Jerusalem and the Mikdash: Uniting Israel

 

 

            In continuation of our examination of the connection between the Mikdash/Jerusalem and peace, we will now discuss the idea of unity as an essential attribute of the Mikdash and of the entire city of Jerusalem.[1]

 

THE MIKDASH EXPRESSES THE UNITY OF ALL OF ISRAEL

 

1. THE MIKDASH IN THE DIVISION OF THE TRIBAL TERRITORIES ACCORDING TO CHAZAL

 

            According to the division of the tribal territories in the book of Yehoshua (15 and 18), the site of the Mikdash is without a doubt located entirely within the tribal territory of Binyamin.[2] Regarding the verse (Devarim 33:12), "And to Binyamin he said: The beloved of the Lord; He shall dwell in safety by him; He shall cover him all the day long, and He shall dwell between his shoulders," Chazal (Sifrei, Ve-zot Ha-berakha) suggest many reasons why Binyamin merited that the Shekhina should rest in its territory. Among them, we find:

 

Because all the tribes were present at the sale of Yosef, but Binyamin was not with them… I shall not rest My Shekhina in their portion, for they showed no mercy to their brother.[3]

 

The unity brought about by Binyamin is also expressed in Binyamin's arrival in Egypt, which ultimately leads to reconciliation between the tribes of Yosef and Yehuda, and from that to a reunification of all the tribes. The tribal territory of Binyamin, which symbolizes the unity among the tribes, was selected as most appropriate for the site of the Mikdash, for a state of jealousy, hatred, and division makes the resting of the Shekhina impossible. (For the same reason, the tribal territory of Binyamin is situated between the tribal territories of Efrayim (Yosef) and Yehuda.)

 

            Binyamin, the tribe that can serve as a bridge between the other tribes, was selected as the tribe in whose territory the Shekhina would rest. Indeed, most of the stations of the Mishkan were erected in its portion, and the Mikdash itself was built in the tribal territory of Binyamin.

 

            Chazal expanded upon this point:

 

As it was taught: What lay in the portion of Yehuda? The Temple mount, the cells, the courts. And what lay in the portion of Binyamin? The Ulam, the Heikhal, and the Holy of Holies. And a strip of land went forth from Yehuda's portion and went into Binyamin's territory, and on this the altar was built. (Yoma 12a)

 

            According to this account, the Mikdash was situated in the territory of Binyamin, as well as the essential part of the altar,[4] whereas the offices, including Lishkat Ha-gazit, were located in the territory of Yehuda. Binyamin represents the territory of the Shekhina, whereas Yehuda represents the territory of the kingdom. In addition to the message concerning the importance of the earthly kingdom being connected to the Mikdash, this juxtaposition expresses the fact that the site of the Mikdash belongs to both Binyamin and Yehuda, and that they are connected through it. Binyamin and Yehuda represent the descendants of Rachel and Leah; the two join at the site of the Mikdash.

 

2. DAVID’S PURCHASE OF MOUNT MORIYA WITH MONEY BELONGING TO ALL OF ISRAEL

 

            In II Shmuel (24:24), the price of the threshing floor of Aravna the Yevusite is noted as 50 silver shekels, whereas in I Divrei Ha-yamim (21:25), we find the figure of 600 gold shekels. The midrash accounts for the discrepancy as follows:

 

Surely it says: "So David bought the threshing floor and the oxen for fifty shekels of silver" (II Shemuel 24:24), while elsewhere it says: "So David gave to Ornan for the place six hundred shekels of gold by weight" (I Divrei Ha-yamim 21:25). It is impossible to say "gold shekels," for it is already stated "silver shekels," and it is impossible to say "silver shekels," for it is already stated "gold shekels!" Say then that he purchased it with silver and paid with gold. It is impossible to say fifty, for it is already stated six hundred, and it is impossible to say six hundred, for it is already stated fifty! Say then that when David saw a place fit for the building of the Mikdash, he stood up and collected fifty shekels from each and every tribe, so that it was six hundred shekels from all the tribes. (Sifrei Devarim 352).

