im b'huqotai teileikhu (If you walk in my statutes) (Leviticus 26:3)

Rashi, quoting the Sifra, comments

You should study the Torah laboriously (she-tihiyu ameilim ba-torah).

Rashi used the word "ameilim," because of the verse (Numbers 19:14) "when a man dies in a tent" (adam ki yamut b'ohel), from which the Sages deduced that the Torah can be perpetuated only by one who exhausts himself in studying it (she-meimit et atzmo aleha, literally: kills himself over it), as the tanna says (Avot 6:3): "to study the Torah laboriously (u-va-torah atah ameil). One's laborious study of the Torah is called exhaustion because by studying the Torah one exhausts his physical desires in order to become holy unto the Eternal, to the Torah, and to the mission of his life. This is implied by the first part of the above mentioned Mishnah: "you shall eat bread with salt and to live a life of hardship" (pat b'melakh tokheil v'hayei tzarah tihyeh) and only then does it say "to study the Torah laboriously." Moreover, the word "halikhah" (walking) is used in reference to death as it is written (Genesis 25:32) "hineih anokhi holeikh la-mut" (I am about to die). Also in connection with David, the Scripture says (1 Kings 2:2): "hineih anokhi holeikh b'derekh kol ha-aretz" (I am about to go the way of all the earth). So since here it is written: "im b'huqotai teileikhu" (If you walk in my statutes), the Sages interpreted the verse to mean if you study the Torah laboriously to the point of exhaustion.

v'natati shalom ba-aretz u-sh'khavtem v'ein maharid

Our master explained that sometimes a person may be at peace with his enemy, because he is constantly on alert with his sword drawn ready for battle, so that his foe is afraid to approach to wage war against him. Such a situation may be called peace, because no evil shall befall him and no scourge will come near his tent. However, this is a conflicted peace, because his soul will find no rest owing to the constant fear that an attacker may come upon him. Better than this is the peace that results when one dwells together with his neighbors who love him as if they were his brothers. Then he need fear no evil, and he will dwell quietly and serenely and prosperously in his home. This is the promise of the Scripture in saying: "And I will give peace in the land" (v'natati shalom ba-aretz). A peace such that you will rest securely and "none will make you tremble" (v'ein maharid) because there is peace all around you.

In this way we can also understand the words of Rashi on the passage "and I will give peace in the land."

Perhaps you will say, "Well there is food and there is drink: but if there is no peace, then all this is nothing." The Scripture therefore states after all these promises "I will give peace in the land."

And the question is obvious: Why would they think that there would not be peace? But we may say that the peace that is being referred to is peace with their enemies from without. In that case, they would indeed have reason to fear that after they have come into a desirable land and into houses filled with every good thing, the surrounding nations would be envious of them and would want to take their land from them. They would then have to remain constantly on alert lest their enemies invade their land like an overflowing river. That is why the Scripture promises them that no one will desire their land and they will dwell upon it securely and no one will cause them to tremble.

v'radphu mi-kem hamishah mei'ah u-mei'ah mi-kem r'vavah

Rashi comments:

But is this the right proportion? Surely it should have stated only "and a hundred of you shall pursue two thousand (and not ten thousand)?

And there have been many who have asked why Rashi was so verbose here saying "surely it should have stated only" (v'halo lo hayah tzarikh lomar ela), all of which seems unnecessary. And the gaon, R. Moshe Harif explained that the word "r'vavah" (ten thousand) could also be interpreted to mean a large number (not necessarily ten thousand). Rashi was therefore asking if, on the one hand, "r'vavah" means ten thousand, is this the right proportion? And if, on the other hand, "r'vavah" means some unspecified large number, why did the Scripture not in fact say "two thousand"?

Our master explained that this answer is still not adequate, for why should the Scripture have said "two thousand"? Would we have been incapable calculating this ourselves? So we must interpret Rashi's words as follows. If "r'vavah" is just an unspecified large number, and the Scripture expected that we ourselves would arrive at the calculation of two thousand by ourselves, then the Scripture ought to have remained silent. For we ourselves could calculate the ratio of five to one hundred. And should we say that the Scripture wished to reduce our need to make such calculations, then the Scripture should have written two thousand explicitly. That is how we must interpret the verbosity of Rashi according to the understanding of the Gaon R. Moshe Harif. However, the text of the Torat Kohanim does not in fact contain the words "v'halo lo hayah tzarikh lomar ela."