Vayishlach | The Rape of Jacob's Daughter

 

Genesis chapter 34 tells the nasty story of the rape of Dina, daughter of Jacob and Leah, and of the revenge exacted on the rapist and his hometown by Dina's brothers, Shimon and Levi.  If the story is about the violation of Dina, why does my title refer to her as "Jacob's daughter?"  Tragically, although Dina is at the center of the tale, she is not the focus of this episode.  She does not speak or cry out and her feelings are not addressed in the least.  The Torah is much more concerned with the reactions of the lass's father and brothers and with the bargaining that goes on regarding Dina's fate - her possible marriage to the attacker.

 

Let us summarize the story.  Out for a walk one day, Dina is raped by a prince of the Hivite people, named Shekhem.  Jacob hears of the attack but does not react, preferring to wait for the counsel of his sons who are off in the fields.  Meanwhile, Shekhem's lust turns to love and he proposes marriage to the girl's family.  The arrangement that Shekhem's father Chamor presents is broader than just a single union, for he suggests that the communities of Israel and Chamor's town join together and encourage the families to intermarry.

 

Jacob's sons "answered Shekhem and his father Chamor - speaking with guile because he had defiled their sister Dina - and said to them, 'We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to a man who is uncircumcised, for that is a disgrace among us.  Only on this condition will we agree with you; that you will become like us in that every male among you is circumcised.  Then we will give our daughters to you and take your daughters to ourselves; and we will dwell among you and become as one kindred.  But if you will not listen to us and become circumcised, we will take our daughter and go'" (34:13-17).

 

This seems like a good deal to Chamor and Shekhem, so they take the proposition back to their townsfolk and convince them that if they agree to the Israelites' terms, they can marry and do business with the Hebrews.  But then:

 

"On the third day, when they were in pain, Shimon and Levi, two of Jacob's sons, brothers of Dina, took each his sword, came upon the city unchallenged, and slew all the males.  They put Chamor and his son Shekhem to the sword, took Dina out of Shekhem's house, and went away.  The other sons of Jacob came upon the slain and plundered the town, because their sister had been defiled.  They seized their flocks, and herds and asses, all that was inside the town and outside; all their wealth, all their children, and their wives, all that as in the houses, they took as captives and booty.

 

"Jacob said to Shimon and Levi, 'You have brought trouble on me, making me odious among the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites and the Perizzites; my men are few in number, so that if they unite against me and attack me, I and my house will be destroyed!'  But they answered, 'should our sister be treated like a whore?'" (25-31)

 

Thus ends one of Genesis' most disturbing stories.  The episode portrays Jacob's boys as a band of barbarians, tricking a neighboring family and slaughtering them wholesale in their time of pain.  Jacob appears helplessly inept at dealing with the situation - he waits for his sons to return home before even dealing with the crisis; when Chamor and Shekhem propose marriage, Jacob allows his sons to answer instead of taking a stand on his own; at the end of the story when it seems that perhaps Jacob too was tricked by his sons, he reacts with fear rather than disgust or moral certainty.   None of this seems like the Jacob we have known until now - the Jacob who takes charge of the situation when circumstances demand it, the Jacob who tricks his father and brother and who manipulates Laban's flocks for his own benefit.  Where is the self-righteousness we've come to anticipate from this man?  The reader almost expects Jacob to lead the raid himself, gathering his small army around him, kneeling on one knee and saying, "OK, here's what we do..."  And if he is unable to condone the behavior of his sons, at the very least we would expect Jacob to stand up to Chamor and Shekhem at the beginning and demand some form of retribution for the attack against his daughter.

 

The traditional Torah commentators have an additional concern on their hands, namely: how could Shimon and Levi behave in such an outrageous fashion?  It seems unbelievable that among the nation's founders are two hooligans possible of such savagery.  And so, we find two tracks of interpretation on this story.  The first tries to understand or justify the brothers' behavior while suggesting various shifting motives.  The second line of argument will try to explain what Jacob's role in the fiasco was and how much he knew about his sons' plans.

 

We will review the interpretations of two classic commentators, each of whom has his own way of understanding the dynamics of the story.  The Ramban (Rabbi Moses ben Nachman 13th century) begins his essay on the story with an additional question on Jacob.  According to the text, the consultation between the two families involved the participation of both Jacob and his sons.  When the sons outline their conditions for the union, Jacob must have known that his boys were up to something.

