[Avodah] Kalah NaAh VeChasudah - Midvar Sheker

[Micha Berger]

On Tue, Dec 31, 2024 at 11:29:36PM +1100, Rabbi Meir G. Rabi via Avodah wrote:
> R Micha, I am still unsure of your meaning
> Is it relevant that YaAkov is arranging a self-serving deception,
> he WANTS his father to reach the wrong conclusion
> in order to prevent Eisav getting the Beracha and in order to gain the
> Beracha for himself?

I am not sure how much of your question was about my position, and how
much questioning what is within the medrash I started with as a
data point.

The medrash, before Rashi, is found in Bereishis Rabba 65:18, Tanchuma
Toledos 10, and the Zohar I 167. (I won't get into the 'before Rashi"
on that last one.)

The whole point of "ani; Eisav beckhorekkha" is to show that he wasn't
actually lying by showing how with creative pausing, the sentence could
have been technically true but misleading.

Radaq ad loc makes a point about Yaaqov being "shanah devaro" rather than
"doveir sheqer". The gemara too, when talking about darkei shalom talks
about shinui, rather than sheqer.

Meaning, the medrash is emphasizing that Yaaqov didn't sin in this pasuq
because the situation was one that permits shinui.

Your point about how can it be permissible since Yaaqov was misleading
in order to getg personal gain isn't addressing my interpretation of the
medrash. The medrash itself is evidence that personal gain doesn't remove
the permissiblity of geneivas daas (but not sheqer) in Yaaqov's situation.

As for what I added:

1- I associated sheqer with midevar sheqer tirchaq, since the word is
right there in the pasuq. At least according to the sources that apply
MDST outside of beis din. (I am not sure all rishonim agree.)

2- As far as I know, this gemara (Yevamos 65) *only* permits shinui
devarim for the purposes of shalom. And so I am leaning into the rishonim
who explain the other gemaros as instances of this rule. "Kalah na'ah
vechasuda" (Yavamos 16) when she doesn't seem that way to the speaker's
tastes is about fostering the new couple's shalom bayis.

When enother gemara (BM 23) gives 3 exceptions: beMesechta, bePuria,
beUshpiza, they too can be explained as instances of shalom. Even when
it's your own anava you are protecting when you only talk about half what
you know, and your own tzeni'us WRT bepuria. And similarly "kalah na'ah
vechasuda" (Yavamos 16) is about fostering the new couple's shalom bayis.

But even if you disagree with what I am now describing as my second point,
you cannot escape that it is Chazal who is saying that the situation
legitimized Yaaqov's shinui devarim and that sheqer in the same situation
would have been a problem.

We could say that this is because
a- the situation inherently doesn't make lying permissible, or
b- only because there was a shinui devarim solution to Yaaqov's problem,
being more outright than necessary in his lying wasn't permissible.

I think thw medrash about how Aharon brought arguing parties together by
lying to each about how the other wants reconciliation means that (a)
is a hava amina. Shalom can permit uttering outright sheqer, but only
when shinui devarim isn't an option.

And so, given 1 (that sheqer is a second issur atop geneivas daas which
derives from "midevar sheqer tirchaq") I wrote about preferably only
violating geneivas daas rather than both issurim, if one can achieve
peace that way.

So, to address your question:

I don't see anything in Yavamos 65 requiring that for the sake of peace
means that it be someone else's peace, or that it must be solely for
that purpose to the exclusion of any other personal advantages.

Because Rivqa and Yaaqov were objectively right that peace (and the
Divine Plan) called for the ruse, the ruse was permissible even though
Yaaqov thereby gained personally as well.

Chodesh tov,
un a lichtikn un freilechn Chanukah!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life isn't about finding yourself.
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   Life is about creating yourself.
Author: Widen Your Tent               - George Bernard Shaw
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF