GEN1242 Even in instances where lying can be justified, untruth still introduces deceit into our relationships.  Thus, although the text offers no criticism of the lie Jacob tells his blind father, Isaac, that he is Esau, Isaac’s firstborn son, it does not seem to be a coincidence that no other biblical character finds himself on the receiving end of so many deceptions. His father-in-law, Laban, tricks him into marrying Leah instead of Leah’s younger sister, Rachel, whom Jacob loves and who has been promised him Genesis 29:21-30. Many years after this deception, Jacob’s sons sell their brother Joseph, Jacob’s favorite, into slavery. But first they remove the beautiful coat Jacob had given Joseph, dip it into the blood of a slaughtered goat, and show Jacob the bloody garment Genesis 37:31-33, leading him to believe that Joseph had been killed by a savage beast.   He who deceived his father is now deceived by his sons.  The narrative seems to suggest that sin and telling mistruths, even if they can be justified, bring an element of deceit into our relationships. Thus, if we find ourselves in a relationship, or a society, in which we must often lie, it is best to remove ourselves from such an environment as soon as possible. Even justifiable lies, if we tell them often enough, become a bad habit and can lead to a lack of truthfulness in all our relationships.   TELVOL1 401-2

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1243 Although it is usually forbidden to lie, at times it is permissible to tell an untruth.   … you are permitted to tell an untruth to promote peace only in situations when you have no other options (Emes Knaih, p. 46).  Moreover, your words should be as close to the truth as possible.   (See Rashi on [this verse] (Esau meant: “I am the one who is bringing you [food] and Esau is your firstborn.” [From Tanchuma Buber]).   PLYN 206

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1244 The most famous lie told in the Torah (Jacob telling his blind father, Isaac, that he was Esau, Isaac’s firstborn son) came about because of Rebecca’s fear that her son Jacob, and all his descendants, would suffer unfairly if he did not lie to his father. … This instance is a difficult case, one that pushes the border between permissible and impermissible lies.   Nonetheless, it would appear that the Bible is teaching that one may lie when an injustice, in this case a major injustice, will occur if one doesn’t. TELVOL1 446

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1245 If forced to alter the truth, one should still try to minimize the falsehood to the greatest possible extent.   Chofetz Chaim, Hilchos Rechilus 1:8   When falsehood is prohibited, it is prohibited in any form, great or small, even by creating a false impression through partial truths.   Even when it is permitted to alter the truth, we are still required to alter as little as possible (with saying half-truths, ambiguous statements, diversionary tactics, etc.). Ibid. If, however, one judges that these strategies will only arouse the other party’s suspicions and make matters worse, then to say an outright falsehood is permitted at the outset. Niv Sefasaim, Ch. 2 par. 12. When Yaakov Avinu came to his father impersonating Esav, as he was commanded to do, he avoided outright lying by saying, “I am   … Esav your eldest,” leaving room for the ambiguous explanation, “I am who I am, Esav is your eldest” [this verse; see Rashi]. EHRMAN 96

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

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.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1247 See [[EXOD855]] Exodus 23:7 far PLYN 206-7

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1248 Ramban [AJL – Rabbi Moses b. Nahman aka “Nachmanides”] writes that Yitzchak did not recognize Esav as evil.  (Zeh Hasha’ar).   (See also comment this citation at 27:1) GATES 383

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1249 Anybody can coin beautiful phrases; but in everyday, practical life the question is: “What influence does such eloquence exert on life and conduct?” The Rabbis had a logical approach, and they differentiated between grain and chaff, between flower and fruit. “Not the teaching s the thing, but the action thereof” Avot 1:17, they taught. Learning, for which the Jew had a passion that set his heart and mind aglow, was important only because it led to action. Kiddushin 40b, Baba Kamma 17a Everywhere, the stress is that the deed must be the inseparable companion of the spoken word. Once a promise has been given, it must not be broken lightly. … Above all, they protested against individuals and nations that preached love but practised hate, that were true to the description which Isaac gave of Jacob: “The voice is the voice of Jacob; but the hands? They, surely seem those of Esau?” [this verse] Rabbinic teaching aims at universal peace and at the establishment of the Messianic era on earth. Only when this era has dawned, but not before, will many of the commandments have outlived their utility. Niddah 61b This practical touch of the Rabbis cn best be seen LEHRMAN 60-1

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1250 Advertising that manipulates in order to create a market for a product is destructive to the truth, as well as to trust in commercial dealings. … The Jacob and Esau story provides a biblical metaphor for manipulative advertising.   Jacob is the arch deceiver, pretending to be someone and something he is not in order to fulfill his desire for blessing – power, privilege, wealth.  We need to cultivate and strengthen the perception of Isaac inside ourselves when he says, “The voice is the voice of Jacob, yet the hands are the hands of Esau.” [this verse] We must separate the clever and appealing message from the frivolous or unwholesome product.  AGTJL 120-1

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1251 See [[GEN1406]] Genesis 33:11 blessing SACKS 37-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT