Raboyseyee and Ladies,
In the two is better than one department, let’s begin with a double mazel-tov shoutout to friends of many decades, Chani and Shmuel Einhorn upon the celebration -over in Jerusalem- of their grandson Mordechai’s bar mitzvah – he the son of Devorah and Tzvi Singer, and less than two weeks later, a sholom zochor and bris this past week of another grandson born to their children Ariella and Ari Einhorn. Welcome to the world Naftali Ezra Einhorn, and may you bring much nachas and joy to your parents, grandparents and to the entire extended family.
———————————————————————————————————————
Thoughts Don’t Get Punished & Let’s Blame Lovon!
For the past fourteen years, the heylige Ois has been telling you -over and again- how medrish, when it despises someone, will paint that person with a very ugly brush and blame all that is bad in the world on that person. Examples include Loit, Eisav, Koirach, Doson & Aviram and other villains.
This week -in our parsha mamish- as Moishe is seemingly just about out of Mitzvis to teach the Yiddin -605 have already been delivered, and with four parshas to go and but 613 in total, not many left to teach- we will be introduced to the mitzvah of Bikkurim (first fruits) and the role of Lovon. Also known as Laban, we first met him in Sefer Bereishis when Eliezer, Avrohom’s servant -man of the house- was deputized as the first shadchan ever and sent on a mission to find a suitable wife for Yitzchok.
Ober (however), we ask azoy: What has Lovon got to do with Bikkurim and the entire ceremony to which the first fifteen pisukim of Parshas Ki Sovoi are dedicated? Isn’t he long dead? Let’s find out. But first…the mitzvah of Bikkurim requires a person to bring the first fruits of his produce in a basket to the Beis HaMikdash, proclaim words of gratitude, and present them to a Koihen on duty, who then places them by the Altar. After the ceremony, the Koihen would take the Bikkurim for himself. The bottom line: Bikkurim are a perk and this is one of the means of livelihood – a side hustle if you will- that the heylige Toirah accords Kohanim to enable them to otherwise dedicate their time to the service in Beis HaMikdash. Gishmak. The offeror of the Bikurim recites a scripted speech -words from our parsha- that describe humble beginnings: Surviving Lovon, descending to Egypt, suffering bitter slavery, and emerging with unprecedented wealth and spiritual greatness on the way to the Promised Land. We seemingly relate the story of the Exodus at this time because it’s sadly a person’s nature to take the RBSO’s gifts for granted, especially when it comes to the first fruits of one’s labor.
Says the heylige Mishnah: The Bikkurim ceremony was an elaborate and joyous ceremony. All the Yiddin in a region would gather. As they walked to Yerusholayim, the procession was led by an ox with golden horns and a crown of olive leaves. They would proceed slowly, singing the entire way. The Bikkurim were brought in elaborate vessels, adorned with doves. Upon reaching Jerusalem, city officials would come and greet the pilgrims. Upon reaching the Temple Mount even the wealthiest individuals would personally carry their Bikkurim until reaching the altar. There, they would thank the RBSO for the Exodus from Mitzrayim, the land of Israel and for all of the RBSO’s blessings. The bottom line of this entire mitzvah was to thank the RBSO for all the good things we have in life. Saying thank you was, and still is in order. Saying thank you to the RBSO with such pageantry is gishmak. Let’s read the scripted speech -discussion parts bolded:
Then you shall declare before the Lord your God: “My father was a wandering Aramean, and he went down into Egypt… Then the Lord brought us out of Egypt with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm… He brought us to this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey; and now I bring the first-fruits of the soil that You, Lord, have given me.”
Let’s read the words as they appear in the heylige Toirah (Devorim 26: 5-10):
וְעָנִ֨יתָ וְאָמַרְתָּ֜ לִפְנֵ֣י ׀ יְהֹוָ֣ אֱלֹהֶ֗יךָ אֲרַמִּי֙ אֹבֵ֣ד אָבִ֔י וַיֵּ֣רֶד מִצְרַ֔יְמָה וַיָּ֥גׇר שָׁ֖ם בִּמְתֵ֣י מְעָ֑ט וַֽיְהִי־שָׁ֕ם לְג֥וֹי גָּד֖וֹל עָצ֥וּם וָרָֽב׃
You shall then recite as follows before your God יהוה: “My father was a fugitive Aramean. He went down to Egypt with meager numbers and sojourned there; but there he became a great and very populous nation.
