English translation — ויק"פ-החודש

Vayikra-Parshas HaChodesh<pg>199</pg>

A.

After the completion of the building of the first Beis HaMikdash by Shlomo,

it is related in Kesuvim,

that then Shlomo said<sup>1</sup>

: "Baruch Hashem etc. Who spoke with His mouth etc. saying,

From the day when I brought out My people Yisrael from Mitzrayim I have not chosen a city from all the tribes of Yisrael to build a house for My Name to be there,

And I chose David to be over My people Yisrael."

And in explaining the matter that the verse opened with the choice of Yerushalayim

("I have not chosen a city etc.")

and concluded with the choice of David,

wrote the Radak: "And I chose David,

because of what it preceded 'I have not chosen a city' it should have said 'And I chose Yerushalayim,'

but rather the explanation is that I did not make known My choice of Yerushalayim until I chose David to be over My people Yisrael and I showed him the chosen place in Yerushalayim when I was entreated<sup>2</sup>

to him at the threshing floor of Aravnah with fire from heaven."

But superficially, his explanation is not sufficient,

because from the simple language of the verse "And I chose David to be over My people Israel" it implies,

that the choice of David is not only a means,

that through David the "chosen place in Jerusalem" is revealed and known,

but rather that the choice of David as king of Israel,

is connected with the choice of Jerusalem.

[And so it is proven superficially from what is written in Divrei HaYamim³

(where also there the words of Shlomo are brought,

but there the wording is)

: "From the day etc. I did not choose a city etc. and I did not choose a man to be ruler over My people Israel.

And I chose Jerusalem for My name to be there, and I chose David to be over My people Israel" — behold it is explicit,

that the intention of the verse is

(also)

to emphasize the choice of David as king of Israel,

except that here

(in the book of Melachim)

it emphasizes an additional detail,

that these two choices are connected to each other⁴].

And in the Zohar

(in our parshah⁵)

it is stated: "This verse has no beginning at its end and no end at its beginning,

for it is written 'I did not choose a city' and 'I chose David' — what is this with that?

'And I chose Jerusalem' should be said,

but when the Holy One, blessed be He, had the will before Him to build a city,

He first looked at that head who leads the people of the city,

and afterwards He builds the city and brings the people into it,

this is what is written: 'I did not choose a city until I looked at David to be a shepherd over Israel.'"

Thus according to the Zohar,

the choice of Jerusalem depends on the choice of David as king of Israel,

that before David was chosen as "shepherd over Israel"

(king of Israel)

— the choice of Jerusalem is not complete.

And one must examine the explanation of the matter,

that the Holy One Blessed be He's choice of Jerusalem depends on His choice of David.

And behold, in the Zohar there it continues "Because the city and all the people of the city, all of them depend on the shepherd who leads the people,

If the shepherd is good,

good for him, good for the city, good for the people; and if the shepherd is evil etc., woe to the city etc.",

that is, the choice of David causes that there be "good for the city" in Jerusalem.

<pg>200</pg>

But it is difficult,

for even if the choice of David will be after the choice of Jerusalem,

his merit can protect Jerusalem so that it will be "good for the city etc."

And further: from the fact that the verse concludes only about the choice of David

(and it did not mention at all the choice of Jerusalem),

it implies,

that the choice of David is not a side matter

(and detail)

in the choice of Jerusalem

(that if it will not have a good leader "woe to the city etc."<sup>6</sup>)

but rather this pertains to the essence of the choice of Jerusalem,

that the choice of Jerusalem is effected through the choice of David,

to the extent that the main thing is the choice of David.

2.

And this will be understood with the introduction of additional explanation regarding the nature of the choice in Jerusalem,

which is an eternal choice,

and as explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah of the Rambam<sup>7</sup>

: "He called<sup>8</sup>

Jerusalem an inheritance because of the permanence of its holiness and its existence forever,

and about it the prophet said<sup>9</sup>

And His inheritance He will not abandon,

because He already said at the beginning of the matter that the Lord chose Jerusalem for His dwelling and chose Israel as a treasured people for Himself, may He be exalted,

and He said afterwards that the Lord will not forsake this nation which He chose as His inheritance nor that place which He chose..

And He already explained the eternity of its holiness and said<sup>10</sup>

This is My resting place forever" — from the continuation of his words it is understood,

that the eternity of Jerusalem is because of the choice of the Holy One, blessed be He, in it.

And behold, in the eternity of Jerusalem there are two aspects:

A)

Law regarding the building of the Temple — "Since¹¹

the Temple was built in Jerusalem, all places everywhere were forbidden to build in them a house for G-d, etc., and there is no place for the dwelling for all generations except in Jerusalem alone..

This¹⁰

is My resting place forever",

that for all generations Jerusalem is the only place in the world to build a "house for G-d"¹².

