Tafsiran yang Mengutip untuk Kejadian 31:29

And in this he hints that Job himself was to blame for everything that had happened to him as a result of the rustlers’ plundering of his possessions, for he had not tried hard enough to do justice and to deal with them when it was in his power (Genesis 31:29). Whereupon, he continues to berate him (Deuteronomy 25:3), both for his stupidity for not thinking of returning from his evil ways, adding iniquity to sin (Job 34:37), and for complaining against God, something which is itself a crime. And thus did he prepare death traps for himself (Psalms 18:6).

Come and see what Laban the Aramean sought to do to Jacob: (Laban was also among those included in God's promise). Pharaoh made a decree against the males while Laban sought to uproot them all: Laban said, “It is within my power to do with you evil," (Gen. 31:29) if it weren't for the dream as has been explained, “But the God of your father hadn’t said to me yesterday, beware of speaking against Jacob.” It should have said, “Of acting.” However, Laban was a great wizard so that even his words, the things he mentions, and his oaths to demons could have swallowed up Jacob, harming him and his offspring. That Torah literally says, An Aramean destroys my father. Laban came with absolute certainty he could destroy Jacob had God not taken his strength from him. Why does it say that he "destroys?" The Holy One made his thought as serious as an action, therefore, the Torah says, An Aramean destroys my father. After God saved Jacob and his family from Laban another misfortune took place, as it says, He went down to Egypt, compelled by Divine decree. We find this explanation in Talmud Shabbat: It was fitting for our father Jacob to go down into Egypt in iron chains, but his merit saved him, for it is written, "I drew them with the cords of a man, with bands of love; and I was to them as they that take off the yoke on their jaws, and I laid meat before them."

