A side point: 34:29 adds that as part of this plunder of the town, the sons of Yaakov took many captives from the town, but we never hear of these captive again. Could this mean that Yaakov forced his children to let the captives go?
How can one understand this massacre and plunder? 34:7 records that Shekhem the son of Hamor had done a nevelah be-Yisrael, a deplorable act, by having sex with Dina. Thus, the Torah condemned his action whether it was technically rape or not, but did he and the men of Shekhem deserve to die and the city be plundered especially after they had made a deal with the sons of Yaakov to circumcise themselves (34:18-24)? Many answers have been suggested to understand the behavior of Shimon, Levi and the other sons of Yaakov.
One: Rambam (Laws of Kings 9:14) writes that the people of Shekhem were guilty of not following the seven laws of Noah, and thus they deserved to die. Their guilt was that Shekhem the son of Hamor had kidnapped Dina (34:26, see below argument by Sternberg) and the people did not act as judges to punish him.
Two: Ibn Kaspi (1278-1340, quoted by N. Leibowitz, 1976, p. 387) argues that 34:27, which records “they (Yaakov’s sons) looted the city which defiled their sister,” implies that all the population of Shekhem were guilty of raping Dina. He writes, “This ends any moral objection since the Lawgiver Himself testifies they all had a hand in the crime.” Furthermore, the fact that the rapist had the same name as the town, Shekhem, also highlights the guilt of the town. Yet, at most the people of Shekhem were accomplices to the rape and kidnapping, did they deserve to die after they agreed to circumcise themselves? Also, the penalty for rape in the Torah is for the rapist to marry the victim, Devarim 22:28,29, which is what Shekhem offered to do, 34:12. It is interesting that this phrase, “which defiled their sister” in 34:27 is stated in reference to the plunder of the city but not in reference to the massacre. This might imply that the plunder of the town was justified since the people of the town were accomplices in some way to Shekhem’s (the son of Hamor) deplorable act but the defilement of Dina did not justify the killing of the men of Shekhem.
Three: The Gur Aryeh (on 34:13, Maharal of Prague, see also Ramban on 34:13) criticizes the Rambam’s approach since the people of Shekhem could not have been responsible for not judging their leader when presumably they were in no position to have done so. He suggests that the episode should be viewed as a war between the people of Shekhem and the brothers of Yaakov, and once there is a war, then the entire population of the town, even those who were not directly involved in the rape were responsible since they were part of the town. This idea might explain why Yaakov’s sons decided to plunder the town, but this war seems to be one-sided since the people of Shekhem thought they made a treaty with Yaakov and his family.
Four: Meir Sternberg (1985, p. 445) notes “that mass slaughter does not balance against rape according to conventional normative scales,” but the goal of the narrative is to make the punishment fit the crime.
One argument for this idea is that 34:26 records that after Shimon and Levi massacred the town, they took back Dina. Sternberg claims that this shows that Dina had also been kidnapped, and by placing this information after the massacre, we see that the people of Shekhem “largely brought down that violence on themselves by seeking to impose their will on Jacob’s family” (p. 468). Yet, as pointed out by Fewell and Gunn (1991) all 34:26 states is that Dina was staying in Shekhem’s house, but we cannot know conclusively that she was detained, as maybe she agreed to stay with him. Or, maybe after the people of Shekhem circumcised themselves, then she went to live with Shekhem following the deal that the brothers of Yaakov made with Shekhem and Hamor.
Sternberg's second argument is from the last verse of chapter 34, 34:31, which records that after Yaakov accused Shimon and Levi of endangering the family, Shimon and Levi defended their actions by claiming “should our sister be treated like a whore?” Sternberg argues that Shimon and Levi acted out of idealism to defend their sister’s honor, and as they are given the last word “- and what a last word!-” (p. 475), this shows that the Torah believes that their action to redress the wrong done to their sister was justified. Yet, how does this idealism accord with their plunder of the city? Also, as I argue below, they do not have the last word since the last word is Yaakov’s statement in 35:3.
