On November 29, Rosh Chodesh Kislev, Yeshiva University High School for Girls was honored by a visit from Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm, President of Yeshiva University. He addressed the students with a D’var Torah on Parshat Hashavua. Parshat Toldot recounts the story of Be’erot Yitzchak, the wells of Yitzchak. It begins by describing the accumulation of Yitzchak’s wealth, which incurred the jealousy of Yitzchak’s neighbors, the Philistines. As a result, the Philistines began to close up the wells that Avraham, Yitzchak’s father, had dug and their ruler Avimelech, asked Yitzchak to leave his land. Yitzchak left for a while, but then he returned and began to re-dig his wells. The first two wells that Yitzchak’s servants dug, were immediately covered over by the Philistines. These wells were named עשק, denoting contention over the well, and שסנה , meaning hatred. The third well dug by Yitzchak was named רחובות, denoting peace and comfort, because there were no fights over this last well. The Ramban asks a very strong question. Why does the story of Yitzchak’s business dealings belong in the Tanach? Is it of any concern to the generations that followed?The Ramban answers that according to the simple interpretation of the story, this question would be strong and very valid. Therefore we must attempt to find a deeper explanation of the topic. The story of the wells comes to hint to us about the future. Three be’erot were dug, each one representing one of the Batei Mikdash. The first well dug was named עשק indicating that the first Beit Mikdash was destroyed during external battles with other nations. The second well was named שטנה indicating that the second Beit Mikdash was destroyed because of external hatred of other nations directed towards us and because of internal hatred, otherwise known as שנאת חנם . The third Beit Ha’Mikdash that will be built will exist in peace and comfort without any external or internal problems.In a further analysis of the Ramban and the Psukim, w…

In a cryptic comment, the Hasidic Rebbe R. Mordechai Yosef, “The Izhbitzer,” notes (in his meishilogch) that Isaac was forbidden to leave Eretz Israel, but was blind, whereas Moses was forbidden to enter the Holy Land but retained his clarity of sight to the very end (lo kahata eino). It is a trenchant observation, but one wonders: What is its significance? In order to understand this fascinating contrast, let us first explore the afflictions to which our most distinguished ancestors were heir. The Fathers of Israel all experienced the gift of prophecy—and all were left with some noticeable defect, some mum. Thus: Isaac was blind according to the Midrash (see Rashi to 27:1) because of the tears of the angels who wept at his imminent immolation on the Akedah. Jacob limped (tzoleah al yereicho) as a result of his striving with an unknown assailant. Thus, Isaac and Jacob were physically injured after their encounters with God. With Abraham, we find no physical ailment as a concomitant of prophecy, but we do find indirect indications of an emotional trauma—which can be far worse than a physical ailment. Note that when the Almighty summons Abraham to the Akedah, He commands him to offer up his son Isaac, who is described as "et bincha at yechidcha asher ahavta et Yitzchak". After the angel halts the slaughtering of Isaac, we read the encomium bestowed on Abraham: "ki atah yadati ki yerei Elokim atah v’lo chasachta et bincha et yechidcha mimeni". Here we find mention of Isaac as Abraham’s son, and his only son—only two of the three adjectives used in the command to offer up Isaac. Why no mention of Isaac as Abraham’s beloved son? I suggest that Abraham, as a result of his incredible religious experience of the nearly accomplished Akedah, suffered an emotional shock, such that it was no longer possible to bestow the encomium of asher ahavta upon Isaac. It is not that Abraham no longer loved him; indeed, it would be natural for him to love him even more. But the whole poin…