Skip to main content
D'Var Torah By:
Rabbi Ellen Weinberg Dreyfus

Water is life. Our bodies are mostly water; our planet is able to sustain life largely because of its abundant supply of water. The symbolism of water flowing and nourishing the thirsty land is easily understandable, even by those who have never lacked rain. In Isaiah 41:17-18, God promises: "I, the God of Israel, will not forsake them. I will open rivers in high places and fountains in the midst of valleys; I will make the wilderness a pool of water and the dry land springs of water." The imagry of water makes the promise of God's protection and ultimate redemption more vivid and more immediate.

What can we learn from the image of a well that has been intentionally filled with earth so that it no longer functions as a well? If water is life-giving, then a stopped-up well is the opposite. Why, then, did the Philistines, as we read in this week's parashah, Tol'dot, stop up the wells that had been dug in the days of Abraham and tell Isaac to leave the region? (Genesis 26:15) Why were they ready to make their own land uninhabitable? It is not a logical action and seems contrary to normal human behavior.

Nehama Leibowitz suggests that there must be more to the matter than what is literally stated, that this action of the Philistines must be understood to imply something symbolic. She cites Jacob Zvi Mecklenburg in HaKetav Vehakabbalah, who suggests that the wells were symbols from the beginning and that each time Abraham dug a well, he gave it a name that taught a lesson about the true nature of God. Each well served as a means of bringing idolaters under the wings of the Divine Presence. After Abraham's death, the local folk reverted back to their idolatry and stopped up the wells in order to erase his teachings from their memory. When Isaac returns to dig anew the same wells, he gives them the same names that his father did "in order to restore the crown of the true faith to its former glory."

Isaac's digging the same wells that his father dug shows us how he takes his place in Tol'dot, the family story that becomes our national history. He understands the need to reclaim his father's traditions and to ensure their survival. It is an act of maturity that he crowns with further honoring his father's memory giving the wells the "same names that his father had given them." (Genesis 26:18) Only then did Isaac's servants find "there a well of spring water" (Genesis 26:19). The term used in the text is mayim chayim - "living water," the waters of life.

As we mature, we identify with Isaac's actions: We learn to understand and to seek to reclaim the traditions handed down to us by our parents and, when possible, to honor their work and their wisdom. The lessons we learn from the generations that preceded us are as life-giving as is a well of living water.

For further study: Nehama Leibowitz, New Studies in Bereshit, World Zionist Organization Department for Torah Education and Culture in the Diaspora.

Rabbi Ellen Weinberg Dreyfus is rabbi emerita of Temple B'nai Yehuda Beth Sholom in Homewood, IL.

Parashat Tol'dot
Daver Acher By:
Lesley Litman

While thinking about this week's parashah, I was reminded of the decoder rings my brother often found in the Frosted Flakes or Rice Krispies box. Along with the ring came a message that he used the ring to decode. If he didn't use the decoder properly he was unable to read the message. There have been many times during my study of Torah in recent years that I would have loved to use my brother's long-lost decoder ring to decipher the text's meaning.

This week's parashah, Tol'dot, represents one of those instances. For the third time in Genesis, we encounter a story in which one of our patriarchs is trying to pass off his wife as his sister. I have noticed that people react strongly and negatively to the first telling of such an instance, when Abram tries to pass off his wife, Sarai, as his sister to Pharaoh in Egypt (Genesis 12:10-20). The second time, when Abraham encounters King Abimelech in Gerar (Genesis 20:1-17) and tries the same trick, there is usually very little discussion of the incident. By the time the events of this week's parashah take place, in which Isaac tries to pass off his wife, Rebecca, as his sister to King Abimelech in Gerar (Genesis 26:6-11), the incident is either ignored or chalked up to being a retelling of the previous stories. Some commentators have even gone so far as to intimate that this third story helps prove that Isaac never lived and that his stories are merely rewrites of Abraham's life. Others cite the three stories as additional evidence that our patriarchs and matriarchs are not perfect.

