Very intersting especially the Megilat Esther section.
If Oved can be read as lost , like a pea among many,which is the meaning of assimilation, then Arami Oved could also be an assimilated arami was my father, namely Avraham before he found God.
I wonder why a third possibility is not proposed. Arami Oved applies to the Shevatim before their descent to Egypt. They were strangers in Canaan, immigrants from Aram. After their sojourn in Egypt they came back as conquerers. That would make sense in the context of Bikkurim the fruit of *our* land.
Tigay mentions that "avi" could refer to all the avot (including the shvatim). I thought I saw it quoted from an earlier source as well, but I can't seem to find it.
Very nice summary, as I have come to expect from your site!
Bernstein (I think; I need to check this) has another midrashic interpretation which, while he doesn't propose that this was the intended meaning, works nicely in many ways.
He claims that the word, in keeping with its context, is actually an Aramaic word. This would make it an aph'el and, hence, transitive.
The question then remains, why did the Haggadah (and others) feel the need to explain the verse contrary to its plain meaning?
Why is the explanation contrary to the plain meaning? If the verb (participle, qal) refers to Yaakov, then its hifil form might be reserved for Lavan. Put another way, don't the form oved with reference to Yaakov suggests that Lavan sought to destroy him?
Simon - Safrai mentions that there are some kal transitive verbs in Hebrew like עלל and סבב - according to the Hagaddah's approach, perhaps אבד is the same.
Alex - There are two questions here. One - is the verb transitive or intransitive, and does it mean "to make / be lost" or "to destroy". I agree that if Yaakov was oved, someone might have made him that way. But if it means "lost", then Lavan's not the best actor; he actually wanted Yaakov to stay. Esav would be a better choice.
Malbim (Al haTora)points out that even according to Ibn Ezra's approach the verse does not read smoothly. It should have said "Avi oved b'aram". This seems to be one of those wonderfully ambiguous phrases in the Torah that intentionally lends itself to multiple interpretations.
Dave - Lavan wanted destroy Yaakov in that he would get lost in Aram and so would become arami oved (not wandering נודד). Still it might be unclear whether to get lost in Aram really meant destruction (for all of them), since Lavan just wanted to keep his daughters and the stock. The continuation of the verse, however, appears to prove the version of Haggada: וַיֵּרֶד מִצְרַיְמָה. i.e. an Arami emigrates to Egypt וַיָּגָר שָׁם בִּמְתֵי מְעָט and sojourns there with few realtives וַיְהִי-שָׁם, לְגוֹי גָּדוֹל עָצוּם וָרָב and becomes there a full-fledged, mighty and numerous nation.
Lavan sought to prevent it but simultaneously since Yaakov had to emigrate, one can imagine what kind of pogroms he had escaped. Well, Haggada doesn't state this explicitly... should it?
Of interest: "Obitus" in Latin (the source of Obituary) means death. Perhaps there's a connection to the Hebrew 'Abad.'
simon hollaway:
"Bernstein (I think; I need to check this) has another midrashic interpretation which, while he doesn't propose that this was the intended meaning, works nicely in many ways . . .
i think you are referring to steiner's article on arami over avi in the moshe greenberg festscrhift. (unless bernstein later published on the same subject.)
dave:
חג כשר ושמח
Commenting by HaloScan
