Comentario sobre Génesis 18:24

אולי יש חמשים צדיקים PERADVENTURE THERE BE FIFTY RIGHTEOUS — ten righteous men for each city for there were five localities concerned. Should You, however, say that the righteous cannot save the wicked—but why should You kill the righteous at all?

FIFTY RIGHTEOUS. Rashi wrote: “Ten righteous men for each city. Wilt thou destroy on account of the five.¹⁵⁵Verse 28 here. Nine for each city, and You, the All-Righteous One of the Universe, will be counted with them [to make up the original number of ten]. Perhaps there shall be found there forty.¹⁵⁶Verse 29 here. Then let four cities be saved. So, too, thirty will save three of them, twenty will save two of them, and ten will save one of them. And he did not plead for less than ten since in the generation of the flood there were eight righteous people,¹⁵⁷Noah, his three sons, and their wives. (Rashi.) and they could not save their generation. For nine, in association with G-d, he had already pleaded but found no acceptance.” All these are the words of the Rabbi, of blessed memory.
But I wonder: If so, what is this prayer and supplication which he pleads each and every time, saying, oh let not the Lord be angry;¹⁵⁸Verse 30 here. Behold, now, I have taken upon me to speak?¹⁵⁹Verse 31 here. It is proper that forty should save four cities, and thirty and twenty should save in proportion, just as fifty would save five! Similarly, concerning that which Rashi said, “for nine in association with G-d he had already pleaded but found no acceptance,” it may be asked: When he pleaded about forty-five, [i.e., to save all five cities by having nine righteous men for each city] in association [with G-d to make up ten], and he did not find forty-five, but perhaps he might have found there nine!¹⁶⁰Why then did Abraham not plead for nine men who, in association with G-d, would be ten, and thus save one city, for the principle of using G-d as a tenth was not declared invalid; rather, it was previously inapplicable since there were not forty-five righteous inhabitants. Now it would seem that the intention of the Rabbi¹⁶¹Rashi. is that many righteous people can effect a proportionately greater salvation than a few righteous people can, just as the Sages have said:¹⁶²Sifra, Leviticus 26:8. The wording of the quotations used here is that of Rashi in his commentary to the Torah. (Ibid.) “A few who fulfill the commandments of the Torah cannot compare with the many who fulfill the commandments of the Torah.” And thus,¹⁶³“And thus.” The Tur quoting Ramban writes, “Perhaps.” the Holy One, blessed be He, having conceded that forty-five righteous men in association with the All-Righteous One of the Universe would save all the five cities just as if there were the entire fifty, it follows that if forty could save four cities — in association with the Righteous One, praised be He — they would also save with even thirty and twenty, since He already conceded this association. [Thus, thirty-six would save four, twenty-seven three, eighteen two, and nine one]. And in case you say that He conceded only the case of forty-five because they are many, and perhaps He might not concede the principle of association with the few, as we have said, the refutation is that it is proper for the righteousness of G-d to associate even with the few and save [as many of the cities as possible] since He had conceded the principle of association, for He would not distinguish between the many and the few.¹⁶⁴In other words, having admitted the principle of association in the case of forty-five, there could not be any difference between a larger and smaller group of righteous men with respect to the principle of association. Hence Abraham did not have to ask for nine, for in association with G-d there would be ten, and one city would be saved. But without the principle of association there might be a difference between a larger and smaller group. Hence Abraham had to ask for forty, thirty, twenty and ten. All this is to satisfactorily explain the interpretation of Rashi. Ramban’s own position is made clear further in the text. This is the opinion of the Rabbi.¹⁶¹Rashi.
But the way of the simple meaning of the verses is smooth.¹⁶⁵See Proverbs 15:19. First Abraham said fifty in order to give a perfect number of ten for each city, and then he decreased the number as much as possible, and each time he thought to save all five cities. And I do not know who brought the Rabbi¹⁶¹Rashi. to that which he said.

בתוך העיר, Sodom. The king of Sodom was the senior monarch of all the satellite towns surrounding Sodom.

