the idea of these conflicting schools of thought vis-a-vis prayer while explained well leads me to the question if Avraham's idea of prayer was the idea of the tzadik being a arbitrator wouldn't he have at least prayed that he shouldn't have to sacrifice Yitzchak at the Akeidah, as that was his progeny to continue the spread of his ideas? sort of a kal v'chomer if he prayed for the people of Sodom surely for his own son and legacy to carry on? yet we find him accepting the divine will without arbitration.
This is an intriguing question that many have raised, not only in the context of my explanation of Avraham's prayer. How do we understand the contrast between Avraham's passive acceptance of the Akeidah and his active intervention on behalf of Sodom?
I think the difference is that at the Akeidah, Avraham heard a command, not a notification. The Akeidah was an imperative: Avraham didn't hear what Hashem is considering doing, but rather what MUST happen.
I don't see how Rabbi Sacks' reading fits into the text. How does "I am the owner" mean "I need your help"?
I agree with his reading about the palace being in flames, that it means Abraham couldn't develop a vision of the world that was free from dissonance, but I believe the response means something about Hashem telling Abraham that He would show him something ("the land that I will show you").
To learn to see the world from Hashem's perspective requires only to recognize the impossibility of seeing it from any other perspective.
Abraham saw that the world has no manager, thus its owner must be Hashem, meaning there must be a deeper truth that explains the world other than a hands-on manager (a lesser god).
the idea of these conflicting schools of thought vis-a-vis prayer while explained well leads me to the question if Avraham's idea of prayer was the idea of the tzadik being a arbitrator wouldn't he have at least prayed that he shouldn't have to sacrifice Yitzchak at the Akeidah, as that was his progeny to continue the spread of his ideas? sort of a kal v'chomer if he prayed for the people of Sodom surely for his own son and legacy to carry on? yet we find him accepting the divine will without arbitration.
This is an intriguing question that many have raised, not only in the context of my explanation of Avraham's prayer. How do we understand the contrast between Avraham's passive acceptance of the Akeidah and his active intervention on behalf of Sodom?
I think the difference is that at the Akeidah, Avraham heard a command, not a notification. The Akeidah was an imperative: Avraham didn't hear what Hashem is considering doing, but rather what MUST happen.
I discuss this here: https://twitter.com/shnayor/status/1749611464988475512
In line with that, we don't find that one can daven to be allowed to eat a cheeseburger!
https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/lech-lecha/a-palace-in-flames/
I don't see how Rabbi Sacks' reading fits into the text. How does "I am the owner" mean "I need your help"?
I agree with his reading about the palace being in flames, that it means Abraham couldn't develop a vision of the world that was free from dissonance, but I believe the response means something about Hashem telling Abraham that He would show him something ("the land that I will show you").
I would suggest the midrash means the following:
To learn to see the world from Hashem's perspective requires only to recognize the impossibility of seeing it from any other perspective.
Abraham saw that the world has no manager, thus its owner must be Hashem, meaning there must be a deeper truth that explains the world other than a hands-on manager (a lesser god).
Yup, was quoting it for his reading of the burning palace aligning with your Avraham paradigm, not the response of the Master.
Probably his reading is based on "hitzis *alav*", though it's not that clear
Though the response of the ba'al habirah would be different in your version
How so. I'm not sure I understand you.
The Midrash is so enigmatic. I think about it a lot, but I don't understand it fully.