The prophet says: "titen emet leYaakov chesed laAvraham" "grant truth to Yaakov, kindness to Avraham" (Micha 7:20). Yaakov is known as a man of truth, while Avraham is referred to as a man of chesed. This approbation in no way implies that Avraham was not a man of truth or that Yaakov did not perform acts of chesed. Avraham Avinu, in fact, sacrificed his life for the sake of the truth, and there is no question that Yaakov was very involved in chesed. Although we are all obligated to observe and fulfill all the Mitzvot of the Torah, each person has a specific portion of the Torah that he can call his own, this becomes the principle way in which he serves Hashem. We can compare this to the apportioning of the Land of Israel - the entire Eretz Yisrael was given to each and every Jew as an inheritance, yet each tribe and each individual was given their specific portion. (It is fitting that each person searches for his unique share of the Torah and does his utmost to excel in that area (see Shabbat 118b). This in fact is what we refer to when we pray to Hashem "give us our share of Your Torah" - help us find the portion of the Torah that we can call our own).

The same applies to our holy forefathers. Avraham and Yaakov were each men of emet and chesed, yet each had their unique part in Avodat Hashem - Avraham's being kindness, and Yaakov's being truth, with each excelling in his specific area. Each forefather's special unique portion of the Torah corresponds to one of the pillars upon which the world stands: "On three things the world stands: on the Torah, on the Temple service, and on deeds of lovingkindness" (Pirke Avot 1:2). Avraham, pillar of chesed, planted an eshel in Be-er Sheva (see Bereishit 21:33), and performed acts of kindness with his many guests - materially as well as spiritually (which is the ultimate chesed man can bestow on his fellow man). Yitzchak, who was bound upon the Altar as an offering, was the pillar of Avoda - service of Hashem. "Yaakov was a wholesome man, abiding in tents" (Bereishit 25:27). Rashi explains that the tents referred to in the pasuk are "the tent of Shem and the tent of Ever". Yaakov spent his time learning Torah in the Beit Midrash of Shem and Ever. The pillar of Torah is the pillar of Truth, for Chazal explain that "grant truth to Yaakov" refers to the Torah, of which the pasuk states: "purchase truth, do not sell it" (Mishle 23:23) - see Avoda Zara 4b).

Avraham Avinu's attribute of chesed is put to a great test when he is commanded to act in a way that appears contradictory to his very nature. In addition to the cruelty involved in the act of slaughtering his son, there is the issue of "what will the other nations say?" This so-called "man of chesed" awakens one morning and suddenly decides to slaughter his son. He then goes on his merry way continuing to spread the word of faith! Anything he may have gained from the chesed organization he has built, any influence he may have had on other people, will all go down the drain. Hashem, however, commanded him to slaughter his son, and he does this even if it goes against everything he believes in and has preached for so many years.

In our parsha we find Yaakov's exemplary attribute of truth being put to a test as well. While his father was getting ready to bestow his blessing upon Esav, his mother tells Yaakov (based on a prophecy she received) that he must usurp these brachot for himself in a very deceitful manner (see Onkelos Bereishit 27:13, Ramban Bereishit 27:4, and Ohr HaChayim 27:8). This test consists of two parts: 1) Yaakov must do use the minimum amount of deceit required against his father, in other words to try to see to it his words be as truthful as possible, and 2) even when he must lie, it must be with a broken heart and not with a desire to deceive.

Yaakov Avinu passes both parts of the test with flying colors. When Yitzchak Avinu asked him "who are you my son" (Bereishit 27:18), Yaakov responded "it is I, Esav your firstborn" (ibid. 19). The Zohar (chelek I 167:2) explains that while uttering these words, Yaakov was concentrating on thinking "I am who I am, Esav is your firstborn" (see Rashi for a similar interpretation). This does not mean that Yaakov actually spoke the truth. After all if someone were to ask me "who are you" and I would respond "I am Barack Obama, President of the United States", my thinking to myself "I am who I am, Barack Obama is President of the United States" will not change the fact that I have just lied. Words are those that come forth from the mouth and not what a person is thinking in his heart. Yaakov Avinu was commanded to lie, yet he tried his best to distance himself from the act of lying as much as possible, making his statement only 99% false and not 100%.

Yaakov passed the second part of this test as well. Chazal tell us that Yaakov fulfilled his mission "bent over and crying" (Bereishit Rabba 65:15). For such a man of truth, to lie is the unthinkable. When given no choice but to lie, he does so but is with a broken heart.

As we mentioned, Yaakov did his utmost to reduce the element of falsehood in his words. In actuality, there was no falsehood in Yaakov's statements at all! "I am Esav your firstborn" is the absolute truth! How can this be? Let us explain using the following analogy: Suppose the watch I am wearing is a half an hour fast - the correct time is now 10:30 and my watch says that it is 11:00. Someone comes over to me and asks me "what time do you have". I could tell him 11:00 for, after all, that is the time displayed on my watch. That, however, is not the answer this person is looking for. He is interested in the correct time. His question to me of "what time do you have" assumes that my watch was set correctly. The appropriate answer to give him would therefore be 10:30.

In this manner we can explain Yaakov's identifying himself to his father as Esav. Yitzchak had no interest in blessing a wicked man, yet for all these years he was deceived into thinking that Esav was a tzaddik. Esav used to ask him how one separates tithes from salt and straw, misleading Yitzchak into thinking that Esav was even more meticulous in his observance of mitzvoth than Yaakov (see Rashi Bereishit 25:27). Based on this, Yitzchak elected to bestow his blessing upon the righteous Esav. Yaakov, however, knows the truth - there is no "righteous Esav". In fact, Yaakov knows that had his father been aware of Esav's true character he would not have blessed him at all (certainly not with the bracha he had designated for him) - he surely would have elected to give the blessing to Yaakov. Based on Yitzchak's perception of reality, Yaakov tells him "I am Esav your firstborn", I am in fact that person whom you picture in your mind's eye as "Esav your firstborn" and therefore I am the one you truly wish to bless. (see Michtav MeEliahu volume 1 pages 94-96).

Based on this, we can say that Yaakov is telling Yitzchak the truth. Yitzchak at first did not realize what was behind Yaakov's words. It was only later when Esav revealed the deceit that had taken place and Yitzchak saw Gehinom open up under Esav (see Rashi Bereishit 27:33) that Yitzchak realized that Yaakov was right - he was the one worthy of receiving the bracha, not Esav. We can prove this from Yitzchak's reaction at being told that Yaakov had in fact deceived him and had stolen the brachot: "indeed he shall remain blessed" (Bereishit 27:33). Yitzchak was confirming: "I was not mistaken, I have no regret, this was not done under false pretenses! 'Indeed he shall remain blessed'! Yaakov must receive the brachot!" Further on in the parsha we read of Yitzchak giving Yaakov additional blessings: "Yitzhcak summoned Yaakov and blessed him ... he said to him ... 'may Hashem bless you ... may He grant you the blessing of Avraham to you and to your offspring with you'" (Bereishit 28:1-4). At this point Yitzchak was well aware that it was Yaakov who was standing before him. He had previously thought that Esav was the righteous son who would continue in the tradition of Avraham Avinu. Yitzchak now realized that he was mistaken, his intent to bestow the blessing upon Esav was under false pretenses. He now corrects his mistake - Yaakov is the one who is blessed. It is he who should be blessed now and be blessed again as well with the bracha of Avraham, with Eretz Yisrael, and many other good things.

Yaakov's words were free of any falsehoods - he simply was not following Yitzchak's misconception that Esav was the righteous son. Instead he directed his father in the way he truly wished to be lead - to bless his righteous which was in fact Yaakov. The problem is that to all outward appearances there is seeming deceit in Yaakov's words and it is this that Yaakov tried his best to avoid. It is for this reason that while uttering the words, he concentrated on meaning "I am who I am, Esav is your firstborn".

There appears to be another anomaly in Yaakov's behavior. How is it that such a man of truth deceived Lavan regarding the division of the sheep? The agreement between Yaakov and Lavan as stated by Yaakov was: "Let me pass through your whole flock today, remove from there every speckled or spotted lamb, every brownish lamb among the sheep and the spotted or speckled among the goats - that will be my wage" (Bereishit 30:32). The Torah then tells us "Yaakov then took himself fresh rods of poplar and hazel and chestnut ... he set up the rods which he had peeled in the runnels - in the water in receptacles to which the flocks came to drink - facing the flocks, so they would become stimulated when they drink. Then the flocks became stimulated by the rods and the flocks gave birth to ringed ones, speckled ones, and spotted ones ... Whenever it was mating time for the early bearing flocks, Yaakov would place the rods in the runnels, in full view of the flock to stimulate them among the rods" (Bereishit 30:37-42). It appears that Yaakov interfered and tried to influence the appearance of the as yet unborn animals in his favor. Perhaps had he let nature take its course twenty percent of the lambs born would have been spotted, and now due to the rods he had placed eighty percent will be born spotted. Is this not deceitful?
How can a man like Yaakov do such a thing?

Firstly, it is not at all clear that placing rods in the watering receptacles had any natural influence on the appearance of the animals destined to be born. Rashi, in fact, cites an opinion from Chazal that every pregnancy which took place in Lavan's pen was accomplished supernaturally - without a male partner. The sheep would become pregnant through drinking the water (see Rashi Bereishit 30:38). With this in mind, we certainly cannot accuse Yaakov of tampering with the sheep in his favor, for each birth was a miracle from heaven that defied any laws of nature.

Even if, however, we were to follow the other view cited in Rashi, that when the sheep saw rods with a ringed appearance they produced ringed offspring, there were still miracles involved here that would absolve Yaakov of any guilt. The Torah tells us that Yaakov told Lavan: "I served you ... six years for your flocks; and you changed my wage a hundred times" (Bereishit 31:41). For six years Yaakov served Lavan awaiting flock as compensation, and Lavan changed the terms of this agreement one hundred times! One day he promised him spotted ones, the next day speckled. Yaakov was told he would receive all the ringed flock, only to be told the next day that this was changed to checkered. Let us make a simple calculation. The gestation period for a thin animal is five months (see Bechorot 8a). This means that over a period of six years (seventy- two months) there cannot be more than fourteen cycles of pregnancy and birth. In those fourteen cycles, Lavan changed the terms of the agreement one hundred times! This means that even had Yaakov placed a ringed rod during mating time influencing the animals gave birth to ringed offspring, what is to say that by the time the animals would give birth Yaakov's wages would still be in the form of ringed animals? What influence then could these rods have possibly had on Yaakov's earnings? A miracle was still required to insure that the animals born were given to Yaakov in accordance with Lavan's final terms of agreement. No matter how we view it, the rods had no natural effect on which sheep Yaakov would ultimately receive. There is no basis, therefore, to claim that Yaakov acquired his wages through deceit. When observing Yaakov placing the rods by the sheep, Lavan could have changed the terms of the agreement on the spot so that the wages would not correspond to the rods. If he were to see ringed rods, he could have then decided that Yaakov would only receive spotted lambs - this in fact is what he did. With all of Lavan's changes to the terms of Yaakov's wages "if he would stipulate 'speckled ones shall be your wages', then the entire flock bore speckled ones, and if he would stipulate 'ringed ones shall be your wages', then the entire flock bore ringed ones" (Bereishit 31:8). Yaakov did not acquire the flock by deceit, but by miraculous circumstances. This was the will of the A-lmighty.

While on the subject of deceit, I think it appropriate to mention a question I have been asked several times: May one deceive a lawyer hired to draw up a contract for purchase of an apartment. For example, it has been agreed upon that the lawyer will receive 2% of the value of the apartment as payment. The question I have been asked is, if the apartment was purchased for $100,000, may one tell the lawyer to write $80,000 in the contract and pay the remaining $20,000 "under the table". Rather than $2,000, the lawyer would now be receiving only $1600 in payment. I am embarrassed to say that this question has come up several times.

I am really surprised by this - what reason would there be to say that this is permitted? If the lawyer is Jewish, then this is outright theft! Who would consider stealing from his fellow Jew? Even if the lawyer is not Jewish, the halacha clearly mandates that it is forbidden to steal from a non-Jew (see Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 359:1)! Even if we were to claim that this is one of those instances in which stealing from a non-Jew is permitted (see Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 348:2 in the Ramma), the Sma"g has already warned against doing so, due to the great chillul Hashem involved: "I have told the exiles of Israel that those who lie to and steal from non-Jews are causing a great chillul Hashem and they are causing the non-Jews to say that there is no Torah in Israel" (Sma"g 'lo taase' 2). Even if the "stealing" aspect is
allowed, one must refrain from doing so to avoid a chillul Hashem. What
will the other nations say when that day of our redemption arrives speedily in our day? "Hashem has redeemed a nation of cheats?!" Our redemption must bring about a Kiddush Hashem, not a chillul Hashem! For this reason the Sma"g has ruled that one must desist from this type of behavior even where permitted.

I heard from the Rav (HaGaon HaRav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach) zt"l an additional reason why one must not steal from a non-Jew even where permitted: This person is now teaching himself to cheat and steal and slowly but surely it will become part of his persona. The end result will be that he will steal from fellow Jews as well. As the Sefer HaChinuch tells us: "the heart follows the actions" (Mitzvah 16). This means that when a wicked person is coerced into doing a good deed, it will have a slow and steady influence on him. The opposite is also the case - any negative action a tzaddik is forced to do will also have an influence on him. How much more so in our case, when the person is not being forced to deceive his non-Jewish lawyer, he will get so used to deceit that he will ultimately cheat and steal from his fellow Jew.

There are times when a person may be honest in his dealing with others, yet deceives himself. In this week's haftarah we read of the prophet Malachi rebuking the nation: "'I loved you', says Hashem, but you say 'How have You loved us'" (Malachi 1:2). This phraseology "but you say" repeats itself throughout Malachi's prophecy - in this week's haftarah as well as throughout the remainder of the book. Time and again Malachi rebukes the Jewish nation and the nation responds that they do not know to what he is referring: "... the Kohanim who scorn My Name, yet you say 'how have we scorned Your Name?' You present on My altar loathsome food, and you say 'How have we loathed You'" (ibid. 6-7). "Your words have become harsh against Me, says Hashem, but you say, 'How have we spoken against You'" (Malachi 3:13). How are we to understand this? If Malachi's claims are correct then why are the Jewish people responding with "what do you want from us"? A person caught red-handed with stolen goods can try to justify his actions, but he cannot deny the fact that he stole!

Malachi is speaking to the nation about violations which they themselves are not even aware of. "But you say ...", is not a lie, it is not mere lip service, it is the truth! They are not attempting to deceive the prophet - they truly do not understand what it is they are being rebuked for. Their wrongdoings are so deep inside them that they are not at all aware of them. We can compare this, lehavdil, to when Hashem asks Avraham: "why is it that Sarah laughed, saying: 'Shall I in truth bear a child, though I have aged?' Is anything beyond Hashem" (Bereishit 18:13-14). Sarah denies it all claiming: "I did not laugh" (ibid. 15). What is Sarah doing here? Is she contradicting what Hashem said, is she trying to deceive Him, G-d forbid? Certainly not! Her laughter was so internal, so subconscious that she tried to convince herself that there was no lack of faith on her part. Hashem, however, Who knows a person's innermost thoughts, spotted a hairsbreadth of a lack of faith on her part (of course not in our terms, but in terms appropriate for someone on her level). Similarly, Malachi came to the Jewish nation accusing them of things buried so deep in their hearts that they themselves were not aware of them. It is for this reason that they have difficulty understanding what he is referring to.

Malachi's final allegation against the nation is: "Your words have become harsh against Me, says Hashem, but you say, 'How have we spoken against You'". Are we speaking against Hashem? G-d forbid! Says Malachi you are! "You have said 'it is useless to serve Hashem'" (ibid. 14). Malachi, as we have said, is not accusing them of openly making such a claim, they have not formed a political party with the slogan "it is useless to serve Hashem! Vote Meretz or Shinui!" All the people were devout observers of Torah and mitzvoth. The prophet however is claiming that in the depths of their hearts they did not sufficiently value serving Hashem. One with a true desire to serve Hashem will search for hiddurim, for ways in which he can fulfill the mitzvah in the best
manner possible. One who feels that serving Hashem is a burden will search for the easy way out, for kulot, for ways to avoid having to perform this particular mitzvah.

The Torah is "the tree of life for those who grasp it" (Mishlei 3:18). It is like a log of wood floating upon the water, a log which one drowning in the river can grab hold of and be saved. Will a person in such a state search for "kulot"? Will he start to calculate perhaps one hand is sufficient? Maybe I can save my life by holding on to it with only three fingers? Certainly not. Such a person will grab this log with both his hands and with all his might. If possible, he will wrap his legs around it as well! He understands that his life depends on it. The Torah is our tree of life! Malachi is claiming that deep in the people's hearts they do not realize that it is the Torah that gives us life, they feel "it is useless to serve Hashem!" When someone does not understand that without Torah there is no life, their Mitzvah observance becomes very lax.

In a similar manner we can understand another of Malachi's charges against the Jewish nation as well: "... the Kohanim who scorn My Name, yet you say 'How have we scorned Your Name?' You present on My Altar loathsome food, and you say 'How have we loathed You?' By your saying 'the Table of Hashem is repulsive'. When you present a blind animal for sacrifice, is nothing wrong? And when you present a lame or sick animal, is nothing wrong? Present it, if you please to your governor: would he be pleased with you or show you favor?" (Malachi 1:7-8). If you had to bring an animal to the Persian governor, you would not even consider bringing one that is blind or sick. Only when an offering must be brought to the Beit HaMikdash do you bring such animals. Why? "By your saying: 'the Table of Hashem is repulsive'". Your service is only external, in the depths of your hearts you do not see any value to bringing offerings nor to any of the Beit HaMikdash service. As a result you see no reason why you should offer a beautiful animal.

The idea of "present it, if you please, to your governor" applies to us as well. One who davens must dress as if he is standing before a King or High Officer (see Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 91:5). Would you appear before the governor with your shirt sticking out? You would take your appearance more seriously! How much more so must we care to dress properly when standing in prayer before the King of kings.

It was the lack of importance given to the service, that was prevalent during the period of the second Beit HaMikdash (when Malachi prophesied) that lead to Hellenism. The Hellenists saw no beauty in the Beit HaMikdash. When they observed the service being carried out devoid of beauty or excitement, they thought why not join the Greeks, they have much beauty and glory! Along came the Chashmonaim who were able to see beyond the surface, they penetrated the depths of what is happening: The Greeks had thousands of soldiers and thousands of elephants, yet they realized that the entire Greek army is nothing. Up against the will of Hashem nothing has any significance. From this perspective we can understand how it was that thirteen people waged war against the entire Greek army. At a later stage, others joined their forces, but it all began with twelve people from the family of the Chashmonaim together with Elazar (see Rashi
Devarim 33:11). When analyzing matters in depth, we understand that "nothing prevents Hashem from saving, whether through many or through few'" (Shmuel I 14:6). What can the greatest army do against the will of Hashem? Nothing! If so, thirteen people cleaving to Hashem can overpower the entire Greek army - its thousands of soldiers and elephants. Today the elephants (pilim) are in the form of missiles (tilim), but there is no difference!

Chazal relate that R' Chiya and R' Shimon beRebbi were once walking along the road and when they spotted some strong and healthy looking Roman soldiers. R' Shimon remarked to R' Chiya that he was very impressed by the physique of these soldiers. R' Chiya took him to the marketplace and showed him a basket filled with grapes and dates, which was infested with flies. R' Chiya explained that these flies and those soldiers are identical - one has no more power than the other. When R' Shimon went to visit his father he related to him what R' Chiya had said. His father then commented "how could R' Chiya have attributed such power to that Roman legion, that he equated them with flies?" The Roman legion is nothing, the flies at least are carrying out Hashem's command: "It shall be on that day that Hashem will whistle to the fly that is at the far end of Egypt's rivers" (Yeshayahu 7:18). The soldiers are not carrying out Hashem's will. If so, they are less than flies - they are nothing! Although at that time the Romans ruled over the Jewish people, when viewed from the true perspective Rome was nothing. It was not the might of the Roman army that brought about our exile, "But because of our sins we have been exiled from our land" [28] . If we mend our ways, then all the Roman soldiers in the world will be of no significance.

