hebrewbooks has a scan of the 1558 Mantuba edition of Tikunei HaZohar. In that edition, Tikun 20 is several pages long. (Starts here, goes for several pages).

The only other edition I found on hebrewbooks is a far more modern (1960s) edition of tikunei haZohar. In it tikun 20 is one line long. This is also repeated in the text of ha-zohar.com where tikun 20 is abbreviated and combined with 21. This is repeated on Torat Emet, wikisource, and many other places. While many of the internet sites are clearly copying from each other, there is a printed book and a digital copy (original website unknown) that have the abbreviated tikun 20. What happened to it? Was this dropped deliberately or is something else going on?

  • 1
    What does the edition on Sefaria have? :)
    – Double AA
    Commented Jul 16, 2015 at 22:31
  • 1
    @DoubleAA none yet - although trying to get it into Sefaria is what brought this to my attention. Commented Jul 17, 2015 at 6:00

2 Answers 2


The tikkun in question in the original was the long version found in the Mantua edition. The Vilna edition of Tikunei HaZohar with the commentary of the Vilna Gaon mentions this in the main text at the end of the shortened version.

The 5th volume of Tikunei HaZohar with the commentary of Ohr Yakar also has the long version. And the long version is also what is referenced in Sefer Kisei Melech by Rabbi Shalom ben Moshe Buzaglo.

The tikkun is dealing with the various ways that the redemption can unfold, Moshiach ben Yosef, Moshiach ben David, the erev rav and the consequences of the redemption coming early, late or somewhere in between. It also deals with the subject of pushing the redemption.

It appears that the text was abridged sometime around or shortly after Shabbatai Tzvi. In context, it would appear that there was a concerted effort to limit public access to this text at the time.


The claim that this text was censored and that this is somehow related to Shabbatai Tzvi seems unlikely for two reasons:

  1. The text is moved to tikkun 21 and not removed entirely (beginning on 48a in the 1740 Qushta edition)

  2. The suggestion that this text be moved to tikkun 21 appears long before Shabbatai Tzvi. For example see this, but unfortunately the library scanned the wrong manuscript so ignore the link provided there...

  • Welcome to Mi Yodeya. This answer contains valuable information, but doesnt directly answer the question. It would seem wise to therefore change it to a comment on the previous answer. For more about answering questions see here. Also consider taking the following short tour of the site to learn more. Hope to see you around.
    – mevaqesh
    Commented Jul 27, 2015 at 3:47
  • @avick, I didn't claim it definitely was a result of the Shabbatai Tzvi episode. I only gave a possible historical context. Looking at the Constantinople edition, the year of publication (1719) is more than 100 years after the Mantua edition (1558).Tzvi lived 1626-1676. Just doing an initial browse between Mantua and Constantinople texts shows they do not match. And your link to Sifriah HaLeumit is to the Mantua edition. Rabbi Buzaglo is bringing the teaching and text from Rabbi Avraham Azulai (1570-1643). Azulai and the Ramak (1522–1570) were using Mantua version. Commented Jul 28, 2015 at 21:10
  • Before I got any answers here I'd also asked a friend to look into it. Here's what he said: "I also looked at the notes of the Margaliot edition and he also mentioned that the material of the long 20th tikkun in the Mantua edition was distributed amongst subsequent tikkunim." Commented Jul 30, 2015 at 20:45
  • @YaacovDeane The link is to notes on the Mantua edition written by Menahem di Lonzano.
    – avick
    Commented Aug 1, 2015 at 19:54
  • @Bachrach44 what do you suppose the effect would be of taking material on a single subject appearing in one chapter and then breaking it up and spreading it throughout an entire book? Editing of Jewish texts when they pose a threat to the Jewish community has a long history. Consider the editing of Christian references made throughout the Talmud. Commented Aug 2, 2015 at 22:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .