Genesis · Chapter 34

And Dinah, the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.

בת לאה THE DAUGHTER OF LEAH — so Scripture calls her. Why not the daughter of Jacob? But just because she “went out” she is called Leah’s daughter, since she, too, was fond “of going out” (Genesis Rabbah 80:1), as it is said (30:16) “and Leah went out to meet him”. With an allusion to her they formulated the proverb: “Like mother, like daughter”.

THE DAUGHTER OF LEAH, WHOM SHE HAD BORNE UNTO JACOB. The reason [Scripture specifies the daughter of Leah] is to state that she was the sister of Simeon and Levi, who were envious for her sake and avenged her cause. And Scripture mentions further, whom she had borne unto Jacob, in order to allude to the fact that all the brothers were envious for her.

"And Dinah went out" — of her own accord.

ותצא דנה בת לאה, Dinah, Leah's daughter went out, etc. The reason that the Torah emphasises that Dinah was Leah's daughter (something that we are well aware of) is in order to facilitate understanding of the causes underlying Dinah's excursion into town. There were three reasons for this. 1) Dinah was Leah's daughter. Had she been Rachel's daughter she would never have made such an unchaperoned excursion. Her mother Leah had "gone out" to meet her husband (30,15), something that was uncharacteristic of Jewish women. Bereshit Rabbah 80,1 claims that at the time Leah adorned herself with all her jewelry. Her daughter copied her mother, giving the impression that she was a harlot. 2) A second cause for Dinah's excursion was the fact that as an only daughter she had no female playmates; she went in search of suitable company. Inasmuch as she was a daughter of Jacob she had already acquired the reputation of being a distinguished person, something that provoked Shechem as we shall explain later. 3) לראות בבנות הארץ, "she went to take a look at the daughters of the land." According to Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 38 Shechem had brought the girls of the neighbourhood to play music around the tent of Jacob. This then was a third reason for Dinah venturing outside. From all the above you may surmise that unless Shechem had already been aware of the existence of Dinah, a daughter of the famous Jacob, even before she left her house he would not have committed the rape.

