Parashat Vayishlach opens with Ya’akov and his household approaching the Land of Canaan, returning home 34 years after fleeing his twin brother’s murderous rage, intending at the time to stay away for no more than several days (Genesis 27:44). Now, more than a third of a century later, the destitute fugitive returns to his homeland as a wealthy patriarch with two wives, two concubines, twelve sons and a daughter, hundreds of goats, sheep and camels, and servants and maidservants.
After having fought his way past an angel and becoming "Israel" in the process (32:25-29), and after encountering his long-estranged twin brother and successfully avoiding conflict with him (33:1-17), at last “Ya’akov came in peace to the city of Shechem which is in the Land of Canaan, when coming from Paddan-Aram” (33:18).
Ya’akov must have hoped that his tribulations were over. After being threatened with death by his twin brother, fleeing to exile when h was 63 years old, spending 20 years in servitude to his mendacious uncle, fighting an angel to return to his homeland – had he and his family not suffered enough?!
Evidently not.
Because as soon as he came to Shechem, his daughter Dinah went sight-seeing through Shechem, whereupon Shechem the son of Hamor, the Hivvite, the local ruler, abducted and raped her, and held her captive in his city.
Shechem must have felt safe. He was, after all, prince of one of the powerful nations in the Land of Canaan, and the girl he raped was one of the Hebrews – a single family. What consequence could he possibly suffer?
What consequences?
— Hamor, Shechem’s father, asked Ya’akov, Dinah’s father, to agree that Shechem and Dinah marry. His offer, on the surface, sounded reasonable: “Intermarry with us; give us your daughters, and take our daughters for yourselves. Thus you shall dwell with us, and the Land will be before you; settle and trade therein, and take possession of it” (Genesis 34:9-10).
The Rashbam (commentary to verse 9) notes Hamor’s duplicity: in his offer to Ya’akov – “give us your daughters, and take our daughters for yourselves” – he suggests that which Jewish girls to give the Hivvites, and which Hivvite girls to take for themselves, will be the Hebrew family’s decision.
But immediately afterwards, when Hamor addresses his own people, he subtly changes the terms:
“We can take their daughters for ourselves as wives, and we will give them our daughters” (34:22) – that is, they, the Hivvites, will decide which Hebrew girls they take for marriage and which Hivvite girls they give the Hebrews.
So much for Hamor’s offer of coexistence with the Hebrews in Shechem!
In fact, Ya’akov and his family hardly needed this subtle indication to realise Hamor and his nation’s evil intentions. Obviously, no agreement based upon abduction and rape could ever bring genuine peace and coexistence between the Hebrews and the nations occupying the Land of Israel.
Ya’akov had already experienced the false smiles and hugs of his uncle Lavan and his twin brother Esau. If he had learned not to trust his own family, then he certainly knew not to trust hostile strangers.
Ya’akov’s sons gave Hamor a logical response:
“We cannot do this – to give our sister to an uncircumcised man, because that would be a disgrace for us. There’s only one way we’ll agree: if you become like us, circumcising every male. Then we’ll give you our daughters and take your daughters for ourselves, we’ll dwell with you, and we’ll become a single nation. But if you will not listen to us to be circumcised, then we’ll take our daughter and go” (vs. 14-16).
Hamor succeeded in convincing his people to agree, whereupon all their men were circumcised. And on the third day, when the wound of circumcision was at its most painful, Ya’akov’s two hot-headed sons, Shimon and Levi, went way beyond what the other brothers had planned:
“They came upon the city confidently, killing every male; they killed Hamor and his son Shechem by the sword, they took Dinah from Shechem’s house, and they left” (vs. 25-26).
Several commentators have given different rationales and justifications for Shimon and Levi’s response.
The Rambam, as one would expect, has a purely halakhic analysis. In Laws of Kings 9:1, based on Sanhedrin 56a, he lists the seven mitzvot which apply to the sons of Noah (i.e. the whole of humanity): the prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, sexual immorality (homosexuality, incest, bestiality, and adultery), theft, and eating the limb torn from a living animal; and the obligation to establish law courts to enforce these.
And then he specifies: “A son of Noah who transgresses any of these laws is killed by decapitation, which is why all the men of Shechem were punishable by death; after all, Shechem kidnapped [Dinah], and they saw and knew, but did not bring him to justice” (Laws of Kings 9:14).
