Arami 'Oved Avi: Redacting the Haggadah / Reclaiming the Torah ?

Jayhawker Soule · Mar 25, 2015

When you enter the land that God your Lord gives to you, and you shall possess it and dwell in it. Then you shall take from the first of all the fruits of the earth that you shall bring from the land that God your Lord gives you, and you shall place them in a basket. You shall go to the place that God will choose to cause His name to dwell there. You shall approach the Cohen who shall be there at that time, and shall say to him: "I declare this day before God your Lord that I have come into the land that God swore unto our ancestors to give us." The Cohen shall take the basket from your hands and place it down before the altar of God your Lord.

You shall proclaim before God your Lord: "ARAMI 'OVED AVI. He went down to Egypt and sojourned there few in number, and there became a great, powerful and populous nation. The Egyptians dealt harshly with us and afflicted us, and put upon us difficult labor. We cried out to God the Lord of our ancestors, and God heard our voice, saw our affliction, our burden, and our distress. God took us out of Egypt with a strong hand, an outstretched arm, awesome acts, signs and wonders. He brought us to this place, and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey. And now I have brought the first fruits of the earth that you have given me God," and you shall put them down before God your Lord and prostrate yourself before God your Lord.

You shall rejoice in all the good that God your Lord has given to you and to your household, you and the Levite, and the convert that dwells in your midst (Devarim 26:1-11). - source

Meaning?

Rashi: 11th century

Arami oved Avi. (An Aramean sought to destroy my father). Laban sought to uproot all when he pursued after Jacob. And because he contemplated doing so, God charges him as though he had done it for as regards the nations of the world the Holy One Blessed Be God considers a thought equivalent to a deed.

Perhaps, but many modern translations are more in line with …

Rashbam: 12th century

Arami oved Avi. (My father was a wandering Aramean). My father Abraham was an Aramean, wandering and exiled in the land of Aram. As it is written, "Go forth from your land" (Genesis 12:1) and as it's written, "So when God made me wander from my father's house" (Genesis 20:13).

Ibn Ezra: 12th century

Arami Oved Avi. (a lost Aramean). The word "oved" is intransitive. And if the word "Arami" were to indicate Laban, the text would have written "ma'abed" or "ma'avid." And furthermore, what is the reason to say that Laban wanted to kill my father and went down to Egypt, and Laban never turned to go down to Egypt! The closer reading is that the Aramean was Jacob. As if the text said, when my father was in Aram he was enslaved, a poor person without money.

It seems to me that the central midrash in our Haggadah does a disservice by moving from

Once we were the Other ...

to

The Other tried to destroy us!

I'd love to see a Haggadah reclaim what to many seems to be the original meaning of the phrase.

Tumah · Mar 25, 2015

Onkelos: 2nd century

An Aramean - wanted [to] - [make] lost (ie. destroy) - father

Seems like Rashi has who to lean on.

As RabbiO quoted in the name of the Or Hachaim: 18th century:
"דע כי רשות לנו נתונה לפרש משמעות הכתובים בנתיבות העיון ויישוב הדעת הגם שקדמונו ראשונים ויישבו באופן אחר כי ע' פנים לתורה"
"Know that permission was granted to explain the implications of the Scriptures through the paths of critical reading (? not sure how to say this in English) and equanimity. Despite [the fact that] the earlier ones [already] answered [these verses] in a different manner, because there are seventy facets to Torah."

rosends · Mar 25, 2015

You quote three explanations, and then say that they moved from Once we were the Other
Where is this 'original' reading from?
The text has already had the section מִתְּחִלָּה עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה הָיוּ אֲבוֹתֵינוּ and is moving to explain Lavan's involvement in things later.
The first Haggadah I picked up, the Abarbanel version had this as explanation

Tumah · Mar 25, 2015

Also Midrash Tanhuma:
...And Balaam is Laban as it says, 'Arami Oved Avi'. And because he tried to wipe out Israel, he is called and Aramean as it says, "and go make anger against Israel." (VaYetzei 13)

... he ran to Laban, to Haran and was pained with the daughters of Laban. And afterwards he wanted to kill him as it says, "Arami Oved Avi". (Eikev 3)

Levite · Mar 25, 2015

I think there is room for both interpretations of Arami 'oved avi. We have often been the Other, and there have absolutely been times the Other sought to destroy us. I don't think it's a case of either/or.

I do think the pshat meaning is "my father was a wandering Aramean," but I have no quarrel with the drashed meaning of "An Aramean sought to destroy my father," as a drash.

I would actually think it could be an interesting seder discussion, talking about when have we been lost, and when have others sought to destroy us, and what do we get out of the two different meanings.

Jayhawker Soule · Mar 26, 2015

rosends said:
You quote three explanations, and then say that they moved from Once we were the Other
Where is this 'original' reading from?

"Once we were the Other" is my wording.
As for a discussion of the midrash, see Schechter Haggadah: Art, History, and Commentary

Jayhawker Soule · Mar 26, 2015

Levite said:
I do think the pshat meaning is "my father was a wandering Aramean," but I have no quarrel with the drashed meaning of "An Aramean sought to destroy my father," as a drash.

And I do, because it facilitates the progressive loss of what we both believe to be the original message of our Torah while focussing on victimhood.

Levite · Mar 26, 2015

Jayhawker Soule said:
And I do, because it facilitates the progressive loss of what we both believe to be the original message of our Torah while focussing on victimhood.

I might be willing to entertain that opinion if the reading of "An Aramean tried to destroy my father" had completely superseded and obliterated the pshat of "My father was a wandering Aramean." But that hasn't happened. There are Haggadot that render one way, and Haggadot that render the other, and discussion of both ways to render it in the classical commentaries as well as in modern commentary.

As for focusing on victimhood, I suppose if that were the only rendering both in the Haggadah and in translations of Torah, I might think it cultivates a theology of victimhood. But again, that is not the case. And it seems...I don't know...excessive, maybe, or oddly like tunnel-vision, perhaps, to determine that this particular drash, as contexted within the Haggadah-- an assembled narrative entirely about our redemption from oppression and destruction-- is negative or worthless because it points out that we have been victims of oppression and destruction.

While I certainly support Haggadot rendering the verse according to the pshat rather than the drash, I do support the drash being presented for discussion as a legitimate and valuable drash, especially as a complementary text to passages such as והיא שעמדה לאבותנו ולנו שלא אחד בלבד עמד עלינו לכלותנו אלא שבכל דור ודור עמדים עלינו לכלותנו והקב״ה מצילנו מידם. The point is, davka, not to emphasize our victimhood, but to emphasize our capacity not to be victims. That our emunah, the strength we derive from being faithful to who we are, from being faithful to our covenant with Hashem, gives us courage and power not to be victims, but to be our own empowerers, the decisors of our own fate, to be actors and not those acted upon.

rosends · Mar 27, 2015

Jayhawker Soule said:
"Once we were the Other" is my wording.

As for a discussion of the midrash, see Schechter Haggadah: Art, History, and Commentary

But then how did anyone move "from" something which is your wording? If there are historical sources which have as the underlying idea of Arami Oved Avi the notion of destruction and the initial idea is still recognized, then is it fair to say that there has been a movement from and to, or would it be better to say that the two layers of understanding existed concurrently and in parallel?

Jayhawker Soule · Mar 27, 2015

Levite said:
I might be willing to entertain that opinion if the reading of "An Aramean tried to destroy my father" had completely superseded and obliterated the pshat of "My father was a wandering Aramean." But that hasn't happened. There are Haggadot that render one way, and Haggadot that render the other, and discussion of both ways to render it in the classical commentaries as well as in modern commentary.