וַיָּרֵ֧עוּ אֹתָ֛נוּ הַמִּצְרִ֖ים וַיְעַנּ֑וּנוּ וַיִּתְּנ֥וּ עָלֵ֖ינוּ עֲבֹדָ֥ה קָשָֽׁה׃
The Egyptians dealt harshly with us and oppressed us; they imposed heavy labor upon us.
וַנִּצְעַ֕ק אֶל־יְהֹוָ֖ אֱלֹהֵ֣י אֲבֹתֵ֑ינוּ וַיִּשְׁמַ֤ע יְהֹוָה אֶת־קֹלֵ֔נוּ וַיַּ֧רְא אֶת־עׇנְיֵ֛נוּ וְאֶת־עֲמָלֵ֖נוּ וְאֶֽת־לַחֲצֵֽנוּ׃
We cried to יהוה, the God of our ancestors, and יהוה heard our plea and saw our plight, our misery, and our oppression.
וַיּוֹצִאֵ֤נוּ יְהֹוָ מִמִּצְרַ֔יִם בְּיָ֤ד חֲזָקָה֙ וּבִזְרֹ֣עַ נְטוּיָ֔ה וּבְמֹרָ֖א גָּדֹ֑ל וּבְאֹת֖וֹת וּבְמֹפְתִֽים׃
יהוה freed us from Egypt by a mighty hand, by an outstretched arm and awesome power, and by signs and portents,
וַיְבִאֵ֖נוּ אֶל־הַמָּק֣וֹם הַזֶּ֑ה וַיִּתֶּן־לָ֙נוּ֙ אֶת־הָאָ֣רֶץ הַזֹּ֔את אֶ֛רֶץ זָבַ֥ת חָלָ֖ב וּדְבָֽשׁ׃
bringing us to this place and giving us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey.
וְעַתָּ֗ה הִנֵּ֤ה הֵבֵ֙אתִי֙ אֶת־רֵאשִׁית֙ פְּרִ֣י הָאֲדָמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁר־נָתַ֥תָּה לִּ֖י יְהֹוָ֑ וְהִנַּחְתּ֗וֹ לִפְנֵי֙ יְהֹוָ֣ אֱלֹהֶ֔יךָ וְהִֽשְׁתַּחֲוִ֔יתָ לִפְנֵ֖י יְהֹוָ֥ אֱלֹהֶֽיךָ׃
Wherefore I now bring the first fruits of the soil which You, יהוה, have given me.” You shall leave it before your God יהוה and bow low before your God יהוה.
Who was the Aramean person? And what did he specifically do? Our sages translate the phrase ארמי אובד אבי to read, “an Aramean tried to destroy my father” and understand it as a reference to Lovon, whom they claim -elsewhere- was worse than Paroy himself. What? Lovon tried to destroy my father? And what is Lovon -whom we first met a few hundred years back, way back in Sefer Bereishis, as the father of Rivka and later as the father-in-law of Yaakov doing in our parsha? Why is Lovon being referenced during the Bikkurim ceremony? What’s pshat that Lovon was worse than Paroy? Was anyone -besides Hitler and Chamas worse than Paroy? Would democrats describe him as being worse than Trump? Did Lovon enslave the Yiddin? Not! Did he kill anyone? Also not! What do we know about Lovon?
He’s most famous for the old Rochel/Leah trick where Yaakov, thinking he married and was about to bed Rochel, found himself doing the zach with Leah and wound up marrying two sisters. Lovon taka fooled him and Yaakov ended up double dipping, ober is that so terrible? And what is the relevance of this posik to the people making their way to Jerusalem to offer their first fruits -as in Bikkurim? What is happening here?
