same hand, the endings are indicated with an illumination.[45]
5. Unique among the manuscripts
Many of the variants in the BL Tanya manuscript are unique variants that may only be found in the BL manuscript and not in any of the other Tanya manuscripts. This applies to spelling of words, word order and also actual wording. This may be found for example in ch. 19, where the word te-shu-ka-to can be found in the BL manuscript, instead of ve-cha-she-ka, as found in all the other versions.[46] Also, in ch. 19, it states: ‘Now this is a general principle in the whole realm of holiness: Holiness is only that which derives from chochmah.’ In the BL MS it addsthe word: gadol (great)after k’lal’ (principle). This is not found in any other of the manuscripts. Similarly, the order of the words in ch. 19: mit-na-ne-a le-ma-ala ta-mid, as opposed to ta-mid le-ma-ala is also unique to the BL Tanya manuscript.[47] Similarly, in ch. 20, only the BL Tanya adds the word: k-lal (at all), at the end of the sentence: ‘This emphasis provided by the repeated phrase, “You are He who…,” means: “You are exactly the same ‘He’ before and after creation, without any change at all (k-lal).”’
Another example of a variant that is unique to the BL manuscript is a change of a single word that has significance to the meaning of the text. In the printed version, in ch. 20, it states: ‘Only after the desire and craving have already descended into his heart, through the stimulus of his wisdom, understanding, and knowledge, and only after they have ascended once again from the heart back to the brain to think and meditate on how to implement his desire by actually obtaining that food or actually studying that subject, it is only at this point that “letters” are born (nol-du) in one’s mind, corresponding to the language of each of the nations, who employ these letters when speaking and thinking about everything in the world.’ In the BL MS, instead of: ‘born’ (nol-du), it states: ‘revealed’ (nig-leh), suggesting that there are in fact ‘letters’ in the mind, before the level of thought for the purpose of implementation of an idea.
In chapter 23, while presenting the argument that there is advantage in Torah study over performance of mitzvot, due to the profound unity with G-d when studying Torah, it states: ‘In fact, the Torah, G-d’s will, is described as “encompassing” all the worlds, meaning that it is at a level that cannot become clothed within the worlds but rather animates and illuminates them as if from a distance, from above, in a transcending and “encompassing” manner,’ and it is this level which transcends all the worlds that is clothed in a truly (ma-mash) revealed form in one’s soul and his soul-garments when he studies Torah. In the printed version it emphasises: ‘truly (ma-mash) revealed,’ while in the BL manuscript it omits: ‘truly’ (ma-mash). This de-emphasis of the concept that G-d on a transcendent level is truly revealed when studying Torah, is found only in the BL manuscript.[48]
In chapter 44 (46 in the printed version), it says that when a person performs a mitzvah it as a union with G-d, similar to the patriarchs who were on the level of a “vehicle” (Merkava) unto Him. In the BL MS, it states: ‘And so it is ‘ma-mash’ (really) with the soul of every Jew at the time he is occupied with Torah and the mitzvot. In the printed version and all other manuscripts of the Tanya, the word ‘ma-mash’ (really) is omitted. This appears to be a significant variant, suggesting in the printed version that the performance of mitzvot of every Jew is not exactly the same as the patriarchs.[49]
6. Chronology
Out of the manuscripts of the Tanya that exists today, it’s interesting to try to determine the
chronology of the BL Tanya MS. One method to do this is to find a significant section that
appears in the printed version and also all the other manuscripts, but omitted in the BL Tanya
MS. This would suggest that the BL Tanya MS was copied at an earlier time than the other
manuscripts. This may be found in the chapter 31 (33 in the printed version), where the
following paragraph is found in the printed version and all the other manuscripts but omitted
in the BL Tanya MS: ‘the End of Days,’ when He will banish the spirit of impurity from the
earth, and ‘G-d’s glory will be revealed, and all flesh together will behold it.’
PART 5: CORRECTIONS IN THE BL TANYA MANUSCRIPT
There are a number of corrections made to the text of the BL Tanya, reflected the editing process of the Tanya during the manuscript stage itself. This could have taken place either as part of the editing process for the printing by the author, shared with the public, and incorporated in the manuscripts. Alternatively, corrections of errors in the text were made independently of the printing, either as instructed by the author, or by the scribe, or owner of the manuscript. Such corrections are shown in the BL Tanya manuscript, where numerous corrections are made in between the lines or in the margins. The following are the kinds of corrections made in the text:
1. Brackets
Errors may have been made by the scribe while copying the text and perhaps corrected immediately by placing the erroneous word in a bracket and then the correct word following the bracket. This can be seen for example in chapter 20, where it states: ‘this word is as naught when compared with the essence and entity of the soul, these being its ten attributes mentioned above: chochmah, binah, daat, and so on, from which are derived the letters of thought (mach-sha-vah) that are clothed in one’s speech, when it is uttered.’ In the manuscript it initially stated: ‘letters of speech (ha-di-bu-rim),’ which makes no sense with the subsequent words: ‘that are clothed in one’s speech.’ The scribe wrote: ‘ha-di-bu-rim’ (speech) mistakenly and proceeded to correct his mistake by placing the mistaken word in brackets, and continued with the corrected text.
Similarly, in chapter 38, it states: ‘the neshamah needs no tikun (mending) for herself by means of the commandments.’ In the BL Tanya, chapter 36 (corresponding to chapter 38 in the printed version), it adds: ‘ke-lal’ (at all). This is however placed in brackets, suggesting that it should be removed. It is in fact omitted in the printed version.