Then I stand corrected -- I was entirely unaware of this. Could you offer a couple of examples? I would truly like to see how they accomplish this.

rosends · Mar 27, 2015

The confusion I have is in the particular invocation of Dev 26. The text, having moved from the mitchila (genai) and moving towards shevach reminds us of the hardships in between. It begins with the assertion in tzei ul'mad that Lavan tried to do something more severe than Par'oh. This pasuk is then brought in to prove that point so to translate/interpret it in a way which does not support the particular exegetical point wouldn't help. There are various meforshim (like the Abarbenel which I reproduced above) who recognize that the text only supports the point on a level of drash and not necessarily the pshat, but some don't agree with that and say that the pshat is as the translations have it. A brief discussion of this can be read in the Haggadah of Rabbi Dr. Marcus Lehman of Mainz (1969, published in English in 1975)

Jayhawker Soule · Mar 27, 2015

rosends said:
But then how did anyone move "from" something which is your wording? If there are historical sources which have as the underlying idea of Arami Oved Avi the notion of destruction and the initial idea is still recognized, then is it fair to say that there has been a movement from and to, or would it be better to say that the two layers of understanding existed concurrently and in parallel?

I guess I've been unclear. I am not suggesting that we have moved from one midrash to another, but that the current 'midrash' stems from an unfortunate reading/rendering of Deuteronomy 26:5, inspired in part by Rashi's understanding of the plain meaning of the text: compare, for example, Socino/Hertz, NJPS, Alter, and Fox with Art Scrolls.

From NJPS/Tigay:

5. my father was a fugitive Aramean

… it is clear that the Recitation means to contrast the homeless, landless beginnings of the Israelites with their present possession of a fertile lind.

The Hebrew 'arami 'oved 'avi is alliterative, which would facilitate memorization of this phrase. This would keep the memory of Israel's landless beginnings fresh in the farmer's memory.

This clause is probably very ancient, for it is unlikely that Israelite tradition would have chosen to describe Israel's ancestors as "Arameans" once the Arameans of Damascus became aggressive toward Israel in the ninth century B.C.E. The same consideration may underlie the fanciful interpretation of the clause as "[Laban the] Aramean sought to destroy my father." This interpretation, found in the Pesah Haggadah and reflected in the Septuagint and the targums, is due, perhaps, to a disbelief that the Bible would describe one of Israel's ancestors as an Aramean.

It is the shift from …

we have been brought from homeless beginnings to …

to

he tried to kill us but …

Jayhawker Soule · Mar 27, 2015

rosends said:
A brief discussion of this can be read in the Haggadah of Rabbi Dr. Marcus Lehman of Mainz (1969, published in English in 1975)

Thank you.

rosends · Mar 27, 2015

Jayhawker Soule said:
I guess I've been unclear. I am not suggesting that we have moved from one midrash to another, but that the current 'midrash' stems from an unfortunate reading/rendering of Deuteronomy 26:5, inspired in part by Rashi's understanding of the plain meaning of the text: compare, for example, Socino/Hertz, NJPS, Alter, and Fox with Art Scrolls.

From NJPS/Tigay:

It is the shift from …

we have been brought from homeless beginnings to …

to

he tried to kill us but …

But is the comparison between the translations in a chumash and the translations in the haggadah which quotes the chumash? It might be that the chumash has more leeway to be literal because the text is not being cited to prove a point, just tell a story.

---------------edit, additions-----------------
the Judaica Press and the Artscroll have the "destroy" idea even in the Dev 26 chumash translation. The JPS (as seen on Jewish Virtual Library) has the "wandering". If the Soncino does as well (I can't look til I get home) then it might be that the mainstream chumash translation still conforms to the "wandering" idea and the Artscroll/Judaica Press version is interpreting or accepting the other understanding as the exception, not the rule. But all of this would be in the chumash text, not the hagaddah's rendering.

Tumah · Mar 27, 2015

Jayhawker Soule said:
I guess I've been unclear. I am not suggesting that we have moved from one midrash to another, but that the current 'midrash' stems from an unfortunate reading/rendering of Deuteronomy 26:5, inspired in part by Rashi's understanding of the plain meaning of the text: compare, for example, Socino/Hertz, NJPS, Alter, and Fox with Art Scrolls.

From NJPS/Tigay:

It is the shift from …

we have been brought from homeless beginnings to …

to

he tried to kill us but …

Can you explain why you are choosing to put ths on Rashi's shoulders and not Onkelos as I've quoted earlier?

Jayhawker Soule · Mar 27, 2015

rosends said:
But is the comparison between the translations in a chumash and the translations in the haggadah which quotes the chumash? It might be that the chumash has more leeway to be literal because the text is not being cited to prove a point, just tell a story.