ותצא דינה בת לאה, “Dinah, Leah’s daughter went out, etc.” What happened to Dinah was a punishment for Yaakov for several misdemeanours. Firstly, he had said to Lavan (30,33) “let my integrity testify for me in the future.” Secondly, he was punished for denying Esau a glimpse of Dinah, for maybe she could have exercised a beneficial influence on him if he had married her. Thirdly, he was arrogant in assuming authority on earth as indicated by the name he gave the altar. According to Bereshit Rabbah, G’d told him: “never praise yourself with something that is in the future.” You have said: “let my integrity testify for me in the future. Tomorrow your daughter will leave her house and she will be raped.” [The implication is that if he had seen to it that she was properly chaperoned this could not have happened. Ed.] Furthermore, the Torah had reported (32,23) “he took his two wives and his maid-servants and his eleven children and presented them to Esau.” Where was Dinah? The report in the Torah alerts us to the fact that Yaakov had hidden Dinah in a box so that Esau would not become aware of her. G’d said to Yaakov: “because you did not make an effort for her to be married to a circumcised male she will become married to an uncircumcised male. Not only that, but she will be raped first.” Another criticism of Yaakov mentioned in the Midrash in the name of G’d is the fact that he had assigned G’d sovereignty in the heavens whereas arrogating to himself something parallel in the terrestrial spheres as we explained in connection with his naming the altar. G’d said to him: “even the reader in the synagogue does not arrogate to himself the right to act on behalf of the congregants. He waits for an invitation by the congregation to act on their behalf. Tomorrow your daughter will be raped.” The reason this punishment followed the misdemeanour so promptly was because Yaakov had spoken to G’d in a somewhat provocative manner. The reason the Torah describes Dinah as ”Dinah the daughter of Leah went out,” when we all know she was Leah’s daughter is because she was trying to attract attention to herself; she had bedecked herself (Bereshit Rabbah 80,1). She proved to be a true daughter of her mother who had also attracted attention to herself by leaving her tent as we have been told in 30,16. Scripture is critical of women who leave the security and modest environment of their homes unnecessarily. Solomon wrote in Proverbs 7,11-12 “She is loud and rebellious, her feet would not stay home. Now outside, now in the streets, she lurks at every corner.” David had written about a woman who stays at home. that “the true measure of a princess is found in the fact that she remains indoors.” (Psalms 45,14) When the angels asked Avraham where Sarah was, he answered: “here she is in the tent (Genesis 18,9).” The Midrash explains in that connection that a woman who remains within the confines of her home confers forgiveness upon the members of her house by her very presence therein, just as the altar in the Temple conferred forgiveness on the Jewish people. We have an allusion to this in Scripture when David wrote (Psalms 128,3) “your wife shall be like a fruitful vine within your house;” the inside of the house is called ירכתי ביתך in that verse. We also have a verse concerning the function of the altar in which a similar point is made when the Torah wrote (Leviticus 1,11) ושחט אותו על ירך המזבח, “he is to slaughter it on the ירך, ‘the side’ of the altar. The word ירך also describes the function of the woman to bear children. The altar and woman have something vital in common. If woman fulfills here role of presiding first and foremost within the confines of her home, she will have the kind of children who will be anointed with the oil of anointing (the oil with which the High Priest was anointed) compare Psalms 128,3 “your sons will be like olive saplings.” Our sages in Yuma 16 have also said that there was a woman by the name of Kimchit who lived to see all her seven sons anointed as High Priest at one time or another. In response to the question how it was possible that she enjoyed such a singular distinction, she replied that the ceiling in her house had never seen the plaits of the hair on her head. The reason the psalmist chose to compare the fertility of a model wife to the vine (“your wife shall be like a fruitful vine“, Psalms 128,3) is that vines are planted inside the rear of the house. As they grow, its branches find the sun through holes in the walls. In other words, this is the only tree whose trunk grows inside whereas its branches develop outside. This tree is therefore an appropriate simile for the kind of woman we have discussed. Such a woman not only stays inside her house but she is not near the entrance of her house where she would be exposed to everyone’s view. This is what Solomon criticized about the foolish woman whom he described as sitting at the entrance to her house (Proverbs 9,14). Seeing the mother takes care of everything within the house, her sons go out to the field to do their various kinds of work. These sons are compared to olive saplings. The reason David chose this simile is that unlike other trees which are receptive to the practice of grafting, the olive tree rejects grafts (Jerusalem Talmud Kilayim 1:7),[much like the human body has a tendency to reject even organs from another human being. Ed.] Similarly, the paternity of the sons of such a chaste woman will never be questioned. Another reason for comparing the children of such a woman to olive saplings is that the fruit of the olive tree matures after nine months similar to the fruit of woman. Such a woman does not experience miscarriages and all her children are born after a full pregnancy of nine months. We have been taught in Bechorot 8 that the pure domestic animals of the beef variety carry their young for nine months. You are no doubt aware that the Levites sang 15 psalms commencing with the words שיר למעלות, “song of the steps” on the Temple steps corresponding to the 15 steps which led up to the level of the Sanctuary from the antechamber. The song from which the above-mentioned verse is taken is the ninth in that series (compare Psalms 120-134). The words סביב לשלחנך “all around your table,” in the verse above mean that the sons are all assembled at the table to serve their mother at meal-time. Furthermore, it is a well known fact that all trees have a “heart” which becomes exposed when you cut down the trunk. The only exception to this rule is the olive tree. Perhaps this is the reason why eating olives led to the person who has consumed them forgetting the Torah he has studied, his heart becoming dull and unresponsive to learning. Our sages have distinguished between the effect of eating olives and consuming olive oil. The former has a negative effect even on matters one has studied for seventy years whereas the latter has a beneficial effect, restoring to one’s memory what one had forgotten for a long time. (Horiot 13) An additional explanation of the words אשתך כגפן פוריה, “your wife shall be as fruitful as a vine,” is a reference to the time when the woman menstruates and observes blood oozing from her insides. The additional words בירכתי ביתך, “in the innermost part of your house,” are a hint that during her period of menstruation her husband has to keep his distance from her. The psalmist assures such a woman that if she does observe this legislation meticulously, then “your sons will be like olive saplings.” The reason that the psalmist spelled the word אשתך with the vowel segol under the letter א instead of the vowel chirik which we would have expected, [making the word sound like “your fire”, Ed.] is that during the period in question he is to stay away from her as if from fire. When she conducts herself in accordance with Jewish norms her sons will not display any character blemishes. לראות בבנות הארץ, “to look around amongst the daughters of the land.” She wanted to watch the girls perform dances. We find a similar expression in Judges 21,21 וראיתם והנה אם-ילאו בנות שילה לחול במחולות, “as soon as you see the girls of Shiloh coming out to join the dances, etc.” A Midrashic approach: the word לראות, “to see,” means “to see and to be seen.” We read in verse six: ויצא חמור אבי שכם אל יעקב לדבר אתו, Chamor the father of Shechem went out to Yaakov to speak with him.” About this the Tanchuma 7 Vayishlach writes: He said to him: ‘I know that your grandfather Avraham was a prince as the Hittites had acclaimed him as: “you are a prince in our midst” (23,6). I, however, am a prince in the land also. Give the daughter of a prince to a prince (my son) as a wife.” Upon hearing this Yaakov replied: “The title ‘prince’ is applicable only to a שור, ox” (not to a donkey, meaning of the name Chamor.) The Torah had written that Avraham ran to the cattle, (ox) (18,7) and it is written in Proverbs 14,4: ורב תבואות בכח שור, “a bountiful harvest is due to the strength of the ox.” An ox and a donkey cannot mate together. The Torah writes expressly: “you shall not plough with an ox and a donkey together.” In the Book of Prophets (Kings II 14,9) we find the following statement: “The thistle in Lebanon sent the following message to the cedar in Lebanon. ‘give your daughter to my son in marriage.’ But a wild beast in Lebanon went by and trampled down the thistle.” The wild beasts in that parable are the sons of Yaakov who have been compared to wild beasts. In the blessings bestowed on Yaakov’s sons by their father, Yehudah is compared to a lion (49,9); Dan is compared to a snake (49,17); Binyamin is compared to a wolf (49,27); Naftali to a gazelle (49,21). When the Book of Kings spoke about the wild beasts trampling the thistle, the reference was to the sons of Yaakov Shimon and Levi killing the male inhabitants of Shechem. The prophet Hoseah also complains about a similar occurrence in Hoseah 6,9 where he wrote about what would happen to the people of Shechem in his own time because they encouraged depravity. The people would be murdered because they had been guilty of sexual misconduct.

