Parshat Vayeira - The Curious Case of Avraham Avinu

A thought has been perplexing me about Parshatexample of cause and effect.
Vayeira.When one displays an overwhelming amount of
Quick recap:compassion for someone or something clearly
Sodom and Gomorrah were towns infamous for theirundeserving of said compassion, it produces a tumult
sick and repulsive behavior. Yet when Hashem toldthrough every bit of you, messing up your mental
Avraham (Abraham) that He was going to destroy thecapabilities so much that you gain an inability to make
towns, Avraham went out of his way to stick out hisclear and intelligent decisions.
neck and argue on behalf of these cities so thatThe decision to be compassionate to a murderer was
perhaps God might spare them.irrational, and so was the decision to slaughter innocent
OK, sticking up for the potentially innocent is generallypriests. One action caused the brain to be able to
considered high-quality behavior, as is taking great risksperform the next action.
for the sake of helping others.So what about Avraham?
But here's what confuses me:Is there a parallel?
When God told Avraham to sacrifice his son YitzchakWas his decision to argue on behalf of the worthless,
(Isaac), Avraham proceeded to carry out his orderswicked folk of Sodom and Gomorrah misplaced
with no protest. Not only was Yitzchak 100% innocent,compassion that would confuse Avraham so
but unlike Sodom and Gomorrah for which Avrahamtremendously that he couldn't even argue on behalf of
lacked a connection, Yitzchak was his own flesh andhis own innocent son?
blood.Or conceivably a worse scenario: Perhaps God's
What makes matters worse for me is Avraham goesexplicit rejection of misplaced compassion helps foster
down in history as being a great person for his actionsin people a fear of compassion in general, even when
in both scenarios.it is highly warranted. Maybe Shaul saw how angry
And to make things even more troubling, we have theGod was at his actions with the king of Amalek, so
story of Shaul HaMelech (King Saul). Early in his careernext time an opportunity arose to be compassionate,
as a monarch he was given the directive to kill thehe no longer saw compassion as an option. Maybe
entire people of Amalek, the quintessential nemesis ofAvraham saw how eventually God didn't pay much
the Jewish people.heed to his repeated attempts to save the people of
He did not complete his duties, expressing misplacedSodom, and felt that purely succumbing to God's will
compassion for the king of Amalek, a depravedwas the only acceptable decision, hence not arguing at
murderer.the request to slaughter his own child.
This same King Saul would later on massacre anMaybe.
entire town of innocent kohanim (priests) on suspicionI don't yet have answers for all my questions, or
that they were harboring a fugitive. This would havecomfort from my every concern.
likely been an overreaction even if he was correct.All I know is: Something about Parshat Veyeira just
However, in this case not only were they onlydoesn't feel right. Neither the request to slaughter a
unknowingly harboring this fugitive, but the fugitive inchild, nor the righteous willingness to carry out the
question was entirely innocent of all that he was beingdecree without protest, leave me with much clarity
accused.about what God wants from me.
Two isolated incidents reflecting a severe mentalNevertheless, this feeling doesn't shake my faith. It
imbalance? Perhaps.doesn't even place a mild dent.
But traditional sources tell us this is more of an