Parshat Chayei Sarah
by Rabbi Avi Billet
After Rivkah runs to tell her mother of her encounter with Avraham’s servant, while she is prominently wearing the jewelry he gave her, her brother Lavan runs out to the man. (24:28-29).
The narrative then puts in what might be viewed as a parenthetical comment – “And it was when he saw the nose ring and the bracelets on his sister’s arms, and when he heard what Rivkah said ‘This is what the man said to me…’ that he came to the man, who was standing over his camels at the spring. (העין)” (24:30)
That the depiction of the well (באר) is now a spring (עין), according to the Pesikta, is because he was looking after her – מעיין לה. It is not clear if the “he” here refers to Avraham’s servant or Lavan. In either case, we can objectively say both of them may be looking out for her best interests.
Is that verse, however, indeed a parenthetical comment?
Rashi suggests it is parenthetical in that it is explaining why Lavan ran out, the action at the end of the previous verse – he saw the jewelry and figured the man had more wealth with him that Lavan could hope to profit from.
Others say it is not parenthetical at all – there is a little missing from the narrative.
Rivkah had been out for much longer than she normally would be. Before she returned in verse 28, Lavan ran out to find her – and went to the man who was at the spring. Not finding her, he went home, only to see the jewelry and to hear her story. Then he went out (ויבא) to the man to talk to him (see R’ Chaim Paltiel and Hadar Zekenim).
These two perspectives are so different. One looks at Lavan, a brother to a young girl (commentaries put her age between 3 and 20), and has him looking only at the way he can profit from whatever she has been given. The other looks at the same scenario and praises him for looking out for his sister. And perhaps even being kind to the man who was so kind to her.
There is no question that the adult Lavan that we encounter in Parshat Vayetze is a trickster and conniver who is only looking out for his own self interests. But that is 97 years from now – after a life of trickery and hardship, and also many years of infertility (Midrashim will put Leah and Rachel as very young women when Yaakov, as a 77 year old, shows up at Lavan’s house. So whereas Rivkah will have been married 20 years before having a child, it will have been between 83-90 years from now until the births of Lavan’s daughters.) Who is to say that the young Lavan is as corrupt now as he will be in almost a century? Maybe there is minimally a semblance of goodness?
In his Torah Shelemah, Rav Kasher quotes a Midrash that upon seeing the jewelry Lavan ran out to kill Avraham’s servant. When the servant recognized Lavan’s evil intent, he pronounced God’s name which caused the camels to levitate, with Eliezer above them. Seeing this ability, Lavan recognized that the man is righteous, and so he said “Bless is God…”
But in the footnote, he quotes from the Yalkut Shimoni that upon seeing the jewelry, Lavan thought that this was payment from a man who had defiled his sister. So he ran to the man to confront him. But when he saw Eliezer’s strength, that he could pull ten camels through the water, he decided to run back and ask his sister as to what had transpired between them. The suggestion is made that he wanted to kill the man for having prostituted his sister.
The Midrash Hagadol (we are still in that footnote) notes that Eliezer’s strength caused Lavan to think “There is no way I can kill this man, except perhaps over food and drink.”
Obviously these Midrashim also differ in perspective, with those looking at Lavan as having evil intent, and those who look at Lavan as coming from a good place, though perhaps biting off a little more than he could chew.
It’s the segment that is highlighted above, however, which is most intriguing. Because it demonstrates a classic example of human nature, and how a person – no matter if his intention is good or bad – might let his rage take hold of him, and his anger drive his action, even before he stops to investigate whether that which he thinks is a justified response is in fact a. justified and b. the correct one.
Lavan knew his sister had gone out to get water. He knew she took longer than usual to get back. Before even seeing whether she had the jewelry or why she had been delayed (perhaps she had done a kindness for someone), his gut instinct was to run out to confront before knowing anything. And it was only when he realized “Maybe I’ve taken on a fight that is unjustified” – whatever the reason – that he turned around to find out the whole story.
This is a valuable lesson that we can take even from such a confusing character as Lavan. His later life is one of trickery and cheating, and the tricks we learn from him should only be to inform us of what to expect so we can confront it and defeat it. But at this point there may very well be more than a spark of good in him – looking out for his sister and wanting to defend her honor.
But that is no excuse for jumping to conclusions with not enough information.
Before we rush to judge, or even rush to a confrontation, perhaps we will do well to consider that maybe we don’t have all the information. The courtesy of at least a mini-investigation may do us well to temper what may otherwise turn out to be an incorrect or even irrational response to some mild provocation, or even to something that never even happened.
For some perception is reality. But there is also the possibility that perception is really misperception. And when that is the case, we don’t want our temper to rule the day. We’ll be much better off if we temper our temper, control human nature to react, and aim to come to a quiet understanding of the facts of what transpired before jumping to conclusions.
No comments:
Post a Comment