ותצא דינה בת לאה, “Dinah, daughter of Leah went out, etc.” The Torah first mentioned that Dinah was a daughter of Leah, seeing that this made her a full sister to Shimon and Levi, who avenged her disgrace. The Torah continues writing that she had been born for Yaakov, in order to tell us that her other brothers and half-brothers were also jealous on her behalf.

And Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the chief of the land, saw her; he took her, lay with her, and afflicted her.

וישכב אתה AND HE LAID WITH HER — naturally (vaginally). ויענה AND HE AFFLICTED HER — unnaturally (anally) (Genesis Rabbah 80:1).

AND HE LAY WITH HER, AND HE AFFLICTED HER. He lay with her in natural gratification; and he afflicted her unnaturally. This is Rashi’s language. But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said: And he afflicted her naturally because she was a maiden.” But there is no need for this for all forced sexual connection is called “affliction.” Likewise, Thou shalt not deal with her as a slave, because thou hast afflicted her. And so also: And my concubine they afflicted, and she is dead. Scripture thus tells — in Dinah’s praise — that she was forced, and she did not consent to the prince of the country.

"And he afflicted her" — in her way [i.e., in the manner of lying with a woman], because she was a virgin.

נשיא הארץ, the prince of the land, etc. Shechem's position in the community was the reason that no one came to Dinah's assistance when she cried for help against being raped. וישכב אותה ויעניה. He slept with her by forcing her. We must understand the sequence of how the Torah reports what happened [not "he forced her and slept with her," Ed.] in light of a statement in Horiyot 10 where the encounter between Yael and Siserah is described. The Talmud says that when the wicked derive physical pleasure this is a source of pain for the righteous. The Torah therefore tells us that although Shechem slept with Dinah in a perfectly natural way, not subjecting her to painful perversions, Dinah felt tortured instead of enjoying the experience. Her distaste of Shechem is obvious; this is why Shechem had to expend so much effort by "speaking to her heart."

