It is not infrequent that a passage presents me with a nagging discomfort, an ambiguity that defies definition. Without the clarity of a sharp and crisp focus, it remains just that, an uneasiness that eludes resolution and understanding. Then a new sefer, another darshan, a new voice or set of eyes or even a fresh read a year later, simply formulates the question and evokes a redeeming moment and the beginning of an inquiry into a Torah text.
I felt one of those moments, as I opened the recently published comments of Harav Mechel Feinstien zt"l on this week's parsha. Rav Yechiel Mechel Feinstein was the son in law of the Brisker Rav and his shiurim, delivered in Bnei Brak, were singularly ranked amongst the most challenging and astute world wide.
Rav Feinstien notes the inconsistency of Avraham's argument on behalf of the soon to be destroyed town of Sodom. At first, Avraham argues against the injustice of destroying the righteous together with the wicked (18:23) and we expect him to advocate sparing Sodom's tzadikim. Instead and without explanation we find Avraham demanding that entire towns, full of decadence and crime, be saved on behalf of the honest and the upright. Avraham, like all good contemporary legal counsel lehavdil, is seemingly unconcerned by the unfairness of his own position and the discrepancy he sustains, as he too wishes to equate the accomplished with the depraved, and watch them thrive together.
With this inconsistency in sharp relief, the words of the Ramban address this question, suggesting that Avraham presents two distinct arguments: he first petitions the midas hadin, Hashem's demanding system of just deserts, and secondly, pleading for safety of entire cities, clearly appeals to the midas harachamim - Hashem's ever readiness to forgive and be patient.
How did Avraham confront the midas hadin? The Ramban interpolates that he projected that here would be many who would see no value in the allegiance to Avraham and his mission if both the pious and the wicked of Sodom met the same fate. The cities of evil would be destroyed, and with them countless opportunities to advance the cause of morality and goodness.
But that teaches us that Avraham did acknowledge that din - exacting fairness - was well served, even if he had to witness the demise of the tzadikim of Sodom. Where is the din if a tzadik can survive, and neither reward nor recognition awaits him? Though he was about to learn that Sodom was vacant of all good people, Avraham must have immediately accepted the tragic fate of the devout that would not lead and of the dedicated that would not teach and of the saints who just did not care.
It seems to me that in a stunning turnabout, Avraham snatches optimism from travesty and faces Hashem's consummate mercy. He proceeds to implore that if the righteous could be held responsible - al pi din - then they indeed could be entrusted to nurture, as well. Would Hashem give them this opportunity?
Thus in a distraught moment for Avraham, his prayers shut out and his faith in fellow man severely shaken, he finds hopefulness and confidence in his mission and trust and assurance in the power of teaching. In fact he ultimately had Hashem confirm that even one tzadik can save a world. Maybe that is the prayer that Hashem was waiting to hear as He patiently let Avraham "bargain down" for the fate of Sodom.