Why did Avraham repeat what he already seems to have said?
Rashi and Seforno: He is adding here that, even if the fifty Tzadikim are unable to save the Resha'im, let them at least save themselves! 1
Ramban: (Following what he wrote above [Refer to 18:23:3:2]) - Even if HaSh-m judges them with Midas ha'Din, it would not be correct to kill the Tzadikim together with the Resha'im, so that people should not say that there is no point in serving HaSh-m. And how much more so if He tempers Midas ha'Din with Midas Rachamim (which is the Midah of Mishpat, with which HaSh-m judges the world).
What are the connotations of "Chalilah Lecha..."?
Rashi: It would be a profanity (a Chilul HaSh-m) for HaSh-m to kill the Tzadikim together with the Resha'im, since people would point to the generation of the Flood and claim that such is the way of HaSh-m, to wipe out Tzadikim and Resha'im. 1
Moshav Zekenim questions this, for Noach was the only Tzadik, and he was saved! (See Sifsei Chachamim). Refer to 18:25:3.1.
Why does the Pasuk switch from "Lecha" (masculine) to "Lach" (feminine)?
The word 'Lach' is not feminine. It is identical to the masculine 'Lecha,' but the Lamed is given a Kamatz due to the 'stop' called for by the cantillation mark (Zakef Katan) (MK).
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "'It would be profane for You'- ... And [even] if You say that the righteous' [merit] shall not save the wicked, why would You destroy the righteous?" What is Rashi explaining?
Gur Aryeh: In the preceding verse (18:24), Avraham was asking for the whole city to be spared, for the sake of the righteous people within it. Yet in our verse, Avraham asks only for the righteous people themselves. Rashi must therefore add the segue, "'And even if the righteous cannot save the wicked, let the righteous themselves be spared.'
Rashi writes: "People will say that such is His way, to wipe out everyone, [both] righteous and wicked! He did the same to the generations of the Flood and the Dispersion...." But that is untrue; Noach was in fact saved from the Flood?
Gur Aryeh #1: People might say that Noach and his family, who were saved, were extremely righteous, but that there must have been other righteous people who were wiped out along with the wicked.
Gur Aryeh #2: They will say that Noach was saved only so the world could continue, but that being righteous is not sufficient.
Rashi writes: "People will say... He did the same to the generations of the Flood and the Dispersion." If it is incorrect to act thus, HaSh-m would not do so; why is it relevant what people might say?
Gur Aryeh: Avraham knew that there were no truly righteous people in Sedom. He thought perhaps there might be people who outwardly appeared to be righteous, but were not fully so. 1 Because this was the third time, people would not see past the disguise of the supposed righteous, but rather accuse HaSh-m of injustice.
Rashi writes: "People will say... He did the same to the generations of the Flood and the Dispersion." But people may accuse HaSh-m of having acted so on those occasions, even if He now refrains from wiping out Sedom!
Gur Aryeh: Three times creates a Chazakah; if Sedom would be totally wiped out, people will not attribute the total destruction to any other factor.
Rashi writes: "'It would be profane for You' - for the World-to-Come." What does this mean?
Gur Aryeh: The ultimate depth of justice, even that which is meted out in this world, is hidden from mankind. This means that the implications of injustice reach the World-to-Come.
Rashi writes: "Would He Who judges, not carry out true justice?" Why does Rashi add the word "true"?
Gur Aryeh: Any judgment can be referred to as Mishpat, but Avraham was asking only for true justice.
