rabbijaffe

A thought has been perplexing me about this week’s parsha.

Quick recap:

Sodom and Gomorrah were towns infamous for their sick and repulsive behavior. Yet when Hashem told Avraham (Abraham) that He was going to destroy the towns, Avraham went out of his way to stick out his neck and argue on behalf of these cities so that perhaps God might spare them.

OK, sticking up for the potentially innocent is generally considered high-quality behavior, as is taking great risks for the sake of helping others.

But here’s what confuses me:

When God told Avraham to sacrifice his son Yitzchak (Isaac), Avraham proceeded to carry out his orders with no protest. Not only was Yitzchak 100% innocent, but unlike Sodom and Gomorrah for which Avraham lacked a connection, Yitzchak was his own flesh and blood.

What makes matters worse for me is Avraham goes down in history as being a great person for his actions in both scenarios.

And to make things even more troubling, we have the story of Shaul HaMelech (King Saul). Early in his career as a monarch he was given the directive to kill the entire people of Amalek, the quintessential nemesis of the Jewish people.

He did not complete his duties, expressing misplaced compassion for the king of Amalek, a depraved murderer.

This same King Saul would later on massacre an entire town of innocent kohanim (priests) on suspicion that they were harboring a fugitive. This would have likely been an overreaction even if he was correct. However, in this case not only were they only unknowingly harboring this fugitive, but the fugitive in question was entirely innocent of all that he was being accused.

Two isolated incidents reflecting a severe mental imbalance? Perhaps.

But traditional sources tell us this is more of an example of cause and effect.

When one displays an overwhelming amount of compassion for someone or something clearly undeserving of said compassion, it produces a tumult through every bit of you, messing up your mental capabilities so much that you gain an inability to make clear and intelligent decisions.

The decision to be compassionate to a murderer was irrational, and so was the decision to slaughter innocent priests. One action caused the brain to be able to perform the next action.

So what about Avraham?

Is there a parallel?

Was his decision to argue on behalf of the worthless, wicked folk of Sodom and Gomorrah misplaced compassion that would confuse Avraham so tremendously that he couldn’t even argue on behalf of his own innocent son?

Or conceivably a worse scenario: Perhaps God’s explicit rejection of misplaced compassion helps foster in people a fear of compassion in general, even when it is highly warranted. Maybe Shaul saw how angry God was at his actions with the king of Amalek, so next time an opportunity arose to be compassionate, he no longer saw compassion as an option. Maybe Avraham saw how eventually God didn’t pay much heed to his repeated attempts to save  the people of Sodom, and felt that purely succumbing to God’s will was the only acceptable decision, hence not arguing at the request to slaughter his own child.

Maybe.

I don’t yet have answers for all my questions, or comfort from my every concern.

All I know is: Something about Parshat Veyeira just doesn’t feel right. Neither the request to slaughter a child, nor the righteous willingness to carry out the decree without protest, leave me with much clarity about what God wants from me.

Nevertheless, this feeling doesn’t shake my faith.  It doesn’t even place a mild dent.

But I most certainly need to look a little deeper.

Shabbat Shalom

Trackback URI | Comments RSS