 

Putting aside the insight a parent usually has into his children's character, the agreement that the sons make would have been unacceptable to Jacob.  There is no way that Jacob would have agreed to marry off his daughter to a Canaanite idolater who had violated her.  In which case, Jacob, who does not speak during the exchange, must have known about, and silently approved the tricking of Chamor and Shekhem.

 

Given this start to the tale, we get the sense that Jacob was secretly in on the plot all along, that the boys have picked up some of their father's survival techniques.  But, asks the Ramban, if Jacob was aware of the deceit, why does he rebuke his sons at the end of the ordeal?

 

The Ramban answers that indeed, Jacob only knew about half of his sons' plan.  Jacob believed that the boys were using a ruse to scare off Shekhem.  The Israelites would persuade the Hivites that the only way they could agree to a marriage would be if they and all their townsfolk circumcised themselves.  The Hebrews were certain that when Chamor and Shekhem took this idea back to their people they would be laughed at, the proposal rejected.  This would allow Dina's brothers to peacefully walk next door and take her home, claiming the deal was off.  And in the unlikely event that the town agreed to the Israelite demand, the family would wait until the whole town was incapacitated and then march in and snatch Dina away without resistance.  These were the two scenarios that Jacob and the family envisioned.

 

But among the sons, Shimon and Levi planned to avenge the attack on their sister; the plans they kept from their father and other brothers led to the slaughter of seemingly innocent people.  Interestingly, the Ralbag (Rabbi Levi ben Gershom 14th century) argues that none of the sons planned for things to get violent.  Nobody expected the townsfolk to agree to the circumcision, but when they did, the brothers panicked.  If these people circumcise themselves, reasoned Shimon and Levi, we will be forced to mix with and even marry these idolaters!  There will no longer be a physical sign to distinguish us from the rest of the world!  The Ralbag seems to be arguing that the brothers justified their behavior with a sense that the future of their nation and religion was at stake.

 

Before we move on to the next commentator we should mention that the Ramban does struggle with the behavior of Shimon and Levi as well.  He raises, but seems to reject, the idea that the townsfolk were guilty of harboring Shekhem.  As non-Jews they were all responsible for observing the seven Noachide laws among which is the requirement to establish a justice system.  The town sinned by not trying Shekhem for his behavior.  The Ramban finds this idea difficult because ignoring this responsibility would not constitute a capital crime.  If anything, he continues, all the Canaanites were idolaters and were therefore in violation of that prohibition.  Nevertheless, it was not the Israelites' duty to run around meting out punishment to idol worshippers.

 

We now turn to the commentary of Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg, a 19th century writer whose work is titled Ha-Ktav ve-Hakabala.  Rav Mecklenburg, as we shall see, goes out of his way to prove that Shimon and Levi acted honorably.  Now, while he does argue that his presentation of events stands as a literal interpretation, readers may prefer to see his understanding as somewhat more exegetical.  It might pay, therefore, as we look at his ideas, to keep in mind the possibility that he was guided by his overall desire to portray the rapist and his community as entirely evil, and the Hebrews as God-fearing and just.

 

Rav Mecklenburg's first novel idea comes in his interpretation of verses 13 and 14 which we translated above as: "Jacob's sons answered Shekhem and his father Chamor - speaking with guile because he had defiled their sister Dina - and said to them, 'We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to a man who is uncircumcised, for that is a disgrace among us."  In Hebrew the term "with guile" is BE-MIRMA which seems to be an adverb modifying the verb "answered."  But our commentator explains that BE-MIRMA was in fact the answer that the family gave to Shekhem's request, accusing Shekhem of speaking "with guile!"  Astonished at the gall that Shekhem, the attacker and rapist, exhibits in approaching the family with a proposal of marriage, Dina's relatives are practically speechless.  Here comes Shekhem to their doorstep, claiming that he and Dina are in love, that the girl came to his house, slept with him, and has remained there of her own volition, and that all that Shekhem really wants is the family's blessing to marry.  The Israelites are so incensed by this brazenness that all they can shout back is - Liar!  BE-MIRMA!