B)

Law regarding the sanctity of Jerusalem,

and as the Rambam rules¹³

that "the first sanctity..

sanctified..

for its time and sanctified it for the future,

therefore all the sacrifices are offered even though there is no built Temple, etc.",

and as above from his Commentary on the Mishnah that "its sanctity and its permanence are forever..

He chose Jerusalem for His Shechinah, etc.",

from these words of his it is understood,

that also "the eternity of its sanctity" is a result of the choice of Jerusalem.

However, in the Yad HaChazakah he adds

(in the continuation of the matter¹⁴)

a reason for the eternity of the sanctity — "because the sanctity of the Temple and Jerusalem is due to the Shechinah, and the Shechinah is not nullified".

And one should examine the reason of the matter,

that regarding the sanctity of Jerusalem the Rambam did not bring the verse "This is My resting place forever"

(that ostensibly

(also)

from it a proof that the Shechinah dwells there forever,

"forever",

(and as he brought in his commentary on the Mishnah there regarding "the eternity of its sanctity"),

rather he writes a reason and rationale "because the sanctity of the Temple and Jerusalem is because of the Shechinah, and the Shechinah is not nullified".

Also it is puzzling in the explanation of the reason "because the sanctity of the Temple and Jerusalem is because of the Shechinah, and the Shechinah is not nullified",

from which it is understood that this is not a decree of the verse

(that so decreed the Holy One Blessed be He that "This is My resting place forever",

that this is the place of the Shechinah forever and for all eternities),

but rather that it is thus compelled according to<pg>201</pg>

intellect,

that just as it is impossible that the Shechinah should be nullified,

so it is impossible that the holiness of the Temple and Jerusalem should be nullified

(which is "because of the Shechinah").

And it is not understood: behold, also the holiness of the Tabernacle in the desert was because of the Shechinah that dwelt in it,

and nevertheless holiness did not remain in the places where the Tabernacle was erected,

and we do not say that since the holiness is "because of the Shechinah and the Shechinah is not nullified" therefore also the holiness of this place is not nullified?

Simply, one can say,

because regarding the Tabernacle there is no law of holiness of its place,

since it was not fixed in a place but they carried it from place to place¹⁵,

and therefore the dwelling of the Shechinah in the Tabernacle is not connected to the place; but regarding the Tabernacle of Shiloh,

"for they built there a house of stones..

and for 369 years it stood"¹⁶

— behold, there was in this a fixing of place,

to the extent that "it was the resting place"¹⁷

[and as explained in the Commentary on the Mishnah¹⁸

that it is called rest "because they settled and there was no traveling there"]

; and further — it is explicit in the Sifri on the verse¹⁹

"the place which the Lord will choose" — "this is Shiloh",

behold, there was the choice of the Holy One, blessed be He, in this place — and if so, why does not apply

(also)

regarding the Tabernacle of Shiloh this reason,

that its holiness is "because of the Shechinah and the Shechinah is not nullified"?

3.

And one must say the explanation in this:

The choice of the Holy One, blessed be He, in a specific place can be in two ways: a)

The choice is in order to come and achieve and complete a specific goal,

In which way it is understood that it is possible that the choice is for a specific time,

For when the goal is completed, there is no longer a need for the

(choice of)

place.

b)

The choice in this place is His will and His choice in essence,

from His own essence.

And this is the difference between the choice in Shiloh and the choice in Jerusalem<sup>20</sup>,

and as emphasized in the difference of the language of the verses in Shiloh and Jerusalem — for in Shiloh it is said<sup>21</sup>

"the place which the L-rd will choose etc. to place His name there",

but in Jerusalem the language<sup>22</sup>

"which the L-rd your G-d will choose in it

(and only afterwards it continues)

to cause His name to dwell there",

and according to the above it is possible to explain the reason for the matter: In Shiloh,

the choice of this place was for the purpose of "to place His name there"; but the matter of the choice in Jerusalem is that the Holy One, blessed be He, chose "in it",

in this place,

and as a result He caused "His name to dwell there",

for there is His will and His choice,

and automatically there is found there His Shechinah, may He be blessed,

(and in a permanent manner,

"to cause His name to dwell there" — and not only "to place",

which implies

(also)

temporary).

And this is the intention of the Rambam in what he said "that the sanctity of the Temple and Jerusalem is because of the Shechinah and the Shechinah is not nullified" — he did not come to bring a proof for the eternity of the sanctity,

but rather to explain,

that since the choice of the Holy One, blessed be He, in Jerusalem

(and the Temple)

is in a manner of "the L-rd your G-d will choose in it",

in it itself,

behold this place became connected and unified with the Shechinah until this is the permanent place of the Shechinah,

and consequently, just as "the Shechinah is not nullified" so too the sanctity of this place will not be nullified.

[But not so in Shiloh,

even though it too is the "place which the L-rd will choose",

nevertheless we cannot say that this place became intrinsically the place of the Shechinah,

because the choice was for a purpose,

"to place His name there",

a choice dependent on something,

and when<pg>202</pg>

the thing ceases

(the purpose is fulfilled)

the choice ceases<sup>23</sup>,

as above].

4.

According to the above, we must explain the words of the Zohar,

that the choice in Jerusalem depends on the choice in David:

Such a choice,

since it is an eternal choice,

behold, from its own perspective it is impossible that it should apply to a physical place — because the physical, from the aspect of its nature and essence, is transient and perishable,

the opposite of eternity,

and if so, the physical place is not capable from its own side to contain this eternal matter; that is: even though the choice is an eternal choice,

and consequently the drawing down of holiness that comes from this choice is eternal — this is only from the aspect of the Chooser,

for just as change does not apply to Him, blessed be He,

so too there is no change in His choice

[and as has been explained many times,

that true choice is not from the aspect of

(the merit of)

the chosen one,

but from the aspect of

(the will of)

the Chooser],

but this eternity cannot be attributed to the place itself<sup>24</sup>,

that the holiness of the place is an eternal holiness<sup>25</sup>.

And this is the reason of the matter that this choice in Jerusalem depends on the choice of the Holy One, blessed be He, in King David "to be a shepherd over Israel,"

"the head who leads the people of the city":

The choice of the kingdom of the house of David is an eternal choice,

as the Rambam says²⁶

"Since David was anointed..

the kingdom is his and to his sons the males forever, as it is said²⁷

Your throne shall be established forever..

Even though he merited only the worthy, the monarchy will never be cut off from the seed of David,

the Holy One, blessed be He, promised him this, as it is said²⁸

If his sons forsake My Torah and do not walk in My judgments, I will punish their transgression with a rod and their iniquity with stripes, but My kindness I will not remove from him"

[For this is from the aspect of the choice in David,

as it is said there at the beginning of the psalm²⁹

"I have made a covenant with My chosen one, I have sworn to David My servant,

Forever I will establish your seed, and build your throne for generation and generation, Selah"]

— And this eternity pertains to the existence and soul of David,

who was a servant of God and nullified to God completely,

therefore there was drawn and revealed in him the power of the Blessed One, which is above change³⁰

[And as the saying of our Sages, may their memory be blessed,³¹

the works of David's hands are eternal]

;

And since the place of the kingdom of the House of David is in Jerusalem<sup>32</sup>

[And since Jerusalem is called "City of David"<sup>33</sup>,

and the completeness of the kingdom of David

(as king over all Israel)

was only when he came to Jerusalem<sup>34</sup>],

behold, through this power the physical place of Jerusalem also became prepared and fit

("vessel")<sup>35</sup>

to receive the eternal "choice"<pg>203</pg>

in Jerusalem<sup>36</sup>

(and as below section 6).

[And one must say,

that this matter is also hinted at in the length of the language of the Rambam in his aforementioned Commentary on the Mishnah

(beginning of section 2)

regarding the eternity of Jerusalem — "And about it the prophet said<sup>9</sup>

And His inheritance He will not abandon,

because he already said at the beginning of the matter that God chose Jerusalem for His dwelling and chose Israel as a treasured people for Himself, may He be exalted,

and he said afterwards that God will not forsake this nation which He chose as His inheritance nor that place which He chose, and it is His saying, for<sup>37</sup>

God chose Zion, He desired it for His dwelling,

for<sup>38</sup>

Jacob He chose for Himself, Yah, Israel as His treasured people,

for<sup>9</sup>

God will not forsake His people and His inheritance He will not abandon" — which emphasizes that the choice of Jerusalem is connected to the choice of the people of Israel,

and this is because the eternity of

(the choice of)

Jerusalem depends on His choice of the people of Israel,

for one cannot attribute the matter of eternity to the existence of a physical thing in and of itself,

but rather, because Jerusalem was chosen to be the place of Israel,

who are an eternal entity

("a planting of My planting, the work of My hands, in which to take pride"<sup>39</sup>),

therefore an eternal choice was drawn thereby

(also)

upon Jerusalem<sup>40</sup>].

5.

And this will be understood with additional explanation by prefacing the words of the Midrash<sup>41</sup>

on the verse<sup>42</sup>

"This month shall be for you the beginning of months; it shall be for you the first of the months of the year" — "When the Holy One, blessed be He, chose His world, He established in it new moons and years,

and when He chose Jacob and his sons, He established in it the new moon of redemption",

that also in the words of our Sages, may their memory be blessed, this speaks about two choices,

the choice of the Holy One, blessed be He, "in His world"

(analogous to the choice of Jerusalem,

a place in the world),

and the choice of the Holy One, blessed be He, "in Jacob and his sons"

(in the manner of the choice of the Holy One, blessed be He, in David, king of Israel).

And one must be precise in the words of the Midrash: a)

"When the Holy One, blessed be He, chose His world" — not when the Holy One, blessed be He, created His world,

from this it is understood,

that the matter of "new moons and years" does not pertain to the world as it is from the aspect of its creation,

but to the choice that the Holy One, blessed be He, chose His world⁴³.

b)

"And when He chose Yaakov and his sons, He established in it a new moon of redemption" — that through the choice of Yaakov and his sons, a renewal was effected in the world of the Holy One, blessed be He,

that He established in it a new moon of redemption.

<pg>204</pg>

Explanation of the matter:

The intention in "Hashem chose His world" is that Hashem chose that this should be the place of Bnei Yisrael and their service in the fulfillment of the Torah and the mitzvos,

and as the saying of our Rabbis, of blessed memory⁴⁴

that the world was created "for the sake of the Torah and for the sake of Yisrael,"

and this is "when Hashem chose His world He established in it new moons and years,"

which relates to the preparation of the world for the fulfillment of Torah and mitzvos by Yisrael⁴⁵

;

But nevertheless,

even after the world became prepared for the service of Yisrael,

this is not a state of "Geulah,"

for "Geulah" indicates the departure from anything of constraint and boundary,

and since the world is a created limited [being],

behold this is also as it is felt that it is "His world" of Hashem,

and further — that even though it is a world that Hashem chose in it

(and it became prepared for Torah and Yisrael),

nevertheless,

by its being a world, this is in a state of boundary,

and not "Geulah."

And this is the innovation in "He chose Yaakov and his sons" — because Bnei Yisrael are above the world,

for their souls are "literally a part of G-d above"⁴⁶,

and therefore there is found in them the power of "redemption",

to rise above the boundaries of the world.

[And this corresponds with the words of the Baal HaAkeidah⁴⁷

in explaining the difference between "the Holy One, blessed be He, chose His world" and "He chose Yaakov and his sons",

that "He chose...

His world" refers to the natural conduct,

and "He chose Yaakov and his sons" refers to the miraculous conduct

(overturning of nature)

that the Holy One, blessed be He, does for the sake of His people Israel

("Yaakov and his sons")].

6.

And on this the Midrash is precise: "When He chose Yaakov and his sons, He established in him the Rosh Chodesh of redemption"

(that the redemption is not only in Bnei Yisrael themselves,

but this is established "in him,"

in the world itself)

:

"He chose Yaakov and his sons" does not refer to the very existence of Yisrael

(which is above the world,

as above),

but to this, that the Holy One, blessed be He, chose them that they will fulfill His intention in the creation of the world,

through the fulfillment of the Torah and the commandments,

for which purpose the souls of Yisrael descend to this world and are clothed in bodies⁴⁸

; and since even when the soul descends into the limitations of the world, it is "literally a part of G-d above,"

therefore,

not only is nothing diminished by this descent from its essential superiority

(that it is a part of G-d),

but on the contrary,

through its service below, the matter of the "redemption" which is above the world is established in the world itself.

And this is not a contradiction to what was stated above, that the world, being created and limited, it is not applicable that there should be in it a category of redemption

(without limit and elevation above the categories of the world)

— because this is from the side of the categories of the world itself,

but through the fact that Israel are found in the world,

and they perform their service in their being in it,

and furthermore — that their service is with the world and in the world itself,

to make it a dwelling place for Him, blessed be He,

(by means of drawing holiness into physical things of the world),

there is fixed also in the world a category of "redemption" that is above the world.

For when one reveals in every single detail that is in the world that its entire existence is only "for the sake of Israel",

meaning that the entire existence of the world is only a detail of the existence of Israel,

in order to complete this intention that the Holy One, blessed be He, chose that the children of Israel should be found below and their service should be in &lt;pg&gt;205&lt;/pg&gt;

This world⁴⁹

— then just as Israel themselves are in the aspect of "redemption"

(above the limitations of the world),

so is effected in the world

(in which and with whose matters Israel serve G‑d)

a dimension of redemption⁵⁰.

And likewise is it in our matter,

the choice of the Holy One, blessed be He, in Jerusalem,

that although in Jerusalem, in and of itself, the dimension of eternality does not apply,

after the choice of David,

which is an eternal choice,

there is drawn in a manner of automatically the matter of eternality also in Jerusalem,

the city of David.

(From sichos of Shabbos Parshas Vayikra-Parshas HaChodesh,

Parshas HaChodesh,

5740 and 5742)