Time in the Teachings of Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi

Likutei Amarim –
Mahadura kama
,
 
containing manuscript variations of the 
Tanya, 
was published by Kehot. 
A brief review of Rashaz’s works reveals that the vast majority of them were, 
in fact, written by his followers. In other words, what is known as Rashaz’s body of 
writings was largely compiled from manuscripts prepared, copied and preserved by 
his followers. Rashaz’s writings indicate that he was aware of the unrestricted 
dissemination of his teachings through his followers’ manuscripts,
18
and attempted to 
control this process by appointing editors responsible for checking and correcting 
them.
19
But despite these efforts, in many cases it remains difficult to determine 
where Rashaz’s words end and scribal or editorial interpolations begin.
20
There is 
17
On the history of the publication of the 
Tanya
see Mondshine, 
Likutei amarim.
18
See T1, Hakdamah, 4a-b, where Rashaz presents the dissemination of unsupervised manuscripts 
that misrepresent his teachings as one of the reasons for the publication of 
Tanya
. See also “Takanot 
de-Lozni” (“The Liozna Ordinances”) in Hillman 
Igerot Ba‘al ha-Tanya
, 58-9; Levin, 
Igerot kodesh
, 
i, 104. 
19
For Rashaz’s instructions regarding the supervision of manuscript copies of his sermons, see 
“Takanot de-Lozni” (as in note 18 above), where his brother, Yehuda Leib of Yanovitch, referred to 
as transcriber of his sermons, is charged with responsibility for checking and correcting such 
transcripts as are held by Rashaz’s other Hasidim. His transcripts were later used by Rashaz’s 
grandson, the Tsemah Tsedek, as the basis for the publication of Rashaz’s 
Torah or
. He is also known 
as the editor of Rashaz’s 
Shulhan ‘arukh
, and as the author in his own right of the collection of 
responsa 
She’erit Yehuda
. See Heilman, 
Bet rabi
, 55a-b; Loewenthal, 
Communicating
, 67-8 and 256 
n. 8. 
20
See Heilman, 
Bet rabi
, 55a, where, even though he testifies that Yehuda Leib’s transcripts are “very 
accurate, truly as they [the sermons] were said,” he also recalls a Habad tradition, according to which 

---

18 
also some disagreement among Habad scholars about the attribution of some of the 
discourses. For example, 
Shenei ha-me’orot
and 
Be’urei ha-Zohar
, which are usually 
attributed to Rashaz’s son, Dov Ber, appear in Foxbrunner’s work as Rashaz’s own 
works.
21
Foxbrunner attempts to “connect 
Tanya
and the discourses with the man 
and culture behind them,” and this provides him with a more flexible approach to the 
sources: he takes the liberty of attributing to Rashaz writings of uncertain authorship 
if they conform to his idea of Rashaz’s personality, and he criticises Hallamish, who 
“uses the published works as if they, and not Rashaz, were the source of his 
teachings.”
22
2.2 The secondary literature
. 
Habad in general, and Rashaz in particular, are the subject of numerous academic, 
popular, and partisan studies. This short review focuses only on the most important 
publications devoted primarily to Rashaz. 
The first attempt to provide a scholarly account of both the life and the 
teachings of Rashaz was undertaken by Mordechai Teitelbaum in his 
Ha-rav mi-Ladi 
u-mifleget Habad
, published in Warsaw in two volumes in 1910 and 1913. Volume 
One deals with the biography of Rashaz and presents for the first time some Russian 
documents related to his incarceration in St. Petersburg, while volume Two presents 
Yehuda Leib added some of his own ideas to Rashaz’s writings against the latter’s will. Rashaz’s son, 
Dov Ber, was another important editor of his father’s teachings. However, even the editors of the 20
th
century editions of Rashaz’s sermons admit that in the case of Dov Ber’s transcripts, it is often 
difficult to determine whether they transmit his own or his father’s discourses. See “Sekirah kelalit al 
devar ha-Ma’amarim ha-Ketsarim”