Yet, yearly as we read the Pesach Haggadah, his crimes are mamish delineated as if we were reading his indictment for the first time. The Seder night is dedicated to retelling the story of Yitziyas Mitzrayim (Exodus). We are charged to remember it, rewarded for recalling it, it’s engraved in the hearts of our children, and “the more one tells of the coming out of Egypt, the more admirable it is.” Why then diminish the miracle by saying in effect: “Egypt? That was nothing compared to Lovon!” All this is very strange indeed. The Hagodoh specifically delineates the type of harm Lovon caused noting in the same medrish -well known to many- that Lovon was mamish a very bad guy. Let’s read from the key words:
צֵא וּלְמַד מַה בִּקֵּשׁ לָבָן הָאֲרַמִּי לַעֲשׂוֹת לְיַעֲקֹב אָבִינוּ: שֶׁפַּרְעֹה לֹא גָזַר אֶלָּא עַל הַזְּכָרִים, וְלָבָן בִּקֵּשׁ לַעֲקֹר אֶת־הַכֹּל.
“Go and learn what Lovon the Aramean wished to do to our father Yaakov: for Paroy only issued a decree about the [Israelite] males, but Lovon wished to uproot everything.”
He did? “Uprooting everything” means that Lovon intended to kill Yaakov and his entire family, thus uprooting the Yiddin’s future existence entirely. Mamish azoy? This is a surprisingly harsh accusation. It’s one thing to consider the possibility that Lovon intended to murder Yaakov—as an aside, something the heylige Toirah does not say—but it’s another to assume he would murder his own daughters and grandchildren. However, this accusation mamish fits with the overall approach the medrish took towards Lovon; bad man! Well, blow me down with a feather. Was he? As bad as painted? You can decide a bit later.
Let us review the questions which include these: Who is the Aramean guy mentioned in our parsha and how was he identified as Lovon in the medrish? Who said -and why- that the “Arami” in our parsha is Yaakov’s father-in-law Lovon, who, following Yaakov’s escape with his entire family and lots of animals to return to Ka’nan, gave chase (Bereishis 31:23) with intentions of murder? Shoin, before we answer, let’s read what happened next: Though Lovon caught up to Yaakov, the evening before, as Lovon was resting, the RBSO appeared to Lovon -in a dream- and warned him not to harm (literally “speak good or bad to”) Yaakov (Bereishis 31:24). When Lovon and Yaakov met, he admitted that the RBSO’s visit made him rethink any harm he was considering causing Yaakov. Let’s read that posik (Bereishis 31:29):
יֶשׁ לְאֵל יָדִי לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמָּכֶם רָע וֵאלֹהֵי אֲבִיכֶם אֶמֶשׁ אָמַר אֵלַי לֵאמֹר הִשָּׁמֶר לְךָ מִדַּבֵּר עִם יַעֲקֹב מִטּוֹב עַד רָע.
“I have it in my power to do you harm; but the G-d of your father said to me last night, “Beware of attempting anything with Yaakov, good or bad.””
The bottom line of that story is this: Lovon did not harm Yaakov; no more than Eisav harmed Yaakov when they met and reconciled. In fact, the only big news out of the meeting was that Lovon warned Yaakov about withholding sexual favors from his daughters. Lovon knew that his two daughters needed to be serviced and was adamant that Yaakov not take additional wives as this would diminish their play time with Yaakov. Does that make him a bad guy? If only all fathers-in-law asked their sons-in-law to do the same and if only their daughters would accommodate. Shoin, let’s move on. We ask again: is Lovon so bad that he’s compared to Paroy but only worse? That being the case, why does medrish refer to him as having wanted to destroy all, even more so than Paroy himself? What’s pshat here?
Is there any evidence that Lovon mamish harmed Yaakov? Not! Farkert (the opposite is true) and the heylige Toirah tells us so bifeirush (explicitly). He may have wanted to, but in the end he did not. Paroy, by contrast, did not merely contemplate doing evil to the Yiddin, he mamish did so when he ordered the killing of every male child. Let’s not forget that he enslaved the entire population. How can we compare the two?
What is the real evidence against Lovon? As mentioned, the heylige Toirah presents Lovon as fooling Yaakov into marrying the wrong sister, thus extending his years of labor. Years later, Yaakov accuses Lovon of changing the agreed upon pay multiple times. The Hebrew word for a trickster or deceiver is ramai (רמאי). Said Yaakov to Lovon (Bereishis 29:25):
וַיְהִ֣י בַבֹּ֔קֶר וְהִנֵּה־הִ֖וא לֵאָ֑ה וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֶל־לָבָ֗ן מַה־זֹּאת֙ עָשִׂ֣יתָ לִּ֔י הֲלֹ֤א בְרָחֵל֙ עָבַ֣דְתִּי עִמָּ֔ךְ וְלָ֖מָּה רִמִּיתָֽנִי׃
When morning came, there was Leah! So he said to Laban, “What is this you have done to me? I was in your service for Rachel! Why did you deceive me?”
Why did you deceive me!? Ober notice that Yaakov did not actually call Lovon a Ramai; instead, he used the verbal form of this root. In fact, no place in the heylige Toirah is Lovon referred to as the aramai, the deceiver.
That being stated, we do find several pisukim where Lovon is referred to as Lovon, the Aramean, meaning that Lovon came from Aram and that’s how he became known and was referred to. Just yesterday, while discussing this very topic with a Satmar chusid, the gentleman, in response to my question Googled the latest Achroin -ChatGPT- who said azoy: “Laban is referred to as “the Aramean” in the biblical texts primarily because he was from the region of Aram, which is associated with the Arameans, an ancient Semitic people. Laban is described as the brother of Rebekah and the father of Leah and Rachel, who married Jacob. The term emphasizes his geographical and ethnic background, linking him to the broader narrative of the Hebrew Bible, where the interactions between different peoples and cultures are significant. It helps to establish the context of Laban’s relationships with Jacob and his family.” Need we any more proof?
That being stated as fact, nevertheless, in the medrish, it is noted that the word ramai (רמאי) is formed with the same letters as Aramean (ארמי). Shoin, in anagram style, it appears that many of our sages used this arami-ramai pun when interpreting verses that refer to Lovon as an Aramean. For example, Bereishis 25:20 uses the word Aram three times:
בראשית כה:כ וַיְהִי יִצְחָק בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה בְּקַחְתּוֹ אֶת רִבְקָה בַּת בְּתוּאֵל הָאֲרַמִּי מִפַּדַּן אֲרָם אֲחוֹת לָבָן הָאֲרַמִּי לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה.
Gen 25:20 Yitzchok was forty years old when he took to wife Rivka, daughter of Besuel the Aramean of Paddan-aram, sister of Lovon the Aramean.
It appears that the word Aramen is used but to indicate place of origin and nothing more. Ober, that being said, bothered by this three-fold repetition, says the medrish (Bereishis Rabbah 63) says this:
אמר ר’ יצחק אם ללמד שהוא מפדן ארם מה תלמוד לומר אחות לבן הארמי, אלא בא ללמדך אביה רמאי ואחיה רמאי ואף אנשי מקומה רמאין והצדקת הזו שיוצאה מבינתיים למה היא דומה לשושנה בין החוחים,
Reb Yitzchok: “If it just wanted to teach us that he was from Padan-Aram, what does ‘Lovon the Aramean’ teach us? It comes to teach us that her father was a trickster and her brother was a trickster, and even the people who lived there were tricksters, and that this righteous woman who came from there can be likened to ‘a lily among the thorn-bushes’ (Song 2:2).”
Interpreting arami as ramai, many sages read the posik to say that Lovon is a cheat from a family of cheats in a town of cheats. But this is the least of the rabbis’ accusations. He was doomed from the get-go. In the medrish, Lovon is a very bad man!