וישכב אותה ויענה, “he slept with her and subsequently abused her.” According to Rashi the word וישכב describes normal intercourse, whereas the word ויענה describes a more perverted method of sexual intercourse. Ibn Ezra understands the word ויענה as describing the pain involved in her having intercourse as she had been a virgin. Nachmanides writes that there is no need for all these explanations, seeing that any intercourse in which the woman is being raped is described in the Bible as עינוי, i.e. that is the meaning of the word ויעניה. In this instance, intercourse by mutual consent appears to have preceded the rape. The opposite was the case in the rape of Tamar by her half-brother Amnon. (Samuel II 13). There the rape is mentioned before the sexual intercourse. Some commentators suggest that Dinah had first been seduced, whereas Amnon never bothered to seduce Tamar.

And his soul was drawn to Dinah the daughter of Jacob; he loved the young woman and spoke to the heart of the young woman.

על לב הנערה [AND SPAKE] LOVINGLY TO THE DAMSEL (literally, he spoke to the heart of the maiden) words that would appeal to her heart: See how much money your father has lavished for a small plot of field. I will marry you and you will then possess the city and all its fields (Genesis Rabbah 80:7).

"And he spoke to her heart" — meaning that he spoke to her words of tenderness and comfort.

ותדבק נפשו, this was the opposite of Amnon having raped Tamar whose infatuation with her turned to disgust the moment he had satisfied his biological urge. (Samuel II 13,14-16) בדינה בת יעקב, because she was the daughter of the widely respected Yaakov, someone of an international reputation. The Torah confirms this once more later in verse 19 when it describes Shechem as desiring the “daughter of Yaakov.”

ותדבק נפשו בדינה, “His soul became attached to Dinah.” At that time Dinah was eight years and one month old. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 72,6) arrive at this conclusion by assuming that Leah’s prayer that her fetus should be a girl was offered when she was in a state of advanced pregnancy. Dinah was born before Joseph as the Torah mentions Rachel as becoming pregnant after her birth. Joseph was born 14 years after Yaakov had arrived in Charan when Yaakov started serving Lavan an additional six years for his sheep. They stayed in Sukkot for 18 months before moving on to Shechem. This makes Joseph seven and a half years old at that time. Dinah was seven months older than he (Joseph was born at the end of a seven month pregnancy) so that made Dinah eight years and one month when she was raped.

And Shechem said to Hamor his father, saying: Take for me this young woman as a wife.

אל חמור אביו לאמור, “to his father Chamor, to say:” The word לאמור means that he wanted his father to speak to Yaakov on the subject. Alternately, the word is merely used to underline the urgency with which Shechem viewed the matter. He wanted his father to be insistent. We find a similar use of the word לאמור in connection with the wife of Potiphar in Genesis 39,14, where she wanted to underline that the fact that her husband had brought a Hebrew slave into the household resulted in her almost being raped.

And Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter, while his sons were with his cattle in the field; and Jacob remained silent until they came.

"Because he had defiled" — [that is,] Shechem.

והחריש יעקב עד בואם, he refrained from starting a quarrel until his sons would have been informed of what happened so that they could be on their guard against their adversaries.

עד בואם, until they came home. Jacob sent a message to them asking them to return home.

And Hamor, the father of Shechem, went out to Jacob to speak with him.

ויצא חמור, when he noticed that Yaakov’s reaction had been silence he began to worry about reprisals.

And the sons of Jacob came in from the field when they heard, and the men were grieved, and it was exceedingly hard for them, because he had done a disgrace in Israel by lying with the daughter of Jacob — and so it was not right that this be done.

וכן לא יעשה AND THUS IT OUGHT NOT TO BE DONE — viz., to do violence to a maiden, for even the heathens have trained themselves (literally, have fenced themselves round) against unchastity as a consequence of the Flood which had come upon the world as a punishment for this sin (Genesis Rabbah 80:6).

AND THUS IT OUGHT NOT TO BE DONE. I.e., to do violence to maidens, for the nations “had fenced themselves round” against unchastity as a result of the Flood. This is Rashi’s language. But I do not know this, for the Canaanites were immersed in unchastity with women, beasts and males, as it is written, For all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you, and they did not begin such practices in that generation [but rather it was their traditional behavior], and even in the days of Abraham and Isaac, the patriarchs feared lest they kill them in order to take their wives. Instead, the expression, and thus it ought not to be done, refers back to the word beyisrael (in Israel): because he had wrought a vile deed in Israel… and thus it ought not to be done among them. This is why Scripture said in Israel for it was not a base deed among the Canaanites. And Onkelos translated: “It is not proper that it be done,” meaning that it is forbidden, and that is why it was a base deed in Israel.

ויתיצבו האנשים ויחר, the sadness and sorrow described by the Torah as the brothers’ reaction pertained to the despicable deed that had been perpetrated against a member of Yisrael’s family. This was in spite of the fact that whereas Jews do not rape unmarried virgins, gentiles are known to be guilty of this. Seeing that even in gentile circles it was taboo to rape the daughters of prominent citizens, the Torah adds the words וכן לא יעשה, that such a thing was totally unacceptable. Their anger, ויחר, therefore was turned against the perpetrators and against those who had condoned the act.

ויעצבו…כי נבלה עשה בישראל. They were distressed… because he had committed a disgraceful act against Israel, etc. The Torah uses two expressions, 1) "they were angry," and 2) "they were distressed" to indicate that Shechem had been guilty of two wrongs. It would have been shameful for the family of Jacob even if Shechem had married Dinah, seeing that they would not give their sister to an "unclean" person. However, that would have been merely distressing. The fact that Shechem had raped their sister, something that was repugnant even to the local inhabitants, i.e. וכן לא יעשה, aroused their anger. Bereshit Rabbah 80,6 states that the Gentiles had accepted sexual restrictions upon themselves after the deluge. This included rape.

מן השדה כשמעם,”returned from the field after hearing (about Dinah’s rape).” They returned prematurely, in a hurry. וכן לא יעשה, “and such a thing must not happen,” even to the daughter of common parents, much less one of a distinguished family such as ours.

וכן לא יעשה, “such a thing must not be allowed to happen.” Rashi writes that even the gentile nations had agreed to outlaw rape. Nachmanides takes issue with Rashi, saying that the Canaanites had certainly practiced rape and worse sexual perversions as testified by the Torah in Leviticus He therefore explains the words וכן לא יעשה, as referring to what was forbidden to Jews, seeing that the Canaanites did not consider it as something immoral.

And Hamor spoke with them, saying: My son Shechem's soul is drawn to your daughter. Give her to him now as a wife.

חשקה means desires.

וידבר חמור אתם לאמור, Chamor spoke to them, saying, etc. Perhaps the word לאמור here means that he was willing to pay damages due to the father of a virgin who has been raped or seduced. He may also have been willing to marry her if her father and brothers were willing. This is why he continued: "give her to him as a wife." On the other hand, maybe Chamor wanted to disclaim any responsibility to pay damages in accordance with Ketuvot 41 that when the rapist comes forward admitting "I have raped, or I have seduced the daughter of so and so", he is not required to pay the damages mentioned in the Torah. We have a rule that self-confessed sinners are free from financial penalties. The words לאמור שכם בני could be understood as "seeing that my son has freely admitted his guilt he is not subject to the penalty imposed on rapists." We should not understand this verse as testimony by the father that his son had committed a felony because under Noachide laws a father may testify against his son (Maimonides Hilchot Melachim chapter 9).

And intermarry with us: your daughters give to us, and our daughters take for yourselves.

בנותיכם תתנו ואת בנותינו תקחו לכם, the sons of Yaakov, on their part made intermarriage something that was in their honour, “i.e. to give and to take.” When Shechem and Chamor presented this proposal to their townspeople they reversed it to make it appear as if they were the ones bestowing honour, when they said: “we will take and we will give.” (verse 31) They did this in order to seduce their townsfolk to submit to circumcision.

And you shall dwell with us, and the land shall be before you; dwell in it, engage in commerce in it, and acquire holdings in it.

וסחרוה. Event though normally, newcomers were not allowed to engage in the kind of commerce or artisanship which would compete with that practiced by the local inhabitants. We have this principle in Baba Batra 21, where it is spelled out as the right of the local inhabitant who feels economically threatened by competition from a new immigrant. He is accorded the right to lodge a complaint against the newcomer practicing his trade in his town. [an ancient form of the policy of “closed shop.” Ed.]

וסחרוה, the letter ח in this word is the reason why the Torah did not need to write the word בה, i.e. תסחרו בה, “you may trade feely in it.” The vowel kametz under the letter ח instead of the semi vowel sheva we would have expected is what saved the Torah the word, or rather the extra letter ב by adding the word בה to the word וסחרו.

And Shechem said to her father and to her brothers: May I find favor in your eyes, and whatever you say to me I will give.

Increase upon me ever so much the bride-price and gifts, and I will give whatever you say to me; only give me the young woman as a wife.

מהר DOWRY, refers to the Ketuba (the sum settled by the husband on his wife as set forth in the Ketuba — the marriage contract (Genesis Rabbah 80:7).

‘MOHAR’ (DOWRY) ‘UMATAN’ (AND GIFT). Mohar [refers to the bridal gifts given at the time of] the marriage-contract which is given to maidens, as it is written, according to the dowry of virgins, these being the presents which the young men send to the maidens whom they marry. Umatan are garments or silver and gold which the groom sends to her father and her brothers. In Bereshith Rabbah the Rabbis said:7. “Mohar is parnon (the wife’s settlement); matan is parapurnon (the additional settlement above the usual dowry),” these being in the language of the Jerusalem Talmud “the regular dowry” and “the usufruct estate,” that is to say, that which he gives her of his properties to be accounted as if she had brought them from her father’s house, the produce of which belongs to him. The reason for this conciliatory gesture is in order that they willingly give her to him as a wife, as the maiden did not consent to him and she steadily protested and cried. This is the sense of the verse, And he spoke comfortingly unto the damsel. here. Therefore Shechem said, Take me this young maiden to wife, here. as she was already in his house and in his power, and he feared not her brothers because he was the prince of the country and how could they take her by force out of his house? Now Shechem’s great desire was because the maiden was very beautiful. However, Scripture did not narrate her beauty as it did in the case of Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel because it did not want to mention that which was to her a stumbling-block of iniquity, while Scripture speaks only in praise of the righteous women but not of this one. Similarly, Scripture does not mention what happened to her after her rescue from Shechem’s house. In line with the simple meaning of Scripture she stayed with her brothers, “shut up, living as widows,” as she was considered defiled in their sight, as it is written, Because he had defiled Dinah their sister. here. Our Rabbis have differed on this matter. The most feasible opinion is that of he who says that Simeon took her, and upon her death, he buried her in the land of Canaan, this being in agreement with what we have said, i.e., that she was with him in his house as a widow, and she went down with them to Egypt, and there she died but was buried in the Land of Israel. Her grave is known by tradition to this day as being in the city of Arbel with the grave of Nitai the Arbelite. He was a leader of the Sanhedrin in the early days of the Hasmoneans. As for Dinah’s grave being near that of Nitai the Arbelite, see my Hebrew commentary, p. 190, for data from other medieval itinerants. Ramban’s testimony though is that of an eye-witness when he travelled through the land. It is possible that Simeon brought up her remains from Egypt out of pity for her while the Israelites were still in Egypt or that the children of Israel brought them up together with the bones of her brothers — all the tribes — just as our Rabbis have mentioned.

הרבה עלי מאד, as a penance he would be prepared to pay over and above the customary amount of a dowry.

הרבו עלי מאד מוהר ומתן, “demand of me much dowry, etc.” All these conciliatory offers were designed to have Yaakov’s family agree to Dinah being married to Shechem of her own free will, seeing she was already captive in the house of Shechem, and Shechem and Chamor had no reason to fear that she would be kidnapped. They only wanted a willing bride instead of an unwilling one. This is also the reason why the Torah reports that Shechem “talked to the heart of the girl.” (verse 3)

And the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father with cunning, and spoke, because he had defiled Dinah their sister.

