Vayeira: Abraham’s Legacy of Paradox (Not language-connected) ~Yehoshua Steinberg

Updated: Dec 2, 2022

Which is the true Abraham - the Abraham of the beginning of this

week's Torah Sidra, in which defends the wicked Sodomites in a

confrontation with G-d, or the Abraham of the end of the portion,

where he takes his guiltless son to be slaughtered on an anonymous

summit?

Here is a man who's entire life is dedicated to helping and providing

for others. When confronted with the horrifying reality of the depravity

of Sodomite society -- particularly their attitudes and actions vis-a-vis

outsiders, foreigners (see San. 109b) - the very antithesis of everything

Abraham believed in, Abraham should have been expected to rejoice at

their impending destruction. Instead, in one of the greatest apparent

displays of both irony and chutzpa in the Torah, Abraham confronts

G-d:

               It is *forbidden* for You to do such a deed... will the Judge

               of the whole earth not do Justice? (18:25)

But, still more ironically, Abraham is criticized by the Zohar not

for his gall in questioning G-d's express will -- in the most direct

of terms -- but rather that he did not go far enough in fighting *for*

the Sodomites. The Zohar (1:105b) compares Noah, Abraham and Moses.

Noah, upon hearing of the impending destruction of his generation, did

not even open his mouth. Abraham requested that Sodom be spared for the

merit of whatever righteous individuals might reside there. Moses, on the

other hand, upon being told by G-d to "leave Me... that I might destroy

them" (Ex. 32:10), wasted no time. He began forthwith to pray that

the entire nation be saved - whether or not they deserved it; whether

there were righteous among them or not.

Whether Abraham  went far enough or too far in striving to save Sodom,

how does his decidedly activist stand on behalf of the *wicked* Sodomites

jibe with his button-lipped response to the command to slaughter his

*righteous* son with his own hands? Which is his true nature?

The truth is, neither; and this itself is perhaps Abraham's greatest

legacy. Abraham's *nature* would certainly have allowed Sodom to

be destroyed, and of course to protest against his beloved son's

sacrifice. But, as a leader, he had trained himself to *transcend*

his natural inclinations; never to react emotionally or impulsively,

never to either protest or submit -- even to G-d Himself -- based on

what seemed right to *Abraham* alone, but first to be absolutely

sure that his own desires were not clouding his decisions.

Abraham demonstrated repeatedly that he was willing to bow to

G-d's will no matter how painful the consequences. But he did not

use this as a self-righteous excuse for treading on others, even

those who were thoroughly evil, *even* when G-d himself expressed

his will to destroy them.

     Abraham is aptly called "Haivri," literally meaning

"from the other side," possibly because he was constantly examining each

event from every side, from every angle. His great legacy to humanity

is *humanity* - never to react automatically like a machine, but to

take each action *thoughtfully* - this is the essence of the human

being.

Recent Posts