This occurs also with a mistaken spelling of a word, in chapter 20, where a ‘vav,’ instead of a ‘yud,’ was written in the word: ‘eizeh’ (some), thereby changing the meaning of the word. The word with the wrong letter was placed in brackets and corrected with the subsequent text.
2. In between lines
A further method of corrections is by the adding of a missing work above the line. This can be found in ch. 20, where the word ‘be-po-el’ (actually), is added in between the lines.
A further example of a correction above the line is the correction of a single letter of a word, written in error, and not wanting to erase and rewrite the whole word. This can be found in chapter 36 in the BL Tanya (38 in the printed version), where it has a prefix ‘mem’ (from/than) before ‘ha-a-rat’ (the illumination). In a different hand, the conjunctive ‘vav’ (and) was added above the ‘mem,’ presenting the word: ‘ve-ha-arat’ (and the illumination) enabling the following text to make sense: ‘and the illumination (ve-ha-arat) of the supernal will that radiates and is clothed in this kavanah is infinitely greater and loftier than the illumination of the supernal will that radiates and is clothed in the performance of the mitzvot themselves, in action and speech, without kavanah.’
An addition example of this is found in chapter 36 in the BL Tanya (38 in the printed version). In the printed version it states: ‘ G‑d animates and brings into existence ex nihilo (me-a-yin le-yesh).’ In the BL Tanya MS it omits: ‘le-yesh,’ by mistake, and adds it above the line.
3. Margins
Some corrections are made on the margin of the text. In chapter 22, two corrections may be found by a later hand in the margin. The Tanya states: ‘The meaning of “hinder-part” is exemplified in the act of a person who gives something unwillingly (she-lo bir-tzo-no).’ In the BL Tanya MS, fol. 17, it states: ‘ba-al kor-cho’ (by coercion). In the margin, however, by a different hand, it adds: ‘she-lo bir-tzo-no’ (unwillingly).An identical correction is made a second time in the same chapter.
4. Mistaken correction within the text
In some cases, a correction is made by seemingly a different hand, but unnecessarily, as evident from the fact that it is subsequently removed in the printed version. In chapter 38, it states: ‘Now, just as the illumination (ha-arah) and the flow of vitality found in the mineral and vegetable [categories] bears no comparison or likeness to the illumination (le-ha-arah) and flow of vitality clothed in animals and man.’ In the BL Tanya MS, fol. 27, in chapter 36 (38 in the printed version), it states: ‘le-ha-a-rah’ (to the illumination), with a prefix ‘lamed,’ twice in the sentence. The first appears to have been a correction, as the prefix ‘lamed’ is different than other ‘lameds’ in the text. The correction seems, however, to have been unnecessary and redundant, and is subsequently omitted in the printed version.
5. Vertical correction in the margin
In chapter 36 (38 in the printed version), fol. 27, there is a correction added vertically in the margin. The sentence relates to the superiority of the action of a mitzvah over intent. The Tanya writes: ‘If one spoke the words but did not concentrate his thought, he has, post facto, fulfilled his obligation, because the soul does not need to perfect itself through mitzvot; rather, to draw down light to perfect the vital soul and the body.’ In the margin, in a vertical marginal note, it adds: ‘to repeat them, except for the first verse of Shema and the first blessing in Shemoneh Esrei. The reason is that the neshamah needs no tikun (mending), etc.’
PART 5: VARIANTS
There are two categories of variants amongst the manuscripts and between the manuscripts and the printed version: minor and significant that alters the meaning of the text. In the former they relate to a. spelling and order of particular words; b. addition or omission of a single word; c. addition or omission of more than one word, d. inclusion and omission of whole sentences, e. inclusion and omission of significant sections of chapters, f. inclusion and omission whole chapters. Some of the above are seemingly minor textual variants, that do not appear to significantly change the meaning of subject matter of the text, while others relate to significant differences. In addition, some variants are found also in other manuscripts, while some are unique to the BL manuscript. We will now in more detail outline the categories of variants that are in the first category, ones that don’t seem to change the meaning of the text in a significant way, but were nevertheless amended in either the first editing by the author or in the process of the printing in 1899. We will then proceed to outline what seems to be some of the significant changes.
While it is impossible to know with certainty at which time the edits were made, as they could have taken place during the first editing by the author or second editing of the text, under the guidance of the Rashab, it is safe to say with almost certainty that the minor edits may have been conducted by either period, while the significant changes that including adding or omitting significant sections would have only. Been conducted by the author himself before the printing in 1796. A further observation and complexity in knowing exactly when particular edits were made is that the editing of the work that involved significant changes may have been conducted not necessarily in the context of the printing, but in the manuscript stage, but we no longer have copies of the manuscripts that include these changes. It may have the case therefore that significant changes were made earlier as part a the editing of the work that was an ongoing process within the manuscripts and the editing for the printing was primarily to fix copy errors. This distinction between the minor scribal errors that were corrected for the printing and the significant changes that were made not specifically for the printing, but incorporated in the printing, is in fact suggested from the approbation by Rabbi Meshulam Zusil of Anipoli (1718-1800), included in the printed edition, where it says: ‘It was [the Alter Rebbe’s] intention not to publish these writings, for it is not his custom. But because these pamphlets have spread among all Israel in numerous copies by sundry copyists, and, as a result of the many and various transcriptions, the copyists’ errors have multiplied exceedingly, he was compelled to bring these pamphlets to the printing press.’ Nevertheless, the purpose of our study is to outline the variants of the two editions that we have before us: the BL manuscript version, representing the earlier version, and the printed edition. In this context, we proceed to outline the following eleven kinds of minor variants:
Minor variants
1. Clarity
Some variants are for the purpose of clarity of meaning, so as not to allow for a misunderstanding of the text. This can be found in chapter 18, where the word ‘she-bah’ is added in the printed version: ‘its faculty of chochmah.’ The word ‘she-bah’ (its) is added to emphasise that the light of the Ein Sof is vested in every person’s soul through its vestment in their faculty of wisdom, as opposed to the supernal wisdom of the Divine.[50]
A similar correction appears in chapter 19, where it states in the printed version: ‘For this [nature] is the soul’s (she-be-nefesh) faculty of chochmah.’ In the MS, however, it omits:‘she-be-nefesh’ (soul’s) and merely states: ‘for this [nature] is the faculty of chochmah.’
