וַיֹּ֨סֶף ע֜וֹד לְדַבֵּ֤ר אֵלָיו֙ וַיֹּאמַ֔ר אוּלַ֛י יִמָּצְא֥וּן שָׁ֖ם אַרְבָּעִ֑ים וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ לֹ֣א אֶֽעֱשֶׂ֔ה בַּעֲב֖וּר הָאַרְבָּעִֽים׃
At muli pa siyang nagsalita sa kaniya, at sinabi, “Marahil ay may masusumpungan doon na apatnapu.” At sinabi niya, “Hindi ko gagawin ito alang-alang sa apatnapu.”
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.
Rav Hirsch
VV. 31 u. 32. ויאמר אל נא וגו׳. Die Bitte erschien in den vorhergehenden Versen vom Standpunkte des Interesses Chobabs geäußert: לכה אתנו והטבנו לך. Sie hatte er zurückgewiesen: לא אלך וגו׳, ich möchte um keines Vorteils willen auf Heimat und Vaterland verzichten. Mosche wiederholt sie daher und erklärt sie näher: אל נא תעזב אתנו, dein Hierbleiben ist uns Bedürfnis, dein Fortgehen wäre ein "Verlassen" כי על כן וגו׳: denn nicht in deinem Interesse, sondern deshalb habe ich dich gebeten (siehe Schmot 18, 5) ידעת וגו׳: du besitzest die Terrainkunde für unser Lagern in der Wüste, du kennst dort jede Örtlichkeit, und überall, wo wir von Gott angewiesen werden unser Lager aufzuschlagen, da sind dir alle örtlichen Vorteile bekannt, die wir zum Aufenthalt benutzen können. והיית לנו לעינים: du kannst uns dort zu Augen dienen, kannst uns deine örtliche Kenntnis und Einsicht zugute kommen lassen, und wenn ich והטבנו לך geäußert, so habe ich nicht an eine Belohnung gedacht, sondern הטוב ההוא וגו׳ והטבנו לך Ersatz sollst du bei uns finden für Heimat und Vaterland, die du um unsertwillen aufgibst. Durch das Opfer, das du uns bringst, und den großen Nutzen, den du uns schaffst, erwirbst du dir das Recht und erwächst uns die Verpflichtung, dir Land und Heimat unter uns zu gewähren. An dem Lande, das Gott uns gibt, (es ist dies das טוב in Mosche erster Anrede V. 29) werden wir dir Anteil geben. Indem diese Gewährung mit demselben Ausdruck geäußert wird, der für die Bezeichnung der Gewährung des Landes an Israel gebraucht ist: אשר ייטיב ד׳ עמנו והטבנו לך, so dürfte darin die Feinheit liegen: du brauchst dich nicht zu scheuen dies, als wäre es eine Wohltat, von uns anzunehmen; wir selber erhalten ja alle das Land ebenso nur als Wohltat aus Gottes Händen, und was uns eine reine Wohltat ist, טובה עמנו, das ist für dich eine dir gebührende: טובה לך. Die Tatsache, daß Richter 1, 16 Nachkommen von Mosche Schwiegervater עיר התמרים, die Dattelstadt, nach Chron. II. 28, 15 Jericho: יריחו עיר התמרים, bewohnten, spricht dafür, daß Chobab Mosche Bitte erfüllte und mit Israel ins Land zog, und muss derselbe nach seiner ersten Heimkehr (Schmot 28, 27) Mosche wieder in der Wüste besucht haben. In dieser Stelle, Richter 1, 16, wird der Schwiegervater Mosche קיני genannt, und scheint dieser Name seine Abstammung zu bezeichnen. Jedenfalls stammen die בני קיני von חובב, dem Schwiegervater Mosche. Denn Richter 4, 11 heißt es ausdrücklich: וחבר הקיני נפרד מקין מבני חובב חתן משה, und als Saul (Sam. 1, 15) gegen Amalek auszog und einen kenitischen Zweig unter der amalekitischen Bevölkerung fand, forderte er sie (daselbst 6) auf, aus Amalek fortzuziehen, damit sie nicht in Mitleidenschaft gerieten und motivierte diese Aufforderung: ואתה עשיתה חסד עם כל בני ישראל בעלותם ממצרים. So bewahrte Israel dankbar das Andenken an die von Mosche Schwiegervater genossenen Dienste. Die fruchtreichste Gegend um Jericho, דושנה של יריחו, wurde nach dem ספרי z. St, den Nachkommen Jitros eingeräumt, die sie vierhundertvierzig Jahre bis zum Tempelbau bewohnten. Aber auch Jitros חובבErnst vererbte sich unter seinen Kindern. Sie, die קינים הבאים מחמת אבי בית רכב, bildeten nicht nur die משפחות סופרים, die durch Pflege der Wissenschaft hervorleuchtenden jüdischen Familien, die יושבי יעבץ, die ihre reichen Gefilde um Jericho verließen, um in der Wüste Juda sich dem in geistiger Meisterschaft leuchtenden Jaabez als Jünger anzuschließen (Chron. I. 2, 55 und 4, 9 u. 10, sowie Richter 1, 16 ספרי z. St.), wie aus dem angeführten Zitat erhellt, waren sie auch בית רכב, die Rechabiten, die, der Weisung ihres großen Ahns Jonadab getreu, früh schon das staatliche Verderbnis erkannten und mieden, auf Acker und Land, auf feste Wohnsitze und Weingenuss verzichtend, ein ewiges Nomadenleben gelobten, um sich und ihren Nachkommen Freiheit und Sittenreinheit zu retten, und – sich vielleicht noch bis heute in den Rechabiten der arabischen Wüste erhalten haben, getragen von der göttlichen Verheißung: לא יכרת איש ליונדב בן רכב עמד לפני כל הימים (Jirmija 35, 2-19).