The episode of Shechem and Dina in one of the most bitter in the Torah. It begins with a vile rape and ends with the slaughter of an entire town. The moral issue accompanying the episode is no less difficult: Were Shimon and Levy justified in their brutal reaction to the rape of their sister? What is Jacob?s position and what is that of the Torah?
At first glance, it would appear that Jacob?s objection to the brother?s actions stems from an awareness of political and security considerations; whereas, Shimon and Levy display an emotional approach stemming from ill-considered fury. Our forefather Jacob argues, ?You have discomposed me, making me odious among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanite and among the Perizzite; I am few in number and should they band together and attack me I will be annihilated ? I and my household (Genesis 34:30).? On the other hand, Shimon and Levy reply to him forthrightly with curt and bold words, ?Should he treat our sister like a harlot (ibid. 34:31)?!? That is to say, in the rape of our sister Dina, a red line was crossed. From here on, it is impossible to take into account only pragmatic considerations and we must also hear the heart?s demand for revenge.
The Force of a Balance of Terror
Upon closer examination, it may be that the words of Shimon and Levy are not only an emotional outburst. Thus, the Yerushalmi (Aramaic) translation of the verse ?Should he treat our sister like a harlot? portrays the brothers as expounding a strategic doctrine based on a policy of deterrence.
The Yerushalmi elaborates:
?And the two sons of Jacob replied as one and said to Israel their father, ?It is not right that it be said at gatherings of Israelites and in their study halls: ?Uncircumcised ones defiled a virgin and pagans despoiled a daughter of Jacob.? Rather, they should say thus: ?Uncircumcised ones were killed on account of a virgin and pagans because they defiled a daughter of Jacob.? And Shechem son of Hamor would not become haughty and say, ?Dina daughter of Jacob can be treated as a woman with no one to avenge her injury.? Our sister would be thought of as an abandoned, whore of a woman.??
Shimon and Levy are therefore claiming that their sharp, ?ill-considered? reaction will create a ?balance of terror?. Presumably, people will say to one another, ?It?s not worth it to mess with ?lunatics? like those and certainly not to touch their daughters.? Judging by the results, it would seem that Shimon and Levy were justified, as recorded by the Torah, ?And there fell a Godly terror on the cities which were around them, so that they did not pursue Jacob?s sons (ibid. 35:5).? Thus, Shimon and Levy?s policy of deterrence proved to have a distinct advantage over Jacob?s policy of restraint. With that, apparently, it is possible to draw the unfortunate episode to its close.
?Targeted Killing?
Yet, after many years and at the end of his days, Jacob again voices sharp criticism of Shimon and Levy. However, this time, the point of departure is not pragmatism, but morality: ?Accursed is their rage for it is intense and their wrath for it is harsh (ibid. 49:7)?? The severity of Jacob?s words is only given greater weight when it is apparent that he is not expressing his private thoughts, but that a prophetic spirit speaks within him at the time of his blessing of his children. All of his words are the words of the Living God.
What exactly provokes this great anger? Would it have actually been possible to ignore such a nefarious deed as that of Shechem son of Hamor? In order to understand Jacob?s moral stance, we must go back and examine this week?s parsha in light of Ramban?s profound interpretation. Ramban wonders how Jacob viewed the strange negotiations between his sons and Hamor and Shechem, for ?it is unreasonable that he would want to marry his daughter to the Canaanite who defiled her.? Moreover, Shechem and Hamor don?t come to negotiate in good faith, for at the same time they are spouting platitudes, Dina, the rape victim, is a captive in their house. Is it even possible to negotiate with such rogues?
It seems, therefore, that Jacob is also party to the deception perpetrated by his sons. In the words of Ramban, ?He is aware that they would deceive them (in order to weaken them and kill them, according to the commentary of the Tur).? In light of this, the question becomes even more pointed, why, then, did he get angry? Ramban answers, ?It is possible that Jacob angrily cursed their rage, because they killed people in the city who did him no harm when they should have only killed Shechem alone.?
According to Ramban, Jacob and his sons were partners in planning a targeted retaliatory action centered on freeing the kidnapped Dina and eliminating the rapist Shechem and possibly also Shechem?s father Hamor - ?Prince of the land, the leader? ? under whose protection and encouragement the appalling act was carried out and in whose house Dina was imprisoned. However, Shimon and Levy ?outdid themselves? and, without consulting with Jacob and the other brothers, decided to kill all of the people of the city in a collective punishment that would increase the ?balance of terror.?
Jacob objects to such collective punishment and sees it as an act of criminal destruction (?their weaponry is a stolen craft?), far from the traditions of their father?s house and contrary to the way of their grandfather Abraham, who protested, ?Shall the righteous perish with the evil (ibid., 18:23)?? In fact, Jacob already objects to it in this week?s parsha - ?You have? [made] me odious among the inhabitants of the land?? ? for, whereas a targeted retaliatory attack would have been justified and may have had the power to deter, indiscriminate punishment turns the sons of Jacob into wild men, and makes them odious, as those who are unable to judge correctly. Even in parshat Vayechi, at the end of his days, Jacob emphasizes, ?Accursed is their rage for it is intense and their wrath for it is harsh..? Rage and wrath may be appropriate, but only in measure and not in an uncontrolled outburst.
How tremendous are the words of our forefather Jacob and how relevant are they to his sons, who are involved in ?targeted prevention and elimination? and who know how to differentiate between the guilty and the innocent. Blessed be all those in the elite units, in the secret service and in the Border Guards ? and blessed be the Lord of Hosts who teaches their hands to do battle.
----------------------------
Rabbi Hanan Porat, among the founders of the renewed Etzion Bloc, is Chairman of the ?Orot? movement and editor of the Torah publication ?Mi?at Min HaOr? (?A Bit of Light?), where this article first appeared.
At first glance, it would appear that Jacob?s objection to the brother?s actions stems from an awareness of political and security considerations; whereas, Shimon and Levy display an emotional approach stemming from ill-considered fury. Our forefather Jacob argues, ?You have discomposed me, making me odious among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanite and among the Perizzite; I am few in number and should they band together and attack me I will be annihilated ? I and my household (Genesis 34:30).? On the other hand, Shimon and Levy reply to him forthrightly with curt and bold words, ?Should he treat our sister like a harlot (ibid. 34:31)?!? That is to say, in the rape of our sister Dina, a red line was crossed. From here on, it is impossible to take into account only pragmatic considerations and we must also hear the heart?s demand for revenge.
The Force of a Balance of Terror
Upon closer examination, it may be that the words of Shimon and Levy are not only an emotional outburst. Thus, the Yerushalmi (Aramaic) translation of the verse ?Should he treat our sister like a harlot? portrays the brothers as expounding a strategic doctrine based on a policy of deterrence.
The Yerushalmi elaborates:
?And the two sons of Jacob replied as one and said to Israel their father, ?It is not right that it be said at gatherings of Israelites and in their study halls: ?Uncircumcised ones defiled a virgin and pagans despoiled a daughter of Jacob.? Rather, they should say thus: ?Uncircumcised ones were killed on account of a virgin and pagans because they defiled a daughter of Jacob.? And Shechem son of Hamor would not become haughty and say, ?Dina daughter of Jacob can be treated as a woman with no one to avenge her injury.? Our sister would be thought of as an abandoned, whore of a woman.??
Shimon and Levy are therefore claiming that their sharp, ?ill-considered? reaction will create a ?balance of terror?. Presumably, people will say to one another, ?It?s not worth it to mess with ?lunatics? like those and certainly not to touch their daughters.? Judging by the results, it would seem that Shimon and Levy were justified, as recorded by the Torah, ?And there fell a Godly terror on the cities which were around them, so that they did not pursue Jacob?s sons (ibid. 35:5).? Thus, Shimon and Levy?s policy of deterrence proved to have a distinct advantage over Jacob?s policy of restraint. With that, apparently, it is possible to draw the unfortunate episode to its close.
?Targeted Killing?
Yet, after many years and at the end of his days, Jacob again voices sharp criticism of Shimon and Levy. However, this time, the point of departure is not pragmatism, but morality: ?Accursed is their rage for it is intense and their wrath for it is harsh (ibid. 49:7)?? The severity of Jacob?s words is only given greater weight when it is apparent that he is not expressing his private thoughts, but that a prophetic spirit speaks within him at the time of his blessing of his children. All of his words are the words of the Living God.
What exactly provokes this great anger? Would it have actually been possible to ignore such a nefarious deed as that of Shechem son of Hamor? In order to understand Jacob?s moral stance, we must go back and examine this week?s parsha in light of Ramban?s profound interpretation. Ramban wonders how Jacob viewed the strange negotiations between his sons and Hamor and Shechem, for ?it is unreasonable that he would want to marry his daughter to the Canaanite who defiled her.? Moreover, Shechem and Hamor don?t come to negotiate in good faith, for at the same time they are spouting platitudes, Dina, the rape victim, is a captive in their house. Is it even possible to negotiate with such rogues?
It seems, therefore, that Jacob is also party to the deception perpetrated by his sons. In the words of Ramban, ?He is aware that they would deceive them (in order to weaken them and kill them, according to the commentary of the Tur).? In light of this, the question becomes even more pointed, why, then, did he get angry? Ramban answers, ?It is possible that Jacob angrily cursed their rage, because they killed people in the city who did him no harm when they should have only killed Shechem alone.?
According to Ramban, Jacob and his sons were partners in planning a targeted retaliatory action centered on freeing the kidnapped Dina and eliminating the rapist Shechem and possibly also Shechem?s father Hamor - ?Prince of the land, the leader? ? under whose protection and encouragement the appalling act was carried out and in whose house Dina was imprisoned. However, Shimon and Levy ?outdid themselves? and, without consulting with Jacob and the other brothers, decided to kill all of the people of the city in a collective punishment that would increase the ?balance of terror.?
Jacob objects to such collective punishment and sees it as an act of criminal destruction (?their weaponry is a stolen craft?), far from the traditions of their father?s house and contrary to the way of their grandfather Abraham, who protested, ?Shall the righteous perish with the evil (ibid., 18:23)?? In fact, Jacob already objects to it in this week?s parsha - ?You have? [made] me odious among the inhabitants of the land?? ? for, whereas a targeted retaliatory attack would have been justified and may have had the power to deter, indiscriminate punishment turns the sons of Jacob into wild men, and makes them odious, as those who are unable to judge correctly. Even in parshat Vayechi, at the end of his days, Jacob emphasizes, ?Accursed is their rage for it is intense and their wrath for it is harsh..? Rage and wrath may be appropriate, but only in measure and not in an uncontrolled outburst.
How tremendous are the words of our forefather Jacob and how relevant are they to his sons, who are involved in ?targeted prevention and elimination? and who know how to differentiate between the guilty and the innocent. Blessed be all those in the elite units, in the secret service and in the Border Guards ? and blessed be the Lord of Hosts who teaches their hands to do battle.
----------------------------
Rabbi Hanan Porat, among the founders of the renewed Etzion Bloc, is Chairman of the ?Orot? movement and editor of the Torah publication ?Mi?at Min HaOr? (?A Bit of Light?), where this article first appeared.