2. Same word on two lines
Some omissions of sections of lines that appear significant to the meaning but are in fact due only to a word that appears twice on two consecutive lines. The scribe wrote the word the first time it appeared and then picked up the text from where it continued after the second time the same word appeared on the following line, omitting the text in between. This occurs in chapter 18, where it states: ‘Rather, they are prepared to sacrifice their lives without any (shum) knowledge or reflection but as though it were absolutely impossible to renounce the one G-d, without any (shum) reason or rational argument whatsoever.’ In the BL Tanya manuscript, the scribe omits the text in between the two repeated Hebrew words: shum, thereby omitting a significant concept pertaining to free will to renounce the one G-d: that one is prepared to sacrifice one’s life for one’s faith, due to the fact that it is impossible for a Jew to do otherwise.[51]
The same appears to happen in ch. 19, where the sentence: ‘Here, too - the inference of the word “nature” is that the soul’s will and desire is not based on reason, knowledge,’ is omitted, as the word: ‘knowledge’ (da-at) is repeated three times in close proximity. Similarly, in chapter 23, in the MS, it omits the paragraph: ‘Since He is the Knower, the Knowledge… [and the subject Known]. This is what is meant by the statement that “The Torah and G-d are absolutely one”—they are not merely “organs of the King,” as are the mitzvot.’ The omission of this paragraph is found only in the BL MS, and appears to be a scribal error, as the words: ‘in a perfect unity’ (be-tach-lit ha-yichud) is repeated twice in close proximity in the text of the Tanya and the scribe most likely made an error omitting the section in between.[52] It indicates, as with the above similar omissions, the copy of the Tanya the scribe was using as his master copy, had the repeated words above each other, causing this mistake to occur.
3. Word order
Some of the variants in the manuscripts, compared to the printed version, is the word order in the text. For example, in ch. 19, it states: ‘like the flame of a candle, whose nature it is always to flicker upward.’ In the manuscript, it writes the following order in this statement in the Hebrew: ‘flickers upward (le’ma-alah) always (ta-mid) in its nature.’ In the printed edition, however, it writes in the reverse word order: ‘flickers always (ta-mid) upward (le’ma-alah) in its nature.’ The difference between these two is just word order, without any significant meaning. Also, in ch, 20, it states: ‘comprise the entire Torah - hem ke-lalut kol ha-Torah kulah.’ In the BL MS it states ‘hem’ at the end of the sentence.
4. Similar words and no change in meaning
Sometimes words in the manuscript are very similar to a word that is found in the printed version, suggesting the scribe may have copied the word wrongly, without a change in the overall understanding of the text. This can be found in ch. 19, where it states: ‘Although the kelipot prevailed over all his life, and he was impotent against them - lo ya-chol la-hem.’ In the MS, instead of ‘lahem,’ it writes: ‘le-hi-la-chem,’ implying the following: ‘he was unable to fight against them’ (lo ya-chol le-hi-la-chem). The idea that the person is ‘impotent’ or ‘unable to fight against the kelipah’ is basically expressing the same concept. The difference is just in the additional two Hebrew letters ‘lamed’ and ‘chet’, that turn ‘la-hem’ into ‘le-hi-la-chem.’
5. Gender
In the MS, concern is not given for gender justification. For example, in chapter 38 (40 in the printed version), in the printed edition, it states: ‘Though these are holy letters’ – in the Hebrew, both: ‘o-ti-yot’ (letters) and ‘ ke-do-shot’ (holy) are in the feminine. In the MS, fol. 29, it states: ‘o-ti-yot’ (letters) in the feminine but ‘ke-do-shim’ (holy) in the masculine.
6. Verse citation – additions
Many of the variants relate to the citation of verses. In some cases, additional words are added in the printed version, and in other case additional words are found in the manuscripts, omitted in the printed version. This can be found in ch. 19, relating to the few verses cited regarding the concept that ‘all the kelipot become nullified, and they vanish as though they had never been in the presence of the L-rd.’ In this context, three verses are cited, one from Isaiah and three from Psalms, It states: ‘Soit is written: “All the nations are as nothing before Him (Isaiah 40:17)”; and “For all Your enemies, O L-rd, Your enemies will perish, they will be scattered (Psalms 92:10)”; and again, “As wax melts before fire, so shall the wicked perish (Psalms 68:3)”; and “The hills melted like wax (Psalms 97:5).” In the manuscript, the verse from Isaiah and two of the verses of Psalms have additional words from the verse, compared to the printed version, while one verse from Psalms has additional words in the printed version. This can be also found in chapter 27 (39 in the printed version), where the verses in Ezekiel 1:10 is cited in the BL MS with the additional word: ‘le-ar-ba-atom’ (each of the four sides). This word is omitted in the printed version.