 

The brothers march off and cool down somewhat, then come back and state their conditions (which we will explain momentarily).  What Rav Mecklenburg has inadvertently managed to do here is to explain why in verses 13 and 14 there are three verbs of speech.  Here is the literal translation of these verses - they answered Shekhem with guile - VA-YA'ANU BE-MIRMA, speaking - VA-YEDABERU because he had defiled their sister Dina, and said - VA-YOMRU, we cannot do this thing etc.  Why doesn't the Torah simply write these two verses as follows: Jacob's sons answered Shekhem with guile - VA-YA'ANU BE-MIRMA, saying VA-YOMRU, we cannot do this thing.  The extra verb of speech suggests that there was more than one address to Shekhem and that the brothers' response to him was interrupted and then picked up again.  Starting with Rav Mecklenburg's interpretation of BE-MIRMA, we might understand the middle clause - "speaking because he had defiled their sister," not as an explanation of why they spoke with guile, but rather as the substance of the brothers' private consultation.  After they have calmed down, they come back and say - we cannot do this thing.

 

We move on to the brothers' response.  Shekhem is told that if "you will become like us in that every male among you is circumcised" then they can do business.  Rav Mecklenburg considers the phrase "become like us" - IM TIHIYU KAMONU - superfluous, they could have just said "if you circumcise every male among you."  What do those extra words mean?  Obviously, for the Jew, circumcision is not just a minor surgical operation with debatable health benefits - it represents the covenant with God.  When the brothers demanded circumcision they meant that these people, if they were serious, would have to convert to Judaism.  Now, what exactly that meant to the pre-Sinaitic Hebrews is unclear.  Perhaps Israel was characterized then by its recognition of God and rejection of idolatry.   As well, the members of the young family were bearers of promises of land and multitudes of descendants.  Presumably, people who joined them would share the dreams set out by God.  The brothers' condition to Shekhem therefore, was that to be like them, he and his townsfolk must agree not only to the physical sign but to the spiritual commitments too.

 

Now it looks like Chamor and Shekhem were convinced, although their speech to their compatriots seems to emphasize the wealth that will be made available to the community upon signing the non-aggression pact: Their cattle and substance and all their beasts will be ours, if we only agree to their terms, so that they will settle among us (verse 23).  But here comes the most innovative reading of Ha-Ktav ve-Hakabala on this story.  What happened on the third day?

 

That the people were in physical discomfort in those days before anaesthesia or pain killers is likely and probably explains how Shimon and Levi were able to swoop down on the town and wipe it out without resistance.  And yet, says Rav Mecklenburg, the Torah is not giving us a health report when it says that on the third day BE-HEYOTAM KO'AVIM - they were in pain.

 

On the third day (probably because they are suffering) the people suddenly come to their senses and regret acquiescing to the Israelite demands.  KO'AVIM in the verse means remorse, sorrow, confusion; their souls were in pain because they have had a change of heart.  (Rav Mecklenburg brings plenty of sources to support this reading of KO'AVIM).  They realize now that all of their other neighbors will resent their having made peace with the Israelites, leaving their common idolatrous ways for the monotheism of the Hebrews.  Fearing reprisals by their Canaanite brothers, they begin to seethe at the position those Jews have put them in.  Now they resolve to break the deal and march on the Israelite camp as soon as they are able, killing and plundering as they go - since after all, the prospect of gaining the Hebrews' wealth is still attractive.  Well, Shimon and Levi get word of this change of heart, and unleash a pre-emptive strike to save their sister, their lives and their wealth.

 

According to this reading of course, Shimon and Levi were completely justified in defending themselves; the family never planned to trick or harm the town; and Jacob was involved from the start in the negotiations which were meant to bring more people into the fold.  Still, it does seem odd, as the Ramban pointed out, that Jacob would allow his daughter to marry the man who had attacked her.  This might be why Rav Mecklenburg does allow the possibility that the original plan was to set up Shekhem alone to be killed.

 

On the other hand, the Torah does deal theoretically with a situation similar to the one Jacob found himself in: "If a man comes upon a virgin who is not engaged and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are discovered, the man who lay with her shall pay the girl's father fifty [shekels of] silver, and she shall be his wife.  Because he has violated her, he can never have the right to divorce her" (Deuteronomy 22:28-9).  This might grate on our Western sensitivities, but might have been a normal way of dealing with rape in the Ancient Near East.

