Chasidut · Breslov
Likutei Moharan 69:2/ליקוטי מוהר"ן ס״ט:ב׳
אוְדַע, שֶׁאִם זֶה הַנִּגְזָל עֲדַיִן לֹא הָיָה לוֹ בָּנִים, יוּכַל לִגְזֹל מִמֶּנּוּ שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיֶה לוֹ, עַל־יְדֵי שֶׁגּוֹזֵל וְנוֹטֵל הֶעָנָף כַּנַּ"ל. וַאֲפִלּוּ אִם כְּבָר יֵשׁ לְהַנִּגְזָל בָּנִים, יוּכַל לְהַזִּיק לוֹ שֶׁיָּמוּתוּ בָּנָיו, חַס וְשָׁלוֹם. כִּי אִם עֲדַיִן הַבָּנִים צְרִיכִין לְאִמָּן, הַיְנוּ לָעֲנָפִים שֶׁלָּהּ, כְּמוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ פֵּרוֹת שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמְרוּ כָּל צָרְכָּן, וּצְרִיכִין לִינֹק עוֹד מֵהֶעָנָף, וְעַל כֵּן כְּשֶׁזֶּה נוֹטֵל הֶעָנָף, הוּא מַזִּיק הַפֵּרוֹת, הַיְנוּ הַבָּנִים, הַצְּרִיכִים לִינֹק עוֹד וּלְקַבֵּל מֵהֶעָנָף, הַיְנוּ מֵהִתְנוֹצְצוּת אוֹר אִמָּן כַּנַּ"ל.
12. Know, too, that if the victim of the robbery does not yet have children, robbing and taking the branch from him may cause him to never have any. And even if the victim already has children, it can cause him such harm that his children die, God forbid. For there may be children who are still in need of their mother—i.e., of her branches—just as there are fruits that are not fully ripe and need to draw more sustenance from the branch. When this person takes the branch, he damages the fruits—i.e., the children—that need to receive additional nourishment from the branch: from the shining light of their mother’s soul.
בוְהַכֹּל לְפִי הַגְּזֵלָה, וְהַכֹּל לְפִי הָאִילָן וְהָעֲנָפִים וְהַפֵּרוֹת. כִּי יֵשׁ כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שִׁנּוּיִים בֵּין הָאִילָנוֹת עַצְמָן, וּבֵין מַהוּת וְאֵיכוּת הָעֲנָפִים, וּבֵין רִבּוּי הָעֲנָפִים, וְכֵן בֵּין הַפֵּרוֹת, בְּכֻלָּן יֵשׁ שִׁנּוּיִים רַבִּים. כִּי יֵשׁ אִילָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עֲנָפִים רַבִּים וּפֵרוֹת מֻעָטִים. וְכֵן לְהֵפֶךְ. עֲנָפִים מֻעָטִים וּפֵרוֹת רַבִּים. וְכֵן בֵּין מַהוּת הָעֲנָפִים עַצְמָן, יֵשׁ אִילָן שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עָנָף אֶחָד, אֲבָל הוּא יָקָר מְאֹד. וְיֵשׁ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עֲשָׂרָה עֲנָפִים, וְכֻלָּם אֵינָם שָׁוִים רַק עֲשָׂרָה זְהוּבִים.
2All this is in proportion to the theft, and in proportion to the tree and the branches and the fruits. There are many differences between the trees themselves, and in the nature and quality of the branches, and also in their numbers. The same is true of the fruits; there are very many differences between them. There are trees whose branches are many and fruits are few, and conversely, those whose branches are few and fruits are abundant. The same applies to the nature of the branches themselves. There are trees that have a single branch, yet it is very valuable, and others that have ten branches, which together are worth only ten zlotys.
גכֵּן יֵשׁ כַּמָּה עֲנִיִּים שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם בָּנִים רַבִּים וְאֵין יָדוֹ מַשֶּׂגֶת אֶלָּא זוּז אֶחָד. הַיְנוּ שֶׁכָּל הָעֲנָפִים שֶׁלּוֹ הֵם פְּחוּתִים, וְאֵינָם רַק בְּעֵרֶךְ זָהָב אֶחָד, אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עֲנָפִים מֻעָטִים וּפְחוּתִים. וְכֵן לְהֵפֶךְ, יֵשׁ עָשִׁיר גָּדוֹל, מֵחֲמַת שֶׁהֶעָנָף שֶׁלּוֹ הוּא יָקָר מְאֹד, אוֹ שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ עֲנָפִים רַבִּים וִיקָרִים, וְעִם כָּל זֶה יָכוֹל לִהְיוֹת שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ לוֹ רַק בָּנִים מֻעָטִים, כַּנַּ"ל בִּמְשַׁל הָאִילָנוֹת.