The Chashmonaim understood this - that Romans soldiers are worth less than flies. When we cleave to Hashem we will emerge victorious. It was on the strength of this deep understanding that they went out to war, and it was on this strength that they merited victory, merited purifying the Beit HaMikdash, merited lighting the Menorah, and finding the pure flask of oil that symbolizes the victory of Israel (the light of the Menorah) over the sinful Greek culture.

It is very difficult to understand the manner in which the miracle of the flask of oil took place. There were two things the Chashmonaim needed in order to properly kindle the Menorah - pure oil and the Golden Menorah (the Greeks not only defiled the oil, but they also took all the vessels from the Beit HaMikdash - see Rashi Avoda Zara 43a "umlachut Beit Chashmonai"). A miracle was performed with the oil - a minor amount lasted for eight days. Why did Hashem not perform a miracle and produce a Menorah? They were forced to use rods of iron coated with tin. Only later when their wealth grew did they use silver, and when they became even wealthier they used a golden Menorah (see Avoda Zara 43a). Why did
Hashem not perform a miracle with the Menorah itself, "Is the hand of Hashem limited?" (Bamidbar 11:23) that He could not have sent down a Golden Menorah. He could have caused a thousand golden Menorahs to rain down from the sky! Why did Hashem not perform an additional miracle that they would find a golden Menorah and thus be able to perform the mitzvah in all its beauty and glory?

We can expand this question by noting that the fact that the Menorah is made from gold is not simply for esthetic considerations, it has halachic ramifications as well. A golden Menorah has cups, knobs, and flowers, while a Menorah made from any other material does not (see Rambam Hilchot Beit HaBechira 3:2-4). Why then did Hashem not provide them with a miracle Menorah in order that they be able to observe the mitzvah in the best possible manner?

It appears to me that the explanation is as follows: Hashem wished to teach us an important concept: It is true that mitzvoth must be beautiful, their external beauty must be maintained - an animal which is blind, lame, or sick should not be brought to the Beit HaMikdash, as Malachi rebuked the nation. It is true that not caring about the appearance of the offerings lead to Hellenism. Even so, what is inside is of greater significance than all these externalities. The gold in the Menorah symbolizes the outward appearance. Even a non-Jew can differentiate between iron and gold. The pure olive oil symbolizes that which is internal. The best microscope in the world will not be able to identify the difference between pure and impure oil. Only the halacha can distinguish between the two. As much as Hashem wishes us to serve Him with external beauty, what is inside means more. For this reason Hashem did not send the Jewish people a golden Menorah. The miracle occurred specifically with the oil to give them the message that the principle service of Hashem is with what is inside.

Chazal established different levels of observing this mitzvah - the basic mitzvah, Mehadrin, and Mehadrin min haMehadrin. This is the only mitzvah in which we find such gradations of observance. Why is this so? Because what lead to being subjugated to the Greeks to war was the lack of beauty in our observance of mitzvoth, Chazal established these three levels of observance as a means of rectifying the situation. Practically the entire Jewish nation carries out this Mitzvah in the manner of "Mehadrin min haMehadrin". They could have decreed that one can fulfill his Mitzvah using a tin Menorah, the Mehadrin using silver, and the Mehadrin min haMehadrin using a golden Menorah. Chazal, however, did not do this - the hiddur Mitzvah is only in the number of candles lit and not in the Menorah itself. Perhaps this too is for the reason we have just mentioned, to show that the inner depths - symbolized by the light of the candles, matter more than the externalities - symbolized by the Menorah itself.