The Wells of Isaac: Diggings and Signs.
Pinchas Leiser
In a dispute over cultural superiority,
a denizen of Rome proudly proclaimed to a Jerusalemite, "Did you know that
in excavations at Rome they found underground wires?!"
"Nu, so what?"
The Roman responded in a victorious tone: "It shows that in Rome, 2,000
years ago, they already had the telephone..."
The Jerusalemite responded, "And do you know what they found in Jerusalem
excavations?"
"What?"
"Nothing."
"So what?" was the Roman's response.
"It shows that in Jerusalem, 2,000 years ago, they already had wireless..."
A fascinating field of biblical exegesis
and of the philosophy of history is the attempt to learn about the present and
future from the past. Yet this area is incredibly complex and filled with
problems, so that it sometimes seems that the message gleaned is nourished at
least as much by the exegete's world-view as by the reading of the text.
RaMBaN, in his commentary on the Torah,
briefly formulates the exegetical principle of "the acts of the
forefathers are a sign to the children":
And Abram passed through the land to the place of
Shekhem: This important rule, which should be
understood in all the following portions dealing with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,
was concisely mentioned by our Rabbis (Tanhuma 9): "All that happened
to the forefathers is a sign for the children;" therefore the Bible
dwells on the story of the journeys and the digging of wells and the rest of
the events. Though one might think that these are extraneous matters with no
purpose, they all come to tell the future. For whenever something would
happen to one of the three forefather-prophets, he would learn from it what had
been decreed to happen to his descendants. (RaMBaN Genesis 12:6)
Rabbi Shlomo Efraim of Lontshitz, the
author of the Kli Yakar commentary, applies this principle to the story
of Isaac's digging of the wells in our weekly portion:
And Isaac's servants dug in the valley, and found
there a well of spring water. RaMBaN and Toldot Yitzchak and Menorat
Hamaor wrote, "since all that happened to the forefathers was a
sign for the children," therefore they found it appropriate to expound
the stories of these wells as being about the three Holy Temples
that were called wells of spring water: Just as they quarreled about the two
wells and called the third Rehovot, so with the First and Second Temples the
nations fought against Israel until they destroyed her, and the Third, may it
be built speedily in our days, was called Rehovot...
And they did not quarrel over the third well,
for the Third Temple will be built by the king Messiah of whom it is said
(Isaiah 9:6): for the increase of the realm and for peace without end,
for there will be only peace and truth in his time. Thus was it called Rehovot,
for then the Lord will expand (yarhiv) their borders. When there is
strife or two Hebrews fighting, even in a city as large as Antioch, there is
not enough room for them both even in a very great area, the lack of space
oppresses them, as is the case even today, due to our sins. The opposite is the
case when there is peace among Israel. Even
though we multiply and the Land's inhabitants are numerous, nevertheless it
is expansive for them and there is no oppressor... Therefore it says for
the Lord has made room (yarhiv) for us even though we be shall be
fruitful in the land, and its inhabitants will be numerous, nonetheless the
land will be expansive before them. Moreover, we know that many left the land during
the Second Temple because of conflict caused by the wickedness of its
inhabitants. That is why Isaac said that
when peace arrives we shall be fruitful in the land for we will not need to
leave it. (Kli Yakar
Bereishit 26:19)
RaShBaM, in his interpretation of the
first verse of the Binding of Isaac (akeda), gives an interesting twist
to the idea of a trial and sees in the akeda a sort of punishment
meted out to Abraham for having ceded control of Philistia by entering into a
covenant with Abimelech:
And it came to pass after these things: Any time it says after these things,
it is connected to the previous section... Here too: after {these things, i.e.
that] Abraham signed a treaty with Abimelech, obligating Abraham's children and
grandchildren and great-grandchildren as well, and gave him seven lambs, God
was angry about this, since the land of the Philistines was given to
Abraham, and in the book of Joshua, too, the cities of the five Philistine
lords are entered in the lottery as included in the borders of Israel, and God
had commanded them you shall save alive nothing that breathes. Therefore God tested [nissa]
Abraham: he provoked him and caused him anguish, [as we see in other
verses where the verb nsh connotes provocation.] It was as if God said, "You were so proud
of the son I gave you that you entered a covenant between yourselves and their
children. Now go and bring him as a sacrifice and see what good your
treaty-signing does."
