[Avodah] What was the point of Avrahams tefilla/debate with Hashem about Sdom?

[Marty Bluke via Avodah]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Zev Sero <zev at sero.name> wrote:
> On 11/02/2015 04:14 AM, Marty Bluke wrote:
>> Tefilla is making logical arguments to Hashem as to why he is doing
>> the wrong thing? Does it make any sense to make logical arguments to
>> an omniscient perfect god?

> Moshe Rabbenu did the same thing.  So clearly this is a proper mode
> of tefillah, and any model that doesn't account for it is defective.

So what is your model of tefilla that takes into account the omniscience
and perfection of God on one hand and the examples that we see in Chumash
on the other hand?

[Email #2]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 8:59 PM, Micha Berger <micha at aishdas.org> wrote:
> Or explaining in detail why he finds Hashem's decision surprising.
...
> When you call someone you love and discuss how your day went, do you
> give a one line summary of its problems?

WADR, the chumash doesn't seem to read that way. When you read these
incidents it really reads like they are trying to persuade Hashem to change
his mind, not explaining why things seem unfair and maintaining his
relationship. You are reading it this way because you already have a
preconception of what you think Tefilla is, I think that anyone just
reading the Chumash without preconceptions would not interpret it that way.
Or put differently the pshat in the pesukim doesn't read like your
explanation.

[Email #3]

Lets look at Rashi and see how he explains things here. I would like to
focus in on 2 Rashis, one at the beginning of the story and one at the end.

1. Pasuk 23: Vavigash Avraham  - Rashi explains that the word "hagasha"
means 3 different things in Tanach, a. war b. piyus, reconciliation, c.
tefilla. Rashi then comments that Avraham was coming to engage in ALL 3
(war, pious, and tefilla) with Hashem. War (which Rashi states is distinct
from Tefilla) clearly implies that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's
decision. How else can you understand war in this context, especially when
tefilla is mentioned separately?

2. Pasuk 33: Vayelech hashem - Rashi comments as follows, that since the
sonaygor, the defence attorney (Avraham), had nothing more to say, the
dayan, the judge (Hashem), left. Rashi describes the exchange between
Avraham and Hashem as some kind of trial with Avraham being the defence
attorney and Hashem being the judge. A defence attorney's job is to
convince the judge to rule in favour of his client. Again, Rashi clearly
seems to be saying that Avraham was trying to change Hashem's decision not
simply airing his grievances.