דֶּ֣רֶךְ עָ֭צֵל כִּמְשֻׂ֣כַת חָ֑דֶק וְאֹ֖רַח יְשָׁרִ֣ים סְלֻלָֽה׃
Jalan si pemalas seperti pagar duri, tetapi jalan orang jujur adalah jalan raya yang rata.
Rabbeinu Bahya
When a person is diligent in perfecting his character traits he will experience that he enjoys constant personality growth. He will find that every day he is walking in a forward direction, never regressing (Jeremiah 7,24). Concerning the people mentioned by Jeremiah, Solomon said (Proverbs 15,19): “the way of the lazy man is like a hedge of thorns, but the way of the upright is paved.” A lazy man has prevented himself from making progress by his very laziness. Instead of progressing morally and ethically he regresses using his lethargic manner to prevent him from accomplishing anything. If we were to compare such a man to a wheat field with all its potential to produce a useful crop, he would instead produce only nettles. Solomon employs this parable when saying in Proverbs 24,30-31: “I have passed by the field of the lazy man, and passed the vineyard of the man devoid of understanding. Here it was, all overgrown with thorns; its surface was covered with nettles, its stone fence was broken down. Solomon compared a person who is too lazy to perfect his personality to a farmer who is too lazy to tend the various forms of labour required to produce a crop. Seeing that most people do have the energy to bestir themselves in the pursuit of silver or gold, Solomon demands that they apply themselves with equal vigour to the study of Torah and the ethical imperatives contained in the Torah. Torah is also called מוסר “ethical teaching,” as we know from Proverbs 6,23 ודרך חיים תוכחת מוסר, “instructive rebukes are a way of life.” By applying these teachings to oneself man acquires eternal life in the hereafter where he will feast on the glory of the Shechinah. Our sages in Proverbs 2,21 interpreted the words: “for the upright dwell on earth, and the blameless will remain on it,” to mean that the word ישכנו in that verse is a reference to these people enjoying the glory of the Shechinah when their time comes to move to the celestial regions. The Shechinah is always close to the Torah. When G’d gave the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai the Torah wrote (Exodus 24,16) וישכון כבוד ה’ על הר סיני, “the Shechinah of G’d rested on Mount Sinai as the attribute of כבוד, ‘honour, glory.’” “It”, i.e. the Torah, is the cause that the Shechinah rested on Mount Sinai when G’d revealed Himself there, and the word וישכון refers to a hidden presence of the Shechinah, whereas the word כבוד refers to the revealed nature of that appearance of the Shechinah during the giving of the Torah. This was confirmed when the Torah described this manifestation in Exodus 24,17 as ומראה כבוד ה’ כאש אוכלת בראש ההר לעיני בני ישראל. “Now the Presence of the Lord appeared in the sight of the Israelites as a consuming fire on the top of the mountain.” Later on, when the Tabernacle was constructed, this Shechinah was hidden inside the Holy of Holies and in order to proceed with the construction of the Tabernacle housing the Shechinah the people were bidden to bring their respective contributions.
Rashi
behold I will close off Heb. שָׂךְ an expression of closing. Comp. (Isaiah 5:5) “remove its hedge (מְשׂוּכָּתוֹ)”; (Proverbs 15:19) “as though hedged (כִּמְשֻּׂכַת) by thorns.”
Ramban
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.
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.