We learned (Bava Bathra 78b): R. Shmuel b. Nachmani said in the name of R. Yonathan (Bamidbar 21:27): "Therefore, the rulers say: 'Let us come to Cheshbon, etc.': 'the rulers' — these are the rulers over their yetzer. 'Let us come to Cheshbon' — Let us come and make the world's accounting ['cheshbon' = account], the loss [entailed by the performance] of a mitzvah against its reward; and the reward of a transgression against its loss." The plain meaning is well known: this [the reward of a mitzvah] is forever, and this [the "loss" of a mitzvah] is temporal. Also, this [the "reward" of a transgression] is a negligible pleasure, and this [the reward of a mitzvah] is awesome. For "one moment of pleasure in the world to come is greater than all the pleasures of this world," and the opposite for transgression.
It also seems to me that one should imagine that the two bases of a balance scale are standing before him. On one is written the loss that he will suffer by the performance of a mitzvah, and on the other, the reward. He will see that the reward far outweighs the loss, so that the loss can hardly be seen, and, thereby [i.e., by this visual aid] the yetzer will be smitten. Likewise, with transgressions. Let him imagine that on one side he will see the "reward" of the transgression, and on the other side, the destructive agents, plotting his tortures with sore, bitter afflictions.
(Bamidbar, Ibid.): 'You will be built up and established' — [If you do thus,] you will be built up in this world and established for the world to come." Now when we reflect upon this [we ask]: Why did R. Shmuel b. Nachmani juxtapose this mussar with this verse? How are they related? This would seem to be resolved by what Chazal say (Chagigah 15a): "The tzaddik takes his portion and the portion of his neighbor [the rasha] in Gan Eden; the rasha takes his portion and the portion of his neighbor [the tzaddik] in Gehinnom." Ostensibly, this is difficult. Is He not a G-d of truth and a righteous Judge? Also, to which tzaddik is this portion given? It would seem that the explanation is as follows: The two are living in one city. The rasha always mocks the conduct of the tzaddik, his Torah and his avodah [Divine service], and slanders him to the populace. And the tzaddik strengthens himself and bears his shame and does not enter into a quarrel with him, and continues walking in the way of the L-rd, in His Torah and in His avodah. When they come for judgment in the world to come, the rasha loses his portion of merit. For aside from nor desiring to serve the L-rd, he mocked one who did, and thereby also "cooled off" Divine service in the eyes of men. To whom, then, do all his merits revert? To his neighbor, the tzaddik, whom he mocked and whom he caused shame and humiliation, and who was constantly constrained to strengthen himself so as not to slacken in his service. [This is the purport of: "He (the tzaddik) takes his portion and the portion of his neighbor (the rasha) in Gan Eden."]
As to: "The rasha takes his portion and the portion of his neighbor [the tzaddik] in Gehinnom," this may be understood as follows: By his constant mockery and ridicule of the tzaddik he causes defects in his [the tzaddik's] Divine service, for which the rasha, being the cause of these defects, must take the punishment upon himself.
And now we return to the verse. It is known that in the beginning, the cities belonged to Moav. And the governors say to Sichon and his soldiers: "Let us come to the city of Cheshbon and it will be regarded now as the city of Sichon." And the [mussar] analogue in our instance: The aspects of tikkun [amendment] wrought in Gan Eden by the acts of the reshaim will revert to the tzaddikim, who governed their yetzer and served the L-rd and paid no regard to the reshaim, who shamed them and their service.
They also expounded "the city of Sichon" in a different fashion, viz. (Ibid. 28): "For a fire has gone forth from Cheshbon, a flame from the city of Sichon. It has consumed Ar of Moav, the possessors of Arnon" — If a man makes himself like a young ass [ayir - similar to ir, "city"], which docilely follows the cajoling talk [(sicha, intimated by "Sichon") of its driver], in this case, the yetzer, "A fire will go forth from Cheshbon" — from those who reckon the account of the world, "a flame from the city of Sichon" — the tzaddikim, who are referred to as "sprouts" [sichin, intimated by "Sichon"], and it shall consume those who make no reckoning of their end." The explanation (in my humble opinion) is, according to the other phenomenon of which Chazal apprise us, that the rasha takes his portion and the portion of his neighbor [the tzaddik] in Gehinnom. This is the intent of "for a fire has gone forth from Cheshbon" — that is, the fire of Gehinnom, created by the sins of the tzaddikim will go forth from them, i.e., it will not prevail over them. And over whom will it prevail? Over the reshaim, who make no reckoning of their end. And thus, the conclusion of the verse: "It has consumed Ar of Moav" — intimating that it will consume the lusters, (viz. [Ibid. 25:1): "And the people began to lust after the daughters of Moav"). (Ibid. 21:28): 'the possessors of the heights of Arnon' — the haughty of spirit."
דִּבְרֵי כִּבּוּשִׁין בְּעֵנְיַן חֶשְׁבּוֹן הַנֶּפֶשׁ.
Exhortations to soul-accounting
גָּרְסִינַן (בבבא בתרא דף ע"ח:): אָמַר רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי, אָמַר ר' יוֹנָתָן: מַאי דִּכְתִיב (במדבר כ"א כ"ז): "עַל כֵּן יֹאמְרוּ הַמֹּשְלִים בֹּאוּ חֶשְׁבּוֹן". הַמֹּשְלִים אֵלּוּ הַמּוֹשְׁלִים בְּיִצְרָן. בֹּאוּ חֶשְׁבּוֹן בּוֹאוּ וּנְחַשֵּׁב חֶשְׁבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, הֶפְסֵד מִצְוָה כְּנֶגֶד שְׂכָרָהּ וּשְׂכַר עֲבֵרָה כְּנֶגֶד הֶפְסֵדָהּ. הַפְּשָׁט הַפָּשׁוּט יָדוּעַ, שֶׁזֶּה לְעוֹלָם וְזֶה לִזְמַן, וְגַם שֶׁזֶּה תַּעֲנוּג קָלוּשׁ מְאֹד וְזֶה תַּעֲנוּג נוֹרָא, שֶׁשָּׁעָה אַחַת שֶׁל קֹרַת רוּחַ בָּעוֹלָם הַבָּא הִיא יָפָה מִכָּל חֶלְקֵּי הַתַּעֲנוּג שֶׁל עוֹלָם הַזֶּה, וְכֵן לְהֶפֶךְ לְעִנְיַן עֲבֵרָה.
We learned (Bava Bathra 78b): R. Shmuel b. Nachmani said in the name of R. Yonathan (Bamidbar 21:27): "Therefore, the rulers say: 'Let us come to Cheshbon, etc.': 'the rulers' — these are the rulers over their yetzer. 'Let us come to Cheshbon' — Let us come and make the world's accounting ['cheshbon' = account], the loss [entailed by the performance] of a mitzvah against its reward; and the reward of a transgression against its loss." The plain meaning is well known: this [the reward of a mitzvah] is forever, and this [the "loss" of a mitzvah] is temporal. Also, this [the "reward" of a transgression] is a negligible pleasure, and this [the reward of a mitzvah] is awesome. For "one moment of pleasure in the world to come is greater than all the pleasures of this world," and the opposite for transgression.