Ober, what if………what if the medrish is not correct about Lovon? What if -as does suggest the Chizkuni (Devorim 26:5:1) that the words ארמי אובד אבי, “my forefather used to be a wandering Aramean;” mean something else? Like what? Like the posik has been abbreviated. In full, it should have read: “Yaakov my forefather was a wandering Aramean.” While he was serving Lovon in Aram he was no better than a wandering Aramean, he had no house or land of his own; he was not even a resident in that country.” Wow! Is the Chizkuni suggesting that Lovon has nothing to do with these words? He is! And guess what? The words said by the Bikkurim offeror make much more sense when Yaakov is inserted and the Chizkuni is telling us that the heylige Toirah meant to tell us that the words refer to Yaakov who was a wandering Aramean; Lovon is innocent of the charges.
And what if, as states the Ibn Ezra on the same words, that pshat is azoy: The word oved (wandering) is an intransitive verb. If Aramean referred to Lovon then Scripture should have read mavid or me’abbed. Furthermore, what reason would Scripture have had for stating, Lovon sought to destroy my father and he went down to Egypt? Lovon did not cause Yaakov to descend to Egypt. It thus appears to me that the term Aramean refers to Yaakov. Scripture, as it were, reads, when my father was in Aram he was “perishing.” That is, he was poor, he had no money. He says more but you get his point; these words have nothing to do with Lovon!
On the other hand, what if, asks and answers the Birkas Asher on the same words, azoy: What is the connection between Lovon and the historical fact that Yaakov went down to Mitzrayim? He suggests azoy: Had not Lovon tricked Yaakov by making that last minute tent switch, Yaakov would have wed and bed Rochel first, Yoisef would have been born first, he would have been the B’chor with first born rights, and his younger brothers would not have been jealous of his birthright gifts, and of course, he would not have been sold into slavery. Yaakov went to Egypt to reunify with his long-lost son. The bottom line: Historically, it was all Lovon’s fault! Fartig.
“…ארמי אֹבד אבי וירד מצרימה” וגו’. מה הקשר בין מעשיו של לבן לירידה למצרים? לכאורה הקשר הוא בכך שאלמלא רימה לבן את יעקב אבינו ע”ה בתתו לו את לאה לפני רחל, היה יוסף הבכור מוכר על־ידי כל האחים ולא היה שנוא בשל הפליתו לטובה על־ידי אביו, וממילא לא היה נמכר למצרים וכו’. (פ’ בשלח תשמ”ז)
There are several other opinions but let’s close out the conversation with this possibility. What if Lovon did mamish nothing to hurt Yaakov -and taka he didn’t- but as does suggest Aderes Eliyahu, he is guilty anyway because he had in mind to hurt Yaakov. Of course you recall learning what our rabbis have taught us over the years: When it comes to goyim (gentiles), those not from the chosen people, their sinful thoughts account as actions. Accordingly, Lovon was guilty because he had intended to harm Yaakov.ארמי אבד אבי. מעלין עליו כאלו איבד שבגוים מצרפין מחשבה למעשה:
The bottom line: Was Lovon, the villain painted in the medrish? One can certainly argue both sides. The very good news as we get deeper into the month of Elul and closer to the days of awe, is that most of us only face punishment and consequences for actions taken. Some by wandering a bit and some, far from not normative behavior. Ober, sins we only thought about -fantasized about- but somehow held back -with ‘somehow’ being the operative word, the ever-forgiving RBSO will thankfully let those slide. The RBSO will -if this theory is correct- turn the other cheek even when you held back because you could not pull off your plan or fantasy. That is of course very helpful. He will? So say many a sage and so we find written in the heylige Gemora (Kiddushin 39b) where we read this: מַחְשָׁבָה רָעָה אֵין הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מְצָרְפָהּ לְמַעֲשֶׂה.
The Gemora states that there is a principle that the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not link a bad thought to an action, i.e., one is not punished for thoughts alone. What a relief!
A gittin Shabbis,
The Heylige Oisvorfer Ruv
Yitz Grossman