Five: Leon Kass (2003, p. 481) argues that Shimon and Levi were claiming that “their failure to defend their sister’s honor would be tantamount to regarding her as a harlot," as he notes that Roman law did not recognize rape of a harlot as a punishable crime. Yet, defending their sister’s honor did not necessitate killing the male population of Shekhem. Thus, Kass writes (p. 497) that “fair minded readers of the story are left with nagging questions... The potential – in this case - actual extremism to which proper vengeance can grow troubles us." However, he concludes (p. 498), “we are moved by the suggestion that a community culture that will make war to defend the virtue of its women, against a community that dishonors other people’s women, proves itself- by this very fact of its willingness to fight and die for its daughters and sisters- to be not only more fit to survive and flourish but also superior in justice.” This is at best a relative defense of Yaakov’s sons, and going to war when the people of Shekhem agreed to the deal of Yaakov’s sons to circumcise themselves does not seem to be “superior in justice.”
Six: The sons of Yaakov were acting based on the culture of their times. The best proof for this approach is that, as noted by many, this story has many parallels to the Greek story of the sack of Troy by Agamemnon, which was because Paris, the prince of Troy, took/ abducted Helen, the wife of Agamemnon’s brother Menelaus.
Seven: A completely different approach is that there was no justification for the massacre. S. R. Hirsch (1989, p. 523, on 34:25) writes: "Now the blameworthy part begins, which we need in no wise excuse. Had they killed Shekhem and Hamor, there would be scarcely anything to say against it. But they did not spare the unarmed men who were at their mercy, yea, and went further and looted, altogether made the inhabitants pay for the crime of the landowner. For that there was no justification."
Hertz (1960, pp. 128,129, see also N. Leibowitz, 1976, p. 385) also follows this approach and writes, “the sons of Jacob certainly acted in a treacherous and godless manner.”
This seventh approach vilifies the brothers, and exonerates Yaakov because he criticized Shimon and Levi both here, 34:30, and in his final testament, 49:5-7.
However, in 34:30, Yaakov only gave a practical reason for why Shimon and Levi should not have murdered the men of Shekhem that their actions had endangered the entire family: “You have stirred up trouble for me, making me stink among the land's inhabitants, among the Canaanite and Perizzite, when I am handful of men. If they gather against me and strike me, I shall be destroyed, I and my household,” (Altar, 2004, p. 193, translation). Why did Yaakov only give a practical reason when he criticized Shimon and Levi and why did he not respond to their declaration in 34:31?
Prior to trying to understand Yaakov’s statement, it should be kept in mind that even if Yaakov was not sufficiently critical of Shimon and Levi this still would not justify their actions. With that proviso, the most reasonable reason why Yaakov gave a practical reason was because he hoped that this reason would make Shimon and Levi and the rest of his sons understand that they were wrong. Maybe, he thought that if he called them murderers, then for sure they would not listen to him. In addition, maybe he thought that Shimon and Levi would try to justify their killing of the town since they might have claimed that if they just killed Shekhem, then the people of the town would have come after them. Thus, Yaakov was pointing out that this logic did not solve their problem since still the neighboring people could come after them and the family. Also, it could be that while Yaakov was directing his fury at Shimon and Levi, the worst culprits, he still wanted to reproach his other sons who also nullified the agreement with the people of Shekhem by plundering the town. Thus, his statement that “you made me stink amongst the land’s inhabitants” included all of his sons who had participated in making and then breaking the deal with Shekhem, Hamor and the people of Shekhem.
Whatever was Yaakov’s logic, his statement seems to have made no impression, as Shimon and Levi responded by claiming that if they had not killed the town, then they would have made their sister Dina into a whore. How did this statement respond to Yaakov’s statement that they had endangered the entire family? Were they claiming that it was more important to protect Dina’s honor than the lives of the entire family? It seems that Shimon and Levi were so fixated on the family's honor that they were unconcerned about the effects of their actions. Were they depending on miracles? Their lack of concern for the consequences of their actions shows that they were acting irrationally.
In addition, the family's honor had not been impinged. Shekhem had agreed to marry Dina and he and the whole town had circumcised themselves to make a deal with Yaakov and his sons (see Luzzatto on 34:31). Accordingly, Dina was not being treated like a whore. While Sternberg and others believe that Shimon and Levi’s justification for murdering the people of Shekhem shows idealism, their declaration in 34:31 indicates that they had become raving lunatics.
However, in 34:30, Yaakov only gave a practical reason for why Shimon and Levi should not have murdered the men of Shekhem that their actions had endangered the entire family: “You have stirred up trouble for me, making me stink among the land's inhabitants, among the Canaanite and Perizzite, when I am handful of men. If they gather against me and strike me, I shall be destroyed, I and my household,” (Altar, 2004, p. 193, translation). Why did Yaakov only give a practical reason when he criticized Shimon and Levi and why did he not respond to their declaration in 34:31?
Prior to trying to understand Yaakov’s statement, it should be kept in mind that even if Yaakov was not sufficiently critical of Shimon and Levi this still would not justify their actions. With that proviso, the most reasonable reason why Yaakov gave a practical reason was because he hoped that this reason would make Shimon and Levi and the rest of his sons understand that they were wrong. Maybe, he thought that if he called them murderers, then for sure they would not listen to him. In addition, maybe he thought that Shimon and Levi would try to justify their killing of the town since they might have claimed that if they just killed Shekhem, then the people of the town would have come after them. Thus, Yaakov was pointing out that this logic did not solve their problem since still the neighboring people could come after them and the family. Also, it could be that while Yaakov was directing his fury at Shimon and Levi, the worst culprits, he still wanted to reproach his other sons who also nullified the agreement with the people of Shekhem by plundering the town. Thus, his statement that “you made me stink amongst the land’s inhabitants” included all of his sons who had participated in making and then breaking the deal with Shekhem, Hamor and the people of Shekhem.
Whatever was Yaakov’s logic, his statement seems to have made no impression, as Shimon and Levi responded by claiming that if they had not killed the town, then they would have made their sister Dina into a whore. How did this statement respond to Yaakov’s statement that they had endangered the entire family? Were they claiming that it was more important to protect Dina’s honor than the lives of the entire family? It seems that Shimon and Levi were so fixated on the family's honor that they were unconcerned about the effects of their actions. Were they depending on miracles? Their lack of concern for the consequences of their actions shows that they were acting irrationally.
In addition, the family's honor had not been impinged. Shekhem had agreed to marry Dina and he and the whole town had circumcised themselves to make a deal with Yaakov and his sons (see Luzzatto on 34:31). Accordingly, Dina was not being treated like a whore. While Sternberg and others believe that Shimon and Levi’s justification for murdering the people of Shekhem shows idealism, their declaration in 34:31 indicates that they had become raving lunatics.
The brother’s desire to kill Yosef, 37:20 (except for Reuven), also contradicts the defense of idealism. Not only do we see a consistent pattern of violence (whether the incident in Shekhem was before or after they expressed their desire to kill their brother), but also, here they claimed to be acting for concern for their sister, while there they were trying to kill their brother? Instead, in both cases, they had become enraged (for different reasons) and this caused to murder or express their desire to murder.
Yaakov understood from Shimon and Levi’s response in 34:31 that nothing he could say would make them comprehend the terrible actions that they had done, and then there was no point for him to respond to their ranting. The idea being that when people are screaming irrationally there is nothing a person can do to answer them. (I have seen this behavior in my lifetime.) Instead, Yaakov waited until his death bed when he criticized their actions on moral grounds, 49:5-7.
In addition, it could be that G-d intervened even before Yaakov had a chance to respond, as 35:1 records that G-d spoke to Yaakov, and we have no idea how soon after the conversation between Yaakov and Shimon and Levi this conversation between G-d and Yaakov transpired.
I think most people think that the incident here ended with Shimon and Levi’s statement in 34:31, but the incident did not end until 35:5 which records that the family left the town of Shekhem and went to Bet-El. This misconception that Shimon and Levi had the last word might because there is a parasha petucha after 34:31, and/ or because in the 13th century, Archbishop Stephen Langton decided that 34:31 would be the last verse in the chapter. If one reads the Torah that that incident ended in 35:5, then it is clear that the Torah is not trying to justify the actions of the brothers of Dina.
35:1 records that G-d told Yaakov to go to Bet-El to offer sacrifices to the G-d who appeared to you when you were running away from Esav. While Rashi (on 35:1) claims that this message was a warning to Yaakov that if he did not offer the sacrifices, then he would suffer more, from 35:3 we see that this was not how Yaakov understood the message.
35:3 records that Yaakov told his family that they were to go to Bet-El, and he would offer sacrifices to the G-d who answered him in his troubles, and who was with him in his travels. What is the reference to “his troubles?” Which troubles? Abarbanel (2007, p. 629) suggests two possibilities: One, the time when he had the fight in the middle of the night and meet Esav or two, the incident in Shehkem with Dina. The first possibility is not possible since in 35:3 Yaakov refers to G-d speaking to him in his troubles, and G-d did not speak to Yaakov after Yaakov fought at night and after Yaakov met with Esav. Instead, in 35:3 Yaakov is referring to G-d speaking to him in 35:1 with regard to his troubles with Dina, his sons and the people of Shekhem, which shows that that the conversation in 35:1 was right after Shimon and Levi shouted in 34:31. In addition, the fact that Yaakov referred to G-d answering him means that the conversation in 35:1 was for Yaakov’s benefit that G-d was telling him to go to Bet-El to help Yaakov. Furthermore, the end of the verse connects this going to Bet-El with G-d’s appearance to Yaakov when he was running away from Esav, and just like in that case, the vision at Bet El was to help Yaakov survive, so too in this case the going to Bet El would be to help Yaakov survive.
The following verse, 35:2, records that Yaakov told his family to remove all of their foreign gods, to purify themselves and to change their clothing. These foreign gods are quite a shock, and most commentators (see Rashi on 35:2) claim that these gods were part of the booty that Yaakov’s children took from Shekhem. This could be true, but it could be that they had these idols from before. The purifying and changing the clothing is similar to the preparations of the Jewish people before the Decalogue, Shemot 19:10, but there the people were to me-kadesh themselves, while here the family was to purify themselves. Also, there the people were to wash the clothing while here the people were to change their clothing. What was the need for this change of clothing here? Was it due to their worship of idolatry or because they needed to atone for their terrible actions by Shekhem?
The next verse 35:3 records that Yaakov told the family that they were to go to Bet El, which could be an explanation for why they had to get rid of their foreign gods or it could be that the removal of the foreign gods was independent of the family going to Bet El. In any event, in this verse, Yaakov first begins by stating that everybody was to go to Bet El, but then he states that only he would offer a sacrifice there. We see again that the going to Bet-El and offering a sacrifice was for Yaakov’s benefit, and should not be thought of as a reward for the terrible actions by Yaakov’s sons since they would not participate at all in the sacrifice. Furthermore, in 35:3 Yaakov stresses (four times) how G-d saved him. Yaakov is trying to make clear that G-d’s saving of the family now by telling them to go to Bet-El was because G-d was saving him and should not be interpreted as G-d acting to save his sons. This statement by Yaakov is the last word in the incident of Dina. Alas, the apologetic readers who defend Shimon and Levi seem to ignore 35:3.
The following verse, 35:4, is that the family gave to Yaakov all of the foreign gods, even their earrings, and Yaakov buried these items by Shekhem. This is the first action of the family since the conversation between Yaakov and Shimon and Levi, and everybody bowed to Yaakov’s authority. One curiosity about this verse is the reference to the earrings. It must be that the earrings had idolatrous figures within them, as otherwise why would Yaakov have to bury them (see Luzzatto on 35:4).