?האף תספה ולא תשא למקום, even though You are justified in destroying the wicked on account of the righteous, far be it from You to kill the righteous.

?אולי יש חמשים צדיקים בתוך העיר, the words בתוך העיר must be understood as referring exclusively to the city of Sodom, not including its satellites. We know this from G’d’s reply in which He spelled out: in verse 24 “if I find in Sodom 50 righteous men inside the city, etc.” Avraham’s argument could have been that if there would be 50 righteous men in the city of Sodom, it was most likely that also the satellite towns would harbour among their populations some righteous people. Alternately, Avraham may have asked that if there would be a total of 50 good men scattered in the various towns, this should be enough to allow all the cities to escape destruction at this time. G’d might then have mentioned Sodom as an example of all of the cities in the valley, saying that 50 people would suffice for G’d’s forgiveness at this time. He singled out Sodom because Lot, Avraham’s kin, lived in that particular city. Avraham tested the number of righteous men that would be the rock bottom minimum for G’d to suspend all or part of the destruction He had planned.

חמשים צדיקים, “fifty righteous people.” Rashi explains the reason why Avraham commenced with the number 50 as meaning one quorum of ten righteous people in each of these five cities, so that 40 would be able to save the inhabitants of four cities, etc. Nachmanides writes that he is perplexed by Rashi’s comment. If indeed 50 righteous people were enough to save 5 cities, why would it be necessary to pray that 40 righteous people should be enough to save four cities, and so on down the line? Another query against Rashi’s explanation is that it appears that He assumes that G’d Himself can be added to 9 righteous people to complete the quorum of a “holy congregation,” why else would he have asked about 45 righteous people? (seeing that the combination of 9 righteous in each city plus the Lord, would provide 5 quorums which would save all five cities) Why would he not have asked about 9 righteous people, who, with the addition of G’d, would at least be able to save one of the cities? Perhaps, what Rashi meant to convey was that a greater number of righteous people could save more than merely a proportionately greater number of cities. This is why Avraham had to enumerate each scenario separately and repeatedly. Actually, when G’d agreed that if He were to find 45 righteous people, i.e. 9 in each town, He would save all 5 cities, Avraham knew that if there were only 36 such people spread equally over four towns G’d would consider Himself the 10th in each group and four cities would be saved. This pattern could in theory be repeated down to 9. The reason Avraham did not have the audacity to ask about a total of only nine righteous men to whom G’d would be added to form the quorum, was that in all the other examples G’d had already indicated that He Himself would complete the quorum. According to the plain meaning of the text, (as understood by Nachmanides) Avraham commenced by asking about 50 righteous people in order to establish that he realized that unless there was a quorum of 10 good people per town such a town had no claim on the attribute of Mercy. According to this approach, it did not even occur to Avraham to ask for the saving of the cities piecemeal, he only wanted to establish the minimum number of righteous people that would suffice to annul the decree of the destruction of the five cities. According to Ibn Ezra, Avraham did not pray altogether on behalf of these people, had it not been a fact that his nephew Lot lived among them. An unresolved problem is the change for describing destruction, sometimes as לא אשחית, and sometimes לא אעשה, “I will not do it.”