3Similarly, some poor people have many children, yet their income is only one silver coin. In other words, such a person’s many branches are of little worth, amounting to about one guilder. Alternatively, his branches are few and of little worth. In contrast to this is the person who is very wealthy, either because his branch is extremely valuable, or because he has many valuable branches. Despite this, it may be that his children are few, as explained above with the analogy of the tree.
דוְהִנֵּה נִתְפֹּס לְמָשָׁל, אִילָן אֶחָד עִם שְׁלֹשָׁה עֲנָפִים, וְכָל עָנָף מְיֻחָד לוֹ שֶׁרָאוּי לְהוֹצִיא שְׁנֵי פֵּרוֹת, נִמְצָא שֶׁרָאוּי שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לוֹ שִׁשָּׁה בָּנִים. וְכֵן נֹאמַר לְמָשָׁל, שֶׁכָּל עָנָף הוּא בִּבְחִינָה וְעֵרֶךְ שֶׁיִּהְיֶה לוֹ מֵאָה אֲדֻמִּים. נִמְצָא שֶׁרָאוּי לִהְיוֹת לוֹ שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת אֲדֻמִּים, מִשְּׁלֹשָׁה עֲנָפִים הַלָּלוּ. נִמְצָא אִם גּוֹזֵל מִמֶּנָּה מֵאָה אֲדֻמִּים, הוּא גּוֹזֵל וְנוֹטֵל מִמֶּנּוּ עָנָף אֶחָד, נִמְצָא שֶׁנּוֹטֵל מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁנֵי בָּנִים.
4Take as an example a tree with three branches, with each of these branches capable of yielding two fruits. [This man] is therefore meant to have six children. Let us also assume that the yield of each branch is equivalent to one hundred ducats. Thus from these three branches, he should rightfully have three hundred ducats. Consequently, the robber who robs her of one hundred ducats, robs and takes one branch from [her husband]—he takes from him two of his children.
האֲבָל דַּע, שֶׁבָּזֶה יֵשׁ חִלּוּק גָּדוֹל, אִם הַפֵּרוֹת רְאוּיִים לָצֵאת מֵהָעֲנָפִים בָּזֶה אַחַר זֶה, נִמְצָא שֶׁאַף שֶׁזֶּה גּוֹזֵל מִמֶּנּוּ עָנָף אֶחָד, וְנוֹטֵל מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁנֵי בָּנִים, אַף־עַל־פִּי־כֵן עֲדַיִן רְאוּיִים לוֹ לְהִתְקַיֵּם יֶתֶר הַבָּנִים שֶׁל הָעֲנָפִים הַנִּשְׁאָרִים, כִּי לֹא הִזִּיק בְּהַנִּשְׁאָרִים, כִּי לֹא נָטַל מֵהֶם כְּלוּם.
5Yet know, there is an important distinction here. If the fruits are meant to emerge one after another from the branch, then even though the robber robs him of one [entire] branch, and takes away two children, he is still able to have the rest of the children from the remaining branches. [The robber] has not harmed the remaining [branches], because he did not take anything from them.
ואֲבָל אִם הָיוּ רְאוּיִים לָצֵאת בְּבַת אַחַת, בִּבְחִינַת שִׁשָּׁה בְּכָרֵס אֶחָד, עַל־כֵּן אַף שֶׁזֶּה לֹא גָּזַל מִמֶּנּוּ כִּי אִם מֵאָה אֲדֻמִּים, שֶׁהֵם בְּחִינַת עֵרֶךְ עָנָף אֶחָד שֶׁל שְׁנֵי פֵּרוֹת, עִם כָּל זֶה קִלְקֵל אוֹר כֻּלָּם, מֵאַחַר שֶׁכֻּלָּם הָיוּ רְאוּיִים לָצֵאת בְּבַת אַחַת, וְזֶה נָטַל וְחִסֵּר מֵהֶם אוֹרָם, וְאֵין לָהֶם שְׁלֵמוּת, עַל כֵּן יוּכַל לְהַזִּיק לוֹ בְּאֵלּוּ הַמֵּאָה אֲדֻמִּים לְבַד שֶׁנָּטַל מִמֶּנּוּ, לִטֹּל מִמֶּנּוּ כָּל הַבָּנִים. וְכֵן יֵשׁ בְּעִנְיָן זֶה כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שִׁנּוּיִים, לְפִי הַגְּזֵלָה, וּלְפִי הָאִילָן, וְהָעֲנָפִים וְהַפֵּרוֹת, בְּמַהוּתָם וְכַמּוּתָם.
6But if [the fruits] were meant to emerge all at once, in the aspect of “six in a single womb” (Shemot Rabbah 1:8), then even though the robber robbed him of only one hundred ducats—the equivalent of one branch with two fruits—he has nevertheless tarnished the light of them all. This is because they were fit to emerge all at the same time, but this person took and diminished their light, so that they are incomplete. Therefore, the harm caused by taking from him even just one hundred ducats may cost him all his children. And there are likewise many other differences, in quality and quantity, proportionate to the theft, and proportionate to the tree and the branches and the fruits.
זוְהַכְּלָל, כִּי הִיא צְרִיכָה תָּמִיד לְהַשְׁלִים אוֹרָהּ, וְכָל זְמַן שֶׁאֵין לָהּ שְׁלֵמוּת, אִי אֶפְשָׁר לָהּ לְהוֹלִיד. וְעִקַּר שְׁלֵמוּתָהּ – עַל יְדֵי הַמָּמוֹן, כִּי הוּא בְּחִינַת הִתְנוֹצְצוּת אוֹרָהּ כַּנַּ"ל.
7As a rule, [a woman] is continuously in need of completing her light. As long as she is lacking wholeness, she cannot give birth. She is made whole primarily by means of money, which corresponds to the shining of her light, as explained above.
חוְזֶה שֶׁכָּתוּב (ישעיהו א׳:י״ז): לִמְדוּ הֵיטֵב, דִּרְשׁוּ מִשְׁפָּט, אַשְּׁרוּ חָמוֹץ. שֶׁהַפָּסוּק מַזְהִיר לַעֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפָּט וּלְחַזֵּק אֶת הַנִּגְזָל, לְהַצִּיל עָשׁוּק מִיַּד עוֹשְׁקוֹ, כְּדֵי לְהַצִּיל נֶפֶשׁ בָּנָיו וּבְנוֹתָיו כַּנַּ"ל. וְזֶה: לִמְדוּ הֵיטֵב וְכוּ', – שֶׁמַּה שֶּׁתַּעֲשׂוּ מִשְׁפָּט, וְתַצִּילוּ גָּזוּל מִיַּד גּוֹזְלוֹ, עַל־יְדֵי־זֶה תַּעֲשׂוּ טוֹבָה לְהַבָּנִים, שֶׁהֵם בְּחִינַת לִמּוּדֵי ה', כְּמָה שֶׁכָּתוּב (שם נד): וְכָל בָּנַיִךְ לִמּוּדֵי ה'. וְזֶה: לִמְדוּ הֵיטֵב – שֶׁהַהֲטָבָה תִּהְיֶה לְהַבָּנִים, שֶׁהֵם בְּחִינַת לִמּוּדֵי ה'.
8This is as it is written (Isaiah 1:17), “Learn to do good, seek justice and vindicate the victim.” The verse counsels exercising justice and strengthening the victim: recovering the defrauded object from the hand of the defrauder, in order to save the souls of his sons and daughters. This is “Learn to do good…”—by your exercising justice and recovering that which was robbed from the hand of the robber, you will be doing “good” to the children. They are the aspect of the “students of God,” as it is written (ibid. 54:13), “And all your children shall be students of God.” This is “LiMDu (Learn) to do good…”—the goodness will be for the children, because they are “the LiMuDei (students of) God.”
טוְזֶה סוֹד כַּוָּנַת הַגְּמָרָא (ב"ק קג): הַגּוֹזֵל אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ שְׁוֵה פְּרוּטָה יוֹלִיכֶנּוּ אַחֲרָיו אֲפִלּוּ לְמָדַי. וְהוּא פְּלִיאָה נִשְׂגָּבָה מְאֹד, לָמָּה תָּפְסוּ מָדַי דַּוְקָא. אַךְ דַּע, שֶׁהַגְּמָרָא הִיא נֶעְלֶמֶת וְנִסְתֶּרֶת מְאֹד, וְזֶה כַּוָּנָתָם הָאֱמֶת: הַגּוֹזֵל וְכוּ' יוֹלִיכֶנּוּ אַחֲרָיו אֲפִלּוּ לְמָדַי, הַיְנוּ לִמּוּדֵי ה', הַיְנוּ הַבָּנִים. שֶׁצָּרִיךְ לְהַחֲזִיר לוֹ אֲפִלּוּ הַבָּנִים שֶׁגָּזַל מִמֶּנּוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁגָּזַל אֶת מָמוֹנוֹ. וְזֶה: לְמָדַי, בְּחִינַת לִמּוּדֵי ה' הַנַּ"ל:
9And this is the deeper meaning of the Talmudic teaching: Whoever robs a penny’s worth from another person should follow him even to Media [in order to return it] (Bava Kama 103a). This is extremely puzzling. Why did [the Sages] choose specifically Media? But know, [the meaning of] this Talmudic teaching is very concealed and hidden. This was their true intention: Whoever robs… should follow him even l’Madai (to Media)—i.e., “students of God,” the children. He must return also the children he robbed him of by robbing his money. This is L’MaDai: the abovementioned aspect of “LiMuDei of God.”