A reason for the change in citations of verses is due to the author being more particular about the precise words from a verse that is most relevant to the concept being discussed in the text. This variant is related to a further variant in the text. Employed in the text of the Tanya is a careful use of the word ‘etc’ (ve-chul-hu), whereby on occasion, it states: ‘etc’ (chul-hu), without the prefix ‘vav’ (and), while on occasion it includes the prefix: ‘vav’ (and) before ‘etc’ (ve-chul-hu) – with a vav. In a case where additional words of a verse are pertinent to the subject, ‘and etc’ (ve-chul-hu) – with a vav is used, while in a case where theadditional words of a verse are not directly pertinent, ‘etc’ (chul-hu) – without a vav is used. It is possible that this system was more carefully refined in the editing of the printed edition.
7. Precise verse citation
A further variant in citation of verses between the manuscript and the printed edition is when in the manuscript it may not have been concerned with the precise wording of a verse, while in the editing of the Tanya for the printing, it was more precise and made corrections when necessary. This occurs in chapter 30 in the BL Tanya manuscript (chapter 31 in the printed version), where it cites II Samuel 22:3 inaccurately: “[He is] my high tower and my stronghold (u-me-u-zi),” and is corrected for the printed version, based on the actual wording in the verse: “[He is] my high tower and my refuge (u-me-nu-si).”
This also occurs in the second section of the manuscript, in chapter 45 (47 in the printed version, where it cites the verse from Genesis 12:9: “And Abram journeyed, going on (ha-loch) and on (ve-na-so-a).” In the MS, instead of the infinitive absolute: ‘ha-loch ve-na-so-a,’ it writes the phrase in the participle: ‘ho-lech (going) ve-no-se-a’ (and on).
8. Plural
Variants between the BL manuscript and the printed version involve also the consistency of the form of the numbers. In the manuscript, effort is not made to make the number form consistent with the nouns. In the printed version, changes are made to make them consistent. An example of this may be found in chapter 36 (38 in the printed version), where it states: ‘in order to attach to Him his divine soul (naf-sho ha-Elo-kit) and its garments (u-le-vu-she-ha).’ The term: ‘u-le-vu-she-ha’ (its garments) reflects the singular ‘soul.’ In the MS, it however states: ‘u-le-vu-she-hen’ (their garments).
9. Addition of a single word to correct mistaken understanding
Some variants appear to have been made with some consideration, as they alter the meaning of the text, either subtly or substantially. An example of this is in ch. 19, where in the manuscript appears the inclusion of the word ‘great’ in the sentence: ‘Now this is a great principle in the whole realm of holiness: Holiness is only that which derives from chochmah.’ In the printed version, the term ‘great principle’ is changed to just ‘principle.’
10. Prefixes
Some variants relate to prefixes. For example, in chapter 25, it states: ‘Similarly, with regard to devout prayer, he should exert himself with all the strength he can muster.’ In the printed version it states: ‘l’tefilah be-kavanah’ (to devout prayer), while in the BL manuscript it states with a ‘beit’ prefix: ‘b’tefilah be-kavanah.’ Both carry the same meaning. In this study, we have not listed all of these variants, due to the numerous numbers of these kind of variants and, in the vast majority, contain no significance in regard to the meaning of the text.
11. Sources added in the printed version
One of the things that were added in the printed version are sources for what is being discussed in the Tanya. This becomes apparent when a source for an idea seems to have been omitted in the manuscripts, but appears in the printed version. This may have been due to a request for sources to be added for those who desired to look into the sources for what is being discussed in the Tanya. This can be found in chapter 37 (39 in the printed version), where it states: ‘And their fear and love [of G-d] is natural to them, as is written in Raaya Mehemna (Parashat Pinchas).’ In the BL MS, fol. 28, it omits: ‘as is written in Raaya Mehemna (Parashat Pinchas).’ In some cases, a reference with a source is found in brackets in the BL manuscript. In the printed version, the brackets are removed, and thus has the reference with the source in the main text. This appears in chapter 37 (39 in the printed version), pertaining to the following paragraph: ‘This love being called ‘re’uta deliba,’ as mentioned above. From this ‘re’uta deliba,’ a garment is formed for the soul in the World of Beriah, which is the Higher Garden of Eden, as will be discussed further and as is written in the Zohar, Parashat Vayakhel.’ In the BL MS, the source together with the whole sentence appears in brackets, while in the printed version the brackets are removed. The omission of sources and then adding them reflects the possibility that that Rabbi Shneur Zalman initially may not have intended to have the sources in the main text, to be as clear as possible without making the text fragmented by citing its sources in the text. He may have thought it sufficient the introduction that the Tanya is culled ‘from the works of scribes and books,’ referring also to the mystical works.
PART 6: SIGNIFICANT VARIANTS
Some of the variants are not insignificant, relating to typographical errors, but, rather, omission or addition of a single word or words, that are of significance, and involving change of thought or additional new concepts, most likely done by the author himself. This reflects the possibility that in the earlier stage, some ideas may not have been developed or thought to be included by the author, though at a later stage, during the process of preparing the text for printing or earlier,[53] it was decided to include them. This includes the following sixteen ideas:
1. Parents cannot impact the soul born
In chapter 2, in the printed version, it makes a distinction between the soul and the garments of the soul. While the former can be impacted by the deeds of the parents, the soul itself cannot be affected. The parents may have a lowly soul, while a child is born with a lofty soul. It states: ‘As for what is written in the Zohar and in Zohar Chadash that the essential factor is to conduct oneself in a holy manner during sexual union, which is not the case with the children of the simple folk and their ilk, this is because no nefesh, ruach, and neshamah is without a garment which stems from the nefesh of its father’s and mother’s essence. All the commandments that it fulfills are influenced by that garment; even the benevolence that flows to one from heaven is all given through that garment. Now, if the person sanctifies himself, he will bring forth a holy garment for the neshamah of his child. However great a soul it may be, it still needs the father’s sanctification. But the soul itself, it sometimes happens that the soul of an infinitely lofty person comes to be the son of an ignoble and lowly person. All this has been explained by Rabbi Yitzchak Luria, of blessed memory, in Likkutei Torah on Parashat Vayera and in Taamei Hamitzvot on Parashat Bereishit.’ This distinction, drawn from R. Isaac Luria is omitted in the BL manuscript.
2. Misfortune with joy
A variant of a single word is in chapter 26: ‘The Sages (Berachot 9:5) explains that one should accept misfortune with joy, like the joy in a visible and obvious good.’ In the MS, it adds: ‘ma-mash’ (real), in the sentence: ‘one should accept misfortune with real (ma-mash) joy, like the joy in a visible and obvious good. Including the word ‘ma-mash’ in the manuscript, implies that the joy derived from misfortune may be exactly the same as joy for the good. Removing the word ‘ma-mash’ acknowledges the fact that even with the belief in the statement in the Talmud (Berachot 60a): ‘Just as one recites a blessing for his good fortune, so too must he recite a blessing for misfortune, they are not exactly the same.’ [54]
Error! Filename not specified.
3. Difference between atzvut (sadness)and merirut (bitterness)
In chapter 30, in the manuscript, which is chapter 31 in the printed version, the difference between ‘atzvut’ and ‘merirut’ is omitted. ‘Atzvut’ means that one’s heart is as dull as a stone and has no vitality, while ‘merirut’ reflects the contrary: the very fact that one is moved to be embittered, is itself a sign of life, except that this vitality derives from the holy attributes of severity.
4. Take stock of one’s whole life
A further concept that is omitted is in chapter 29 that a person should contemplate not only about sins one has committed, but to ‘take stock with his soul of all his thoughts, utterances, and actions that have come and gone since the day he came into being and until the present day: were they all of the realm of holiness or of the realm of impurity (G-d deliver us)?’ This emphasis on the need to take stock not just of one’s past day, but one’s entire life, is omitted in the manuscript.
5. Mitigating blame for one’s remoteness from G-d
At the end of chapter 31 in the printed version, it adds a section, articulating words of comfort for the distress one may experience when reflecting on one’s remoteness from G-d: ‘Ultimately one is not to be blamed for this remoteness, since, it was G-d who created man in a way that caused the divine soul, a part of His light, to descend into the body and be clothed in a ‘serpent’s skin’ and a ‘fetid drop,’ enabling such a remoteness.’ These words of ‘comfort’ are omitted in the manuscript at the end of chapter 30 (corresponding to chapter 31 in the printed version).
6. service of a benuni is also a true service of G-d
A further idea that is omitted in the manuscript, but developed in the printed edition, may be found in chapter 13, that the service of a benuni is also a true service of G-d, even though it is not absolute truth (emet la-ami-to): ‘Nevertheless, in relation to the rank of the beinoni, [this level of love] is regarded as a truly perfect service in terms of their level of truth, i.e., the level of beinonim.’
7. Love your fellow as yourself
The concept of the ‘direct and easy path toward fulfilling the mitzvah, ‘Love your fellow as yourself’ (Leviticus 19:18), in chapter 32 in the printed version, that derives from the discussion in chapter 31, relating to the preciousness and joy on account of one’s Divine soul, even while the body remains remote from G-d - is omitted.
8. Simultaneous joy on account of the soul and bitterness on the remoteness of the body
A further idea that is omitted is the articulation of the concept found at the end of chapter 34 in the printed version, but omitted in all the manuscripts (end of chapter 32 in the BL Tanya) that one should have joy on account of the soul and bitterness on the remoteness of the body at the same time. This idea is also found in Igeret ha-Teshuva chapter 11. In Likkutei Biurim on Igeret Hateshuva chapter 11, it explains that this is the level of the beinuni, who can achieve this concept. This suggests that the earlier version, in the manuscripts, that does not include this addition, may be because initially the Tanya was written for a narrower group of people in mind, who were not on the level of this concept in the fullest sense, and therefore not articulated.
In the printed version, that was developed later, after folios had been distributed, read, and feedback received, this paragraph was added, due to the realisation that the Tanya be broadened to include also those who were capable of this concept.[55] This allows us to suggest an underlying theory in an aspect of the editing of the Tanya, namely that the Tanya was written at a particular stage in time when it was intended for a narrower group of Chassidim in mind, who were on a lower level of avodah, and then expanded in the printed version, thus some of the variants. It is also possible, that the additions of certain ideas were in response to questions posed by the Chassidim or other readers of the text.
9. How to avoid forgetting one’s studies
In chapter 35 (37 in the printed version), the paragraph about the need to apply all one’s strength to the holiness of Torah and prayer, thereby weakening the power of the body and animal soul and helping a person against forgetfulness - is omitted. This addition in the printed version suggests that in the process of the editing of the Tanya a question regarding how a person may avoid forgetting one’s studies may be achieved. This suggests a further reason for the variants namely, in response to subjects that may not have been considered earlier, but were later seen as pertinent.
