In Reply to Joel Erwteman
Post date: Apr 5, 2016 7:16:20 AM
My good friend and former "Seminarium" study buddy Joel Erwteman posted (in Dutch) an interesting comment on his Facebook page which I will translate here:
"During the preparations for the Haggadah this year, I noticed that the Haggadah proper starts with the words "ארמי אובד אבי", a wandering Syrian was our forefather. The Haggadah goes from גנות to שבח, from disgrace to praise and therefore ends with the story that this Syrian, Abraham, eventually finds a place to live. I hope that, when we all sit around our well-stocked seder table, we will also think of this for a moment. Our world is full of people on the move, among them Syrians, fleeing a terrible war. If you really want to let the message of the Haggadah sink in, you cannot slam the door in their faces."
The sentiments expressed by Joel are connected to the Jewish ideas of הכנסת אורחים, hospitality, the Biblical warning never to forget that we ourselves were once strangers in a land not ours (Egypt) and the Biblical anger towards the nations who were not willing to supply the Jewish People with food or drink when they fled from Egypt and were on their way to the promised land.
However, by focusing on this particular quote, Joel has opened a can of worms. The Hebrew text of this Bible quote is extremely ambiguous, something Joel is aware of but fails to mention in his post because the other option of translating would be that "An Aramenean/ Syrian sought to destroy my father".
Let us first look at the source for Dutch translation Joel provides for this quote: "onze voorouder was een zwervende Syriër" (a wandering Syrian was our forefather). Although the Hebrew text uses the word Armanean, Joel correctly replaces this with Syrian because historically the same geographical area is intended. Where did Joel take this translation from? Not from any of the Dutch Haggadah translations. Looking through my extensive collection of Haggadot with 30 different Dutch versions ranging from 1884 until today I notice that NONE of the Dutch translators (Mulder, Staal, Parser, De Jongh, Hen, Hausdorf, Musaph-Andriesse, Van Volen) opt for this translation. They ALL provide the second interpretation which follows the Sages in Sifrei which is the source cited in the Haggadah. This is along the same line of all 18th, 19th and early 20th century English translations I have looked at. ALL translate (with slight variations) "A Syrian who wanted to destroy my father".
So does that mean Joel's translation is wrong? The non-Jewish Illustrated Family Bible of the Dutch Bible Bible Society has "A wandering Aramean was my father" and both Jewish Dutch Bible translators (Onderwijzer and Dasberg) have interesting translations:
"Als Amaeeer dreigde mijn vader verloren te gaan" (As Aramean my father was almost doomed) - Onderwijzer
"Een als Nomade levende Arameeer was mijn vader" (An Aramean living as a nomad was my father) – Dasberg
Joel also correctly backs up his translation with grammatical proof citing one of the Jewish commentators (Ibn Ezra) who have struggled with the interpretation of this verse. However, Joel completely ignores the fact that Ibn Ezra's comments are in direct conflict with many others, for example Rashi, and more importantly that Ibn Ezra made his comments in his BIBLE commentary stating that Rashi's explanation is not logical BECAUSE IT DOES NOT FIT THE SENSE CONTEXT OF THIS BIBLE VERSE (See Nechama Leibovitz, Devarim, p. 269).
Some commentators agree with Ibn Ezra (Rashbam gives the "wandering Aramean was my father" which was later adopted by the Jewish Publication Society's English Bible version) but many others side with Rashi on this issue (e.g. the Maharal who attacks the Ibn Ezra). It should, however, be noted that ALL talk about the verse in its biblical context (Deuteronomy 26,5) and not about the Sifrei cited in the Haggadah which quotes the verse but places it in another CONTEXT. Wouldn't even Ibn Ezra agree that in the Sifrei context Rashi's interpretation makes more sense? This obviously explains why Haggadah translators do not follow the Bible translators in this case.
Back to Joel's intended message. Should we or shouldn't we slam Europe's door in the face of the Syrian refugees? His comments were obviously made in light of an ever growing demand of Europeans to stop admitting these "wanderers" and his disgust with this. Jews have suffered enough xenophobia to know what it feels like to be denied access to a land you want to flee to because you might otherwise perish. This sentiment is also expressed by another quote from the very beginning of the Haggadah in which we invite all those who are hungry and needy to come and celebrate the Pesach feast with us.
Had Joel used that part of the Haggadah, I would not have reacted. But by zooming in on the Aramean/ Syrian I feel the need to point out the fact that Joel's plight to open the borders must be considered with the full understanding of BOTH possible interpretations/ translations of this verse. True, many refugees are just that and we should do our best to help them. My co-supervisor Dr. Tom Cheesman is doing wonderful work in Swansea, Wales helping refugees. However, we have also already seen how some Armeneans/ Syrians have come to Europe to try to "destroy my father" and we should be very wary of those. We have seen how some immigrant do not try to integrate into their European host land but are actively trying to take over control and violently try to impose their value system on it.
What I am saying is that although I sympathize was the sentiments Joel expresses, I feel his arguments are too superficial and do not enough take into consideration the many shades of meanings that come about while trying to interpret and translate the Bible/ Haggadah. Likewise, we should be careful not to be too quick to interpret what would be the best possible course for Europe at the moment. It's all about the context.
Hag Pesach Kasher VeSameach