English translation — תבא ב

1.

In the verses "You have affirmed the Lord today to be your God... and the Lord has affirmed you today to be His treasured people..."¹

Rashi stands on "האמרת והאמירך"²

and explains: "They have no witness to prove in Scripture.

And it seems to me that it is an expression of separation³

and distinction,

you have set Him apart⁴

for yourself⁵

from the gods of the nations to be your God, and He⁶

has set you apart for Himself⁵

from the peoples of the earth to be His treasured people."

One must understand:

a)

The words "להיות לך לאלקים" and "להיות לו לעם סגולה" are indeed in the verse.

So ostensibly it would be enough that Rashi should say "הבדלתו לך מאלקי הנכר והוא הפרישך אליו מעמי הארץ" — because also then one knows that "הבדלתו לך מאלקי הנכר" is "להיות לך לאלקים" and "והוא הפרישך אליו מעמי הארץ" is "להיות לו לעם סגולה".

Why does Rashi need to quote the words that are in the verse⁷?

Regarding the matter of "את ה׳ האמרת",

that Jews distinguished the Most High from the gods of the nations,

Rashi says "<b>הבדלתו</b> etc."; but by "וה׳ האמירך",

that the Most High distinguished Jews,

he says "והוא <b>הפרישך"</b><b><sup>8</sup></b>

: Why regarding the Most High does Rashi use the expression "הבדלה",

and regarding Jews — the expression "הפרשה"?

b)

2.

Afterwards Rashi continues in his commentary: "And I found for them a witness,

and it is an expression of glory, like they will boast⁹

all workers of iniquity"¹⁰.

One must understand: How does Rashi say earlier "They have no witness etc." and teaches "that it is an expression of separation and distinction",

while he himself concludes "And I found for them a witness and it is an expression of glory etc."¹¹?

One could teach

(with great difficulty),

that this "witness" from the verse "they will boast all workers of iniquity" Rashi found only later,

and as he says the language "And I found",

and initially — at the time of the first edition — he held that "They have no witness etc."¹².

It is, however, very difficult to learn this way,

because

(a)

Before Rashi wrote with certainty "<b>they have</b> no proof from Scripture",

he certainly looked through or thought over the entire Tanakh.

Now why did he not mention the "proof" from "they will say" etc.<sup>13</sup>?

(b)

After that "I found them a witness",

Rashi should have — in the later edition — removed¹⁴

that which he wrote earlier "<b>No</b> witness for them etc. and it seems to me etc."?

3.

One must therefore say,

that that which Rashi says earlier "no witness for them" and teaches "that it is the language of separation and distinction" — not the language of "glory",

it is

but]

because of that which he assumes,

that in our verse it does not fit

(from the content of the <b>matter</b>)

to teach "language of glory",

and therefore he teaches "that it is the language of separation and distinction".

And therefore he emphasizes "they have no &lt;b&gt;proof&lt;/b&gt; in Scripture" — not "they have no witness" at all&lt;sup&gt;15&lt;/sup&gt;

(As in the continuation "and I found a witness for them")

— meaning thereby,

that if there were a "&lt;b&gt;proof&lt;/b&gt; witness" in the sense of "ha'amarta" and "he'emirkha",

one would &lt;b&gt;have to&lt;/b&gt; teach the interpretation thus also in our verse — although from the content of the matter it is difficult to teach so; only because "they have no &lt;b&gt;proof&lt;/b&gt; witness in Scripture"

(because "ha'amarta and he'emirkha" is not exactly similar to "yit'ameru"),

it is better to teach "that it is an expression of separation and distinction",

as it comes out from the &lt;b&gt;content&lt;/b&gt; of the &lt;b&gt;matter&lt;/b&gt;.

But since one does not find anywhere that "ha'amarta and he'emirkha" means separation and distinction — not only is there no &lt;b&gt;proof&lt;/b&gt; witness for this,

rather there is no "witness" for it at all — therefore Rashi continues and brings a &lt;b&gt;second&lt;/b&gt; interpretation&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;

"and I found a witness for them, and it is an expression of glory, etc.",

that one &lt;b&gt;can&lt;/b&gt; also teach that "ha'amarta and he'emirkha" is an expression of glory.

But from the content of the matter — it is more plausible to teach "that it is an expression of separation and distinction",

which is why Rashi brings this as the first interpretation.

One must understand: what is difficult in this explanation "language of splendor",

until that because of the difficulty Rashi learns in his first

(main)

explanation "language of separation and distinction",

although "I have not found a companion for it"¹⁷?

4.

The Ibn Ezra — who also he explains according to the <b>plain meaning</b> of Scripture

(only his way in plain meaning is different from Rashi's)

— learns that "ha'emarta" is "from the language of greatness"¹⁸,

like "in the beginning¹⁹

we will say".

And afterwards he brings another explanation of Rabbi Yehuda Halevi

(and says about it "<b>and beautifully</b> he explained")

that the words "ha'emarta" and "he'emirkha" are "from the root of vayomer".

And the explanation "You have declared the Lord etc. to be for you a God etc. and the Lord has declared you etc. to be for Him a treasured people" is²⁰,

that Jews made the Most High <b>say</b> that He will be for them "a God",

and the Most High made the Jews <b>say</b> that they will be for Him "a treasured people".

It is understandable why Rashi does not want to learn

(even as an additional explanation)

that "he'emartekha vehe'amirkha" is "from the language of greatness": because the source to interpret he'emartekha from the language of greatness is from the verse "berosh amir",

and in that verse Rashi interprets amir

but]

"branch" plain²².

But it is not understandable why Rashi does not want to learn "he'emartekha" from the language of speech

(and even not as an <b>additional</b> explanation — <b>contrary</b> to Ibn Ezra,

who says specifically on this interpretation "<b>and beautifully</b> he explained")

"said" from the language of separation and distinction

(like Rashi's primary explanation)

— has no parallel.

Also "said" from the language of glory — is found only in Psalms

(let all workers of iniquity boast),

and Rashi says about it the phrase "and I found".

But "said" from the root of vayomer — is among the very frequently used words in Chumash,

starting from the third verse of Bereishis.

Now why does Rashi not teach that ha'amarta and he'amircha are from the language of speech?

5.

The question is even greater: "ha'amarta" and "he'amircha"

(with a hei)

is in the causative form.

So according to the explanation that "ha'amarta and he'amircha" are from the language of speech, it is understandable simply what is written "ha'amarta and he'amircha"

(with a hei),

because "es Hashem ha'amarta" means,

as above,

that Israel made the Most High say

(that He will be for you a God),

"and Hashem he'amircha" — that the Most High made Israel say

(that they will be for Him a people)

But according to the interpretation "language of glory"

(that Jews glorify and praise the Most High,

and the Most High glorifies and praises Jews),

it seemingly should have better stood "amarta"

(like shivchata)

and "amirkha"

(like shivchakha)

— <b>without</b> a hei²³.

It is indeed true,

that it is <b>no</b> <b>difficulty</b>,

because one can say,

that "<b>h</b>aamarta" in the causative conjugation comes because through that which Jews are

(in his first interpretation)

it is language of separation and distinction and not language of glory

(<b>not</b> because of these reasons,

but rather)

because of the difficulty <b>in the content</b> <b>of the matter</b> regarding this interpretation,

as below section 7.

Glorifies the Above,

becomes, as it were, the Above glorified; and the same also,

it is understood,

regarding that the Above praises Jews.

It is, however, obviously much smoother to learn "ha'maras" and "ha'mircha" from the language of "amira"²⁴,

then it is understandable <b>simply</b> why it says <b>h</b>a'maras

(with a hei)

as above.

So why does Rashi learn — at least as his second explanation — "the language of tiferes",

and not "the language of amira"?

V.

So the explanation in all this is:

The verses "You have affirmed the L-rd today etc. and the L-rd has affirmed you today etc." come in continuation to the previous verse "This day the L-rd your G-d commands you etc."

From this it is understandable,

that the "today" that stands in the two verses — "You have affirmed the L-rd today" and "the L-rd has affirmed you today" — is the same day as the previous verse,

which means <b>every</b> day,

as Rashi interprets there the "this day"²³

— "every day etc."

And therefore Rashi cannot learn the interpretation of "האמרת" from the language of saying — that you have made [Him] say — because the concept that Jews make the Supreme One say "to be for you a God,"

fits only when they conduct themselves in such a conduct that should effect, as it were, by the Supreme One that He should want to be for you a God²⁶.

One cannot say, however, that every day Jews do such things which should "influence" the Supreme One to say that He will be for you a God.

True indeed,

that every day He is our God,

whatever the conduct of Jews may be — but it is not possible to say,

that when Jews do not conduct themselves as is proper, God forbid,

they effect that day the saying of the Supreme One to be for you a God.

The same is also regarding "and Hashem has declared you today to be for Him a treasured people": When the Almighty shows Jews miracles etc.,

then it is possible to say that the Almighty makes the Jews say and want "to be for Him a treasured people"²⁷.

But in a time when the Almighty conducts Himself with Jews, heaven forbid, in a conduct opposite of "and I will give your rains in their time etc.",

one cannot say that on <b>that</b> day <b>He</b> makes Jews say that they are and want to be a treasured people for Him.

Therefore Rashi teaches "an expression of separation and distinction",

because the matter that Jews distinguish the Almighty from the gods of the nations and that the Almighty distinguishes Jews from all the nations is <b>every</b> <b>day</b><b>²⁸</b>

: in whatever situation Jews may be,

there is always among them the recognition that the Almighty is their God²⁹

; and so too by the Almighty,

Jews are <b>always</b> distinguished from all nations,

they are His treasured people³⁰.

7.

For this reason Rashi also does not want to learn

(in his first commentary),

האמרת והאמירך "language of glory" — because the praise and glory of the Most High is

(mainly)

— when the "to be for you a God" comes to expression openly in "to walk in His ways etc."; and so too the praise and glory of Jews is

(mainly)

when they are not merely a segulah nation — a precious treasure*³⁰

of the Most High — but when there is the actualization of "and to keep all His commandments etc." — and this is not always evident — therefore Rashi learns "language of separation and distinction",

which <b>the</b> matter is always evident.

And with this it will also be understandable,

that in his commentary language of separation and distinction,

Rashi is not satisfied with saying "He set you apart for Himself from the foreign gods and He separated you to Him from the peoples of the land",

rather he explains that "He set you apart for Himself from the foreign gods" is "to be for you a God" and "and He separated you to Him from the peoples of the land" is "to be for Him a treasured people" — and in both he writes <b>not</b> etc.,

Because from the plain sense of the language of the verse it is implied,

that the "I have said" is not only to be to you a God but also to go in all His ways etc.,

and so too the "I have said" is not only to be to Him a treasured people but also to keep all His commandments,

and to set you high etc. — and since that <b>the</b> matter is indeed not

(unclear)

every day,

therefore Rashi says that the <b>main</b> point of "I have said" and "I have said",

about which the verse says "today"

(which means <b>every</b> day),

is to be to you a God and to be to Him a treasured people.

8.

The difference between the term "havdalah"

which Rashi uses regarding the Most High,

and the term³¹

"hafrashah"

which he says regarding Jews — when one <b>distinguishes</b> between the two terms³²

— consists of the difference in several matters and among them:

a)

Regarding the manner in which the two things were &lt;b&gt;before&lt;/b&gt; the separation and division:

The term separation

(separating)

fits

(mainly),

when previously they were only &lt;b&gt;adjacent&lt;/b&gt; to each other,

but intermingled with each other they were not&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;.

Just as "and he shall separate it by its wings, he shall not divide"&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;,

that the two parts of the bird are not &lt;b&gt;mixed&lt;/b&gt; between themselves — they are merely close and connected one to the other,

and the explanation of "he shall not &lt;b&gt;divide&lt;/b&gt;" is "he does not &lt;b&gt;separate it"&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

— he should not separate one from the other;

But the language of separation

(separating)

applies

(primarily)

when previously the thing being separated was &lt;b&gt;mixed&lt;/b&gt; with the other things.

Just as &lt;b&gt;the separation of&lt;/b&gt; tithes and terumot,

that before the separation — the grains etc. of the terumah and tithe and non-sacred produce were mixed — in the tevel.

b)

Regarding the things

(which one separates or sets apart)

as they are after the separation and setting apart:

The term "haftashah" is used,

for the most part,

when also the thing from which one separated — remains after the separation.

Such as terumah and challah which are also called

(in the verse)

by the name "terumah"³⁶,

that

(like maaser and terumat maaser³⁷)

and one can add to them,

is]

"One who says 'all my grain is terumah and all my dough is challah' has said nothing,

until he leaves over some"³⁸,

because the definition of "terumah" which means "haftashah"³⁹

is — "he lifts up some and leaves some"⁴⁰

Not so by "havdalah" pertains only to the thing which one separates — it is however <b>not</b> pertaining to the matter⁴¹

whether also the thing from which one separates it will remain or not.

c)

Regarding the <b>power</b> of the action: havdalah is a stronger,

a further⁴²

separating from the thing which one separates.

Regarding the differences between the term "havdalah" and the term "hafrashah",

Rashi says "&lt;b&gt;your separation&lt;/b&gt; for you ..

&lt;b&gt;your setting apart&lt;/b&gt; to him":

Regarding the above, the term "&lt;b&gt;your separation&lt;/b&gt; for you from the foreign gods" fits better,

because

a)

Also <b>before</b> that "His differentiation" is

(even from the perspective of human intellect)

it is not applicable to say that He is interwoven, G‑d forbid, with "alien deity",

because even the nations of the world know that the Supreme One is <b>greater</b> and <b>separate</b> from stars and constellations etc. — they call Him <b>Alka</b> d’alkia⁴³

— they only say that He is approximately

(in proximity)

to the ministers etc.

(which is why they hold,

that also the ministers etc. are "alkia"),

but Jews <b>differentiate</b> the Supreme One from alien deity,

that He is not in their value at all and all etc.

b)

The manner of "His differentiation" is indeed

G‑d forbid,

rather the Supreme One is greater than them — "Alka d’alkia",

rather]

that the alien deities are altogether nothing at all*⁴³

— and consequently one cannot use the expression "<b>His separation</b> from alien deity"

(which indicates that the thing from which one separates has existence),

and therefore Rashi says "His differentiation etc."

But regarding Jews, Rashi says "And he separated him from the people of the land",

because

a)

Before the separation, Jews were intermixed among other nations — as the verse says⁴⁴

"He took a nation from within a nation".

b)

Also after the Most High chose Jews to be a segulah from all the nations,

it is not only that the other nations were not nullified,

but on the contrary — the affection of the Most High for Jews, that only them He chose for a segulah nation,

is demonstrated specifically through that which "Mine is all the earth" and nevertheless "You shall be to Me a segulah from all the nations"⁴⁵.

9.

But Rashi is not satisfied with the explanation that "ha'emarta veha'amircha" are expressions of separation and distinction — because "I found no companion for it"

— therefore he continues

(as a second interpretation)

"and I found for them a testimony, and it is an expression of glory",

so one can also interpret "ha'amartekha" and "he'emirkha" from the word "tiferet" — because also that which the Most High is "Yours, O God" and Jews are "His treasured people" is a glory and a praise.

And since the matter is indeed "every day"

(as above section 6),

therefore it is fitting to say "You have declared the Lord today" etc. and "the Lord has declared you today" — also according to the interpretation "an expression of glory".

10.

From the topics of "the wine of Torah" in our Rashi commentary:

It stands in the Maharsha⁴⁶

that "You have distinguished Hashem etc. and Hashem has distinguished you etc." is analogous to the matter of "I am to my beloved and my beloved is to me."

And based on this, the special connection of these verses specifically to the month of Elul is understood⁴⁷,

even though they are indeed "today" "every day",

as above — because the matter of Elul is⁴⁸

<b>in order</b> in the verses "you have distinguished" then "has distinguished you"

(first)

"<b>I</b> am to my beloved

(and then)

<b>and my beloved</b> is to me"

(acronym Elul⁴⁹).

And with the two explanations of "האמרת והאמירך" — language of separation and distinction and of glory — Rashi hints to the order of service of the month of Elul: that first must be the service of "separation and distinction" and afterwards the service of "glory",

as follows.

Yes.

One will understand this by prefacing,

that the connection of the two verses to the month of Elul is not only from the aspect of the order of the verses — that "את הי האמרת" comes before "והי האמירך" just as Elul where I am to my beloved comes before and my beloved is to me

whose order is He revealed Himself to them and redeemed them⁵⁰,

"my beloved is to me

(and afterwards)

and I am to him"⁵¹],

but also from the aspect that the particular matters in the verses correspond to the matters of the month of Elul.

The month of Elul distinguishes itself from all other months

(even from the month of Tishrei)

also in that <b>each</b> day of the month⁵²

one says

(twice³⁸)

the psalm "LeDavid Hashem Ori"⁵⁴.

It is known what is stated in Chassidus⁵⁵

— based on Chazal's statement "At first you say 'One thing I asked, that I dwell in the house of Hashem,' and afterwards you ask several things: 'to behold the pleasantness of Hashem and to visit His Temple etc.'"⁵⁶

— that "my dwelling in the house of Hashem" is the general principle of all the later enumerated matters,

and therefore

(it may be that)

"you say <b>one thing</b> I asked."

Nevertheless,

although "I dwell in the house of the Lord" is the general principle

(and "one")

of all those matters that appear later — it is understandable,

that also <b>the</b> principle is a detail regarding the matters that appear in the earlier verses,

and especially regarding "the Lord is my light and my salvation etc. the Lord is the stronghold of my life etc." which is at the beginning <b>and head</b> of the psalm.

d.,

e.,

that the very first principle is the knowledge and recognition that "the Lord is my light and my salvation etc. the Lord is the stronghold of my life etc.",

from which comes afterwards the "one thing I have asked etc. that I dwell in the house of the Lord etc.",

and this comes later in the details "to behold the beauty of the Lord and to visit His temple etc."

12.

And the three matters express the order and manner of the service of the month of Elul — the time⁵⁷

<i>Teshu</i>va<i>h</i>:

Due to the multitude of concealments and veils in the world,

one can sometimes be

(regarding particular matters at least)

in a state of "forgetting the truth"⁵⁸,

that a Jew should, heaven forbid, forget the "truth of Hashem",

about his connection with the Supreme One,

until that he should

(in several matters)

conduct himself in a manner that it is not noticeable the "and I will set you apart"*⁵⁸,

the "to distinguish between Israel and the nations."

So when the month of Elul comes, the first thing is "Hashem is my light and my salvation" etc. — the knowledge and recognition that he is connected with the Supreme One;

But this alone is not sufficient,

because sometimes it can be that he indeed remembers that he is a Jew and is connected with the Supreme One,

but the evil inclination speaks to him to chase after the desires of this world,

although he knows that at this time — through this chasing he becomes, heaven forbid, separated from the connection to G‑d —

Upon this comes the "One thing I asked... that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life",

he should awaken in himself a strong will

(until then <b>the</b> will becomes his <b>only</b> request — <b>one</b> thing I asked)

to find himself in the house of the Lord in a manner of dwelling and permanence

("that I may dwell"³⁹)

<b>all</b> <b>the days</b> <b>of his life</b>;

It is, however, possible that he should remain at the general awakening and general will, and in details he should fail — upon this come immediately the particular requests: to behold the pleasantness of the Lord and to visit in His Temple etc.

13.

The same three matters mentioned above are present in "את ה' האמרת etc. וה' האמירך etc.,"

and in each of them — both in "האמרת"

(אני לדודי)

and in "האמירך"

(ודודי לי)

The first principle is "את ה' האמרת וה' האמירך" — the <b>general</b> connection of Jews with the Supreme One and of the Supreme One with Jews,

and in a manner that does not yet have a precise explanation — "<b>אין</b> להם עד" — analogous to the knowledge and recognition

(general)

that הוי' אורי וישעי and הוי' מעוז חיי⁶⁰

Afterwards comes the concept of "האמרת והאמירך" to expression — in "להיות לך לאלקים" and "להיות לו לעם סגולה": his connection with the Above comes already in a certain sense — he knows that "אנו עמך ואתה אלקינו וכו׳"⁶¹

— like "אחת שאלתי גו׳ שבתי בבית הוי׳ גו׳"⁶²

And afterwards this comes out in particular matters: "וללכת בדרכיו גו׳" and "ולשמור כל מצותיו גו'" — like "לחזות בנועם הוי׳ וגו'".

14.

Although the first verse and topic of "Of David, the L-rd is my light" is only a general knowledge and recognition of the connection of a Jew with the Above,

But there are in the recognition itself two matters: "The L-rd is my light and my salvation" and "The L-rd is the stronghold of my life."

And it can be said,

That the two times the name Havayah — <b>Havay</b>ah is my light and my salvation and <b>Havay</b>ah is the stronghold of my life — are in the manner of what Rashi says⁶³

Regarding the two names Havayah of the Thirteen Attributes of Mercy: one before one sins and one after one sins and repents.

And the explanation of this⁶⁴

A sin can come about through two causes: a)

The evil inclination persuades the person regarding a transgression that it is not a transgression or that it is even a mitzvah.

b)

He knows that it is a transgression,

only he cannot overcome the evil inclination⁶⁵.

And this means "Hashem is my light and my salvation": a)

The Most High <b>illuminates</b> a Jew,

that he should see the truth of what is good and what is evil,

and b)

He <b>helps</b> him to overcome the evil inclination⁶⁶.

And <b>the</b> Havayah is "before he sins" — He does not allow that it should come to "he sins" even though his inclination overcomes him⁶⁷

Afterwards there is the higher level of Havayah⁶⁸,

which is "the stronghold of my life": that even after he has failed,

he has the power from Havayah

(above)

to do repentance,

which brings him not only to life — the "and he shall live by them"⁶⁹

of the fulfillment of the commandments,

but also to "<b>the stronghold</b> of my life" which comes through repentance which is higher than the fulfillment of the commandments.

15.

And this is also the explanation of the connection of the first verse "Of David, the Lord is my light" to the month of Elul:

When the month of Elul comes and a Jew reminds himself

(as above, sec. 12)

of his connection with the Most High,

the evil inclination begins to argue with him: It is true that you are indeed connected with the Most High — but you find yourself in a world that is "full of husks"⁷⁰

and you have an evil inclination that is an "expert in his craft"⁷¹,

you will surely not be able to maintain your connection with the Most High in daily life!

— on this one says

(just as one remembers that one is bound with the Most High,

before one goes into details),

that "Hashem is my light and my salvation" and consequently is "whom shall I fear".

The yetzer hara argues further however: Hashem is my light and my salvation will only help you out that from now on you will not sin.

But you have already sinned,

you are already a lost one

(may it not be said),

On this they say "Hashem is the stronghold of my life, of whom shall I be afraid",

that not only does one not have any fear of "distant ones"⁷²

that one should from now on not fail,

but also there is no fear of "close ones"⁷²,

of the sins that are already by him here — because "Hashem is the stronghold of my life" and gives him strength to do repentance.

16.

And the two matters of the first verse of "Of David, Hashem is my light",

Rashi hints in his two explanations on "I exalted you and made you exalted" — which is

(as above section 13)

in the manner of the general recognition in the first verse of "Of David, my light":

The explanation of "language of separation and distinction" — that a Jew has <b>no</b> <b>connection</b> to "alien god" and "people of the land" — is analogous to "Hashem is my light and my salvation",

which causes that the Jew should not have to do with matters of evil;

And the explanation of "language of glory like 'let all workers of iniquity boast themselves'" — that from the "boasting" of the "workers of iniquity"⁷³

becomes a witness

(and in the manner of "I found"),

he makes up.

The explanation

(and the concept)

that not only is there the separation and distinction etc.,

but it becomes a glory and praise,

because through repentance one causes that also the intentional sins

(let them boast)

become transformed into merits — is analogous to "Hashem is the strength of my life",

the power for repentance.

And this is also the concept of "the language of <b>splendor</b>",

because the splendor and praise that emerges through the subjugation of the sitra achra

(through repentance),

is "greater than other praise ..

greater than all"⁷⁴.

17.

The concept of repentance pertains to yechidah,

higher than reason and knowledge⁷⁵.

And therefore repentance is the preparation for the redemption,

which also Mashiach comes "with <b>absence</b> of mind"⁷⁶

— as the Alter Rebbe explains⁷⁷

that the level that will be at the coming of Mashiach is "above human knowledge etc."

And also this Rashi hints in "&lt;b&gt;And I found&lt;/b&gt; for them a witness",

that the service of "let all workers of iniquity be spoken",

the service of teshuvah,

is higher than reason and understanding — in the manner of a find that comes by way of absence of mind&lt;sup&gt;76&lt;/sup&gt;.

And this brings to "&lt;b&gt;I found&lt;/b&gt; David My servant etc."&lt;sup&gt;78&lt;/sup&gt;,

And as it is also said in this psalm "To David, a light" "And now my head shall be raised above my enemies, etc., and I will sacrifice in His tent sacrifices of jubilation, etc.,"

so through the fact that although there are "enemies," nevertheless it is effected that "my head shall be raised above my enemies"

(the service of repentance),

one comes to "and I will sacrifice in His tent sacrifices of jubilation" — to the service of the offerings as it will be in the ultimate perfection

("according to the commandment of Your will"⁷⁹)

in the third Holy Temple that will be built by the "king from the house of David"⁸⁰

- our righteous Mashiach,

in the true and complete redemption,

very soon.

(From the talk of Shabbat Parshat Tavo 5730)