10. Unity with G-d through Torah study; purpose of creation through Mitzvot
At the end of chapter 35 (37 in the printed version), the BL manuscript omits a lengthy section developing further the idea of the superiority of Torah study over Mitzvot, in addition to the idea that Torah study is superior due to the fact that it involves the absorption into holiness of one’s inner garments – thought and speech. More importantly, it argues, Torah study affects a greater unity with G-d. The purpose of creation is nevertheless through Mitzvot.
11. Superior calling of G-d through Torah study
A further concept that is omitted in the same section is the superiority of Torah study over direct calling of G-d. This superior calling of G-d through Torah study should infuse a person with reverence when studying Torah, as explained in chapter 23. A reason for this addition in the printed version may reflect questions raised concerning the apparent lesser importance of Torah study, after having emphasised in great length the superiority of Mitzvot due to fulfilling the purpose of creation and of man, to create a dwelling place for G-d in the lower world. In addition, the need to explain how a person finds fear of G-d in Torah study. The last point in the section added in the printed version, may reflect an argument that one may call G-d directly without the Torah.
12. Two levels of righteous
In chapter 37 (39 in the oriented version), a distinction is made, in the printed version, between two levels of tzadikim: on the level of neshomo and on the level of ruach. The tzadikim on the level of neshomo have their abode in the level of Beriah, while tzadikim on the level of ruach, along with all other souls, ascend only on occasion: Shabbat and Rosh Chodesh. This distinction is not made in the manuscripts and only added in the printed version.
13. Distinction between abode of the soul and its service
In chapter 37 (39 in the priented version), a further distinction is made: the ‘abode’ of the soul resides in the ‘world’ of beriah or yetzirah; its ‘service’ unifies with the Divine sefirot that radiates in that world. This distinction is only made in the printed version and omitted in the manuscript.
14. No contraction at all in Atzilut
In chapter 37 (39 in the printed version), fol 29, the phrase: ‘kol kach’ (to such a great degree), regarding the lack of contraction (tzim-tzum) of the sefirot of Atzilut, is omitted, suggesting there is no contraction at all, while in the printed version, it adds the words: ‘kol kach:’ ‘The created intellectual beings [of Beriah] cannot, however, apprehend ChaBaD as they are in the World of Atzilut, where the ChaBaD are not contracted to such a great degree (kol kach). In the ‘Lessons in English Tanya’ it adds a comment explaining the reason for the addition ‘kol kach’ (to such a great degree): ‘for the very fact of their being sefirot (i.e., individual, defined categories) indicates that ChaBaD are merely contracted, limited manifestations of the undefinable Ein Sof; the degree of contraction, however, is much less than that of Beriah, and therefore, the creatures of Beriah cannot receive intellectual illumination from ChaBaD of Atzilut.’ The omission of ‘kol kach’ (to such a great degree) in the manuscript may be understood however in a relative context, that compared to the contraction in Beriah, there is no contraction in Atzilut, but in fact there is some degree of contraction by the fact that they are called sefirot.
15. Natural fear and love in one’s mind
In chapter 36 and 37 (38 and 39 in the printed version), the manuscript omits the concept of natural fear and love in one’s mind (b’mocho).
16. Does not rise at all without arousing fear and love
In chapter 36 and 37 (38 and 39 in the printed version), the manuscript does not make a distinction between the ‘abode’ (ma-dor) of the souls and the Torah study and service that rises to the ten sefirot. For this reason, the printed version states: ‘divine service performed without arousing one’s fear and love remains in the world of separation, in the externality of the worlds,’ while the manuscript states: ‘remains in this world.’ According to the printed version, divine service performed without arousing one’s fear and love may indeed rise to the externality of the worlds, the world of yetzirah, though not the ten sefirot. According to the manuscript, however, such service remains in this lowest world and does not rise at all to the higher worlds.[56]
17. Remembering is also sufficient
In the middle of chapter 40 (the end of chapter 42 in the printed version) it adds in the printed version: ‘There should also be a constant remembrance of the dictum of the Sages, of blessed memory, “acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven,” which parallels the injunction, “You shall appoint a king over you,” as has been explained elsewhere, and so on. For G-d, blessed be He, forgoes the higher and lower worlds, and uniquely bestows His kingdom upon us, etc. and we accept, etc. And this is the significance of the obeisances in the prayer of the Eighteen Benedictions following the verbal acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven in the Reading of Shema, whereby one accepts it once again in actual deed and so on, as is explained elsewhere.’
In the MS, this paragraph is omitted. The addition of this paragraph in the printed version is for the following categories of people: a. the person whose meditation produces a fear of G-d but since meditation is not possible at all times, a simple ‘constant remembrance of the dictum of the Sages, of blessed memory, “acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven,” is sufficient. b. a person whose meditation is not effective in producing in his emotions a fear of G-d. This seems to be even less demanding than what the Tanya proposes earlier regarding remembering ‘as in the case of a mortal king, the fear of him relates mainly to his inner essence and vitality,’ since this ‘remembrance’ requires ‘training to habituate one’s mind and thought continuously so that it always remains imprinted in his heart and mind.’ Conversely, the additional remembrance of “acceptance of the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven,” does not require ‘training to habituate one’s mind.’[57] It would seem that the Tanya, as reflected in the manuscript, initially was aimed towards the person who is inclined to meditation or at least the person who has the ability of ‘training to habituate one’s mind and thought continuously so that it always remains imprinted in his heart and mind.’ In the printed version, the Tanya expanded further its categories to make room for a person who may not only be unable to meditate but even remember in a manner of ‘train to habituate one’s mind and thought continuously so that it always remains imprinted in his heart and mind.’
PART 7: SECTIONS AND WHOLE CHAPTERS OMITTED
In numerous places, there are not just variants in the text but whole sentences and sections of chapters added or omitted. This can be found in the following places: In chapter 31 (33 in the printed version), the following short paragraph is found in the printed version in brackets and without brackets in other manuscripts: ‘the End of Days, when He will banish the spirit of impurity from the earth, and G-d’s glory will be revealed, and all flesh together will behold it.’ In the MS, this sentence, is omitted.[58] Likewise, in chapter 35 (37 in the printed version), the paragraph about the need to apply all one’s strength to the holiness of Torah and prayer, thereby weakening the power of the body and animal soul and helping a person against forgetfulness, is omitted. At the end of chapter 35 (37 in the printed version), the BL manuscript omits a lengthy section developing further the superiority of Torah study over mitzvot, namely: Torah study affects a greater unity with G-d that with mitzvot, despite the purpose of creation being achieved through mitzvot. A further concept that is omitted in the same section is the superiority of Torah study over direct calling of G-d. In chapter 38 in the BL Tanya (chapter 40 in the printed version), the section elaborating on the comparison of the figure of the bird with the world of yetzirah, in relation to the study of Mishnah, with love and fear of G-d, is omitted.
Whole chapters omitted
In the manuscript, there are differences relating to not just particular ideas that were developed in the process of the printing of the Tanya, but entire chapters were omitted in the manuscript and added in the printing of the Tanya. This includes chapter 30 in the printed version that begins with: ‘One must also set his heart to fulfill the instruction of our Sages: “Be lowly of spirit before every man.”’ This chapter is completely omitted in the manuscript. The subsequent chapter numbers are thus also different than the printed edition.
In addition, chapter 32 in the printed version, beginning with: ‘Acting on the advice mentionedabove - to view one’s body with scorn and contempt and to find joy in the joy of the soul alone - is a direct and easy path toward fulfilling the mitzvah, “You shall love your fellow as yourself,” with regard to every Jew both great and small - in spiritual stature,’ is omitted in the manuscript. This makes subsequent chapter numbers in the manuscript two chapters off compared to the printed edition.
[1] Sefer ha-mamarim 5668, p. 309.
[2] The passing of Devorah Leah, the daughter of the Alter, in 1793, was seen in connection with the steadfast commitment to the teachings of the Tanya during this time, despite intense opposition.
[3] SD Avtzon, The Tanya: Its Story and History, p. 29. Alternative view is that the writing began during the lifetime of Rabbi Dovber, in 1771-2. The discrepancy is due to a letter by Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn that states that the Alter Rebbe worked on the Tanya for twenty years. The end date may be the date of the printing of the Tanya in 1796, or its distribution to the copyists in 1792.
[4] The final chapters were given to the copyists before they had been taught orally for the second time.
[5] SD Avtzon, The Tanya: Its Story and History, p. 14-15.
[6] The intended publishing date was the 19 Kislev, the yahrtzeit of Rabbi Dovber, the Maggid of Mezritch, the teacher of Rabbi Shneur Zalman. The desire to connect the publishing of the Tanya suggests a connection with the Maggid of Mezritch, perhaps suggesting that work on the ideas of the Tanya in fact began during his lifetime. See SD Avtzon, The Tanya: Its Story and History, p. 29, where this question, whether the twenty years of working on the Tanya, as referenced by the Rayatz, begins during or after the lifetime of the Maggid, is left open.
[7] The copy we have today is based on the third edition, printed in Shklov, 1814, and its further editing in 1896. Other printings during the Alter Rebbe’s lifetime include: 1797, 1799, 1806. Kitzurim v’ha-ros, p. 139.
[8] Iggeret ha-teshuvah was most likely written before the other parts of the Tanya. See SD Avtzon, The Tanya: Its Story and History, p. 37.
[9] Sefer Hasichot 5703, p. 59.
[10] Sefer ha-mamarim 5668, p. 309. Although it was taught before his imprisonment in St Petersburg, when his teachings were not as intelligible, the work of the Tanya, as a foundational text of Chassidut, was aimed to be an intelligible text. In this sicha, the Rashab writes that there is no loftier text that the Tanya.
[11] An unauthorised printing took place in 1799 with Iggeret ha-teshuvah added, by a chassid in Zolkiev, Romania. SD Avtzon, The Tanya: Its Story and History, p. 38-39.
[12] SD Avtzon, The Tanya: Its Story and History, p. 46.
[13] SD Avtzon, The Tanya: Its Story and History, p. 43-47.
[14] SD Avtzon, The Tanya: Its Story and History, p. 46.
[15] See Likkuteri Amaraim im targum angli, defusei Tanya (London, 1981), p. 412-3. Corrections were for obvious mistakes, including: 1. Ch.1 in Shaar Hayichud Vehaemunah (p. 76b, line 10): ‘be-sha-ma-yim’ (in the heavens); 2. Igeret Hakodesh (p. 133a): ‘a-le-hem’ (to them); 3. Kuntres Acharon (p. 151a) - addingin brackets:‘uliy tza-rich lih-yot le-vad’ (maybe should be ‘only’).
[16] Likkuteri Amaraim im targum angli (London, 1981) p. 190-193.
