By Rabbi Elie Feder PhD
Given that Yaakov was such a great tzaddik, how could he lie to his father, Yitzchak, and say, “I am Eisav your firstborn” (Bereishis 27:19)? Many of us are familiar with Rashi’s reinterpretation of Yaakov’s words: “I am (the one who brought you the treats, and) Eisav (is) your firstborn.” But does this contrived reading actually justify lying? If so, it would seem we could “kasher” many questionable lies with such clever maneuvering!
Before delving into this difficult Rashi, let’s consider the Radak. He explains that Yaakov knew he was more deserving than Eisav to receive the Divine prophetic berachah. Radak says that a change in words in situations like this is not a disgrace for a tzaddik. In fact, Hashem Himself instructed Shmuel to adjust his words so Shaul would not realize Shmuel was going to anoint David as king. Similarly, both Avraham and Yitzchak falsely claimed that Sarah and Rivka were their sisters instead of their wives. Radak argues that these tzaddikim are not labeled “speakers of falsehood” for such claims, which were made out of fear of being killed. Likewise, Yaakov is not considered a “speaker of falsehood” for altering his words to receive the berachos from his father. Furthermore, Radak notes that Yaakov acted on the direct instruction of his mother, Rivka, who was a prophetess.
While Radak’s examples are compelling, he does not clearly explain the underlying principle. Why aren’t these tzaddikim considered “speakers of falsehood”? After all, didn’t they say things that were not true?
To understand Radak’s position, we must develop a more nuanced understanding of what makes lying wrong. It is not merely the act of saying something false, but the distortion of truth. In certain situations, speaking false words may result in less distortion of truth than speaking true ones. For example, had Avraham truthfully said that Sarah was his wife, he would likely have been killed, and Sarah would have been taken as Pharaoh’s wife. This would have caused a greater distortion of truth—since Sarah was rightfully married to Avraham—than altering his words. By saying that Sarah was his sister, Avraham preserved the deeper truth of his marriage to Sarah.
The same logic applies to Yaakov. He had legally acquired the berachos from Eisav and was more fit to receive them. If he had allowed Eisav to take the berachos, it would have created a greater distortion of truth than his words did. Thus, Yaakov’s words, while technically false, were necessary to preserve the deeper truth of the situation. This does not make him a “speaker of falsehood,” a term reserved for someone whose lies reflect a complete disregard for truth.
Let us now return to Rashi. Perhaps he fundamentally agrees with Radak. Yaakov said false words because doing so was necessary to maintain truth on a higher level. Yet, Rashi is adding that Yaakov’s attachment to truth was so profound that even when it was appropriate to lie, he formulated his words to align as closely as possible with truth. By carefully structuring his false statement in a manner that can be repunctuated as a truth, Yaakov maintained his integrity and connection to truth. While this approach is praiseworthy when lying is necessary, it certainly cannot justify lies that are inherently distortions of truth in the first place. n
Rabbi Elie Feder PhD, a Rebbe at Yeshiva Bnei Torah and a math professor at Kingsborough Community College, is the author of Gematria Refigured (2022) and Happiness in the Face of Adversity (upcoming). He is also a cohost of the podcast “Physics to God” and the host of the podcast “Simply Deep.”
