The arguments between Yitzhak’s shepherds and the herdsmen of Gerar that are recorded in Parshat Toldot focus on the wells. These disputes over the life-sustaining natural resources ultimately will decide the question of whether Yitzhak can survive in Gerar. The Hatam Sofer compares this dispute to the discussions in the Talmud regarding who has first rights to water usage. The reference is to a Gemara in Gittin that sets out regulations about water usage, suggesting a set of priorities for which field will receive water first – the one closest to the river, or the bottommost field that is lower than all the rest (see Hatam Sofer, Gittin 60a).
Aside from the legal issues involved, the Gemara describes in a colorful manner various ways that people gained priority and control over water resources in the time of the Rabbinic sages. By linking this question to the one that appears in Parshat Toldot, the dispute about the wells is understood as a typical question of the laws of neighborly disputes.
Another possibility is to view the dispute between shepherds as a basic question of civil law. Radak, for example, suggests that the dispute stemmed from the question of the source of the well water – is its source in Gerar or in Beer Sheva? According to this approach, the question is not how will the neighbors share resources, rather it is a legal question – who owns the water? According to Radak, everyone is in agreement that the source of the water will determine the true owner, the only question is whether we can ascertain with certainty the source of the water.
Ramban offers a similar approach, suggesting that the question was whether the water in the well came from the river, or if it was spring water. If the water came from the river, which was owned by the natives of Gerar, it cannot be taken by Yitzhak’s shepherds. Those shepherds, however, emphasize that the well they dug was “a well of spring water,” rather than water from the river. Water from the depths belongs to whoever makes the effort to reach it. According to this approach, the argument was based on the question of who actually owned the water, and whether Yitzhak’s shepherds were claiming water that did not belong to them.
In his Arvei Nahal (Toldot, Drush 6), the Hassidic Master, Rabbi David Shlomo Eibeschitz, connects the monetary disagreement found in Parshat Toldot with a different Talmudic discussion: “This one says: It belonged to my ancestors and I inherited it from them, and that one says: It belonged to my ancestors and I inherited it from them” (see Bava Batra 34b). In our case, the Torah attests to the fact that the wells that had been dug by Avraham were covered up by the Pelishtim, and now Yitzhak was redigging his father’s wells. By this time, Avraham’s efforts had been forgotten, and the local people insisted that the lands – and their resources – were an inheritance that they received from their ancestors.
The common denominator amongst all of these commentaries is the assumption that Gerar was not the Wild West, and that the shepherds grazing their flocks were law abiding citizens concerned with the legalities of their actions. In civil society, disputes arise in which two parties have contradictory narratives and claims, which will affect how a given situation should be interpreted. Decisions on these matters will eventually be made in a court of law, where judges will rule by applying laws that aim to determine how to best mediate situations of doubt.
But there is another possible explanation for the disagreement between shepherds, one that reveals an ideological dispute regarding ownership and individual rights:
Malbim writes: “The law of the land was that anything found in the depths of the earth was communal property belonging to the nation, so the spring waters were the property of the king and his people. Yitzhak’s shepherds argued that such water was ownerless, and belonged to whosoever made the effort to search for it and uncover it.”
Malbim explains the dispute in the Torah as mirroring the modern disagreement between a Marxist approach that views resources as being shared property that cannot be owned by any individual, in contrast with the capitalist view that the person who puts the effort into uncovering and developing the resource is the one who deserves to own it. Yitzhak represents a position that rejects the concept of a centralized government that automatically takes ownership of natural resources on behalf of the people who live there. It will not suffice for Yitzhak to make an argument regarding a specific claim on the wells. For him to take possession of these natural resources will require a change in perception regarding the very idea of personal ownership among the local populace.
What is surprising about all three of these approaches is that none of them paint the dispute in stark black-and-white colors. In fact, all of them agree that the dispute illustrates the complicated and unresolved reality in which Yitzhak and his shepherds are operating. It is possible that they are right, but it is also possible that it is the people of Gerar who are right. If it is a neighborly dispute, then this falls into a common category of tensions that invariably exist among people who share common property. If it is a monetary dispute, then we must assess the status of the river and whether the river is the source of this water, or, perhaps, it is natural spring water. If it is an ideological dispute, then it is impossible to determine who is right and who is wrong. In any case, it is far from clear that Yitzhak is the righteous one in this story and that the people of Gerar are sinners.
The Zohar illustrates Yitzhak’s challenging position by means of a parable suggesting that in this story, the well water represents the Oral Torah.
“This well, about which the dispute centered, represents the Oral Torah.
For regarding this it was taught: “the herdsmen of Gerar quarreled with Isaac’s herdsmen, saying, ‘The water is ours’.”
These queried those, and these disputed those.
These declared it pure and those declared it defiled; these ruled it fit and those ruled it to be unfit; these permitted and those forbade.”
(Tikkunei Zohar 147a)
The Zohar views the dispute between two parties, each of whom is defending a reasonable position, as epitomizing the age-old traditions of the Talmud. The suggestion being made by the Zohar is that this story serves as a metaphor, with the water representing the Torah.
It is possible to view this from the opposite perspective, as well. One could suggest that the Oral Tradition and its traditional study methodologies serve as a metaphor for Yitzhak’s situation. But it is more than that. The repeated promises given to the Patriarchs that they and their descendants would inherit the Land of Israel, were never fulfilled in a simple manner. Throughout history – until today – the promise of the Land has involved ongoing tensions having to do with how neighbors share resources, who is the true owner of the land and ideological/political questions of appropriate modes of government.
The promise of the Land is not a final statement, rather it is the beginning of a struggle, which must open with deep study of questions that have no right or wrong answers. The positive element of this is that we have the distinct privilege of living here, so that we play an active role in the Talmud-like disputes, which embody the realities of the Land of Israel today … as well as in the past.