Shabbos Parashas Ki Savo - 5779

Shabbos Parashas Ki Savo - 5779

Rabbi Hal Miller

An Aramean tried to destroy my forefather. [Devarim 26:5]

In Hebrew, this is three words, arami oveid avi. There is no consensus as to what

each word applies to, so there is no consensus as to what the verse means. The

verse also appears in the Haggada.

Nechama Leibowitz gives a good overview of the problem. "The usual explanation

is that of Sifrei, cited in the Haggada, 'Go and learn what Lavan the Aramean

sought to do to Yaakov our father.' According to this, arami is the subject (Lavan)

avi the direct object (Yaakov) , and oveid the transitive verb (what Lavan did to

Yaakov). This has been accepted by Rashi but is much criticized. Ibn Ezra

observes that the form oveid is intransitive, and to have Sifrei's meaning would

have to have been ma'avid or me'aveid. He suggests avi as the subject and oveid

an intransitive verb, thus both arami and avi refer to Yaakov, and the verse means,

when my father (Yaakov) was in Aram he was ready to perish." He gives many

examples showing the grammatical impact of these word forms.

However, the Gur Aryeh argues strongly against Ibn Ezra regarding the word oveid

and backs Sifrei's rendition, criticizing Ibn Ezra's examples as misunderstood.

Rashbam says, a wandering Aramean was my father, which refers to Avraham, who

was from Aram, as the avi, and explains oveid by a secondary meaning as wanderer.

Nechama then posits that "it is possible that arami does not refer to a person from

Aram, rather to an occupation. Just as merchants are called canaani and caravan

traders are called ishmaeli, so shepherds were called arami."

So, having no clarity from the descriptions of these three words, let us instead look

to the overall meaning of the verse. As noted, we see it in two contexts, here with

regard to what we say when bringing the first fruits, and in the Haggada referring to

Yaakov's descent to Egypt. What is the connection between the two?

Abarbanel says that Lavan the Aramean wanted to destroy Yaakov and his

emerging family, and it was his influence on Yaakov's sons that led to the sale of

Yosef, thus Yaakov's descent to Egypt over a lack of food. The verse comes here to

remind us that the plenty we have now is because God brought us out from Egypt.

Rashi says that the link is that both Lavan and the Egyptians wanted to destroy

Israel. Rav Hirsch says the two contexts are in fact the same, my father, an

Aramean, was destitute and went down to Egypt, but we are no longer destitute.

So what do we learn from all this? In the Haggada context, we say this verse as an

acknowledgment that but for God's mercy, we would have been destroyed by Pharaoh.

In the bikurim context, we say this verse as an acknowledgment that but for God's

mercy, we would have been destroyed by a lack of food. We can look at the verse in

any of the various translations and in both contexts, and see the same thing: our

need to thank our Creator for His kindness and mercy.