 

The site of the Mikdash was purchased at the time of King David through contributions of all of the tribes.

           

            The importance of this point is emphasized in one of the Rambam’s explanations of why the Torah did not specify the site of the future Temple:

 

Lest every tribe should demand that this place be within its allotted portion and should seek to conquer it, which would lead to conflict and sedition, such as happened with regard to the priesthood. Therefore, the command was given that the chosen Temple should only be built after the elevation of a king, so that only one would be qualified to give commands and quarrels would cease. (Guide of the Perplexed III:45)

 

In other words, the revelation of the site of the Mikdash was delayed until the time of David because it was of supreme importance that the place should be revealed in a spirit of unity, after the cessation of all quarrels. For this purpose, it was critical that the establishment of the kingdom should precede the building of the Mikdash, as a single king has the power to remove quarrels and intensify unity.

 

3. THE CONCENTRATION OF ALL DIVINE SERVICE IN THE HOUSE OF GOD IN JERUSALEM

 

            The idea of Israel's unity in the Mikdash is further expressed in the fact that all Divine service is concentrated in the Mikdash.

 

            1. “But to the place which the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put His name there, there shall you seek Him, at His dwelling, and there shall you come" (Devarim 12:5). The entire Divine service is concentrated in the Mikdash, including the sacrificial order and the various elements of communal service.

 

            2. "[When] they came to Jerusalem, the bamot were [again] forbidden, and were never again permitted" (Zevachim 14:8). After the people of Israel built the Temple on Mount Moriya, it was never again permitted to serve God in a different place.

 

            3. The site of the Mikdash is a site of prayer for all of humanity – Jews and non-Jews – and under all circumstances. This is emphasized in Shlomo's prayer at the time of the dedication of the Temple (I Melakhim 8, especially verses 29, 33, 38, 42, 44, and 48; see also Yeshayahu 26:7). Chazal relate:

 

R. Yehoshua ben Levi said: "That is the Temple in front (lifnei)" (I Melakhim 6:17) – a Temple to which all faces (panim) turn (ponim) [in prayer]. This is true while it is standing. From where [do I know that they still turn to Jerusalem] when it is in ruin? R. Abun said: "Built with turrets [le-talpiyot]" (Shir Ha-shirim 4:4) – the elevation [tel] towards which all mouths [piyot] turn – in blessing, in Keri'at Shema, and in [the Amida] prayer. In blessing - "who builds Jerusalem"; in prayer - "the God of David and builder of Jerusalem"; in Keri'at Shema - "who spreads a shelter of peace over us and over His entire people Israel and over Jerusalem." (Yerushalmi Berakhot 4:5)

 

Our Rabbis taught: A blind man or one who cannot tell the cardinal points should direct his heart towards his Father in Heaven, as it says: "And they pray unto the Lord" (I Melakhim 8:44). If one is standing outside of Eretz Yisrael, he should turn mentally towards Eretz Yisrael, as it says: "And pray unto You towards their land" (ibid., v. 48). If he stands in Eretz Yisrael, he should turn mentally towards Jerusalem, as it says: "And they pray unto the Lord toward the city which You have chosen" (ibid., v. 44). If he is standing in Jerusalem, he should turn mentally towards the Temple, as it says: "If they pray toward this house" (II Divrei Ha-yamim 6:26). If he is standing in the Temple, he should turn mentally towards the Holy of Holies, as it says: "If they pray toward this place" (I Melakhim 8:35). If he was standing in the Holy of Holies, he should turn mentally towards the kaporet. If he was standing behind the kaporet, he should imagine himself to be in front of the kaporet. Consequently, if he is in the east, he should turn his face to the west; if in the west, he should turn his face to the east; if in the south, he should turn his face to the north; if in the north, he should turn his face to the south. In this way, all Israel will be turning their hearts towards one place. R. Avin — or as some say R. Avina — said: What text confirms this? "Your neck is like the tower of David built with turrets [talpiyot]" - the elevation [tel] towards which all mouths [piyot] turn. (Berakhot 30b)