וְעוֹד נִרְאֶה לִי, שֶׁיְּצַיֵּר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ שֶׁכַּפּוֹת מֹאזְנַיִם עוֹמְדוֹת לְנֶגְדּוֹ, וּבְכַף אַחַת כָּתוּב הַהֶפְסֵד שֶׁיַּגִּיעַ לוֹ עַל יְדֵי קיּוּם הַמִּצְוָה, וּבְכַף שֶׁכְּנֶגְדָּהּ כָּתוּב הַשָׂכָר, וְתִרְאֶה, כִּי כַּף הַשָּׂכָר מַכְרִיעַ הַרְבֵּה וְהַרְבֵּה יוֹתֵר, עַד שֶׁכִּמְעַט אֵין נִרְאֵית כְּלָל הַכַּף שֶׁכְּנֶגְדָּהּ, וְעַל יְדֵי זֶה יִנָּגֵף הַיֵּצֶר. וְכֵן לְהֶפֶךְ בַּעֲבֵרָה, יְצַיֵּר שֶׁבְּצַד אֶחָד שֶׁל הַכַּף עוֹמֵד הַתַּעֲנוּג שֶׁל הָעֲבֵרָה, וּבְכַף שֶׁכְּנֶגְדָּהּ רוֹאֶה אֶת הַמַּשְׁחִיתִים עוֹמְדִים וּמְחַשְּׁבִים עָלָיו לְיַסְּרוֹ בְּיִסּוּרִים קָשִׁים וּמָרִים.
It also seems to me that one should imagine that the two bases of a balance scale are standing before him. On one is written the loss that he will suffer by the performance of a mitzvah, and on the other, the reward. He will see that the reward far outweighs the loss, so that the loss can hardly be seen, and, thereby [i.e., by this visual aid] the yetzer will be smitten. Likewise, with transgressions. Let him imagine that on one side he will see the "reward" of the transgression, and on the other side, the destructive agents, plotting his tortures with sore, bitter afflictions.
תִּבָּנֶה וְתִכּוֹנֵן תִּבָּנֶה בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְתִכּוֹנֵן לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. עַד כָּאן לְשׁוֹן הַגְּמָרָא שָׁם. וְהִנֵּה כַּאֲשֶׁר נִתְבּוֹנֵן מַאי סָמַךְ רַב שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי הַמּוּסָר לַֹפָּסוּק הַזֶּה, מַאי שַׁיְּכָא הָכָא? וְנִרְאֶה לְבָאֵר עַל פִּי מַה שֶּׁאָמְרוּ חֲזַ"ל בַּחֲגִיגָה (דף ט"ו.): צַדִּיק נוֹטֵל חֶלְקוֹ וְחֵלֶק חֲבֵרוֹ בְּגַן עֵדֶן, רָשָׁע נוֹטֵל חֶלְקוֹ וְחֵלֶק חֲבֵרוֹ בַּגֵּיהִנֹּם. וְהִנֵּה לִכְאוֹרָה יִקְשֶׁה: הֲלֹא אֱלֹקים אֱמֶת הוּא וְשׁוֹפֵט צֶדֶק, וְגַם לְאֵיזֶה צַדִּיק נוֹתְנִים זֶה? אָכֵן בֵּאוּר הַדָּבָר הוּא, כְּגוֹן שֶׁשְּׁנֵיהֶם דָּרִים בְּעִיר אַחַת, וְהָרָשָׁע מִתְלוֹצֵץ תָּמִיד עַל הַנְהָגָתוֹ שֶׁל הַצַּדִּיק, עַל תּוֹרָתוֹ וְעַל עֲבוֹדָתוֹ וּמַטִּיל דֹּפִי עָלָיו בְּעֵינֵי הַבְּרִיוֹת, וְהַצַּדִּיק מִתְחַזֵּק וְסוֹבֵל עֶלְבּוֹנוֹ וְאֵינוֹ בָּא בְּרִיב עִמּוֹ וְהוֹלֵךְ בְּדֶרֶךְ ה' לְתוֹרָתוֹ וַעֲבוֹדָתוֹ, אָז כְּשֶׁיָּבוֹא לַדִּין לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא, הָרָשָׁע מְאַבֵּד חֶלְקוֹ בִּזְכֻיּוֹתָיו, כִּי מִלְּבַד שֶׁהוּא לֹא רָצָה לַעֲבֹד לַה', עוֹד הָיָה מִתְלוֹצֵץ מִמִּי שֶׁהוּא עוֹבֵד ה', וְגַם קֵרֵר עַל יְדֵי זֶה עֲבוֹדַת ה' בְּעֵינֵי הַבְּרִיוֹת. וּלְמִי שַׁיָּכוֹת כָּל זְכֻיּוֹתָיו - לַצַּדִּיק שְׁכֵנוֹ, שֶׁהָיָה מִתְלוֹצֵץ עָלָיו, וְגָרַם לוֹ בִּזָּיוֹן וּכְלִמָּה, וְגַם הָיָה צָרִיךְ לְהִתְחַזֵּק תָּמִיד וְלֹא לְהִתְרַפּוֹת מֵעֲבוֹדָתוֹ, [וְזֶהוּ שֶׁאָמְרוּ: נוֹטֵל חֶלְקוֹ וְחֵלֶק חֲבֵרוֹ בְּגַן עֵדֶן].
