Tanya Hashalem #3- Rabbi Yosef Keller, Tanya of R' Aron Chitrik & Rebbe's will, Talmud- RC Dalfin

So, we're here with Rabbi Yel Keller, a great scholar and um it's really wonderful hearing these things from you because I know that I myself have no idea about these things and I think 99.9% of don't either and you're giving us an insight into this new time that's coming out. Tanya Shal, we're talking about the manuscripts that was your your job. You know, there was an editorial board that's that was not your job. So, What about what about how do I know that you said the explanations from like um parach and and uh all the others are not included here. That's what you said to us, right? from the only I'm just curious, did these have any access to any of this or probably not? Well, you see that there are certain and that uh they're copied by by by the so obviously Hill also also had access to it and definitely and maybe they made use of it and and I I actually have somewhere somebody once gave me some some copied a whole bunch of that at that time mostly were not printed wherever He quoted Tanya which he quotes a lot to Tanya throughout the memorial. So he he copied it. He he made he took the uh pages of the printed Tanya put put them on both on wide pages so you can write on the margins some artists. So so you see that some did that. So obviously had some of the definitely and he sometimes refers to different Now the the Tanya is is called the fundamental foundational of ofidism. Do do you see do you see in any of these manuscripts how this is um how this is expressed more than you know do you do you see it more and more? In other words, we talk about let's say the you know especially B and and if you asked certain they would tell you you know that you don't understand with learning the my question is does one need to learn you need to learn everything but does one you know let's say They they they learn Tanya too. Okay. Um they give shim and must they learn of the other especially the to understand properly? >> Yeah, of course. Well, first of all, you have certain segments in Tanya that are explained specifically in in the whether or um and and then you have explanations of the himself sometimes refers to there's a mimer printed in called what's interesting about this mimer is this mimer was printed also at the end when the printed the second Uh second time that printed >> in invulk was was because it was Galitzia was the second print. >> Second print >> first print was >> right >> but the second print that was because in Galitzia they didn't allow to importic books. So they had to print it in for for Galitzia they had to print it in Java. But what alter printed the second time with when he printed the first time the so that was the t of and then at the end of he printed what's interesting is he references the a few times and a few of the times of the says doesn't even say because at that point was written that this should be the conclusion of the >> this was uh and a matter of fact one of the places in the where it says but in the original manuscript which was written first said it says it doesn't say because that's as wrote it as a continuation of or signature of the Tanya. >> But then when Delta by the time Delta printed it in the he added another few pieces also referencing the Tanya and in those pieces he writes. So at that time he he decided already it's not part of the that's why he first printed it in the when he printed it he decided that it should be the signary of the Tanya but he probably left the same language as as it was printed originally he didn't change but by the time the reprinted the with the he took it out again and subsequently it's no longer in the Now, it's possible that the alter actually told the that I'm planning to take it out of the time, >> right? >> We wouldn't know this because >> Right. Right. >> Um would would you say that um the the these manuscripts are they hard to read? >> No. Well, it depends. So different uh different manuscripts happen to be hard to read but mostly the writing of the is not that hard to read. Even the writing of the moa is also not that hard to read on on general in general it's not that hard to read. >> What about >> yeah his manuscript is not hard to read. Most of the manuscripts are not hard to read. Here and there you have a writer who was uh who didn't have such a clear handwriting. >> Right. Right. >> So but but most most of when you're talking about most of it is is readable. >> So, so going back to you mentioned the you said that the Reb you see that he the >> you said you could see there that he he went through manuscripts. >> Yeah. >> What approach did he use? What can you tell? Well, you can tell that uh the the the Reba had a very uh good understanding of it. And then there are certain things that when when they first faced had a copy of the of the year and and it was one in which the corrected and wrote corrections and stuff and it wasn't so clear. Is this the writing or not. And because the wrote on the he wrote the handwriting of my >> safely father-in-law. Now it can mean one of two things. Either to say this is a copy of his handwriting. In other words, it's his or that it's actually his handwriting. We didn't have at the time many of the to compare >> but later on we got uh many more we have a whole of the and we can see that it's not the same but even more than that we actually have a few pages of that of that that are in that in the actual handwriting of the so you can tell that it's different >> you can say see this is the copy and that's that's the original so now we know for certain that that was a copy that he printed from, not the original. >> Okay. But but but >> but you see the the Reb was very he was very uh he had a very good hush at these things. >> That's what I'm getting at. We there's a from uh letters of of of maybe some of the alter it's called it's it's it's number 2000 and the reb wrote an index to each of them very detailed index I don't think it was ever printed this index not in this format somebody once printed it as a printed it as a for gross his son-in-law one of his boys whatever >> so he printed the true photocopy of some of the pages. But you can see that the Reb was very good at this. The Reb at some point give trusted all his manuscripts to the to the Reb and the Reb wrote an index of each manuscript and and in the first page it would say okay what's the last page of of the the last what and what the Reb would copy. At one point we thought that it's telling us how many pages there are but then it seemed no he's he's just copying from the mak okay which which because otherwise he'd have to turn the pages as that's why he just looked at the what it said the last uh page that it is >> so what do you call such a a bibl a bibliographer >> a researcher uh who >> so so my question is Why didn't Rabbi do this? I thought he was a big expert in manuscripts. >> No, this was done. This the Reb did in in in when when he was uh before he was Reb, he did most of this work. This >> No, I understand. I'm I'm asking >> this the work that you're doing. Why didn't do it for his work that the Reb gave detailed instructions how we should do it? and he did it exactly as he as he was told. >> But they now decided that they want to make in addition to that something similar to the original plan of the figured that this is more or less uh >> Uhhuh. >> that's why they call >> Okay. So what I'm hearing is that that in his mind would have told you that he did the tany. He he did exactly the rebba actually asked them to make and as a matter of fact the rebba wanted to make sure that it's p line after line from the you're not retyp setting the in lines everything is followed >> right he was given detailed instructions exactly how to do it and he did it exactly that way >> right >> obviously uh there were certain things that he modified uh for instance at some point he actually uh made numbers on on on uh on the words of the Tanya and and the notes were at the bottom rather than coming at the end of the page. Whatever he you can see the by the time he did the looked a little different or sim of a looked totally different than than perhap right right but so but this new Tanya is is more is >> in a way it's more in a way it's less obviously it doesn't do all all of the lut and Right. >> Just does Peter from the CN, >> right? >> And obviously, >> right? Okay, we'll just have one more segment