אולי יש חמישים צדיקים בתוך העיר, “supposing there are fifty just people inside the city, etc.” Rashi writes on this that there were a total of five towns in the valley and that by selecting the number fifty, Avraham did not a pick a random number but meant that each of these towns could boast of at least ten righteous people. When Avraham continued speaking about the “missing five righteous people” (verse 28), he meant if G’d would not be prepared to consider Himself as completing the necessary quorum of ten good people in each town by adding Himself to the nine good people who were there already. When, in verse 29, Avraham spoke about only forty good people being found in those five towns, he pleaded for the saving of four out of five of these towns. The same applied when he spoke about thirty good people being found in verse 30 and about twenty good people in verse 31 he referred to thirty good people in three of the towns. When he spoke about twenty good people being found there he meant that there was a quorum of ten good people in two of the towns. Finally, when Avraham pleaded on behalf of ten good people, he meant that there was at least one town which could prove it had such a quorum. Avraham did not bother to mention a smaller number as he knew from Noach’s experience that a lesser number could not suffice to save a generation. When the number of righteous people is below the quorum of ten only the righteous themselves may qualify for salvation. They do not have the power to confer salvation or even a delay of the impending disaster on their peers. Eight people had entered the Ark. Had there been another pair of deserving human beings at that time the deluge might have been delayed or might not have occurred at all.
Furthermore, Avraham had reason to believe that there were ten righteous people in Sodom. He counted Lot and his wife, his four daughters and their respective husbands (or fiances) as making up that quorum. Seeing there were fewer than ten good people whose presence could protect their town against impending doom, G’d departed (verse 33) as soon as He had heard Avraham speak about ten good people. G’d knew that there were no ten good people in Sodom, and He also knew that Avraham would not continue to plead for a lesser number to protect the town they lived in. If Avraham had quasi asked permission to continue for a number fewer than fifty each time he continued, this was because though he thoought that ten people might be sufficient to save a single one of these towns, he nevertheless assumed that the greater the total number of good people the more their combined presence would count to stir G’d’s mercy. We have a comment by Rashi on Leviticus 26,5 that when a great number of people perform the Torah their collective impact on G’d’s response to their conduct is disproportionate to their actual number; in other words, the more people keep the Torah the progressively greater is their influence. Avraham may have reasoned similarly in reverse. In our instance, G’d informed Avraham each time that even the smaller number that Avraham had mentioned would still be sufficient for Him to invoke the attribute of Mercy.
Now to the reason G’d’s response to Avraham’s plea varied, i.e. at first He said: “I will forgive the entire place for their sake (the fifty), whereas later on, G’d once said: “I will not destroy,” and another time He said: “I will not do (it).” When G’d said “I will not destroy, He meant that though the people deserve to be destroyed, He would impose a different kind of punishment as a disciplinary measure. When He said; “I will not do it,” He meant that in the event discussed He would neither destroy the town nor subject it to harsh disciplinary measures. The reason for such mildness was the assumption that there would be ten good people in each of the towns. This entire paragraph teaches us a valuable lesson about the importance of a minimal congregation of ten good people and their impact on the fate of the larger community.

Ten righteous for each city... This is because they are merely individuals until there are ten, when they are called a “congregation.”

בתוך העיר, “within the city;” a reference to the city of Sodom itself. The King of Sodom was chief over satellite towns also, even though these satellite towns had nominally “kings” of their own.

האף תספה ולא תשא למקום, he did not mention the people in the place but referred to the place itself. Avraham could not reasonably expect G’d to forgive the sinners, but he felt that the place could be saved. If the guilty would be wiped out the righteous would at least be able to continue living in that town, and would not have to migrate to a new location. Avraham concentrated on the word כלה, “total destruction,” of which G’d had spoken. The prophet Ezekiel in Ezekiel 22,30 and already in chapter 21, elaborates further on how the impending destruction which overtook Jerusalem in his time could have been stopped. Not only would there have to have been interlocutors such as Avraham, but the sins of the city would have had to be in the main minor sins, i.e. not violence, the sin which provokes G’d’s wrath the most, as we know from the generation of the deluge already. Not only that, but in order for the righteous to be able to save their townsfolk from disaster they must be absolutely righteous, not only barely have more merits than debits in G’d’s ledger of their conduct. In Jeremiah’s time there were righteous people. These were withdrawn, did not mix with the wicked, and did not dare go out into the streets to admonish their countrymen, as they were afraid for their own lives and were not prepared to risk their lives in order to urge their fellow Jews to do penitence. Our author quotes Jeremiah 5,1, Psalms 94,15, 69,12, as well as Ezekiel 14,14 and 14,16 to support his case.

And if You will respond that the righteous will not save... Rashi says this because the verses seem to contradict one other. First Avraham says, “Would You... not bear with the place?” implying he is praying also for the wicked. Then he says, “It would be sacrilege... to kill the righteous with the wicked” implying he is praying for the righteous only. Thus Rashi explains that it means, “And if You will respond that the righteous will not save the wicked...”