Dear Friends,
I hope this note finds you well and managing these challenging times.
Maasei avot siman l’banim. Lessons from the Torah should impact our view of the world, informing the way we live our lives, educate our students and children, and even conduct our politics and statecraft. And while foreign policy should not be dictated by superficial comparisons to stories in the week’s parsha, those lessons should not either be ignored, especially when the principles derived can be applied on levels both individual and national.
What are the plans for “the day after” in Gaza and in Lebanon? This question has been asked repeatedly throughout the year and is often couched in expectations of an almost immediate restoration of sovereignty to these areas. The tragic story of Sodom’s destruction suggests that whatever the plans, they had better be grounded in realism and not floating on hope.
Avraham is rightly celebrated for his attempt to prevent Sodom’s ruin. While his prayers for Sodom may testify to his general concern for humankind and for the future of his promised land, a second look helps us see why Avraham took personal responsibility for this exceptional tragedy.
Avraham’s rescue of the people of Sodom from the attack of the four kings had entitled him in principle to be their master, to be the winner that takes all, such that the king of Sodom had to ask Avraham to restore to him his former subjects, tein li hanefesh (Bereishit 14:21). Our Sages (Nedarim 32a), however, considered Avraham’s accommodation of the king’s request a failure, noting that by surrendering the Sodomites back to their king he had failed to convert them to a life of divine service.
What was the source of this uncharacteristic failure? Bringing others to faith was Avraham’s chosen mission and expertise. Why did he pass up this golden opportunity to positively transform the evil inhabitants of Sodom? Put simply – Avraham was failed by his unfailing confidence in people.
Avraham’s stock in trade was to act as a positive influence, not compelling change but inspiring it, bringing others to love God just like he did. Had Avraham elected to rule over the people of Sodom, he would have improved their behavior via control rather than inspiration. He chose instead to release them and to continue his efforts to positively influence them and inspire change from afar.
His approach failed miserably. The impending destruction of Sodom made clear that Avraham had badly miscalculated, that he would have done far better to safely ground his strategy for the day after his conquest of Sodom in realism than to build it on idealistic and inspired hopes. Avraham’s prayer for Sodom was thus not an expression of objective concern. It was his desperate last-ditch attempt to avert the tragedy he had unintentionally caused by granting Sodom the freedom they did not deserve.
Like Avraham, we prefer – whether in familial, educational, or political settings – not to control others but to grant them the dignity of freedom and self-determination, hoping that they will use that freedom to choose life and to learn from past failures. Sometimes that trust is warranted or may be a modest risk worth taking. At other times, as we learn from Avraham and Sodom, granting freedom to those who pose a risk to themselves and to others is neither compassionate nor constructive. Granting independence to our children and students or sovereignty and self-determination to a failed and dangerous state should wait until trust in them has been earned, which will never be on the day after. Avraham’s choice to do otherwise proved to be no favor to Sodom and will be no favor to Gaza or to Lebanon.
Sharing this with you as food for your thought. Please feel no need to forward it to either PM Netanyahu or President Biden.