Central to my understanding of Torah is that the texts are extremely economical both in terms of the stories included and the words used. The telling of this particular incident three times in the space of twenty-six chapters of Genesis belied this understanding. I was puzzled and, recalling my brother's decoder ring, began to consider the possibility that I was using the wrong code and, therefore, missing the message.

The "code" became clear after I read about a little-known practice from Hurrian culture in which married Hurrian women were given special status if their husbands also adopted them. In other words, they attained a new title of "wife-sister." As part of this arrangement, a husband gained greater authority over his wife and a wife enjoyed more privileges and higher status within Hurrian society. There is some speculation that the status of "wife-sister" also guaranteed the purity of the woman's descendants. We know that Abraham, Sarah, and Rebeccah were from Haran, where several of the practices of Hurrian society were followed. This could explain some of the confusion about Sarah and Rebecca's being presented as both wife and sister.

The response of Pharaoh and Abimelech in the three incidents reflects their understanding, or lack of understanding, of the status of wife-sister. It is not inconceivable that in the first instance, Pharaoh was unfamiliar with the wife-sister status prevalent in Hurrian society. Egypt was located a considerable distance from Haran and had it's own very distinct and powerful culture. As a result, Pharaoh "decoded" Abraham's words and actions as deceit. Hence Pharaoh was enraged and Abraham, his entourage, and his considerable belongings were escorted out of Egypt without delay.

Gerar is located in the Negev, closer to the birthplace of our forefathers. Hence Abimelech might have been familiar with the concept of a wife-sister relationship. His reactions were certainly more moderate than those of Pharaoh. In both cases in which he was involved-with Sarah and Abraham and Isaac and Rebecca—Abimelech allowed the visitors to stay in his land. This is clearly not the response of a king who felt deceived. Rather, there is a sense (and some of the commentators confirm this) that Abimelech might have understood the cultural differences at play. It is worthy of note that God plays a role in both of the instances involving Abimelech, whereas God is absent in the episode that takes place in Egypt.

If we view the action of Abraham and Isaac from a Hurrian perspective, then our forefathers were neither liars nor deceivers. Abraham's error was in failing to perceive the cultural and societal lens through which Pharaoh and the Egyptians would view his relationship with Sarah. In the end, the incident in which he was involved was one person's understanding of another's reality. Pharaoh didn't understand Abraham's worldview, whereas Abimelech did. Hence Abraham and Isaac's relationship with Abimelech fared well, while Abraham's relationship with Pharaoh was severed.

We have just concluded the holidays of Tishrei, holidays that require us to amend and clarify our relationships with others. In our relationships, we must endeavor to understand the worldview of others, which, even in the case of those closest to us, may be quite different from our own. We must always check our assumptions against those of the people with whom we are trying to communicate. We must listen very carefully to ensure that we are being sensitive to the nuances of what is being said to us. When we don't (i.e., when we remove our internal "decoder rings"), our relationships falter (as did Abram's with Pharaoh). If we are careful to listen closely and decipher the meaning of others, our relationships will reflect deep understanding and mutual respect and will flourish.

How often do we assume that another person shares our assumptions, our world view? What can we do, how can we better communicate in order to generate a deepened understanding that is attuned to another person's reality? How can we better hear from their perspective what our children, our spouses, and our friends are really trying to say to us? How can we share our own decoder rings with others?

To learn more about the Hurrian wife-sister relationship see The Anchor Bible: Genesis, published by Doubleday, and The Torah, A Modern Commentary, edited by W. Gunther Plaut, UAHC Press, 1981, p. 99.

More resources for unusual perspectives on Genesis include The Red Tent by Anita Diamant and Sarah the Priestess by Sabina Teubal.

At the time of this writing in 1998, Lesley Litman was the UAHC regional educator in Boston, MA.

Reference Materials:

Tol'dot, Genesis 25:19–28:9
The Torah: A Modern Commentary, pp. 173–189; Revised Edition, pp. 172–189;
The Torah: A Women's Commentary, pp. 133–156

Originally published: