Parshat Vayetze

 

JACOB KEPT LABAN THE ARAMEAN IN THE DARK, NOT TELLING HIM THAT HE WAS FLEEING, AND FLED WITH ALL THAT HE HAD. SOON HE WAS ACROSS THE EUPHRATES AND HEADING TOWARD THE HILL COUNTRY OF GILEAD.

 (Bereishit 31:20-1)

 

 

From What or Whom is it Possible or Desirable to Flee, and to Where?

And fled - Throughout the Torah, the word briha (flight) is used in reference to a person moving from one place to another out of concern for some future danger, while not actually being chased at the moment. Nisa refers to someone's leaving a place because of a present danger, or because someone is pursuing him.

(Seforno Bereishit 31:21)

 

And fled with all that he had - He had to use this stratagem because he had not been promised regarding this [i.e., that God would protect him from Laban]. Even though it would not be easy to spend so much time on the road without Laban finding out, he was sure that God would not allow it to become known to him. However, God's providential thoughts are not the same as man's; he did find out [about Jacob's flight] and chased him and caught up with him. In any case, God saved him. But it would have been better had he not hidden himself from Laban, and had not ended up with the theft of Laban's idols, which caused harm to Jacob.

(Ha-Amek Davar, Bereishit 31:21)

 

And Jonah rose up to flee from God's presence to Tarshish... and God set a great wind upon the sea - Rabbi Brekhiya said: A person who wants to flee flees to one who can stand fast. There is also a person who flees to one who himself takes flight. The sea took flight before Me, for it is said the sea saw and took flight (Tehillim 114:3) - and you fled to the sea.

(ReDaK on Jonah 1:3)

 

 

Laban at Eye-Level

Ronen Ahituv

 

Recently, viewing biblical heroes "at eye-level" has become quite popular. This phrase refers to the approach that emphasizes the humanity of biblical heroes and the complexity of their personalities, including both their positive as well as darker aspects. The controversial willingness to recognize the short-comings of the nation's greatest figures is of educational significance; it brings them closer to recognizable human horizons, allowing us to see them as models for emulation and study, rather than as mere objects of adulation. We find ourselves learning not only from our ancestors' accomplishments, but also from their failures.

It appears that the supporters of the "eye-level" approach use it principally in connection with the Torah's positive heroes. Here we will attempt to employ this method in regard to one of our parasha's less savory protagonists, Laban the Aramean, who, strictly speaking, is one of the forefathers of the Israelite nation.

Like Esau in the previous parasha, Laban is presented as Jacob's opposite and antagonist. It is understood that anyone who wants to depict Jacob as morally perfect will want to paint Laban in the darkest colors, presenting him as embodying the very pinnacle of evil. The Haggadah for Pesah, for example, describes Laban as being even worse than Pharaoh, and attributes to him the intention of "annihilating the entirety [of the Jewish People]."

In our first encounter with Laban, in Parashat Toldot, we immediately come across two striking, and apparently contradictory, character traits. The first is avarice, the second, familial loyalty, demonstrated in the passage:

When he saw the nose-ring and the bands on his sister's arms, and when he heard his sister Rebecca say, "Thus the man spoke to me," he went up to the man who was still standing beside the camels at the spring. He said, "Come in, blessed of the Lord. Why do you remain outside, when I have made ready the house and a place for the camels?" (Bereishit 24:30-1)

Laban competes with his sister Rebecca in extending hospitality to Abraham's servant. While she waters his camels - Laban takes care to feed them. The Torah offers two motives for his actions: the sight of the jewelry his sister has been adorned with, and the information proffered by her, that the guest is Abraham's servant. It is of course possible to down-play the importance of the familial motivation and to interpret Laban's speech as mere sycophancy aimed at squeezing some reward from the generous new arrival, but that would not really explain the lengthy treatment of the encounter given by the Torah. (So it is understood by Nechama Leibowitz, following Rashi and the Sages, see her Iyyunim Be-Sefer Bereishit, pp. 221-2).

In this light, Laban can be described as a person motivated by two separate drives: love of money and love of family. There is no tension between them in his meeting with Abraham's servant; both drives push him in the same direction. Later, however, Laban will have to choose between them.

When Jacob reaches Haran, bereft of any visible wealth, again Laban runs to meet him, and brings him into his house, declaring, you are of my bone and of my flesh (Bereishit 29:14). This phrase cuts both ways: It may be read as an expression of familial love, but at the same time we may understand that Laban considers Jacob to be part of his flesh, meaning that Laban feels free to make Jacob his slave. Indeed, Jacob shepherds Laban's flock for a month's time in the manner of a slave - only receiving room and board,. Jacob works without complaint - after all, his status is quite low, as is the standing of anyone lacking means, even to our own day. He has no bargaining power. That situation could have continued indefinitely, and if it had, Jacob would have been lost to poverty, as it is written; an Aramean caused my father to be lost (Devarim 26:5).

After a month, Laban initiates a change: He calls Jacob my brother, thus recognizing his independence and freedom. Laban expresses surprise at Jacob's having worked for free, and suggests a payment: Are you not my brother - and I have worked you gratuitously (Bereishit 29:15). What causes Laban to reject economic logic and offer recompense to someone as weak as Jacob? We now hear an echo of the verse, If your brother under you continues in straits and must give himself over to you, do not subject him to the treatment of a slave (Vayikra 25:39). Even in Laban's hardened heart there dwell fraternal feelings, driving him, so it would seem, to free Jacob.

However, after the agreement, I will serve you seven years for your younger daughter Rachel (29:18), the relationship between them remains unclear. A work-agreement has been signed, making Jacob's formal status that of a hired hand. In practice, he has sold himself into seven years of slavery in Laban's household. Once again, the Torah's regulations of the Hebrew slave echo in our ears: If you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall work six years and in the seventh he shall go free, without payment (Shemot 21:2) The "rental" agreement allows Laban to by-pass the slavery regulations, making Jacob's enslavement all the more harsh. Such things are still known to us in our own day.

This ambiguity continued throughout Jacob's twenty year stay with Laban. Although he had married Laban's two daughters, Jacob can still be thought of as a slave "whose master has given him a wife," leaving all rights to the wife and her children in the master's hands. Thus Laban managed to accommodate his two motivating drives and live a duplicitous existence: legally speaking, Jacob was a hired hand who received the fair treatment stipulated by mutual agreement. In practice, he was a household slave, so that Laban lost none of his wealth, since "that which is acquired by a slave is automatically acquired by his master" (Pesahim 88b).

With each additional renewal of the agreement, the possibility that Jacob will actually take his leave and receive his due becomes more tenuous, and the subtle line between employee and eternal slave grows fainter. Laban forgets his filial affection for Jacob and his responsibilities towards him. He sinks into the immediate present, concerned solely with the exploitation of his loyal slave and the accumulation of wealth for his family. And so, after twenty years, Laban can blurt out, The girls are my girls, the boys, my boys. The flocks are my flocks; everything you see is mine (31:43). These are the words of the capitalist who lords over his slaves, then as now. The fraternal feelings which beat in Laban's youthful breast have completely atrophied. Indeed, as Jacob proclaims, If the God of my father had not been with me...you now would have sent me out empty-handed (31:42), for we have also learned, if he arrived unmarried, he shall leave unmarried (Shemot 21:3).

Nothing short of Divine intervention is required to get Laban to honor his work-agreement with Jacob. God's prohibition against harming Jacob opens Laban's eyes, forcing him to forge a treaty with one whom he had viewed as a "fugitive slave."

With that treaty, all returns to its proper place. When the avarice which had blinded Laban is forcibly quelled, feelings of paternal responsibility return towards the daughters whom he had treated as strangers. He fears that Jacob might follow his own lead and mistreat his daughters. That is why he makes Jacob swear, If you mistreat my daughters, or take wives additional to them, even if no one is about - behold - God is witness between us (31:50). That same God who had brought the magnitude of Laban's corruption to his attention will also preserve Jacob from similar moral dangers, reminding him and his children of the importance of human sensitivity in a capitalist world.

