Parshas Vayeira
1. It is stated in the Zohar:[1] "There are three that stand as witnesses to testify, and these are: the well of Yitzchak, the lot, and the stone that Yehoshua set up, etc." (Three are those that stand as witnesses to testify, and they are: the well of Yitzchak, the lot, and the stone of Yehoshua, etc.) "From where do we know the well of Yitzchak? As it is written (in our parsha[2]), 'so that it may be a testimony for me….'"
This is not understood: the verse "so that it may be a testimony for me" speaks of the well that Avraham dug. Why, then, does the Zohar call it "the well of Yitzchak"?
The Ramaz[3] addresses this question and says: "This ('so that it may be a testimony for me…') Avraham said; but the well that (Avraham) dug is the well of Yitzchak."[4]
But this itself requires explanation: how can one say of the well that Avraham dug that it is "the well of Yitzchak"?
2. My father, in his notes on the margin of the Zohar, writes[5] on this matter: "The attribution of the well to Yitzchak, although this is written regarding Avraham, is because the wells of Avraham were stopped up by the Philistines after his death, and Yitzchak dug them anew, as it is written,[6] 'And Yitzchak again dug … and he called them by names like the names[7] that his father had called them.' And see on this in Torah Ohr, beginning of Parshas Toldos; see there. Therefore they attributed it to Yitzchak."
My father's explanation is, seemingly, the opposite of the Ramaz's explanation. According to the Ramaz, that "the well that [Avraham] dug is the well of Yitzchak," this means that essentially it is Yitzchak's well, and only the digging of the well was done by Avraham. According to my father's explanation it comes out the reverse: in essence it is "the well of Avraham," but since Yitzchak dug it up again, the verse therefore attributes the well to Yitzchak.[8]
It is understood and obvious that, according to the content and inner meaning of the matter of digging wells, both explanations have their place and rationale. We must understand, then: in what does the difference between the explanations consist, and why did my father, instead of explaining the Ramaz's interpretation (which is cited many times in works of Chassidus[9]), choose to explain it in a different (and opposite) way?
It may be said that the reason for this is hinted at in the reference[10] that my father adds at the end of his explanation: "And see on this in Torah Ohr, beginning of Parshas Toldos; see there," as will be explained.
3. In Torah Ohr[11] there, it is explained that the matter and the service of Avraham is in the line of chesed (kindness)[12] — drawing down from above to below; and the matter and the service of Yitzchak is in the line of gevurah (severity)[12] — ascent from below to above.
Therefore we find that regarding Avraham it says[13] "Avraham who loves Me," and regarding Yitzchak it says[14] "and the Fear of Yitzchak," for love derives from the attribute of chesed, and fear (awe) is from the attribute of gevurah.
And according to this difference between the service of Avraham and the service of Yitzchak, the Alter Rebbe explains there (in Torah Ohr) the reason why the wells that Avraham dug were stopped up by the Philistines, and only after Yitzchak dug the wells up anew did they endure: (the kelipah of) the Philistines can oppose only the line of chesed of holiness, and not the line of gevurah.
4. The explanation of the matter: "Pelishtim" (Philistines) is from the term "mavui hamefulash"[15][15*] (an alley open at both ends); and this is what our Sages[16] say, "The Philistines were scoffers," for scoffing comes from an excessive openness of heart, "which is open and wide open on every side."
And since the matter of Avraham's digging of wells is the service of expansiveness that comes from the chesed of holiness — the movement of love, delight and joy in G‑dliness "with great intensity, beyond measure" — there could therefore be the matter of "and the Philistines stopped them up," for the expansiveness of holiness gives room for "nurture" by the Philistines, the expansiveness of scoffing, which opposes holiness.
[However, the nurture and opposition of the external forces is not possible when the attribute of Avraham shines openly in a person's soul, i.e., at the time when the G‑dly light shines openly in the love and delight. Only when the G‑dly light and delight become concealed is it possible for the movement of expansiveness and openness of heart to turn into frivolity and the joy of kelipah.
This is emphasized in the verse, "and the Philistines stopped them up after Avraham's death": only after the holy love departed from him ("Avraham's death"), and there remained in him only the movement of openness of heart — only then is there room for the opposition of the Philistines ("and the Philistines stopped them up").]
