Musar su Salmi 27:3

The Zohar, Parshat Lech Lecha item 400 (Sullam edition), commenting on the verse in Psalms 27,3 בזאת אני בוטח, says that the word בזאת refers to the sign of the covenant concluded between G–d and Abraham at the circumcision. This is an ever present sign, since it is part of man's body. It is compared to the emanation מלכות This is what is meant by זאת אות הברית or זאת בריתי, "this is the sign of My covenant, or this is My covenant." We have learned that the expression זה refers to the emanation יסוד, whereas the expression זאת, refers to the emanation מלכות. Since the two always appear linked together, this means that זה and זאת are of the same rank. Because there was a time when David did not observe the requirements of that זאת implied in מלכות, this very מלכות was denied him during the flight from Absalom. At the time when David sinned with Bat Sheva a heavenly voice announced that he would be punished in a manner appropriate to his sin. Since he had transgressed against the spiritual ideal implied in זאת-מלכות, this very מלכות would be denied him. If a man of King David's caliber could become guilty of such a sin, how much more so is this possible for ordinary individuals?

The very concept of a king, מלך, is rooted in the emanation מלכות. We have already shown that the Talmudic dictum of דינא דמלכותא דינא, is based on the word דינא being the name of G–d א-ד-נ-י, the same letters as the words דינא. The mystical dimension of the directive that the king has to write a ספר תורה for himself is that the emanation מלכות "receives" the written Torah, whereas the emanation itself is perceived of as being the "oral Torah." The Torah alludes to this attribute when writing והיתה עמו, "it shall be constantly with him" (17,19). The word והיתה is feminine, whereas the instruction immediately following is masculine, i.e. וקרא בו, "he shall read in it." This results in a union between the concepts represented by the respective emanations תפארת ומלכות. When David (Psalms 119,56) said: זאת היתה לי, this was because he knew that the attribute מלכות is called זאת. It was because David was aware of this that he could say (Psalms 27,3): אם תחנה עלי מחנה לא יירא לבי, אם תקום עלי מלחמה בזאת אני בוטח, "Should an army besiege me, my heart would have no fear; should war beset me, I would still be confident in זאת." In view of such considerations we can understand why the king was commanded not to amass too many horses; after all, we have a principle (Psalm 33,17) that שקר הסוס לתשועה, that "horses are a false hope for deliverance." The king must demonstrate that he relies on זאת, the merit acquired through his Torah writing and Torah study instead. The prohibition to amass too much silver and gold is due to similar considerations. A very wealthy king would tend to hire mercenary soldiers to fight his battles instead of relying on G–d's help. G–d's ability to help in war does not depend on the number of the king's soldiers but on their spiritual preparation. We know this from Judges 7,6 where Gideon sent home all but three hundred of his volunteers. He had first tested their degree of religious observance by the way they scooped drinking water from a pool without going down on their knees (a sign of having once worshipped idols). In 17,16 the Torah links a return to Egypt to the king's possession of an inordinately great number of horses. Amassing horses is an outward sign of lack of reliance on the merit of זאת. Such lack of confidence in G–d will ultimately result in a moral backsliding of the people, an immersion in the moral morass of the Egyptians which originates in the impurity of the menstruant woman. The mystical dimension of the Egyptian philosophy is called מצולת ים, [a term used in the Zohar for Samael and the forces associated with him. The idea is that Samael's domain is beneath the מים העליונים. Ed.] The morally best of Egypt i.e. the attribute of שפחה, is but a maid-servant of ארץ ישראל. The relationship of Hagar (the best of Egypt, spiritually speaking), to Sarah is seen as symbolising this relationship.