Komentaryong Sumisipi para sa Genesis 26:5

אשר אנכי מלמד אתכם. Wiederholt bezeichnet Mosche die Tätigkeit, durch welche er dem Volke die Kenntnis des göttlichen Gesetzes vermittelt hat, nicht als כתיבה, sondern als למוד. Also nicht Schrift, sondern mündliches Wort, mündliche Lehre, תורה שבעל פה, war das Medium, welches das Gottesgesetz im Volke pflanzte, und Mosche gebraucht nicht den Ausdruck הוריתי אתכם ,מורה אתכם ,הורה, sondern: למד. Während הורה, Hiphil von הרה (siehe Bereschit 26, 5), einen geistigen Keim in jemanden legen, vorzugsweise die Förderung geistiger Erkenntnis bedeutet, geht לַמֶד, das ja auch Gewöhnen, Üben bedeutet (und in מלמד הבקר Richter 3, 31 geradezu den das Tier zum Pflügen anhaltenden Treibstock, sowie in למודין der Mischna Kelim 5, 9 zusammenhaltende Reifen bezeichnet), weit über das bloße begriffliche Erkennen hinüber und bezeichnet einen solchen Unterricht, der die praktische Erfüllung im Auge hat und dazu die vollständige Anleitung gibt. Mosches Gesetzlehre war daher im buchstäblichsten Sinne: תלמוד, und "i>Talmud" ist mosaisches Gesetz.

And by way of hint, the Rabbis, of blessed memory, expounded (Bereishit Rabbah 1:4) [that by the] word bereishit (In the beginning), He, may He be blessed, intended to say, [that He created the world] for the sake of the Torah, which is called reishit; and the explanation of the [letter] bet (which is the first letter in bereishit) is that it is a bet [that indicates] causation. And from this [is implied that] anyone who merits [to know the] Torah, merits the whole world and anyone who does not merit [to know the] Torah should not benefit from this world - even for him to set foot on it - unless he provides assistance to those who toil in [the study of] Torah. And they also said (Vayikra Rabbah 36:4) [that He created the world] for the sake of Israel, which is called reishit, as it is written [about Israel] (Jeremiah 2:3), "reishit tevuato" ("the first of His produce"). And this statement does not contradict the first, since the very reason that Israel is called, first is from the angle that they accepted the Torah; and through this were they separated from the [other] nations for fame and praise. And they also said (Bereishit Rabbah 1:4), [that He created the world] for the sake of Avraham and (Vayikra Rabbah 36:4) for the sake of Ya'akov; and it all follows the first reason [for creating the world], 'because Avraham listened to my voice, etc.' They also said (Shabbat 36b) [that He created the world] for the sake of [the] awe [of God], which is called reishit, as it is written (Psalms 111:10), "reishit chocmah, yirat, etc." ("the beginning of wisdom is the awe of God, etc."); since it too is a fundamental principle of the Torah, since if there is no wisdom, there is no awe, and if there is no awe of God, there is no Torah, for [awe of God] is a beautiful storehouse for the Torah.

Because Satan. Rashi is answering the question: Why are both the words “statute” and “Torah” written [for surely one of them would suffice]? Rashi is not asking why either term is used altogether, for in many instances it is written in the Torah [only] “statute,” for example, “This is the statute of the Pesach offering” (Shemos 12:43) and “If you follow my statutes” (Vayikra 26:3). Also “Torah” appears in, “This is the Torah for the burnt-offering, the meal offering, the sin-offering” (Ibid., 7:37) and, “This is the Torah for the sin-offering” (Vayikra 6:2). But here it is written, “This is the statute of the Torah” so why are both [terms] necessary? Furthermore, “statute” is juxtaposed to “Torah” implying that one term defines the other. It is as if Scripture said that the Torah of the [red] cow is a statute. And it is not similar to, “My statutes and My Torah” (Bereishis 26:5) for there “statutes” is an independent term, not modifying [the word] “Torah.” Now, even though the entire Torah is the King’s edict [and we cannot know the reasons for the mitzvot], nonetheless here it serves to notify that there is no reason at all [for this commandment], rather it is an [absolute] edict and it is worthy of acceptance by Yisroel without any known reason for it. This is what Rashi explains [when he says], “Because Satan, etc.” You might [challenge this and] note that in the episode dealing with Midyan’s utensils it is [also] written, “This is the statute of the Torah” (Bamidbar 31:21). The answer is that there too it is referring to the ashes of the [red] cow for it is written, “However, it must be purified with sprinkling water” (Ibid. v. 23). According to the Midrash (see Rashi there) that the verse, “However, it must be purified with sprinkling water” refers to immersion, for the Torah requires the immersion of metal utensils to purify them from the forbidden [foods absorbed within], one must say that the [act of] immersion itself is among those [statutes] that have no reason. [For one may wonder] why one thousand seah of non-mikvah water cannot accomplish [i.e., purify] what forty seah of mikvah water accomplishes. Re”m

for in observing them there is great reward I was careful in its observance because of Your great good that You have hidden away, and according to this usage, עקב is like (Gen. 26:5): “because (עקב) Abraham hearkened to My voice.” Another explanation of עקב רב: The end of the Torah scholars is that they will come to greatness. עקב is an expression of the end, and there is a similar expression in the language of the Mishnah (Sotah 9:15): “At the end (בעקבות) of the exile, prior to the coming of the Messiah.”