Background
There are so many questions on this opening verse of the Maggid. Who was the Aramean that the Torah speaks of and what did he seek to do to our forefather Jacob? Rabbi Lorberbaum offers a daring explanation of this passage that parts ways with most commentators and with the plain sense meaning of the passage in the Haggadah. The problem is that the Haggadah has already parted ways with the plain sense meaning of the verse Arami Oved Avi. Most contemporary translations render these words “My father was a wandering Aramean,” instead of “An Aramean sought to destroy my father.” But as you will see, Rabbi Lorberbaum searches for a way to hold on to the traditional understanding of this verse without doing violence to the plain sense meaning of the words. Does he succeed? I will leave that for you to decide.
At the same time Rabbi Lorberbaum solves another problem: why are we talking about Laban in the first place? What does he have to do with the story of the Exodus from Egypt? Rabbi Lorberbaum finds an ingenious connection between Pharaoh and Laban that allows the reader to explore the feminine and masculine aspects of the Exodus. Laban is a danger to Israel spiritually and not physically.
Go and learn: Why does the Haggadah choose to blame the descent to Egypt on Laban and on this passage which begins, “My father was a wandering Aramean...”? What does the expression Arami Oved Avi mean?
Laban sought to destroy Abraham’s descendents by severing Jacob’s connection to his covenant as well as to his family. Like many Biblical personalities, he tried to accomplish this by using ‘imaginative actions’ (Poel Dimayon) as a way of predicting his family’s destiny. ‘Imaginative actions’ are acts that are meant to reflect a deeper reality through symbolism and sympathetic magic. The performer carries out an act which mimics or foreshadows what he hopes the destiny of another may be. Jewish and non-Jewish prophets alike performed such acts. For instance, Jeremiah throws a stone into the river as a way of illustrating that Babylon will sink and be destroyed. The imaginative and symbolic action is predictive of a future reality. Pharaoh also used such ‘imaginative actions’ as a way of destroying Israel. Since Israel is connected to the male side of divinity, by casting the male children into the Nile, he believed that he would weaken Israel’s connection to the divine.
Laban went one step farther than Pharaoh. He threatened to destroy both the men and women in the family of Jacob by inciting them to leave their faith in the true God and thereby destroying any connection to the divine – not just the male aspect of the divine as Pharaoh would do, but the female aspect as well.
It wasn't so much that Laban wished to physically destroy Jacob and his family as he wished to destroy their spiritual connection to God. The verse then should be read, “My father, Laban, was a “lost Aramean” who lacked a basic belief in the true God, and he wished to seduce Jacob and his family into adopting idolatry.
Why does the Haggadah use Laban as an example of the previous statement in the Haggadah that people have risen against us in every generation to destroy us?
The reference to Laban in the Haggadah is not about the physical destruction of the Jewish people, but about the possibility of their spiritual destruction. The Haggadah returns to the theme it mentioned earlier: why was it necessary for the children of Israel to go down to Egypt in the first place? We learned that the exile to Egypt was necessary because Abraham came from a family of idolaters. It was necessary for him to undergo a process of purification in the furnace of Egypt before his people could become worthy of receiving the Torah at Mount Sinai. This passage continues this theme. Not only did Abraham come from a family of idolaters, but the Matriarchs, Rachel and Leah, came from such a family as well. In theory Jacob should have been exempt from undergoing such a process of refinement and purification since Abraham had already gone done to Egypt, but because he spent so much time in close proximity to his father-in-law the idolater, Laban, even he was forced to go down to Egypt with his children who still needed to be purified from the impurity of idolatry!
The two passages, “At first our ancestors worshipped idols,” and “What did Laban seek to do to our father Jacob” both focus on the theme of Israel’s questionable origins of the Jewish people and the need to be purified of idolatry. It would appear that the children of Israel came from idolaters both paternally and maternally, and this was why it was necessary for them to go down to Egypt. The statement about Laban is not meant to be a proof text for the statement that “In every generation there are those who rose up against us to destroy us.” Rather it refers back to the earlier discussion in the Haggadah prior to this. Why do we need a statement about anti-Semitism and the suffering of the Jewish people at all? Haven't we witnessed this fact in our own lives? A better example of such hatred against the Jewish people from the Bible would have been Haman who also sought to destroy the entire Jewish people in Shushan.
The challenge here is correct. This statement about Laban is not meant to be an example of how people rise up to destroy us in every generation. Rather, as we have seen it is but an example of Israel’s humble origins from idolatry and an explanation of why the descent to Egypt was necessary in the first place. This verse does not clearly state that Laban wished to destroy the people of Israel. Why doesn't the Haggadah use the verse from Genesis that clearly states this: “Is it not in the power of my hand to hurt you…?” (Genesis 31:29).
It wasn't so much that Laban wished to destroy Jacob and his family (after all they were his family, too). Rather he wished to incite them so they would abandon God and embrace idolatry. This is the implications of the word Oved in the verse in Deuteronomy. The word Oved is not a verb, but an adjective. Laban was an Arami Oved. Oved means lost; Laban was lost from this world and the world to come because he lacked faith in God. Similarly, we find the word Oved used in this sense in the verse, “The ones who are lost in the land of Assyria….” (Isaiah 27:13) – The ones who are lost are those who had given up their faith. In reality didn't Pharaoh also wish to destroy the entire people of Israel? By killing the male children, wasn't it his intention to see to it that the Israelites would fail to propagate?
Yes, he did. However Laban’s imaginative action was more devastating than that of Pharaoh since Pharaoh focused on the male aspect of our connection to divinity while Laban’s attempt was to destroy both the male and female connection to divinity. According to this interpretation, both men focused on severing the spiritual connection between the descendants of Abraham to God and not their physical well-being or survival.Deuteronomy Chapter 26 is actually the passage that was recited when the people if Israel brought the first fruits to the Temple on the festival of Shavuot. Why was it necessary to use this notion of the destroying Aramean and the descent to Egypt in relation to the practice of the bringing of the first fruits? What is the connection between this practice and this passage?
So why did we make a declaration about Laban on those occasions when we brought the first fruits in ancient times? The process of purification was essential to our inheriting the land of Israel, which is a holy land. By speaking of Laban and then our descent into Egypt, the people would understand why slavery was necessary (to remove Laban from our system) and where we come from originally.

and to the matter concerning which they call them, together they do not uphold it And to the matter concerning which the prophets call them, together My people will not uphold it and will not agree to do it. Some explain וְאֶל-עַל יִקְרָאֻהוּ to mean: Harsh happenings shall befall them. The word וְאֶל means the same as (Gen. 31:29) “My hand has power (לְאֵל),” [and the word עַל means the same as עֲלִילוֹת, deeds (Kara). But this is not so since אֶל is vowelized with a “pattah.” [I.e. with a “segol,” called “pattah katan” by the early grammarians.] Were אֶל a noun, it would be vowelized with a “tseireh,” [i.e., אֵל]. Jonathan, however, renders: A harsh happening will befall them. He interprets וְאֶל as an expression of harshness, but it appears to me that I have interpreted it properly.