Moshe Rabbeinu's deep yearning to experience kedushat ha-makom (geographic sanctity), is articulated in his impassioned plea (Devarim 3:25), "Ebrah na ve-ereh et ha-aretz ha-tovah asher be-ever ha-Yarden ha-har ha-tov ha-zeh ve-halevanon." Rashi explains that "hahar hatov hazeh" refers to the city of Yerushalayim. While Siftei Chachamim and others link this interpretation to the verse in Tehillim (125:2) that describes Yerushalayim as surrounded by mountains ("Yerushalayim harim saviv lah"), the characterization of "hahar hatov" and the context imply that Yerushalyim's association with "hahar" is not merely a geographic marker.
Rashi's identification of Yerushalayim with "hahar hatov" is rooted in the Talmud (Berachot 48b) and the Tosefta (Berachot 1:16). The gemara posits that the Biblical source for birkat ha-mazon includes the various components of that complex recitation. The section "boneh Yerushalayim" is based on the word "hatovah" ("ve-achalta ve-savata u-veirachta et Hashem Elokecha al ha-aretz hatovah asher natan lach") which invokes our verse in Parshat Va-etchanan-"hahar hatov"!
The Tosefta, commenting on the verse in Yirmiyah (32) that records Hashem's anger with Yerushalayim, cites the pasuk in Tehillim (68)-"hahar chamad Elokim le-shivto" to establish that that anger has been replaced by favor. It concludes by citing our verse-"hahar hatov", noting that the Shechinah does not return to Yerushalayim until and unless it attains the stature of "har"!
However, other sources imply that "har" refers to the mikdash and/or har ha-bayit-har hamoriyah. Rashi (Hoshea 3:5), himself, approving quotes the midrash (R' Shimon bar Yochai) to this effect. The verse in Hoshea speaks of Klal Yisrael's repentance-"achar yashvu Benei Yisrael u-bikshu et Hashem Elokeihem ve-eit David malkam u-pachadu el Hashem ve-el tuvo be-acharit ha-yamim". The word "tuvo" constitutes a reference to the mikdash based on our verse-"hahar hatov ha-zeh vehalevanon"! The Brisker Rav (Haggadat Mi-Beit Brisk, p. 248) is purported to have argued that the mikdash cannot be invested with full kedushah unless it is situated on a discernable mountain, based on the pasuk in Tehillim that was cited by the Tosefta in connection with Yerushalayim. He also invokes the verse in the akeida (Bereishit 22:14)-"behar Hashem yeiraeh." Rinat Yitzchak (also citing our Rashi in Va-etchanan , the gemara, and Tosefta in Berachot) questions how "har" could be also identified with har habayit-mikdash in light of the previous sources associating it with Yerushalayim.
Perhaps the ambiguity reflects that while the sanctity of Yerushalayim, har ha-bayyit, and the actual mikdash are distinct in many respects (see Mishneh Keilim, chapter 1), the overlap and reciprocal interrelationship between them defines each of them. We will focus briefly on one particular facet of this complex relationship. Rambam (Hilchot Beit Ha-Bechirah 1:3) formulate the interplay between the three when he notes that once the mikdash was situated in Yerushalayim, it was irrevocably ensconced there. He adds (seemingly superficially): "ve-ein sham bayit le-dorei ha-dorot ela be-yerushalayim bilvad, u-be-har ha-moriyah she-bah..." Instead of proclaiming that the mikdash was restricted to har ha-bayit, he emphasized the Yerushalayim credential that links both mikdash and har habayit and that apparently defines each!
Rambam's view of the overlapping and reciprocal relationship between Yerushalayim, haHar habayit and the mikdash is consistently reflected in numerous contexts. His controversial view (Perush Hamishnayot Sukah and Rosh Hashanah) that Yerushalayim shares the status of "mikdash" regarding lulav and shofar reflects this theme. His apparently gratuitous reference (Hilchot Yesodei Ha-Torah 9:3) to the impact of Yerushalayim in a discussion of the prohibition of shechutei chutz (seemingly exclusively defined by exclusion from the azarah -see Hilchot Maaseh Ha-korbonot 18:2), and his novel view (Hilchot Keli Hamikdash 5:7-formulated as an extension of his omnipresence in the mikdash!) that the Kohen gadol was required to reside in Yerushalayim further reinforces this view. His celebrated definition of "kedushat ha-Shechinah" (Hilchot Beit Ha-Behirah 6:16), sourced in a reference to the mikdash and yet applied equally to the sanctity of Yerushalayim, highlight this approach.
The formative episode of the Akedah acutely reflects this interaction. The Torah (Bereshit 22:2) emphasizes that the drama unfolded on a mountain in eretz hamoriah. Chazal treat this singular sacrificial act as a paradigm for korbonot brought in the mikdash (Rashi op cit, midrash etc.) Yet Chazal also focus on the impact of this seminal act of surrender on the designation of Yerushalayim-"Vayikra Avraham sheim ha-makom hahu Hashem yireh; asher yeiamer hayom Hashem yeiraeh."(midrash- yeiraeh and shaleim [see Bereishit 14:19]= Yerushaleim). The Sifrei (cited also by the tosafists and Ramban SHM) project the idea that Aliyah la-regel, directly related to being present in the mikdash and bringing korbonot, is also a method of encouraging a closer bond with Yerushalayim.
In Jewish thinking, Yerushalayim represents the unity, even the collectivity of Jewish nationhood and Jewish life. Yerushalayim is the quintessential "ir she-chubrah lah yachdav- ha-ir shemechaber zeh la-zeh", the symbol of unity and Jewish identity. The halachah dictates that Yerushalayim lo nitchalkah le-shevatim (Jerusalem was not divided or apportioned to specific tribes, but held in collective ownership of the entire nation). The placement of the mikdash and avodat hakorbanot- the domain of the elite kohanim, in the mecca of Jewish collectivity and national identity captures this extraordinary dialectic and the singular character of halachic avodat Hashem. Once the mikdash was built in Yerushalayim it was inconceivable that it could ever relocate because only within the confines of this unique city that embodied the totality of the nation could the mikdash attain its full spiritual attainment.
The akeidah was a heroic act of surrender, truly a paradigm of korbonot in the mikdash. At the same time, it also marked an crucial transition in the building of the Jewish family-nation, in the initiation of the mesorah. It was a moment in which Avraham, the father of the nation and his son, Yitzchak, the first native born Jew bonded notwithstanding and also because of their different ages, experiences, and personalities. It is the time that they discover one another and truly unite ("avi-beni", "vayelchu sheneihem yachdav"), providing the building block and paradigm for what would later emerge as national unity and collective identity.
It is not surprising that while the impetus of national mourning revolves around the destruction of the mikdash and the disruption of the avodah, the focal point frequently is the tragic fate of the city of Yerushalayim, and by extension, the motif it embodies in Jewish life and law. This is evident in the pesukim in Yirmiyahu, Yeshayahu, and Eichah ("eichah yashvah badad ha-ir rabati am haytah kealmanah..."), in the Tisha B'av kinot, and in the hazkarah of nachem in the boneh Yerushalayim section of shemoneh esreh.
The gemara (Yevamot 43b) characterizes the mourning of Av as "aveilut yeshanah u-derabim", and catalogues some of the features that differentiate it from classical personal aveilut. Perhaps the experience of aveilut yeshanah u-de-rabim would be inconceivable if not for the capacity of individual members of Klal Yisrael to immerse themselves in the Yerushalayim motif of collectivity and national identity. Only through collectivity can one mourn en masse absent a personal relationship with the victims, and only by means of collective national memory can one truly experience loss at such a temporal distance. Thus, aveilut Yerushalayim must be projected centrally in aveilut yeshanah u-derabim both because it is such an essential dimension of the loss itself, and because it provides a mechanism and framework to experience the tragedy.
What is true for the mourning is equally true for the nechamah. Again, Yerushalayim's recovery is targeted. "Nachamu nachamu ami yomar Elokeichem. Dabru al leiv Yerushalayim ve-kireu eileha ki malah tzevaah, ki nirzav avonah, ki lakchah miyad Hashem kiflaim bekol chatotehah." The very capacity to achieve a level of collective and national identification that is a sine qua non for authentic mourning, the embodiment of the Yerushalayim theme, ultimately is itself a basis for teshuvah and for nechamah. [See derashot of Chatam Sofer on the themes of aveilut Tishas Be-av. I hope to elaborate this idea in the future.] In retrospect Yerushalayim is indeed the quintessential "har hatov hazeh". Like a mountain, it is an unmistakable reality and symbol, and an unmoving force, one that cannot be ignored or misconstrued. The fact that this symbol is understood by Chazal to be shared by the mikdash too is both consistent and compelling.