“You have declared today regarding Hashem, that He shall be your G-d, and that you shall follow in His ways, and that you will keep His statutes and His commandments and His laws, and that you will listen to His voice. And Hashem has declared about you today that you will be a treasured nation to Him, as He has told you, and will keep all of His commandments. And will raise your status above all the nations that He made, for praise, and for renown, and for glory, and that you will be a holy nation to Hashem your G-d, as He has spoken.” These verses (D’varim 26:17-19) are much more difficult to translate than they are to understand, but the specifics are extremely important since they are a summation of our covenant with G-d. [This covenant is about to be re-entered, and its specifics described, which is why these “declarations” (one of the words whose translation the commentators grapple with) are being made “today.”]
One of the clauses of this summation is the topic of much discussion, as it seems to appear on both sides of the agreement. We agreed to “keep G-d’s statutes, commandments and laws” while G-d agreed “to keep all of His commandments.” Or has He? What does it mean that G-d will keep His own commandments? And if it means that we will keep His commandments, why is it included in the list of things that G-d will do for us? Additionally, why is the word “all” included with His obligation, but not with ours? Is it a way of including all the categories (“statutes, commandments and laws”) without having to mention them explicitly?
Rabbeinu Bachye sidesteps these questions by explaining the words “to keep all of His commandments” not as one of G-d’s covenantal obligations, but as a condition for His previously mentioned commitment to consider us His “treasured nation.” In other words, only if we keep all of His mitzvos are we worthy enough to be His “treasured nation.” However, if this was the intent of the words “to keep all of His commandments,” it should have said “if the commandments are kept” or “when” they are kept; the way it is worded indicates that it’s a separate clause, not part of the previous one.
[Interestingly, Rabbeinu Bachye’s approach indicates that the covenant can never be broken. Otherwise, by not keeping His commandments we didn’t fulfill our covenantal obligation; needing to specify that being His “treasured nation” (and only that clause) is contingent upon our keeping His commandments is only necessary if the covenant is still in force despite our having failed to do our part. The other clauses of G-d’s promise are apparently still in effect even if we don’t “keep all of His commandments.”]
Ramban (see also Alshich) understands the clause “to keep all of His commandments” to mean that G-d has given His Torah only to us, not to the other nations. Keeping the mitzvos is an honor and a privilege, and G-d is declaring that this honor and privilege is reserved for us. Meshech Chachmah has a similar approach, adding that the word “all” is included because there are some commandments that apply to everyone (i.e. the Noachide laws), some that can be done by anyone (even if non-Jews aren‘t obligated to), and some (e.g. keeping Shabbos and learning Torah) that non-Jews are prohibited from keeping; we are the only nation that can keep “all” the commandments. Or Hachayim suggests that the comparison is between the Nation of Israel and the righteous individuals who lived prior to our becoming G-d’s treasured nation (at Sinai), such as Adam, Noach and the Patriarchs, as we were given “all of His mitzvos,” whereas they were only commanded a few.
The main drawback of this approach (and its variations) is the switching back and forth between who the subject doing the action is. G-d does the “declaring” and G-d “raises” us above the others, yet in-between it is we who do the “keeping” of the commandments. Granted, it is difficult to have G-d be the one “keeping” His own commandments (which is part of our original difficulty), but that doesn’t make the issue of switching back and forth disappear. It is possible to make what we positioned as two clauses into one longer two-part clause (as opposed to Rabbeinu Bachye, who made the second part a condition for the first part), with G-d declaring that we are His treasured nation so only we can keep all of His commandments (see S’fornu), but the expression “as He has told you” and the word “and” dividing these two parts, as well as the hard comma of the musical note between them, indicates that they are two separate clauses. It should be noted, though, that Ba’al HaTurim counts six clauses for each side, with the second clause being “raising you above others.” Obviously, he considers us being G-d’s treasured nation and keeping all of His mitzvos as one clause.
Panim Yafos references the Talmud (B’rachos 6a) saying that G-d puts on t’filin (as it were). Since they demonstrate His attachment to us (based on what’s written in His t’filin, much as our t’filin demonstrate our attachment to Him), G-d is promising to keep these types of “commandments,” i.e. ones that demonstrate His commitment to us.
Chasam Sofer references the Talmud (Ta’anis 23a) saying that G-d fulfills the requests of the righteous (see also Avos 2:4), and suggests that the verse is saying that when we are a “treasured nation” He will “keep” our “commandments,” i.e. fulfill our requests (with the word “his” being lower case, referring to the nation).
Malbim explains the words “to keep all of His commandments” to mean enabling us to keep His mitzvos by removing any obstacles that might prevent us from doing them and by providing everything we need to fulfill them. This fits well in the context of the covenant, where the blessings are not a reward for keeping the Torah, but a promise to provide us with the optimal environment to continue to keep it (see Rambam, Hilchos T’shuva 9:1). [Chasam Sofer’s grandson, Rabbi Akiva Sofer (Shir M’on), makes a similar suggestion; since we would not be able to overpower the evil inclination without G-d’s help, He is promising to help us, thereby enabling us to “keep His commandments.] However, this changes the definition of the word “keep” to “enables us to keep,” a definition inconsistent with how the word is used in the previous verse. Nevertheless, since the mitzvos are best “kept” if we have everything we need to fulfill them and nothing prevents us from doing them, it could be argued that this is how G-d “keeps” them.
Netziv says that G-d’s promise “to keep all of His commandments” is based on the fact that “G-d created the world with a structure of the 613 mitzvos, which are what keeps the world going.” By making the world’s existence dependant upon our keeping the Torah, the importance of keeping the mitzvos becomes magnified, helping ensure that we do so. This can be considered how G-d “keeps” His own commandments (similar to Malbim), but Netziv seems to be saying that the way G-d Himself “keeps” the mitzvos is by having the world’s existence tied to them.
Another possibility is based on the corollary to Malbim’s approach. Rather than G-d “keeping all of His commandments” by providing us with the tools (and environment) necessary to keep them, by making sure things go badly when we don’t keep them — either because the world collapses around us when we aren’t providing the spiritual nourishment it needs to work properly or because G-d punishes us for not doing what is incumbent upon us to do — ultimately the mitzvos will be kept (by us).
Although the word “keep” usually refers to the actual observance of the mitzvos, it literally means to “guard” them (which is accomplished by fulfilling them). This is why the need to “build fences” around the Torah, prohibiting things that had been permitted in order to protect it, is learned from the commandment to “keep” the mitzvos (see Y’vamos 21a, based on Vayikra 18:30). G-d “guards” His mitzvos, ensuring that they will be kept, by providing severe consequences for a lack of observance. And it is not just some of His mitzvos that must be kept in order to avoid the consequences; if any are neglected, we will be held accountable (so we must keep “all” of them, and therefore, by extension, G-d is “keeping/guarding” all of them).
These verses (D’varim 26:17-19) are a summation of the covenant between us and G-d, and, as evidenced from the bulk of this Parasha (28:15-69) and Parashas B’chukosai (Vayikra 26:14-46), much of the covenant involves the consequences for not keeping our end of the deal. It is therefore fitting (and perhaps necessary) for this aspect of the covenant to be included in the summation. Not only must we “keep His commandments,” but by spelling out the consequences if we don’t, G-d is also “keeping all of His commandments,” i.e. making sure they will all be kept.