But Yitzchak's wells the Philistines did not stop up. Since Yitzchak's digging of wells is the service of holy awe and fear, the Philistines, who are the "counterpart" of the chesed of holiness, could not stop up Yitzchak's wells, whose matter is the gevurah of holiness, because[17] "every attribute of the opposing side is able to oppose only the attribute that corresponds to it in holiness."
5. Not only could the Philistines not stop up Yitzchak's wells, but even more: Avraham's wells too, although their matter is chesed, they could not stop up after Yitzchak had dug them up.[18]
The explanation of this:
The character of the attribute of love is bound up with a feeling of one's own existence ["there is one who loves"], whereas fear (and the acceptance of the yoke) is a state of bittul (self-nullification).[19] Therefore, when a Jew's service is with love and joy alone, since he stands in a movement of "yeshus" (selfhood) — even though this is yeshus of holiness — he can come from it to plain yeshus, and from the expansiveness of holiness in which he stands during prayer he may afterwards fall into the expansiveness of kelipah — frivolity and scoffing. But when the service is also with fear and acceptance of the yoke — the movement of bittul, the opposite of yeshus — the bittul does not allow[20] the external forces to draw nurture even from the expansiveness of love and joy.
This explains why the wells that Avraham dug were stopped up by the Philistines, but afterwards, when Yitzchak dug them up, the Philistines no longer stopped them up. When Avraham's wells (the service of love and joy) also contain Yitzchak's digging (the movement of bittul of fear and acceptance of the yoke), it is no longer possible for the external forces to draw nurture from them, and therefore "their flow never ceased again."[21]
6. According to the above explanation it is understood that the wells Avraham dug — although the Philistines stopped them up and Yitzchak dug them up — are nevertheless, even afterwards, essentially Avraham's wells: the service of love and joy. The action of Yitzchak (fear and acceptance of the yoke) is in order to safeguard the endurance of the love and joy.
And therefore my father explains that the intention of the Zohar in the phrase "the well of Yitzchak" is [not that the well itself is Yitzchak's, as according to the Ramaz's explanation, but that it is "the well of Avraham," and it is] only that "they attributed it to Yitzchak," since the endurance of Avraham's service comes through the service of Yitzchak.
7. The explanation of the above interpretation of the Ramaz according to the teachings of Chassidus:
The matter of digging wells (in general) is service in the manner of from below to above, which comes from Yitzchak's line of gevurah — as explained in many places.[22] Therefore the Ramaz explains that the well belongs essentially to Yitzchak ("the well of Yitzchak"), the line of gevurah; but there was in it also the accomplishment of Avraham, the line of chesed.
And it may be added: the Zohar there speaks not of the well itself, but of the well as "testimony" — and it therefore calls it "the well of Yitzchak," since the function of "testimony" is to bring about the "endurance" of the matter to which the witnesses testify (the testimony of the witnesses nullifies the challenges to the matter[23]) — and the endurance of the "well" was accomplished through Yitzchak, as above.[24]
8. The matter in man's service: A Jew's service must be with fear and bittul; but because of the great virtue of joy,[25] there must also be in it the line of joy (though the joy must be concealed[26]).
From what is explained in Torah Ohr (beginning of Toldos), that through "Yitzchak's digging, their flow" (of the wells that Avraham had dug) "never ceased again," it is evident that Yitzchak's accomplishment (the line of gevurah) consists in this: through it, Avraham's wells — the service of love and joy — endured.
This means that the service is in the line of love[27] (and joy), as the Zohar says,[28] "There is no service like the service of love"; but in order that "the joy endure … one must precede it with fear"[29] and the acceptance of the yoke of Heaven.
(From a talk of Shabbos Parshas Vayeilech, 5735)
Key Lesson
A Jew's service of G‑d should be filled with love and joy, like the wells Avraham dug. But love and joy on their own carry a sense of self, and that openness of heart can slide into frivolity once the inspiration fades. What preserves them is Yitzchak's contribution: awe of G‑d and acceptance of the yoke of Heaven. When joy rests on a foundation of humility and acceptance of the yoke of Heaven, nothing can stop up the well, and its flow never ceases.