<HTML>Regarding the issue of ethics and parshat hashavua, it is certainly a
serious issue that should be dealt with on a broader level. The
particular example of Ya'akov's half truth however is rather anemic in
comparison to other Biblical accounts. However since this was the example
I will relate to it specifically, however it will not be very difficult
to extrapolate.
First of all, I think that it is critical to totally adopt Chazal's
understanding of Yaakov's qualities and characteristics as opposed to
those of Eisav. If we don't fill "ish tam yosheiv ohalim" with meaning,
in contrast to "ish yodea tzyid ish sadeh" than we are presented with a
major dilemma. Whether or not one takes the parshanut of Rashi or the
medrashim literally, or merely as reflecting truths is irrelevant. In
plain English, Yaakov has the qualities necessary to continue the legacy
of Avraham and Eisav does not. This basic position must be adopted and
taught without any hesitation. The same for example is true regarding
Yitzchak and Yishmael. etc.
Once this is adopted, and we therefore accept the end which Rivka aimed
at, I don't have any problem with being critical of the means used to
attain that end. The Ramban himself is critical of Sarah's behavior
vis-a-vis Hagar, and we don't have to be frummer than the Ramban.
Similarly we can be critical of the methods which Rivka and Yaakov
employed (tricking an elderly blind father). In fact, I recall a
sicha I once heard from Rav Meir Shlesinger (then the Rosh Yeshiva of
Yeshivat Shaalavim) commenting that Yaakov's galut to Charan was due to
the immoral methods used to attain the birthright. (He noted the
identical passage used in both places "ve'ata b'ni shma b'koli".)
Once these two issues are separated, I think you will have a much easier
time dealing with the problem which you raised. Of course this is only
one very general guideline, and any educator must be attuned to his
specific audience.
Rav Yair Kahn
Yeshivat Har Etzion</HTML>