(Bamidbar, Ibid.): 'You will be built up and established' — [If you do thus,] you will be built up in this world and established for the world to come." Now when we reflect upon this [we ask]: Why did R. Shmuel b. Nachmani juxtapose this mussar with this verse? How are they related? This would seem to be resolved by what Chazal say (Chagigah 15a): "The tzaddik takes his portion and the portion of his neighbor [the rasha] in Gan Eden; the rasha takes his portion and the portion of his neighbor [the tzaddik] in Gehinnom." Ostensibly, this is difficult. Is He not a G-d of truth and a righteous Judge? Also, to which tzaddik is this portion given? It would seem that the explanation is as follows: The two are living in one city. The rasha always mocks the conduct of the tzaddik, his Torah and his avodah [Divine service], and slanders him to the populace. And the tzaddik strengthens himself and bears his shame and does not enter into a quarrel with him, and continues walking in the way of the L-rd, in His Torah and in His avodah. When they come for judgment in the world to come, the rasha loses his portion of merit. For aside from nor desiring to serve the L-rd, he mocked one who did, and thereby also "cooled off" Divine service in the eyes of men. To whom, then, do all his merits revert? To his neighbor, the tzaddik, whom he mocked and whom he caused shame and humiliation, and who was constantly constrained to strengthen himself so as not to slacken in his service. [This is the purport of: "He (the tzaddik) takes his portion and the portion of his neighbor (the rasha) in Gan Eden."]
וּמַה שֶּׁאָמְרוּ: רָשָׁע נוֹטֵל חֶלְקוֹ וְחֵלֶק חֲבֵרוֹ בַּגֵּיהִנֹּם, כְּגוֹן: שֶׁעַל יְדֵי הַלַּעַג וְהַלֵּיצָנוּת שֶׁלּוֹ, שֶׁהָיָה מִתְלוֹצֵץ תָּמִיד מִן הַצַּדִּיק, נִתְהַוּוּ לַצַּדִּיק כַּמָּה קִלְקוּלִים בַּעֲבוֹדָתוֹ, אָז מֻכְרָח הָרָשָׁע לְקַבֵּל אוֹתָן הַיִּסּוּרִים עַל עַצְמוֹ אַחֲרֵי שֶׁעַל יָדוֹ נִסְבַּב הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה.
As to: "The rasha takes his portion and the portion of his neighbor [the tzaddik] in Gehinnom," this may be understood as follows: By his constant mockery and ridicule of the tzaddik he causes defects in his [the tzaddik's] Divine service, for which the rasha, being the cause of these defects, must take the punishment upon himself.
וְעַתָּה נָבוֹא לְעִנְיָנֵנוּ. הִנֵּה יָדוּעַ שֶׁמִּתְּחִלָּה הָיוּ הָעֲיָרוֹת שַׁיָּכוֹת לְמוֹאָב, וְאָמְרוּ הַמּוֹשְׁלִים לְסִיחוֹן וְחַיָּלָיו: בּוֹאוּ לְעִיר חֶשְׁבּוֹן, וְהִיא תִּהְיֶה נֶחְשֶׁבֶת עַתָּה לָעִיר סִיחוֹן. וְהַנִּמְשָׁל בְּעִנְיָנֵנוּ: חֶלְקֵי הַתִּקּוּן שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ בְּגַן עֵדֶן עַל יְדֵי מַעֲשֵׂה הָרְשָׁעִים, יִהְיוּ שַׁיָּכִים לַצַּדִּיקִים, הַמּוֹשְׁלִים בְּיִצְרָם, וְעָבְדוּ לַה' וְלֹא הִסְתַּכְּלוּ עַל הָרְשָׁעִים, שֶׁבִּזּוּ אוֹתָם וַעֲבוֹדָתָם.
And now we return to the verse. It is known that in the beginning, the cities belonged to Moav. And the governors say to Sichon and his soldiers: "Let us come to the city of Cheshbon and it will be regarded now as the city of Sichon." And the [mussar] analogue in our instance: The aspects of tikkun [amendment] wrought in Gan Eden by the acts of the reshaim will revert to the tzaddikim, who governed their yetzer and served the L-rd and paid no regard to the reshaim, who shamed them and their service.
וְזֶהוּ שֶׁאָמְרוּ: תִּבָּנֶה בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְתִכּוֹנֵן לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, הַיְנוּ שֶׁלֶּעָתִיד לָבוֹא יִתְכּוֹנְנוּ הַצַּדִּיקִים בִּשְׁלֵמוּת, כִּי לְבַד שֶׁיֵּשׁ לָהֶם חֶלְקָם מַה שֶּׁתִּקְּנוּ בְּעַצְמָם, עוֹד יֵשׁ לָהֶם חֵלֶק הָרְשָׁעִים.
וְדָרְשׁוּ עוֹד תֵּבַת עִיר סִיחוֹן בְּגַוְנָא אַחֲרִינָא (באפן אחר), דִּכְתִיב אַחֲרָיו (בַּמִּדְבָּר כ"א כ"ח): "כִּי אֵשׁ יָצְאָה מֵחֶשְׁבּוֹן, לֶהָבָה מִקִּרְיַת סִיחֹן, אָכְלָה עָר מוֹאָב, בַּעֲלֵי בָמוֹת אַרְנוֹן". וְדָרְשׁוּ הָכֵי: אִם אָדָם עוֹשֶׂה עַצְמוֹ כָּעַיִר (פירוש: חמור צעיר) הַזֶּה, שֶׁמְּהַלֵּךְ אַחַר סְיָחָה נָאָה, דְּהַיְנוּ שֶׁמִּתְפַּתֶּה בְּיִצְרוֹ, תֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מֵחֶשְׁבּוֹן, דְּהַיְנוּ מִמְּחַשְּׁבִין חֶשְׁבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם. "לֶהָבָה מִקִּרְיַת סִיחוֹן" אֵלּוּ הַצַּדִּיקִים, שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ שִׂיחִין (אִילָנוֹת טוֹבִים), וְתֹאכַל אֶת שֶׁאֵינָן מְחַשְּׁבִין אֶת סוֹפָן. וּבֵאוּר הַדְּבָרִים לַעֲנִיּוּת דַּעְתִּי הוּא עַל פְּרָט הָאַחֵר שֶׁהוֹדִיעוּ לָנוּ חֲזַ"ל, שֶׁהָרָשָׁע נוֹטֵל חֶלְקוֹ וְחֵלֶק חֲבֵרוֹ בַּגֵּיהִנֹּם. וְזֶה שֶׁאָמְרוּ: "כִּי אֵשׁ יָצְאָה מֵחֶשְׁבּוֹן" הַיְנוּ אֵשׁ שֶׁל גֵּיהִנֹּם, שֶׁנִּבְרְאָה עַל יְדֵי הָעֲוֹנוֹת, תֵּצֵא אֵשׁ מֵהֶם, שֶׁלֹּא תִּשְׁלֹט בָּהֶם. וְעַל מִי תִּשְׁלֹט? עַל הָרְשָׁעִים, שֶׁאֵינָם מְחַשְּׁבִים אֶת סוֹפָם. וְזֶהוּ שֶׁסִּיֵּם הַכָּתוּב: אָכְלָה עָר מוֹאָב לִרְמֹז שֶׁתֹּאכַל בַּעֲלֵי תַּאֲווֹת (כְּמָה דִּכְתִיב (במדבר כ"ה א'): "וַיָּחֶל הָעָם לִזְנוֹת אֶל בְּנוֹת מוֹאָב"). "בַּעֲלֵי בָמוֹת אַרְנוֹן" אֵלּוּ גַּסֵּי הָרוּחַ * וּבָזֶה נִיחָא לִי מַה שֶּׁכָּתְבוּ הַסְּפָרִים לְיַעֵץ לָאָדָם, שֶׁיְּהֵא תָּמִיד מַזְכִּיר שְׁמוֹ בְּרֶמֶז בְּסוֹף שְׁמוֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה, דְּהַיְנוּ אִם שְׁמוֹ אַבְרָהָם יֹאמַר פָּסוּק שֶׁמַּתְחִיל בָּאוֹת א' וּמְסַיֵּם בָּאוֹת מ' וְכָל כַּיּוֹצֵא בָּזֶה. וְכָתְבוּ שֶׁזּוֹהִי תּוֹעֶלֶת שֵׁיִּזְכֹּר שְׁמוֹ, דְּמֵרֹב הפַּחַד וְהַחֲרָדָה בִּשְׁעַת הַדִּין, כְּשֶׁשּׁוֹאלִים לוֹ אֶת שְׁמוֹ, שׁוֹכֵחַ וְלֹא יוֹדֵעַ מַה לְּהָשִׁיב. וְהִנֵּה בֵּאוּר הַדָּבָר אָמַרְתִּי בִּפְשִׁיטוּת, דְּטֶבַע הָאִישׁ שֶׁהוֹלֵךְ בְּדֶרֶךְ הָרֶשַׁע לְדַבֵּר וּלְהִתְלוֹצֵץ מֵאֲנָשִׁים, שֶׁהוֹלְכִים בְּדֶרֶךְ הָאֱמֶת וִהַצֶּדֶק. וּמִמֵּילָא יָדוּעַ שֶׁהָעֲוֹנוֹת שֶׁיֵּשׁ עַל פְּלוֹנִי בְּמַה שֶּׁהִתְרַשֵּׁל מֵעֲבוֹדָתוֹ, עַל יְדֵי זֶה נִרְשָׁמִים עַל שְׁמוֹ, אַף שֶׁשֵׁם פְּלוֹנִי הוּא שֵׁם יַעֲקֹב וְהָיָה רָשׁוּם הֶעָוֹן שֶׁל שֵׁם יַעֲקֹב וְהוּא שְׁמוֹ עָכָן, הוֹלְכִים הַמְקַטְרְגִים לְעָכָן, אַף שֶׁצּוֹעֵק: אֲנִי לֹא עָשִׂיתִי הֶעָוֹן, שֶׁאֲנִי שְׁמִי עָכָן וְלֹא יַעֲקֹב, הַמַּשְׁחִיתִים הַהוֹלְכִים בִּשְׁלִיחוּת בֵּית דִּין שֶׁל מַעְלָה אֵין מִסְתַּכְּלִים עַל זֶה כְּלָל, וּמְשִׁיבִים לוֹ: אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִים דָבָר. אָנוּ הֻזְהַרְנוּ בִּשְׁלִיחוּתֵנוּ לֵילֵךְ אֵלֶיךָ וּלְהַעֲנִישְׁךָ, מִסְּתָמָא שִׁמְךָ יַעֲקֹב, וְתֻכְרַח לְקַבֵּל הָעֹנֶשׁ. וְהִנֵּה הָאִישׁ הַזֶּה שֶׁמֻּכְרָח לְקַבֵּל הָעֹנֶשׁ חוֹשֵׁב בְּנַפְשׁוֹ: אוּלַי בֶּאֱמֶת שְׁמִי יַעֲקֹב, וְשָׁכַחְתִּי עַל יְדֵי הַמִּיתָה אֶת הַמַּעֲשִׂים וְאֶת שְׁמִי. וְהִנֵּה הָאִישׁ שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְבַזּוֹת לַאֲנָשִׁים וּלְצַעֲרָם בְּאוֹנָאַת דְּבָרִים וְהַלְבָּנַת פָּנִים וְלָשׁוֹן הָרָע וְלֵיצָנוּת, בְּוַדַּאי לֹא פַּעַם אַחַת נִכְשַׁל בָּזֶה בִּימֵי חַיָּיו, בְּוַדַּאי כַּמָּה מֵאוֹת פְּעָמִים עָשָׂה כָּזֶה לְכַמָּה מֵאוֹת אֲנָשִׁים, וּמִמֵּילָא נֶחֱשָׁבִים עָלָיו עֲוֹנוֹתֵיהֶם וְכָל אִישׁ וְאִישׁ יֵשׁ לוֹ שֵׁם אַחֵר וְהוּא מֻכְרָח לִסְבֹּל מִכֻּלָּם. וּמִמֵּילָא הוּא מְבֻלְבָּל מְאֹד שֶׁכָּל מַשְׁחִית בָּא לוֹ בִּפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ בְּשֵׁם אַחֵר, וְעַל כֵּן אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ כְּלָל, אֵיךְ הוּא הָאֱמֶת, כְּשֶׁשּׁוֹאֲלִים אוֹתוֹ שֶׁיַּגִּיד שְׁמוֹ. וְלָזֶה יָעֲצוּ שֶׁיֹּאמַר בְּכָל יוֹם אֶת הַפָּסוּק הַמְרַמֵּז עַל שְׁמוֹ, שֵׁעַל יְדֵי זֶה יִזְכֹּר הֵיטֵב. וְגַם עַל יְדֵי זֶה יִתְבּוֹנֵן, אֵיךְ לִזָּהֵר מֵחֵטְא הַלָּשׁוֹן כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְשַׁנֶּה שְׁמוֹ הָאֲמִתִּי. וְנִרְאֶה עוֹד שֶׁלָּזֶה יָעֲצוּ לוֹמַר הַפָּסוּק אַחַר "אֱלֹהַי, נְצֹר לְשׁוֹנִי מֵרָע", וּכְאוֹמֵר, שֶׁעַל יְדֵי זֶה יִזְכֹּר שְׁמוֹ הָאֲמִתִּי וְלֹא יִשְׁתַּנֶּה: .
They also expounded "the city of Sichon" in a different fashion, viz. (Ibid. 28): "For a fire has gone forth from Cheshbon, a flame from the city of Sichon. It has consumed Ar of Moav, the possessors of Arnon" — If a man makes himself like a young ass [ayir - similar to ir, "city"], which docilely follows the cajoling talk [(sicha, intimated by "Sichon") of its driver], in this case, the yetzer, "A fire will go forth from Cheshbon" — from those who reckon the account of the world, "a flame from the city of Sichon" — the tzaddikim, who are referred to as "sprouts" [sichin, intimated by "Sichon"], and it shall consume those who make no reckoning of their end." The explanation (in my humble opinion) is, according to the other phenomenon of which Chazal apprise us, that the rasha takes his portion and the portion of his neighbor [the tzaddik] in Gehinnom. This is the intent of "for a fire has gone forth from Cheshbon" — that is, the fire of Gehinnom, created by the sins of the tzaddikim will go forth from them, i.e., it will not prevail over them. And over whom will it prevail? Over the reshaim, who make no reckoning of their end. And thus, the conclusion of the verse: "It has consumed Ar of Moav" — intimating that it will consume the lusters, (viz. [Ibid. 25:1): "And the people began to lust after the daughters of Moav"). (Ibid. 21:28): 'the possessors of the heights of Arnon' — the haughty of spirit."