GEN1246 In Genesis Rabbah 65:18 and Tanhuma Genesis 1.131, for example, Jacob’s use of ambiguous language in answering his father’s question as to his identity is intended not to tell a lie, but to state an ambiguous fact. The rabbis read Jacob’s response in [this verse] in the following way: “It is I. Your firstborn is Esau.” This may reflect another instance of a philosophical view which also influenced Hellenistic literature’s presentation of the Genesis deceptions. Plato and other Greco-Roman philosophical schools held that certain individuals because of their standing in the community understood more about the goals of the society and could use deception and lies as a means to performing these goals. Plato held that the rulers of the city could also use lying and deception for the good of the sates: The Republic, 389b: “The rulers of the city may, if anybody, fitly lie on account of enemies or citizens for the benefit of the state.” Plato also held that falsehood was available to physicians as medicine for the good of patients, but not to laymen who should have no part of it. Encyclopedia of. Bioethics, Vol. 4, S. Bok, “Truth-telling (New York Macmillan, 1978), p. 1685 ff. The rabbis of the Talmudic and post-Talmudic period found different ways of dealing with the post-Abrahamic Patriarch and Matriarch deceptions. Genesis Rabbah and other early and medieval rabbinic commentators on Genesis, for example, used the linguistic similarity between the designation Aramean found in Genesis concerning Laban and the Hebrew root “rmh” (deceive) as distinguishing not only Laban but the entire rest of the line as containing deceptive characteristics. L. Ginzberg, The Legends of the Jews, Volume V, (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1968) p 270, note 5 By implication this includes his sister, Rebecca, Jacob, Esau and perhaps the entire line of Jacob. One might, therefore, expect these deceptions not because they are from the line of Abraham, but rather because of the influence of Laban. In addition, concerning the deceptions of Esau by Jacob, much of the deception is deflected by the rabbinic assignment of the blame to Rebecca and by adding an initial refusal by Jacob which is not found in the MT text. Genesis Rabbah 65:14, Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer, 36; Targum Yerushalmi on Genesis 37:11 The actual deceptions and lies were sometimes deflected (by the rabbis—in deference to the MT text) from Jacob through divine intervention. Op. cit., Ginzberg, Vol. V, pp. 284-286, notes 92, 105, 109: concerning the deception of Esau by Jacob. The deception of Laban by Jacob in Genesis 30-31 is similarly explained; Vol. V, p. 300, note 209. Also used concerning Ishmael to justify his treatment by Abraham: Ginsberg (sic), Vol I, pp. 263-269; Vol V, p. 246, especially note 211. Another method of justifying the deceptions of Jacob and his sons in particular is through the vilification of other key individuals in the Genesis text. This tendency is found in the clear vilification of Esau, Ibid., Ginzberg, Vol, I, pp. 319-21, 336-340. This process continues through even the smallest forms of deceptions exhibited by Jacob concerning Esau. So, for example, in the final meeting of Jacob and Esau in MT Genesis 33:12 – 16, Jacob tells Esau that they will all meet him in Seir but never actually goes to Seir. The rabbis try to avoid this lie/deception by adding the apparent mental reservation of Jacob that in the Messianic era the people of Israel (Jacob) will take possession of Seir. Ginzberg, Vol. I. p. 394, Vol. V, p 312, note 276 Laban, Ibid. Ginzberg, Vol. I, pp. 357-361 and other characters deceived or mistreated by the Patriarchs and Matriarchs even when the MT of Genesis has almost no inkling of these characteristics. By vilifying these recipients of deceptions the rabbis may have been derived a key principle concerning lying and deception: lying or deceiving a liar or deceiver is inherently justified. In addition, even in cases where certain rabbinic sources will allow for a patriarchal lie or deception, it is either aided by divine intervention and/or motivation or is down-graded to an ambiguous statement capable of being understood in varying ways and not an outright lie.