"You granted truth to Yaakov and kindness to Avraham" (Micha 7,20). Why is Yaakov Avinu, of all people, considered the epitome of Truth?

In this week's Torah portion of Vayetze (B'reshit 28,10-32,3), we read about Yaakov Avinu having fled from his brother Esav to Haran, where he worked for his uncle Lavan and raised a family of 13 children. The Prophet Micha tells us that Yaakov is the very symbol and banner of the attribute of "truth," just as Avraham is the epitome of chessed, kindness. 

Let us focus here on Yaakov. Does his life really epitomize the trait of truth? We know, for instance, that he deceived his father into giving him the blessing that Yitzchak wished to give Esav. And then, in this week's portion, after the trickster Lavan was finally willing to give him a salary for his 20 years of work, Yaakov made him an interesting offer: "Remove from your flocks every lamb that is spotted or streaked, every sheep with dark markings, and this [i.e., those born afterwards with such markings] will be my payment" (30,32). Lavan agreed – and Yaakov promptly proceeded to play around with all sorts of special methods to ensure that a high proportion of the newborn lambs would be exactly what he would be paid! 

Is that how the "symbol of truth" should behave? After all, it was obvious that Lavan would never have agreed to the deal had he known about Yaakov's special methods of operation! And even if we find an explanation that will settle our minds regarding Yaakov's behavior with Lavan and with the blessings, why is Yaakov considered the very symbol of Truth? Why does the Prophet Micha choose him as the manifestation of this trait? Is this not very strange??

Let us look at Pirkei Avot, the Chapters of the Fathers. One of the first Mishnayot there tells us that Simon the Just taught: "On three things the world stands: on the Torah, on Divine service, and on acts of kindness." At the end of that chapter, we read: "Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: On three things the world exists: on law and judgement, on truth, and on peace."

It would seem that these are two conflicting approaches. But how is it possible that Rabban Shimon, who lived at the end of the Mishnaic period, would dispute the earlier words of Shimon HaTzaddik, who was a member of the Men of the Great Assembly, whose teachings and rulings form the very foundations of much of our tradition?

To reconcile this, let us note that the first Mishna above refers to the attributes on which the world stands, while the second speaks of those on which, or for which, the world exists. That is, the first is speaking of how the world was created, and the important values on which the world was established. But regarding the manner in which the world is run day to day, it must function on the concepts of truth, judgement, and peace. How does this work? 

Judgement and peace can operate together, but truth and peace seems to be a different story. There are cases in which they clash, and in fact the Talmud teaches that "it is permitted to change [i.e., not tell the truth] for the sake of peace." This shows that peace and the absolute truth cannot, at least in some cases, exist at one and the same time.

And we find in the Medrash (B'reshit Rabba 8,5) that a dispute arose when G-d created the world: "Truth and Peace said that man should not be created, and Kindness and Tzedek said he should be created." G-d then cast Truth to the ground, the Medrash continues, vetoing his opinion. Here we ask: What happened to Peace, which also said, "Do not create"? Why did G-d not throw him to the ground as well? 

In addition, what does it mean that G-d cast Truth to the ground? Did He not want Truth anymore, after He created the world based on it and the two other attributes? How could the world then continue to exist? 

We must therefore say that G-d cast out an absolute version of Truth, and gave us, those who live in the world that He created, a different form of Truth. For us, Truth is not absolute – but rather "the right thing to do." The way in which we are supposed to act - that is Truth. When we are taught that we may "change" for the sake of peace, this means that the Truth in that instance is that we must "change." Thus, why did the very symbol of Truth tell his father, "I am Esav, your firstborn"? It is because this is what his mother told him to do, and therefore this was the Truthful manner in which he was to act. (Based on an explanation taught by the late saintly Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky)

In accordance with this, we can explain another cardinal event in Yaakov's life. When he met his future wife and Lavan's dauther Rachel at the well, he told her that he was her father's brother. Why did he say this, given that he was actually her father's nephew? The answer is, as the Medrash tells us, that he was responding to Rachel's warning that her father was a con-man and trickster – and Yaakov said, "Don't worry, I know how to work with that type of person; I'm his brother in deception." 

Yaakov was telling Rachel, at the start of their relationship, that the Torah way – the Truth – is that when dealing with a swindler, one must behave in kind. "With a faithful one, You act faithfully, but with a crooked one, You deal crookedly" (Tehillim 118,27). If this is what the Torah teaches, then it is no longer deception, but the Truth! We know that Lavan tricked Yaakov many times (B'reshit 31,7), and therefore Yaakov had to use crooked methods to receive from Lavan that which he deserved. 

Similarly, Beit Hillel teaches that one must praise a bride's appearance, even if she is not particularly beautiful, and must tell someone that his new car is great and that he made a good deal in buying the property he bought, even if this is not quite the truth. The reason is that according to our Torah, we must be understanding of our fellow Jews and their feelings – and therefore the right and True thing to do in cases such as these is to give him a good feeling, even at the expense of absolute truth. This is because behaving with sensitivity to others is the Truth of our holy Torah.

Translated by Hillel Fendel