 

            The Maharal explains:

 

Israel unites through the Temple, where there is one priest and one altar. And the bamot were forbidden so that there be no division and dissension in Israel. Accordingly, through the Temple, they become one whole nation. (Netzach Yisrael 5)

 

4. VARIOUS COMMANDMENTS THAT EXPRESS THE IDEA OF THE UNITY OF ISRAEL[5]

 

1. The service in the Temple is performed with the help of the mishmarot and the ma'amadot, making it possible for the entire people of Israel to be represented in the day-to-day service.

 

2. The entire people of Israel is represented in the service through the half-shekel that every individual, with no exception, must contribute. Each and every individual is a full partner in the financing of the communal service performed in the Mikdash and in the building of Jerusalem.

 

3. The pilgrimages to Jerusalem and the Mikdash on the three pilgrimage festivals, with all that they entailed, allowed for the abolition of the barriers that separated between chaverim (people dedicated to a precise observance of the mitzvot) and amei ha-aretz (common, uneducated people). The Yerushalmi even brings this point as an explanation for the trustworthiness assigned to the am ha-aretz on the festivals:

 

In Jerusalem, they are trusted regarding sacrifices, and on festivals even regarding teruma. R. Yehoshua ben Levi said: "Jerusalem built as a city that is compact [she-chubra] together" (Tehillim 122:3) – a city that turns all of Israel into chaverim. If so, even during the rest of the year? R. Ze'ira said: Only at a time when "there the tribes used to go up" (ibid., v. 4). (Chagiga 3:6)

 

4. The mitzva of hakhel (assembly) on Sukkot of the eighth year of the Sabbatical cycle (Devarim 31:10-13) promotes the unity of all of Israel – men, women and children – by way of a replay of the assembly at Mount Sinai in the Temple once every seven years. (See Rambam, Hilkhot Chagiga 3, especially halakhot 1, 4, 6).

 

5. The essence of the Paschal offering, with its unique status as an offering of an individual that is brought by the entire community, lies in the covenant made between God and the entire people of Israel through the joining of all of Israel to one another.

 

6. Another example of unity in the Mikdash is noted in tractate Middot:

 

All who entered the Temple Mount entered by the right and went round [to the right] and went out by the left, save of one to whom something untoward had happened, who entered and went round to the left. [If he was asked:] why do you go round to the left [and he answered:] because I am a mourner [they said to him:] May he who dwells in this house comfort you. [If he said:] Because I am excommunicated [they said:] May He who dwells in this house inspire them to befriend you again; [these are] the words of R. Meir. R. Yose said to him: You make it seem that they treated him unjustly. What then should they say? May He who dwells in this house inspire you to listen to the words of your colleagues, so that they may befriend you again. (Middot 2:2)

 

            The Baraita in tractate Semachot adds to those mentioned in Middot one who has lost something or one who has someone sick at home. These examples teach the great mutual responsibility that reveals itself precisely in the Mikdash.[6]

 

THE CITY OF JERUSALEM AS AN EXPRESSION OF THE UNITY OF ALL OF ISRAEL

 

            The history of Jerusalem points to Jerusalem as a united city.

 

1. JERUSALEM IN THE TORAH

 

Avraham called it "Yera'eh," as it is stated: "And Avraham called the name of that place Ado-nai Yera'eh" (Bereishit 22:14). Shem called it "Shalem," as it is stated: "And Malkitzedek, king of Shalem" (Bereishit 14:18). The Holy One, blessed be He, said: If I call it "Yera'eh," as Avraham had called it, Shem the righteous man will be disturbed, and if I call it "Shalem," Avraham the righteous man will be disturbed. Rather, I will call it "Yerushalayim," as they both called it, "Yera'eh-Shalem," "Yerushalayim." (Bereishit Rabba 26:79)

 

            The midrash interprets the name Yerushalayim based on two different names connected to Jerusalem. The first, "Shalem," is connected to Avraham's meeting with Malkhitzedek, king of Shalem, in the wake of Avraham's victory over the four kings. The second, "Yera'eh," is the name that Avraham gives to the place to which God had commanded him to go. Avraham is the first to interpret the name of Mount Moriya and call the place "Ado-nai Yera'eh."

 

            At first glance, these are two entirely different events, with no connection between them. The midrash, however, understands that it was God's will to consider both people - Shem the son of Noach (whom Chazal identify with Malkitzedek king of Shalem) and Avraham - and in order to do so, God includes the new names that they assigned to the place in the name of "Jerusalem": Yera'eh-Shalem, Yerushalayim.

 

            The doubling suffix in the name Yerushalayim points to the two dimensions of Jerusalem and to God's desire to unite the two names, the name given by Malkitzedek king of Shalem, the Noachide, and the name given by Avraham.[7] There is here a desire for unity, for reconciliation between the two dimensions that lie at the foundation of the name and essence of Jerusalem - between interpersonal relations and the relationship between man and God, between justice and fear, and the like.

 

            R. Mordekhai Breuer, in his article on Avraham's journey to Eretz Yisrael, also relates to Avraham's main stops in the country:

 

He first passed through Shekhem and Bet-El, which would eventually be central cities in the kingdom of Ephraim; and after Lot separated from him, he reached Hebron, which would in the future be the royal city of Yehuda. However, neither on this journey nor on any of his other journeys in the Land of Canaan did Avraham arrive in Jerusalem. This can be understood in light of what has been explained here. Separation is a central theme in the book of Bereishit; all the good that is revealed in this book leads automatically to a rejection of the chaff. This process of selection and rejection results in a chain of separations, which are characteristics of this book: from the quarrel between Kayin and Hevel to the transfer of the birthright from Menasheh to Ephraim. This is the reason that Avraham only reached Shekhem and Bet-El, the cities of Ephraim, and Hebron in Yehuda. He could not reach Jerusalem, for Jerusalem is situated between Shekhem and Bet-El and Hebron and includes them all, creating unity between them. David also reached Jerusalem from Hebron only after he ceased being the king of Yehuda and became the king of all Israel. It turns out that Jerusalem is above the division that rules the books of Bereishit. It is the city "that was not divided among the tribes" (Yoma 12a); by the very fact that it is the capital of all of Israel, it symbolizes the ideal vision of connection that will eventually overcome the separation.[8]

 

… And at this time of the revelation of the mystery of unity, the time of Jerusalem already arrived; for Avraham already merited this level which is above the usual world of the book of Bereishit. For this reason, he no longer sees only Shekhem and Bet-El on this side and Hebron on the other; rather he already merits seeing Jerusalem, which is located between them and embraces all of them. Accordingly, immediately "after his return from the slaughter of Kedorla'omer and the kings that were with him," he meets with Malkitzedek the king of Shalem, who brings him the blessing of Jerusalem. For the vision of the unity of Jerusalem was realized through Avraham's victory; for his net was now spread even to Sedom, and all the nations who dwelled to the west and to the east were united under him.

 

It was, however, only for a short time that Jerusalem was revealed to Avraham. For Avraham understood that the time was not yet ripe for the realization of the vision of the unity of Jerusalem, because the world was still a world of duality.[9]

 

            Unlike Cassuto, R. Breuer emphasizes the significance of the cities that Avraham passed through. Shekhem and Bet-El would in the future play a central role in the kingdom of Israel, Shekhem as the capital city and Bet-El as an important ritual site, where Yerov'am would set up one of golden calves near the southern border of his kingdom. Hebron would in the future serve as the capital of the kingdom of Yehuda in the days of David before he ruled over all of Israel in Jerusalem.

 

            In his journeys, Avraham strives to reach the place that he is interested in settling – Hebron. But after he settles in Hebron, Avraham is forced to go out to war, in the wake of which, upon his return from victory, he reaches Jerusalem as well.

 

            Avraham reaches Shekhem and Bet-El together with Lot, but in Bet-El they part ways; he arrives in Hebron alone, without Lot. For a short time, Avraham and Lot reconnect in Jerusalem. Thus, the unity of Jerusalem reveals itself only for a moment, before Avraham and Lot separate a second time.

 

            It turns out, then, that Avraham passes through the cities that in the future will represent the divided reality (Shekhem, Bet-El and Hebron), in which there are two kingdoms – Israel and Yehuda – each with its own capital.

 

            This stands in contrast to Jerusalem, which Avraham reaches not in the framework of his travels, but in the aftermath of war. This alludes to the reality of that ideal unity that is symbolized by Jerusalem, a unity that is capable of joining together Shekhem and Hebron.

 

2. JERUSALEM DURING THE PERIOD OF THE CONQUEST AND SETTLEMENT – THE DIVISION OF JERUSALEM AMONG THE TRIBES

 

            The gemara records a Tannaitic dispute concerning the law governing Jerusalem:

 

The first Tanna holds Jerusalem was not divided among the tribes, whereas R. Yehuda holds Jerusalem was divided among the tribes. (Yoma 12a)

 

            The Rambam codifies as law what the gemara’s statement in Bava Kama (82b) than ten special laws applied to Jerusalem. The reason for several of these ordinances is the fact that Jerusalem was not divided among the tribes:

 

That a house sold there should not be liable to become irredeemable — for it is written: "Then the house that is in the walled city shall be made sure in perpetuity to him that bought it throughout his generations" (Vayikra 25:30), and as it is maintained that Jerusalem was not divided among the tribes. That it should never bring a heifer whose neck is broken — as it is written: "If one be found slain in the land which the Lord your God gives you to possess it" (Devarim 21:1), and Jerusalem [could not be included, as it] was not divided among the tribes. That it could never be made a condemned city — for it is written: "[One of] your cities" (Devarim 13:13), and Jerusalem was not divided among the tribes.[10] (Hilkhot Bet Ha-bechira 7:14)

 

            The Tosefta in Ma'aser Sheni (1) adds: "Homes can not be rented out in Jerusalem, because they are not theirs."

 

            The objective of all these laws is to emphasize the equality and unity of everyone in Jerusalem. The pilgrims on the three pilgrimage festivals would lodge in the houses of the Jerusalemites, because Jerusalem had not been divided among the tribes. It is reasonable to assume that this ordinance allowed people to feel on the pilgrimage festivals the statement of Chazal in the Yerushalmi in Chagiga: "‘Jerusalem built as a city that is compact [she-chubra] together’ (Tehillim 122:3) – a city that turns all of Israel into chaverim." This was achieved during the festivals, when the barriers separating between chaverim and amei aratzot were removed; at the time of a festival, everyone is presumed to be ritually pure, as they wish to go up to the Temple Mount or to eat of sacrificial meat.

 

3. THE DAVIDIC KINGDOM

 

            David's selection of Jerusalem (II Shmuel 5:1-6; and I Divrei Ha-yamim 11:1)

 

            One of the weighty questions regarding the settlement of Jerusalem is why it took more than four hundred years after the conquest of Eretz Yisrael until the conquest and settlement of Jerusalem in the days of David.[11]

 

            Scripture does not relate directly to this question, but one possible explanation is that it was fitting that Jerusalem be conquered by a king who ruled over a unified Israel, and not by a particular tribe. This follows from the words of the Radak:

 

Perhaps the reason was from God that the citadel not be conquered until the rule of David king of Israel, so that it be called by his name, since he was the head of the kingdom of Israel. (Radak, Yehoshua 15:63)

 

            This explanation accords with what we said in the previous lecture regarding the fact that the name of Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Torah. We saw that the Rambam (Guide of the Perplexed III:45) explains that the objective was to reach the place out of unity, and not out of dissension. According to this understanding, the role of the king is "to unify our nation and lead all of us" (Rambam, Sefer Ha-mitzvot, commandment no. 176), "and the heart of the king is the heart of the entire congregation of Israel" (Hilkhot Melakhim 3:6).