The Mahara”l of Prague (Rabbi Yehudah Loew ben Betzalel, c. 1520-1609) disagrees with the Rambam. In his commentary on the Torah, Gur Aryeh, he argues:
“How could they possibly have brought ruler of the land, whom they feared, to justice? Even though they had been commanded to set up a system of law courts, that would only apply when they are able to judging a perpetrator; but in case of duress the Torah exempts them – because how they could possibly judge him?”
And the Mahara”l then provides a different justification for Shimon and Levi’s actions:
“They were permitted to fight against them, following the law of one nation which comes to fight against another nation, which the Torah has permitted. And even though the Torah commands, ‘When you draw near to a city to wage war against it, you shall call out to it for peace’ (Deuteronomy 20:10) – that only applies when they have not caused any harm to Israel; but where they have caused harm to Israel, such as where they [the leaders of the city] overstepped their natural barriers to perform their perverse deed [against Dinah], even though only one of them acted in this manner, since he is a part of the nation, and since they made the first belligerent move, they are permitted to take revenge against them”.
That is to say, the Hivvites constituted a recognised and unified nation, as did the Children of Israel (literally, Israel and his sons and daughter). For sure, Shechem and his son Hamor act as king and prince, giving orders which their subjects follow; they act as rulers of the country, adjudicating who can live among them and under what conditions. And when informing their people of the agreement with the Hebrews, they announce that “these people will dwell with us, becoming a single nation” (Genesis 34:22) – implicitly recognising that both they and the Hebrews constituted nations.
The inference is that because the Hivvites recognised and declared themselves to be a distinct nation, the principle of collective responsibility in warfare applied to them.
Afterwards, Ya’akov castigated his sons Shimon and Levi: “You have troubled me by making me odious among the inhabitants of the Land – the Canaanites and the Perizzites – and I am few in number; and if they gather against me and attack me, then I will be annihilated – I and my household” (v. 30).
Notice that Ya’akov does not accuse them of doing anything morally wrong: he does not argue that “you have violated the civil rights of the Hivvites”, or that “you have committed a war-crime”, or even that “now the nations will accuse us of committing genocide against the Hivvites”. His sole argument is that attacking Shechem and killing all the men therein was tactically ill-advised.
Shimon and Levi simply responded, “Will he make our sister as a harlot?!” (v. 34). This may not seem like a response to what their father had said; it may appear as though Shimon and Levi were avoiding the issue.
But actually, this answered all their father’s objections and stilled all his doubts:
Yes, they were one small family, confronting entire nations. And this was precisely the reason that they had to give such a devastating and immediate response to their sister being captured and violated.
They had to demonstrate unequivocally that anyone at all – even the rulers of the mightiest nation in the land – who would kidnap any Hebrew at all would suffer such horrific consequences that he would never dare repeat this outrage.
They had to demonstrate unequivocally and immediately that when anyone at all – even a recognised and respected prince – would kidnap and violate any member of the Hebrew family, then not only the attacker but the attacker’s entire city would suffer such horrific consequences that no one would never dare repeat this outrage.
Indeed: “Will he make our sister as a harlot?!”
“Will Shechem make our sister like some harlot-woman, and we won’t take our revenge against him?!” (Radak).
“Better that we endanger ourselves than accept this humiliation!” (Bechor Shor).
And there is a riposte.
Immediately afterwards, “G-d said to Ya’akov: Arise, go up to Beit El and dwell there, and make there an altar to the G-d Who appeared to you when you were fleeing from Esau your brother” (35:1). The journey from Shechem to Beit El is potentially hazardous, particularly with an entourage which includes little children.
But when “they travelled, the terror of G-d was on the cities which surrounded them, so they did not pursue Ya’akov’s sons” (v. 5).
Did Shimon and Levi over-react by massacring Shechem and his entire city?
— Evidently no, they did not. Their response was the correct and appropriate response to Shechem’s vile assault. It provided the deterrence that this one small family, surrounded by an overwhelmingly large and hostile population, desperately needed in order to keep them all safe from all future attacks.
The Torah gives us the clear precedent:
When any Jew is assaulted and taken captive, then the imperative is to redeem the captive immediately. Not to negotiate, not to accommodate, not to compromise, but to do everything necessary, up to and including massacring the entire hostile enemy population, in order to redeem the captive.
Even when the military operation endangers the fighters involved.