The Torah takes its leave of Laban with a verse that depicts him as perfect penitent: Laban rose early in the morning, kissed his sons and daughters, and blessed them. Laban set out and returned to his place (31:55). When Laban returns to his proper place, he knows how to express loving sentiments and gains his sons' and daughters' admiration.

The lesson we may learn from the story of Laban's corruption and eventual penitence is relevant to our own economic world. The difficulty we have gazing into the eyes of a worker and seeing in him a brother demands of us that we too must gather up great psychological powers, and pray for God's help.

Dr. Ronen Ahituv lives in Mitzpeh Netofah and teaches at Bar Ilan University, The Oranim Seminary, and the Jordan Valley Regional College.

 

 

Matzeiva and Mizbeiyah: Nature and Man

Matzeiva (memorial-stone) consists of a single stone, mizbeiyah (altar) is an elevation built up by many stones; matzeiva is presented by nature, mizbeiyah is made by man. Before the Torah was given, God's rule was manifest primarily only in the ways of nature and in Man's fate, accordingly in what Man gets from the Hand of God. A matzeiva corresponds to that, a stone taken from God's creation as a memorial for something which He has done. But with the giving of the Torah, God wishes to be revealed, not so much in what Man receives from Him, as in what Man does with what he gets from Him; not with God's gifts but with Man's deeds is God to be glorified. That indeed is the purpose of the Lawgiving, since then the matzeiva is rejected.

(Rabbi S.R. Hirsch on Bereishit 28:18, Levy translation)

 

The Righteous Person Fights for Justice Indiscriminately

He said, "It is still broad daylight, too early to gather up the animals; water the flock and take them to pasture" (Bereishit 29:7)

It is still broad daylight - The righteous man hates injustice, even when perpetrated against gentiles, as it says, The unjust man is an abomination to the righteous (Mishlei 29:7).

(Seforno on Bereishit 29:7)

 

...Moses fled from Pharaoh. He arrived in the land of Midian, and sat down beside a well. Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters. They came to draw water, and filled the troughs to water their father's flock; but shepherds came and drove them off. Moses rose to their defense, and he watered their flocks.

(Shemot 2:15-17)

 

Moses rose to their defense - Since both parties to the dispute were gentiles, he was not inclined to revenge. Neither did he bother to correct their behavior with moral reproof. Rather, he simply rose up to save the exploited from the hands of the exploiters.

(Seforno loc cit.)

 

And the Stone was Great on the Mouth of the Well

Generally the cover of a well designed for general public use, is made to be removed as easily as possible to facilitate its use for everybody. But here - this introduces us to the character of the Arameans - no one trusted the other and nobody meant anybody else to have the slightest advantage. One person might take a drink more than the other. Hence they made the cover so heavy that no person alone but only by their combined effort could the well be used.

(Rabbi S.R. Hirsch on Bereishit 29:2, Levy translation)

 

How does a Shifha Differ from an Amah? How did Sarah Differ from Rachel?

And I shall also be built up by her - What force has also? She said to him, "Your grandfather, Abraham, had children from Hagar [and yet] he girded up his loins [actively interceded] for Sarah [and she afterwards was blessed with a child]. He replied, "But my grandmother brought an associate wife into her house." She retorted, "If that is what prevents me [being blessed with children] - here is my handmaid, etc.- And I shall also be built up by her - [through her] as Sarah [was built up through her handmaid].

(Rashi on Bereishit 30:3, Silberman translation)

 

She said, "Here is my amah [maid] Bilhah. Consort with her that she may bear on my knees" (Bereishit 30:3) - Unlike Sarah, who said, Consort with my shifhah [maid] (16:2). Rachel had freed her, so that she was called an amah, as in the expression amah ivriyah [a Hebrew maid], while afterwards she is still called a shifhah, because they continued to serve her as they did previously. [Sarah said], "perhaps I will be built-up through her" (Bereishit 16:2), while Rachel said "that she may bear on my knees and that through her I too shall be built up." The meaning here is that she will raise the child, making it as if it had been born to her, while Sarah did not want to raise her maid's child. That is why she [Sarah] said perhaps I will be built-up, that she might have some kind of merit and goodly commemoration through that child.

(Ha-Amek Davar Bereishit 30:3)