After Dina is violated in Shechem, her brothers Shimon and Levi devise a plan: they convince the people of Shechem to undergo circumcision and, while they are weakened, attack and destroy the city. Yaakov Avinu expresses strong disapproval—not merely over the violence, but over the deceit involved, saying, “You have made me odious among the inhabitants of the land.”
This is difficult to understand. Had Yaakov not acted with similar ambiguity? He said, “I am Esav your firstborn,” and outmaneuvered Lavan. How can he condemn his sons?
The key lies in the distinction between protecting truth in a world of falsehood and introducing deceit into the sacred space of Torah. When Yaakov used nuanced language with Esav, it was to prevent a profound distortion—Esav posing as the bearer of spiritual legacy. It was not a moral failure, but a safeguarding of the true narrative. Similarly with Lavan, it was a defensive measure in a deceitful environment.
However, the case of Shechem was different. The people of Shechem appeared to be aligning themselves with Klal Yisrael, joining in circumcision and, ostensibly, committing to the values of Yaakov’s household. Even if their intentions were impure, the encounter occurred within the framework of building Am Yisrael. In such a context, there is no room for moral compromise.
The Gemara brings the story of the Givonim—Canaanite people who disguised themselves as foreigners to make a treaty with Yehoshua. When their deceit was uncovered, Yehoshua did not destroy them. Why? Because of Chilul Hashem. Maintaining the honor of Hashem in the eyes of the world overrode even a justified military response.
The same concern—Chilul Hashem—underlies Yaakov’s rebuke of his sons. More than political fallout, it was about misrepresenting the standards of Torah.
This distinction is further underscored by another Gemara, where three claimants attempt to reclaim a debt by having two of them pose falsely as witnesses. Even though their collective claim is true, and the goal is just, the Gemara forbids it—especially because they are invoking the Beit Din, the seat of divine presence. Within Torah institutions, there is no justification for bending the truth.
Yaakov may have used measured words in a deceptive world, but when forming the paradigm of Torah society, the model must be entirely pure. On Esav’s terrain, one may “twist with the twisted,” as the verse says. But within the framework of Torah, there is no such allowance. Truth must be upheld absolutely when we build or represent the values of Klal Yisrael.