 

            This is what the Radak writes in his commentary with respect to the conquest of Jerusalem:

 

And in Divrei Ha-yamim it is stated: "And David went with all of Israel." For they had a tradition that Zion would be the capital of the kingdom of Israel, and that it would only be captured by one who reigned as king over all of Israel. (Radak, II Shmuel 5:6)

 

Unification of Rachel and Leah

 

            We have already noted that the primary reason that brought David to Jerusalem was his desire to unify all of the tribes, and especially the two opposing tribes of Yehuda and Binyamin, who represent the children of Rachel and the children of Leah. David does not choose Hebron, the natural alternative of the territory of Yehuda, but instead chooses Jerusalem. (See also the tribal borders mentioned in Yehoshua 15:7-9, 63 and 18:27; Shoftim 1:8, 21; and the reference in Rut 4:11).

 

            The inhabitants of Jerusalem at the time of David

 

            An examination of those living in Jerusalem during the days of David reveals that its inhabitants included people from all of the tribes. This is especially striking in the book of Divrei Ha-yamim, and it may even provide historical support for Chazal’s stance that Jerusalem was not divided among the tribes. Among the inhabitants of Jerusalem known to us in the time of David are:

 

• David's warriors, who came from different tribes (II Shemuel 23:8-39 and I Divrei Ha-yamim 11:10-47 and 12).
• Members of the family of Shaul and other notables from the tribe of Binyamin (I Divrei Ha-yamim 8:28; 9:38).

·         “And in Jerusalem dwelt some of the children of Yehuda, and some of the children of Binyamin, and some of the children of Ephraim and Menasheh… and of the priests … and of the Levites… These were chiefs of fathers' houses of the Levites, chief men by their generations; these dwelt in Jerusalem." (I Divrei Ha-yamim 9:3, 10, 14, 34)

 

            Unification of the worldly kingdom and the resting of the Shekhina   

  

            The fact that Jerusalem represents the unification of the site of worldly kingdom and the site of the resting of the Shekhina is attested to by the choice of Jerusalem on the border between Yehuda and Binyamin, the tribes that represent worldly kingdom (Yehuda) and the territory of the Shekhina (Binyamin).

           

            David was the first to try to establish in one place the site of the resting of the Shekhina and the site of the worldly kingdom. Several actions taken by David during his lifetime point to this idea:

 

• • Bringing the ark from Kiryat-Ye'arim to Jerusalem (II Shmuel 6; I Divrei Ha-yamim 14:15).
  • Leaving the ark in Jerusalem when he fled during the rebellion of Avshalom (II Shmuel 15:25-26).
  • Seeking out the site of the Mikdash, acquiring it, and making all the preparations to build the Mikdash on Mount Moriya in Jerusalem.

 

In this David is different from Shaul, who established his capital city in Giv'at Shaul (Ha-Giv'a, Giv'at Binyamin), detached from the Mishkan (which was in Nov and afterwards in Giv'on), while the ark was in Kiryat-Ye'arim.

 

It was Shlomo who perpetuated David's establishment of Jerusalem as the site of both the Shekhina and worldly kingdom by building the Mikdash, building the royal house as a link between the city and the house of God, and encircling the city and the Mikdash with a single wall.

 

4. THE KINGDOM OF SHLOMO

 

            What is the practical significance of, "O Jerusalem, built as a city that is compact together" (Tehillim 122:3), beyond the symbolic significance?

 

            Some wish to argue that the reference is to the expansion of the city westward during the period of Chizkiyahu, when Jerusalem expanded to the entire western ridge. "Compact together" thus refers to the joining of the City of David and Mount Moriya on the eastern ridge to the western ridge.

 

            We prefer the view that the reference is to the joining of the royal city to the site of the Mikdash. This joining was executed in full and perfect fashion by King Shlomo as a direct continuation of David's work:

 

• The building of the house of God (I Melakhim 6-7) and its incorporation into the city through the building of a wall that surrounded the city and the Mikdash (I Melakhim 9:15). In this way, he joined "Shalem" and "Ye'ra'eh," the city and the Mikdash.
• The building of the royal house as part of the entire entity of the house of God (I Melakhim 7:1-12).
• The location of the royal house also points to the connection between the city and the house of God. The royal house was built at the foot of the house of God – in the Milo (I Melakhim 9:24; II Divrei Ha-yamim 5:11) - representing the kingdom as a whole, which brought individuals together and turned them into a single nation that would serve God with a single heart.

 

5. JERUSALEM IN THE DIVIDED KINGDOM

 

            The selection of Jerusalem was made in parallel to the selection of the kingdom of the Davidic house:

Since the day that I brought My people out of the land of Egypt, I chose no city among all the tribes of Israel to build a house in, that My name might be there; nor did I chose any man to be a ruler over My people Israel. But I have chosen Jerusalem, that My name might be there; and I have chosen David to be over My people Israel. (II Divrei Ha-yamim 6:5-6)

 

            These verses emphasize that the selection of Jerusalem as the city of the Mikdash paralleled the selection of David as king of Israel.

 

            It is interesting that Yerov'am cunningly exploits this point, through which he tries to designate an additional Temple city. Yerov'am tries to use the fact that God established him as king over the ten tribes, so that he would enjoy legitimacy not only to rule as king, but also to establish his own Temple city, in absolute contradiction to what is stated in the prophecy.

 

            One of the amazing things that happen at the time of the division of the kingdom is that the tribe of Binyamin joins with the tribe of Yehuda, although we might have expected that Binyamin would join with the children of Yosef, Efrayim and Menasheh, and the kingdom of Israel.

 

            In order to understand this, we must understand the relationship between the two tribes. We have noted in the past that the special connection between these two tribes is expressed already at the end of the book of Bereishit, when the arrival of Binyamin makes it possible for the brothers to unite. What stands out there is Yehuda's offering himself as a surety for Binyamin.

 

            The continuation of the connection between the two tribes is found in the midrashic exposition describing David's guarantee for Shaul in his fight against Golyat and the Philistines as a continuation of Yehuda's guarantee for Binyamin in Egypt, and later in Binyamin's joining with Yehuda at the time of the division of the kingdom.

 

            Another point arises from the description of the division of the kingdom in the book of Melakhim:

 

And he said to Yerov'am: Take you ten pieces, for thus says the Lord, the God of Israel: Behold I will rend the kingdom out of the hand of Shlomo, and will give ten tribes to you. But he shall have one tribe for My servant David's sake, and for Jerusalem's sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel. (I Melakhim 11:31-32)

 

From the words of the prophet, there seem to be 11 pieces - but there were 12 tribes! Several answers have been suggested to this question. I will cite here the understanding of my revered teacher, R. Yaakov Medan, which is based on a precise reading of the verse. In his view, the verse should be read as follows:

 

"But he shall have one tribe for My servant David's sake" – this is the tribe of Yehuda.

"But he shall have one tribe… for Jerusalem's sake, the city which I have chosen out of all the tribes of Israel" – this is the tribe of Binyamin.

 

            In other words, the tribe of Yehuda is the tribe of kingship “for my servant David's sake,” whereas the tribe of Binyamin is the tribe “for the sake of Jerusalem.” It is only the joining of Binyamin to the tribe of Yehuda that makes it possible to defend Jerusalem, a city in the center on the border between Binyamin and Yehuda. Had Binyamin joined the kingdom of Israel, Jerusalem would have been a border city, and therefore Binyamin's joining with Yehuda makes it possible to leave Jerusalem as the capital city at the heart of the combined territories of the two tribes.

 

6. JERUSALEM AS A PLACE THAT UNITES THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL AND YEHUDA AROUND JERUSALEM AND THE MIKDASH

 

            Divrei Ha-yamim describes a grand celebration of Pesach in Jerusalem with the participation of representatives of the kingdom of Israel both in the days of Chizkiyahu and in the days of Yoshiyahu (II Divrei Ha-yamim 2:30 and 6:34-35). In the time of Chizkiya, we are dealing with the final hours of the kingdom of Israel, whereas in the time of Yoshiyahu, the kingdom of Israel no longer exists. Pesach is the festival on which the people of Israel enter into a covenant with God around the Mikdash, within the walls of Jerusalem, with all of Israel eating at heaven's table.

 

7. THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM AND THE MIKDASH BECAUSE OF THE ABSENCE OF JUSTICE

 

            The first explicit prophecy that heralds the destruction of Jerusalem and the Mikdash is the prophecy of Mikha:[12]

 

Hear this, I pray you, you heads of the house of Yaakov, and rulers of the house of Israel, that abhor justice, and pervert all equity; that build up Zion with blood, and Jerusalem with iniquity. The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money: yet will they lean upon the Lord, and say, Is not the Lord among us? No evil can come upon us. Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed like a field, and Jerusalem shall become heaps of rubble, and the mountain of the house like the high places of the forest. (Mikha 3:9-12)

 

            The primary reason for the destruction is the lack of justice at all levels of the nation's leadership: the heads, the priests, and the prophets. Justice, which is the essence and the name of the city, does not allow it to exist, when justice is not realized within it. The decree of destruction was issued in the days of King Menasheh, with Scripture emphasizing that idolatry and the shedding of innocent blood  are additional reasons for the destruction of the city (II Melakhim 21:10-17; II Melakhim 24:3-4; Yirmiyahu 15:4). Idolatry and murder are the opposite of the fear of God and the peace of Jerusalem, and therefore Jerusalem can no longer stand.

 

            It is clear that the destruction of the city and the Mikdash during the Second Temple period because of baseless hatred (Yoma 9) is the very opposite of the unity that is also one of the symbols of the city.

 

8. THE FUTURE REBUILDING OF JERUSALEM

 

            Several sources in Chazal draw a connection between the future rebuilding of the city and the ingathering of all the exiles of Israel. Thus, for example:

 

 

"The Lord builds up Jerusalem. He gathers together the dispersed of Israel" (Tehillim 147:2) - When does God build Jerusalem? When He gathers the dispersed of Israel. (Berakhot 49b)

 

R. Shmuel bar Nachmani said: There is an aggadic tradition that Jerusalem will not be rebuilt until all the exiles have been ingathered. If someone tells you that all the exiles have been gathered in, but Jerusalem is not rebuilt, do not believe him, for it is stated: "The Lord builds up Jerusalem. He gathers together the dispersed of Israel." (Midrash Tanchuma Ha-kadum 98)

 

            On the other hand, Chazal draw a connection between rejoicing with a bridegroom and his bride and restoring one of the ruins of Jerusalem:

 

And if he does gladden [the bridegroom] what is his reward?… R. Nachman bar Yitzchak says: It is as if he had restored one of the ruins of Jerusalem. For it says: "For I will cause the captivity of the land to return as at the first, says the Lord" (Yirmiyahu 33:2). (Berakhot 6b)

 

            From here we see that there is a connection between the building of Jerusalem and the joy that binds a bridegroom to his bride.

 

            An examination of these sources reveals an important point that characterizes Jerusalem, namely, the unity that binds all of Israel together: in the very selection of the city as the capital, in the various stages of its construction, in its destruction and in its future rebuilding.

 

            It is interesting to see the clear relationship between Jerusalem and the Mikdash on this issue. In certain senses, Jerusalem extends the Mikdash and its sanctity to the entire city.

 

            We have previously dealt with Jerusalem and the Mikdash as sites of justice and sites of peace. In this lecture, we dealt with Jerusalem and the Mikdash as sites of unity. It is clear that justice, peace and unity each sharpen a particular aspect of the relationship between man and his fellow, and it is interesting that Jerusalem and the Mikdash include all of them.

 

(Translated by David Strauss) 

, full_html