A Non Trivial Pursuit

This can be read in the Jewish Star

Parshat Vayetze

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Chapter 31 is a little long to reproduce here, but it is worth reading before proceeding. It is a quick read, as the plot moves along like a well-written suspense novel.

Yaakov senses that the warm and fuzzy feelings are long gone and that it is time to return home. G-d seconds the notion in one sentence, so Yaakov approaches his wives, sisters Rachel and Leah, and appeals to them using three essential points. Your father’s view of me has changed dramatically, G-d has watched over me and given me your father’s wealth (which I anticipated through a vision of an angel), and now G-d has told me to return home. (31:5-13)

Their response is to all three points: Our father treats us like strangers as well, his wealth belongs to us and our children (thanks to G-d), and whatever G-d has told you to do should be done. (31:14-16)

The family flees from Laban’s home, and we begin to see a series of interesting parallels to a different time and place when this family (albeit a much larger group) flees from their current abode where they have been working for a different kind of boss.

The Baal Haturim records two instances of the phrase “Ki Varakh” (that he fled) in the Torah. The first is Yaakov with his family, and the second is the nation of Israel fleeing Egypt (Shmot 14:5). [He also suggests that Amalek, the person, was responsible for telling Laban about Yaakov’s flight, while Amalek, the nation, was responsible for telling Pharaoh that the nation of Israel was not returning, because the phrase “Ki Varakh” has the same numerical value as “Amalek” in gematria (240).]

Let us consider some of the parallels in the two flights.

Those fleeing have many possessions, including many animals. They are heading to the land of Canaan. They give no indication of their lack of intent to return (Yaakov doesn’t mention he is leaving, and the Israelites had always requested a three-day journey). They cross a body of water (31:21 here). On the third day their adversary hears of their flight, at which point he begins to give chase, “taking” along his cohorts — in both cases the word “Vayikach” is employed (31:23, and Shmot 14:6-7) — and on the seventh day he catches up to them (31:22-23, and Rashi on Shmot 14:5). In the night, G-d gives every indication that a violent encounter will not go well for the pursuer: Laban has a dream in which he is warned to be peaceful, and Pharaoh has the privilege of witnessing a miraculous pillar of fire which prevents him from approaching his quarry.

Laban’s idols are stolen, and Egypt’s idols are either destroyed (in the plagues) or “stolen” (in that the Egyptians worshipped sheep, a staple of Israelite animals).

Finally, there is a notion of the word “Ra” (usually meaning “bad”) that the pursuer has the opportunity to employ against the pursued. G-d never allowed Laban to use “Ra” while Yaakov lived in the house (31:7), and G-d also prevents him from using it when he encounters Yaakov (31:24, 29). Pharaoh mentioned that “Ra’ah” will be against the Israelites if they leave Egypt (Shmot 10:10), and Moshe uses a similar argument when he needs to defend the people after the sin of the Golden Calf (Shmot 32:12) — “Why should Egypt be able to say that with “Ra’ah” they were brought out to be destroyed in the desert?” Rashi mentions in Shmot 10:10 that “Ra’ah” is the name of a star, which is a symbol of blood and death.

In both cases, we don’t really know what the pursuer’s intent was when they began their chase. Whatever Laban’s original plans were, he is a relatively reasonable grandfather and slighted host who is appalled that his family left without saying goodbye and took some of his prized possessions in their flight. (31:26-30)

Pharaoh’s intent is never made clear either. Is he looking to kill his former slaves? Bring them back? Push them into the sea? Or make sure they never return? (Shmot 14:3 indicates they turned around and got lost returning to Egypt proper.)

The Haggadah suggests Pharaoh only had in mind to kill the males, while Laban wanted to wipe out everything. It is possible Pharaoh wanted to make sure the Israelites never return, while it seems Laban wanted everyone to come back, so he could continue to be a significant role model during his grandchildren’s formative years.

In the final analysis, the best thing for the Israelite family was to pursue their destiny on their own terms, to stay true to their beliefs and their inherited legacy in a manner only they understood. The intentions of Laban and Pharaoh can be interpreted however we like. But their interests, ultimately, are not always in our best interest.

At best we can put up a friendly front to all the Laban’s and Pharaoh’s. But we must always look out for ourselves, as we bear in mind our heritage and live by the codes of practice we have carried for millennia.