[17] Likkuteri Amaraim im targum angli (London, 1981) p. v and p. 379.
[18] Lessons in Tanya, Vol. 1, p. ix.
[19] Lessons in Tanya, Vol. 1, p. ix. An example of this is the spelling of the word ‘me-od’ on the ‘Title page,’ where the second time the word is mentioned, it has been corrected to be with the same spelling as the first - without a ‘vav.’ See Lessons in Tanya, Vol. 1, p. 1.
[20] Conversation with R. Avrohom Dovid Vaisfiche (4 July, 5782).
[21] https://www.chabad.org/library/tanya/tanya_cdo/aid/6237/jewish/Lessons-in-Tanya.htm.
[22] Lessons in Tanya, vol. 1, Approbations, p. 8, f.8.
[23] Lessons in Tanya, Chapter Forty, p. 571, f.12.
[24] This correction appears in the Shiurim be’sefer haTanya.
[25] The first section contains 39 chapters, followed by the addition of chapter 40, and then an additional section, completing 48 chapters.
[26] In the introduction to the Mahadura Batra (later edition), it states: ‘This [manuscript] was found among the sacred writings of our late revered master, the Rebbe. When, with the Divine inspiration that rested upon him, he began to compose a second edition of the Shulchan Aruch, he added many new laws. Though many matters had already been stated we felt that they should not be passed over, so that nothing would be lacking, and the [original] teaching would not be laid aside.’
[27] Igrot Kodesh Rabbi Shalom Dovber Schneersohn, vol. 2, p. 720. See footnote on p. 713 that it was written in the winter of 5674, which may correspond to 1914. This was written in the form of an open letter sent to all the Chassidim about the study of Chassidut in general. It was reprinted in the journal Ha-Tamim, choveret 3, p. 58 [290]; and Kuntrus Etz Chaim, p. 82.
[28] Sefer Hasichot 5702, p. 83 (cited in Torat Menachem vol. 15, p. 275).
[29] Torat Menachem vol. 15, p. 275-280.
[30] Hayom Yom, 20 Kislev. See also Likkute amarim tanya, mahadurotov, targuimov u’biurov, R. Yehoshua Mondshine, p. 21. https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=24552&st=&pgnum=19.
[31] Hayom Yom, 20 Kislev. See also Likkute amarim tanya, mahadurotov, targuimov u’biurov, R. Yehoshua Mondshine, p. 21. https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=24552&st=&pgnum=19.
[32] Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma, p. 7.
[33] See detailed description at: https://store.kehotonline.com/mobile/prodinfo.asp?number=HAR-LIKUAMK. Accessed 6 Dec, 2022.
[34] Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma, p. 5, f.6.
[35] P. 290 & 293. https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19787&st=&pgnum=360.
[36] Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma, p. 5.
[37] This is the view of the Rayatz, R. Yosef Yitzchok Schnnersohn in a letter published alongside the folios in the back of the Tanya.
[38] http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=or_10456_f001r#.
[39] Igrot Kodesh Admur Hazaken, p. 105.
[40] See Naftali Loewenthal, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi’s Kitzur Likkutei Amarim British Library Or 10456, Studies in Jewish Manuscripts, p. 105.
[41] At the end of chapter 39 in MS 6 and MS 8, it states: ‘sa-lik’ (end).
[42] A further hand wrote (F. 43v) a recipe for a lemon flavoured liquor, made by mixing ethyl alcohol, water and sugar.
[43] Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma, p. 270, f.29.
[44] In Tanya MS 5, it also shortens ‘ha-ba-ah’ to ‘ha-ba’ but negates the possible reading – ‘love of the word to come’ by retaining ‘hi’ (it is). In the BL Tanya, however, it produces an erroneous idea that the second love is not a love that is derived from meditating about the greatness of G-d but a love for ‘olam ha-ba’ – the world to come. This would contradict the notion expressed by Maimonides in Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Teshuva (10:4) that one should serve G-d out of love for its own sake and not for a portion in the world to come. In addition, the idea is negated by the well-known saying of Rabbi Shneur Zalman: ‘I don't want your Paradise, I don't want your World to Come, I want only You alone.’
[45] It is not clear what the reason for this change in endings is, though it is interesting that the subject of the chapter where this phenomenon begins is about the subject of joy that comes after sadness due to one’s sins.
[46] Tanya Mahadura kamma, p. 133, f.8.
[47] Tanya Mahadura kamma, p. 132, f.3.
[48] Tanya Mahadura kamma, p. 165, f.50.
[49] This variant is overlooked in Likkutei amaraim mahadura kamma, p. 384.
[50] Tanya, Mahadura Kamma, p. 130, f. 36-37.
[51] Tanya, Mahadura Kamma, p. 131, f. 39.
[52] Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma, p. 163, f. 34-7.
[53] Although the approbation discusses only errors, it doesn’t preclude the possibility that more significant changes were also in fact made in the process of the printing, and if not for the need to edit the minor errors for the printing, the more significant changes also would not have been made.
[54] See Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kammma, p. 192.
[55] See Likkutei Amarim Mahadura Kamma p. 253, f.33.
[56] Likkutei Amaram Mahadura Kamma p. 309, f. 63.
[57] Likkutei Biurim vol. 1, p. 269.
[58] This paragraph is however found either in Rashi script or in brackets in all the other manuscripts of the Tanya, suggesting the paragraph was added at a later date of the copying of this manuscript. This would indicate that the BL MS of the Tanya was from an earlier script in the development of the Tanya.