Perhaps the first question is whether or not what we find in the Haggadah is an intentional midrashic reframing of the text or, conversely, a misunderstanding of the text. Put differently, which better reflects the intention of the author: the understanding suggested by Rashi and those who follow him, or the understanding suggested by Rashbam and Ibn Ezra as reflected in our modern translations?

rosends · Mar 27, 2015

Tumah said:
Can you explain why you are choosing to put ths on Rashi's shoulders and not Onkelos as I've quoted earlier?

This site conjectures that the entire attempt by the haggadah was NOT to quote the pasuk but the sifreis understanding of it so the whole intent has less to do with a literal reading.

Jayhawker Soule · Mar 27, 2015

Tumah said:
Can you explain why you are choosing to put ths on Rashi's shoulders and not Onkelos as I've quoted earlier?

My Stone Edition Tanach references Rashi alone, but you raise a good point. Both Onkelos and Pseudo-Jonathan, as well as the LXX, see a reference to Laban in the text.

Tumah · Mar 27, 2015

rosends said:
This site conjectures that the entire attempt by the haggadah was NOT to quote the pasuk but the sifreis understanding of it so the whole intent has less to do with a literal reading.

That's interesting.

Jayhawker Soule said:
My Stone Edition Tanach references Rashi alone, but you raise a good point. Both Onkelos and Pseudo-Jonathan, as well as the LXX, see a reference to Laban in the text.

Oh, I didn't even look at Johnathan. I should have, but now I don't have time. Obviously I haven't checked the LXX.

Jayhawker Soule · Mar 27, 2015

Tumah said:
Oh, I didn't even look at Johnathan. I should have, but now I don't have time. Obviously I haven't checked the LXX.

From Pseudo-Jonathan:

Our father Jakob went down into Aram Naharia at the beginning, and (Laban) sought to destroy him; but the Word of the Lord saved him out of his hands. And afterwards went he down into Mizraim and sojourned there, a few people; but there did he become a great people, and mighty and many. But the Mizraee evil‑treated and afflicted us, and laid heavy bondage upon us. But we prayed before the Lord our God, and the Lord hearkened to our prayers, our affliction and our travail; and our oppression was manifest before Him. And the Lord brought us out of Mizraim with a mighty hand and uplifted arm, and with great visions, signs, and wonders, and brought us into this place, and gave us this land, a land of fruits rich as milk and sweet as honey. Now, therefore, behold, I have brought the early firstlings of the fruit of the land which thou hast given me, 0 Lord.

Interestingly, while Tigay references the Septuagint the online translation has:

And it shall be, if you come into the land that the Lord your God is giving you as an allotment and you take possession of it and live in it, that you shall take from the first fruit of the fruits of your land that the Lord your God is giving you and put in a basket and go to the place that the Lord your God may choose for his name to be called there. And you shall go to the priest who shall be in those days and say to him, “Today I de- clare to the Lord my God that I have come into the land that the Lord swore to our fathers to give us.” And the priest shall take the basket from your hands and set it down before the altar of the Lord your God. And in reply, you shall say before the Lord your God: “My ancestor abandoned Syria and went down into Egypt and sojourned there, few in number, and there he became a nation, great and numerous, many and great. And the Egyptians did us ill and humbled us and imposed hard work on us, and we cried to the Lord, the God of our fa- thers, and the Lord listened to our voice and saw our humiliation and our toil and our oppression. 8And the Lord brought us out of Egypt with great strength and with a strong hand and a high arm and with great spectacles and with signs and with wonders, 9and he brought us into this place and gave us this land, a land flowing with milk and honey.

Arami 'Oved Avi: Redacting the Haggadah / Reclaiming the Torah ?

-- untitled --

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

Higher and Higher

-- untitled --

-- untitled --

Higher and Higher

Well-Known Member

-- untitled --

Well-Known Member

-- untitled --

-- untitled --

Well-Known Member

Veteran Member

-- untitled --

Well-Known Member

-- untitled --

Veteran Member

-- untitled --