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

[Micha Berger via Avodah]

On Mon, Nov 09, 2015 at 03:45:23PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
: Agreed. It seems clear to me as well that the prayer in Tanach is for
: a purpose. The attempt to claim that all prayer is to make the person
: better and create/improve theri relationship to Hashem simply does
: not fit with the prayer that we see in Tanach...

It doesn't?

Think about it... How do you expect people to get closer to G-d? By
contemplating His Transcendence, or by focusing on His Imminence?

The way to get closer to G-d is not to reason about the Rambam's
G-d, but to speak to Avraham's G-d, to try for the "panim el 'Panim'"
Moshe alone achieved.

As I wrote on Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:50:06 EST:
> I think you are confusing comments describing the structure with those
> descriubing the function.

When asking what Avraham was accomplishing, given a philosophical
objection, you are asking about the function of prayer, and asking it
on a philosophical plane. Thus, you get answers in terms of transcendance.

However, since that function is to get close to G-d, what Avraham
atually does is structured by immanence. He is indeed airing to the
Av haRachamim a detailed case why "Aval zeh lo fair!" (as a modern
Israeli chlid might say). That is how one relates to others.

The fact that the philospher knows it only works indirectly is a different
part of the dialectic.

R Eli Turkel wrote on Sun, 8 Nov 2015 18:18:15 IST:
:> I would say even further... Tefillah is inherently experiential.
:> Overanalysis may get you to know a lot /about/ tefillah, but it
:> creates a remove between the person and the experience itelf.>>

: I dont think RYBS (among others) would agree

RYBS speaks quite poetically of Anshei Keneses haGedolah looking to
compose a formalized prayer service so as to continue the dialog with
G-d even us the sun set on prophecy.

He also has much positive to say about the "tehillim zugers" of Chaslovitch.

So I disagree with your guess as to what RYBS would say.

But now that I articulated my point in dialectic terms, it is easier to
see why I would take a different position. The neo-Kantian doesn't need
to deny one description of prayer in the face of a seemingly conflicting
one. Especially since one is an intellectual knowledge of how it works,
and the other is an experience of what it's like.

R Allan Engel wrote on Mon, 9 Nov 2015 11:09:02 GMT:
: Yet the gemara quotes God as saying "Nitzchuni bonay, nitzchuni bonay"

At first read, I was quite taken by this connection, until I noticed
a huge distinction.

"Nitzchuni banai" is all about chazal accepting being Hashem's partner in
evolving Oral Torah. It was given to us as a tool. By contrast, Divine
Justice is just that -- Divine. Our participation in the events of the
world is different in kind than our participation in the development
of halakhah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
micha at aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)