In citing the Midrash which interprets the word, ruvk as “to teach,” Rashi uses a word which lends ambiguity to his statement. He says “to prepare for him a House of Study.” Why does Rashi add the word “for him?” He should have simply said to make a House of Study. Why is it necessary to emphasize that it was “for him”? When Horav Eliyahu Meir Bloch, z.l., came to these shores together with Horav Chaim Mordechai Katz, z.l., to rebuild Yeshivas Telz, he used this Rashi as the source for maintaining the yeshivah in the same character and form as when it had been in Lithuania.
Yaakov did not merely charge Yehudah with making just any yeshivah. Rather, he sought a yeshivah that would be for him, one that would adhere to the “old world” precepts and perspectives that characterized his home. To create an “Egyptian type” yeshivah would not have been that difficult. To create a yeshivah that would foster and perpetuate the Patriarchal legacy and its unique characteristic form of Jewishness, however, would have been a greater challenge.
European Jewry took on many forms which reflected the varied attitudes connected to the Torah way of life. Each yeshivah had its own derech ha’limud, approach to Torah study. The European Roshei Ha’Yeshivah, themselves firebrands saved from the flames, came to these shores with a singular mission, to rebuild the destroyed Torah centers by maintaining the integrity of their value system. It was their resolute dedication to this ideal that laid the foundation for the flowering of Torah study that took place in the spiritual wasteland of this country.
