A lie that is true?!

(Cited on page 63 in the pamphlet on Migo matters found on the website)

I have reviewed Rabbi Dessler's words in several places. There they were cited as an illustration of the idea of legal truth, but that does not mean that there is agreement with his words.

There are two reasons to reject the lie. A. That it is not the factual truth. B. That telling the lie distorts judgment.

For example, when Jacob says to Isaac, “I am Esau your firstborn,” there is a failure to tell the factual truth, but on the other hand, there is a statement that leads to a true judgment, since Jacob is the one who deserves the birthright.
There is an opposite situation, such as ‘plagiarism’, in which the statement is factually true, but it causes a distortion of judgment, because the listener understands the matter differently.
The situation in which one must say something that leads to a true result by distorting the factual truth is a compulsion that must be done, but with a feeling of pain (and therefore, in the opinion of the judge, there was a claim against Yaakov, not for the act itself, but for a lack of feeling of pain.
With best wishes, Sh”ts. Levinger

In our parsha, Jacob says to his father, “I am Esau your firstborn,” and he interprets it as, “I am the one who brings you, and Esau is your firstborn.” I have never understood this cleverness. If the speaker assumes that the listener will understand the false meaning, what is the benefit of saying the words in a way that could be interpreted differently?

There are indeed different interpretations that delve into this issue, but I am not satisfied.

There is also a school of thought that holds that in order for it to be permissible to lie, two conditions must be met: (1) it must be changed for the sake of peace, and (2) it must be changed in a way that implies that the people of Israel are at war. I did not fully understand that if it is permissible to change for the sake of peace, why is it obligatory to say this in a way that implies that the people of Israel are at war? And if “it implies that the people of Israel are at war” Is it permissible, why specifically in a place where there are ‘ways of peace’?

I am attaching an example of a book that combines the two permits:
Siddur Shabbat Part 1 Root 1 Branch 4
Arz”l (Yevamot 65:2) It is permissible to change; in words of peace Rabbi Natan says it is a mitzvah to change; and yet he did not change to say a false thing with his tongue only in the way that Jacob said, I am Esau your firstborn, I have done, etc.; which he interpreted as follows: There I am the one who brings you, and Esau is your firstborn, I have done as much as you have spoken to me. And so with the saying of King David (Bezos 1:1) to his young men that they should say in his name to the harp. Thus, I say to you, peace be upon you, and They were careful to say from the Mishnah of Lehi and did not say that the servants of Damascus, because G‑d, for some reason or other, would lie to G‑d in their words and the remnant of Israel would not speak falsely. And the seal of the Holy One, blessed be He, is truth. And the liar lies to G‑d with the king’s seal, as is known to those who know grace. Only the Mishnah of Lehi in his heart will understand to say in words that are implied to the ears of the wise, and he will direct to the truth, and if the listener heard and was mistaken, this is not the case, and this is precisely because of the three-mile or because of the peace as stated, but in other things that are not for the sake of a mitzvah, this is certainly also forbidden. And such was Eliezer’s change, and all in order to hide from Laban and Betel her terrible virtues that he saw in her. So that they would send her away with him. And he will make peace with her, bringing her to her husband’s house:

The view expressed in this Sage Midrash is that the prohibition of lying has two components:
1. The mere utterance of a false statement, regardless of the understanding of the other person. This is not an offense between one person and another, but the value of truth as it is.
2. Between one person and another – misleading the other person. Their argument is that component 1 is easier if one utters something that is not a lie on a literal level.
I am not sure that I agree with this view.
It is true that component 1 may also be related to the prohibition between one person and another, but it has an educational significance. If a person gets used to condemning lying as it is, it will educate him not to lie. Therefore, there is value in the fact that even if you are forced to lie, it is better to give yourself an educational reminder that it is wrong and try to do so in a manner of “change,” that is, under the appearance of speaking truthfully.