Similarly I found later in the midrash on Samuel: And
the ark of the Lord was in the country of the Philistines seven months. It
says [in the story of Abraham and Abimelech],
These seven ewe lambs you shall take of my hand. The Holy One, Blessed be He said to him,
"You gave him seven lambs, I swear by your life that his children will
make seven wars on your children and vanquish them." Alternately, "By
your life, his children will kill seven righteous men from among your children:
Samson, Hofni, Pinhas, Saul and his three sons." Alternately, "By your
life, his sons will destroy seven sanctuaries: the Tabernacle, Gilgal, Nob,
Shiloh, Gibeon, and two Temples." Alternately, "Because the Ark will
remain in the country of the Philistines seven months." (RaShBaM Bereishit 22:1)
In other words, God is angry with
Abraham and therefore provokes him and causes him pain.
Of course the devotees of the Whole Land
of Israel in our days heartily enjoy this interpretation of RaShBaM and learn
from it that there is a prohibition on signing agreements with Gentiles involving
concessions in the Land of Israel, which was divinely promised to us.
Yet it goes without saying that most of
our commentators throughout the generations (excepting Hizkuni, who copies RaShBaM’s
words on this verse) do not hold that the akeda, the final and most
difficult of Abraham's trials, was a punishment. Even if we want to expound on
the adjoining of the sections of after these things and find a causal
connection between this section and the preceding one (according to the
exegetical rule invoked by RaShBaM himself), given that these things
were not specified, the reader could connect the adjoining of the section of
Ishmael's exile to the akeda just as logically, and thereby come to a
completely different understanding of the akeda. We will suffice with
this comment, given that out purpose here is not a deep understanding of the akeda
section, but in examining the idea of an agreement with a Gentile.
In chapter 26, the Torah tells us of
Isaac's dwelling in Gerar, in Philistia, with Abimelech. God there repeats his
promise to Abraham and tells him, Sojourn in this land, and I will be with
you, and will bless you; for to you, and to thy seed, I will give all these
countries and I will perform the oath which I swore to Abraham your father
(26:3). We read later in this section
(verses 15-23) about the breach of this agreement between Abraham and Abimelech
by the latter's servants and about the conflict between the shepherds of Gerar
and Isaac's shepherds concerning the water in the wells dug by Isaac.
The Torah tells that these wells were
stopped up. The author of the Sforno
commentary explains the phrase the Philistines had stopped them up:
"Since they feared Abimelech’s order not to harm Isaac, they stopped up
the wells in their hate-filled jealousy." It seems, according to this
approach, that the making of peace between Abimelech and Isaac was not to the
liking of some Philistines, and these dissatisfied ones were those who broke
the agreement.
Verse 22 tells of the other well, over
which the shepherds of Isaac and Gerar did not fight, and in verses 28-31
Abimelech and Isaac enter another agreement, following the suggestion of
Abimelech. The author of Hizkuni explains: Let us make a covenant with you:
even though Abraham and Abimelech already swore for three generations, Abimelech
nevertheless wanted to establish a new covenant between them, since he had
breached the agreement [both] in the matter of the wells and by sending him
away." (Hizkuni, Bereishit 26:28)
The Torah relates that Isaac agreed to
renew the covenant, despite its breach in the past, perhaps from awareness that
there are ups and downs in any process and from a preference for accord over
hostility.
If we examine the above-cited words of
the Kli Yakar on these verses, according to the principle of "the acts of
the forefathers are a sign to the children," we learn that:
The Third Temple, hinted to by Isaac's
third well, Rehovot, will be built only in the days of peace, and
expanded borders are largely dependent on the ability of people to live
together in peace, with no one clipping the other's wings.
For whatever reason, the signs that the
children see in the acts of the forefathers are largely dependent on the values
they wish to embrace and pass to the following generations.
Pinchas Leiser, editor
of Shabbat Shalom, is a psychologist