 

In conclusion, I would like to raise one question which has always troubled me about this story: Why is it included in the Torah?  The Torah is not a story book and it is generally assumed that all its narratives have a message of some sort to impart to its readers.  What can we learn from this tale of violence and deception?

 

One possible way of looking at this episode is as part of the larger picture of Jacob's tragic life.  Jacob's adventures began with his own manipulation of events and end in events and personalities manipulating him.  He is completely passive in this story, allowing his sons to do all the talking, never acting in his own defense.  This attitude is only magnified when his beloved Joseph disappears and Egypt's ruler plays games with Jacob and his sons.  Has Jacob gotten too old or weak by the time our episode takes place, or has he just been beaten down by too many crises?  Here is part of an essay in Nachum Sarna's book "Understanding Genesis: The Heritage of Biblical Israel" (pages 183-4), which draws together the events of Jacob's life.

 

[The] implicit condemnation of the patriarch's unethical conduct [in his treatment of Isaac and Esau] is powerfully brought out through the cycle of biographic tales.  Of Abraham, Scripture could relate that he died at "good ripe age, old and contented" (25:8).  Isaac could likewise be described as dying "in ripe old age" (35:29).  But such notice is singularly lacking in respect of Jacob.  This patriarch could only report that the years of his life had been "few and hard" (47:9).  The reference, of course, is to the unrelieved series of trials and tribulations that dogged his footsteps from the day he cheated his father until the last years of his life.  "The quiet, mild-mannered, home-loving, favorite of his mother, was forced into precipitate flight, abandoning home and hearth, exiled from his nearest and dearest, to be ruthlessly exploited for twenty years by his uncle Laban.  It is not hard to see in the trickery Laban successfully practiced on Jacob in taking advantage of the darkness to substitute Leah for her sister, the retributive counterpart, measure for measure, of Jacob's exploitation of his father's perpetual darkness by masquerading as his own brother.  The perpetrator of deception was now the victim, hoist with his own petard.  The biographical details of Jacob's life read like a catalogue of misfortunes.  When he was finally able to make his escape and set out for home after two decades in the service of his scoundrelly uncle, he found his erstwhile employer in hot and hostile pursuit of him.  No sooner had this trouble passed than he felt his life to be in mortal danger from his brother Esau.  Arriving at last, at the threshold of Canaan, Jacob experienced the mysterious night encounter that left him with a dislocated hip.  His worst troubles awaited him in the land of Canaan.  His only daughter, Dina, was violated, his beloved Rachel died in childbirth, and the first son she had borne him was kidnapped and sold into slavery, an event that itself initiated a further series of misfortunes.  All the foregoing makes quite clear Scripture's condemnation of Jacob's moral lapse in his treatment of his brother and father.  In fact, an explicit denunciation could hardly have been more effective or more scathing than this unhappy biography.

 

Earlier in my essay I asked why Jacob's reaction to Shimon and Levi's attack is fear rather than disgust.  Jacob may have been a man who spent much time looking over his shoulder.  He may seem tough on the outside when he tricks Esau and stands up to Laban, but inside he fears for his safety and that of his loved ones (he only confronts Esau and Laban when they catch up with him after he's run away).  Here is how Jacob blesses Shimon and Levi on his deathbed:

 

Shimon and Levi are a pair; Their weapons are tools of lawlessness.  Let not my person be included in their council, Let not my being be counted in their assembly.  For when angry, they slay men, And when pleased they maim oxen.  Cursed be their anger so fierce, and their wrath so relentless.  I will divide them in Jacob, scatter them in Israel" (Genesis 49:5-7).

 

Surrounded by his family and protected by his powerful son Joseph, Jacob can allow himself a little anger; but at the time of our story, his immediate reaction is based on the person he has become.  Certainly, it is a rabbinic understanding of the Bible and of life that no action goes unanswered, every effect has a cause.  Does our story represent some element of punishment for Jacob's earlier behavior? We cannot know for sure.  It does seem, however, that the deception practiced at the beginning of his life has come full circle; Jacob is reaping what he has sown.  Is this a painful analysis of our third patriarch's life?  Can Dina's story possibly provide a lesson that is not tragic?