[Avodah] Lavan falsely accused?

[Moshe Y. Gluck]

R' David Wacholder:
Until I saw the Ibn Ezra in the "Mechokekei Yehudah" I fell victim to a
simple minded attack on one of my ancestors. As of today I have abandoned
that approach.  No longer will I claim that Lavan determined to cause harm
 to his son-in-law and family.  I am very happy to be able to put the
spotlight back onto Hashem's enduring caring and protection. 
The Torah commands us to bring Bickurim and say a Viduy, a public speech. It
begins "Arami oveid Avi", - commonly understood as  focusing on Lavan's evil
intentions, which were defeated by Hashem.   Even thoughLavan  never acted
on it, due to persuasive advice he received in a dream-prophecy, Lavan's
"evil ambition" is hinted strongly,  in the Mikdash by every bringer of
Bikkurim, and at every Seder Pesach. 

Do Chaza"l attribute such destructive  intentions to Lavan?  Certainly that
is the "common" way to explain the Hagada passage.  Lavan - a/k/a Aramean -
tried to recover his flocks by fighting war against his own family, whatever
damage may occur.   . 

Ibn Ezra begs to disagree - and he is correct. 
IBN EZRA stresses the verb  Oveid -  It is the same language as the lost
wandering cattle of Hashavat Aveidah.  Yaakov was deprived of his family and
servants, alone, isolated, impoverished and afraid.  That easily qualifies
as "Aveidah". He was Oveid, wandering. In passive mood he was lost and
abandoned and impoverished. 
<SNIP>
--------------------------------

What you call a "simple minded attack" is the position Chazal take in Sifri,
see there. And if you'd like a more grammatically pleasant approach along
those lines, see Malbim. See also Torah Temimah. It's also a little simple
minded to no longer "claim that Lavan determined to cause harm to his
son-in-law and family" when the Pesukim say so clearly (see Parashas
Vayeitzei).

KT,
MYG