Yitzchak’s mission was to prove that “Avrahamism” was not just a temporary, passing fad, that the example he set can and would be followed for generations to come.
We read in Parashat Toledot of the drought that struck Canaan during the time of Yitzchak and Rivka, which forced them to temporarily settle in the Philistine region of Gerar (26:1). Rashi (26:2), citing the Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 64:3), comments, “He had planned to move to Egypt, just as his father had done during a period of drought, and so He said to him: ‘Do not go to Egypt.’” Yitzchak originally decided to settle in Egypt, until God commanded him to settle in Gerar, which is within the borders of Canaan.
To one extent or another, Yitzchak initial plan to follow his father’s example and relocate in Egypt typifies Yitzchak’s nature as depicted in the Torah’s brief account of his life and the Midrashim. His primary ambition was to continue his father’s work and legacy. As many writers have noted, this is likely the deeper significance of the Torah’s account of Yitzchak reopening the wells that Avraham had dug but were then stuffed by the Philistines, and then assigning them the same names that Avraham had given them (26:18). Yitzchak does not appear to have been a trailblazer, to have introduced a new, innovative idea, but rather focused on perpetuating Avraham’s legacy. When drought struck Canaan, Yitzchak’s intuitive response to follow his father’s lead, to do exactly what Avraham had done in that same situation many years earlier.
Rav Soloveitchik suggested that this is also the meaning of the otherwise peculiar Midrashic statement cited by Rashi in his commentary to the opening verse of Parashat Toledot, which tells of the “cynics” who claimed that Yitzchak was conceived when Sara was abducted by the Philistine ruler Avimelekh. In order to dispel such suspicions, God had Yitzchak appear identical to his father, confirming beyond a doubt that he was indeed Avraham’s son. Rav Soloveitchik explained that the “cynics” questioned whether Avraham’s legacy could survive after his passing, whether his teachings were capable of crossing generational boundaries. The description of Yitzchak’s resemblance to his father emphasizes the primary role that Yitzchak served – to be an extension of Avraham. His job was not to chart a new course, but rather to establish continuity by following his father’s example. His challenge was to disprove the claim of the “cynics” that Avraham was incapable leaving a spiritual heir, that his teachings could not survive the perilous journey across the generational divide. Yitzchak’s contribution to the formation of Am Yisrael was thus a crucial one. Many iconic, innovative figures arise and make important contributions, but they are short-lived and displaced by new innovations. Yitzchak’s mission was to prove that “Avrahamism” was not just a temporary, passing fad, that the example he set can and would be followed for generations to come.
Sometimes, the greatest contribution we can make is not through innovation and creativity, but rather through direct continuity, by being an extension of our predecessors. We therefore ensure the survival and stability of our ancient tradition, continuing the spiritual legacy of Avraham – as well as the less obvious legacy of his son, Yitzchak.