תורה 69

2. 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.

All 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.

Similarly, 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.

Take 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.

Yet 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.

But 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.

As 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.

This 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.”

And 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.”