Why did the Torah have to mention the earrings? Once the Torah recorded that Yaakov’s family gave him all of their foreign gods, why is there a need to specify that they even gave him their earrings? The answer is that the verse does not only state that they gave him their earrings but also that they took the earrings from their ears. This reminds us of the Jewish people by the making of the golden calf, who also took off their earrings from their ears to make the golden calf, Shemot 32:2,3. This taking of the earrings from their ears by Yaakov’s family shows that even if the foreign gods were from the booty from Shekhem, they had not just taken the idols but that they had adopted them by attaching them to their ears. Even without this reference to the idolatry of the people by the sin of the golden calf, these earrings show that Yaakov’s family worshiped idolatry in some sense.
The following verse, 35:5, the last verse in the incident with Dina and Shekhem, records that in the aftermath of the massacre, G-d stopped the people who lived around Shekhem from attacking Yaakov and his family. Thus, Yaakov’s fear that he expressed in 34:30 did not happen, but could Yaakov have known that G-d would do a miracle to save him and his family?
Could one understand that G-d did a miracle to support Shimon and Levi and the brothers of Dina? We already saw from 35:1,3 that the going to Bet-El was for Yaakov and hence G-d’s protection of the family when they went to Bet-El was because of Yaakov, and the members of Yaakov’s family were incidentally protected. Can one claim that Shimon and Levi worthy of G-d doing a miracle for them? The information from 35:2,4 that Yaakov family had idols precludes this possibility. Specifically, the extra information about the earrings in 35:4 indicates that Shimon and Levi and the brothers were not righteous people who acted in Shekhem out of religiosity and who were worthy of G-d doing miracles for them, but idol worshippers who killed and robbed like regular people sometimes do. G-d would not intervene to save people who worshipped idols but G-d intervened to save Yaakov.
Another proof (if needed) that the Torah disapproved of the murder of the men of Shekhem by Shimon and Levi is that afterwards, in the entire Yosef story, Levi is not mentioned at all, and Shimon is only mentioned incidentally when Yosef locked him up to force his brothers to bring Binyamin to Egypt, 42:24. Yaakov referred to Shimon being locked up, 42:36, but he made no effort to free Shimon. Their silence and anonymity are in contrast to chapter 34 where Shimon and Levi stand out amongst the brothers, and suggest that after what they did to the men of Shekhem they were sidelined in the family and lost any power, prestige they might have had. This would mean that the Torah gave Yaakov the last word, and their fall in the family can be the reason why the incident is recorded altogether since it serves as the background for the rise of Yehuda in the family.
Bibliography:
Another proof (if needed) that the Torah disapproved of the murder of the men of Shekhem by Shimon and Levi is that afterwards, in the entire Yosef story, Levi is not mentioned at all, and Shimon is only mentioned incidentally when Yosef locked him up to force his brothers to bring Binyamin to Egypt, 42:24. Yaakov referred to Shimon being locked up, 42:36, but he made no effort to free Shimon. Their silence and anonymity are in contrast to chapter 34 where Shimon and Levi stand out amongst the brothers, and suggest that after what they did to the men of Shekhem they were sidelined in the family and lost any power, prestige they might have had. This would mean that the Torah gave Yaakov the last word, and their fall in the family can be the reason why the incident is recorded altogether since it serves as the background for the rise of Yehuda in the family.
Bibliography:
Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.
Fewell, Danna Nolan and David M. Gunn, 1991, "Tipping the balance: Sternberg's reader and the rape of Dinah," Journal of Biblical Literature, 110:2, Summer 1991, pp. 193-211.
Fewell, Danna Nolan and David M. Gunn, 1991, "Tipping the balance: Sternberg's reader and the rape of Dinah," Journal of Biblical Literature, 110:2, Summer 1991, pp. 193-211.
Hertz, J. H. (1872-1946), 1960, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, second edition, London: Soncino Press.
Hirsch, S. R. (1808-1888), 1989, The Pentateuch, rendered into English by Isaac Levy, second edition, Gateshead: Judaica Press.
Hirsch, S. R. (1808-1888), 1989, The Pentateuch, rendered into English by Isaac Levy, second edition, Gateshead: Judaica Press.
Kass, Leon, 2003, The Beginning of wisdom, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.
Sternberg, Meir, 1985, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.
Sternberg, Meir, 1985, The Poetics of Biblical Narrative, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.