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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,

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)