במרמה WITH GUILE — cleverly אשר טמא BECAUSE HE HAD DEFILED — Scripture (the Sacred Historian) says that there was no deception (מרמה) in this because he had defiled Dinah their sister (Genesis Rabbah 80:8).

AND THE SONS OF JACOB ANSWERED SHECHEM AND HAMOR HIS FATHER WITH SUBTLETY. Now Hamor and Shechem spoke to her father and her brothers, here. but the patriarch did not answer them at all as his sons spoke in his place on this matter out of respect for him for since the affair was a source of shame to them, they did not want him to speak about it at all. There is a question which may be raised here. It would appear that they answered with the concurrence of her father and his advice for they were in his presence, and it was he who understood the answer which they spoke with subtlety, and, if so, why was he angry afterwards? See also Ramban further, 49:5. Moreover, it is inconceivable that Jacob would have consented to give his daughter in marriage to a Canaanite who had defiled her. Now surely all the brothers gave that answer with subtlety, while Simeon and Levi alone executed the deed, and the father cursed only their wrath. [But if all the brothers shared responsibility for the answer and the plan, why did Jacob single out only Simeon and Levi for chastisement?] The answer is that the craftiness lay in their saying that every male of theirs be circumcised, here. as they thought that the people of the city will not consent to it. Even if perchance they will listen to their prince and they will all become circumcised, they will come on the third day, when they were in pain, here. and will take their daughter145“Daughter.” in Tur: “sister.” from the house of Shechem. Now this was the advice of all the brothers and with the permission of their father, but Simeon and Levi wanted to take revenge of them and so they killed all the men of the city. It is possible that Jacob’s anger in cursing their wrath was because they killed the men of the city who had committed no sin against him; they should have killed Shechem alone. It is this which Scripture says, And the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father with subtlety, and spoke, because he had defiled Dinah their sister, for they all agreed to speak to him craftily because of the base deed which he had done to them. Now many people ask: “But how did the righteous sons of Jacob commit this deed, spilling innocent blood?” The Rabbi (Moshe ben Maimon) answered in his Book of Judges, The Book of Judges is the last of the fourteen books which comprise Maimonides’ great life work: The Mishneh Torah, or Yad Hachazakah. saying that “sons of Noah” See Seder Bereshith, Note 222. are commanded concerning Laws, and thus they are required to appoint judges in each and every district to give judgment concerning their six commandments The seventh one is the commandment to establish courts to enforce these laws. Together, these laws are generally referred to as “the seven Noachide laws.” Ramban will later set forth his thesis that the seventh commandment also requires that they establish laws regulating all civil matters such as damages, business regulations, labor laws, etc. which are obligatory upon all mankind. “And a Noachide who transgresses one of them is subject to the death-penalty by the sword. If he sees a person transgressing one of these seven The seventh one is the commandment to establish courts to enforce these laws. Together, these laws are generally referred to as “the seven Noachide laws.” Ramban will later set forth his thesis that the seventh commandment also requires that they establish laws regulating all civil matters such as damages, business regulations, labor laws, etc. laws and does not bring him to trial for a capital crime, he who saw him is subject to the same death-penalty. It was on account of this that the people of Shechem had incurred the death-penalty because Shechem committed an act of robbery and they saw and knew of it, but they did not bring him to trial.”But these words do not appear to me to be correct for if so, our father Jacob should have been the first to obtain the merit of causing their death, and if he was afraid of them, why was he angry at his sons and why did he curse their wrath a long time after that and punish them by dividing them and scattering them in Israel? Were they not meritorious, fulfilling a commandment and trusting in G-d Who saved them? In my opinion, the meaning of “Laws” which the Rabbis have counted among their seven Noachidic commandments The seventh one is the commandment to establish courts to enforce these laws. Together, these laws are generally referred to as “the seven Noachide laws.” Ramban will later set forth his thesis that the seventh commandment also requires that they establish laws regulating all civil matters such as damages, business regulations, labor laws, etc. is not just that they are to appoint judges in each and every district, but He commanded them concerning the laws of theft, overcharge, wronging, and a hired man’s wages; the laws of guardians of property, forceful violation of a woman, seduction, principles of damage and wounding a fellowman; laws of creditors and debtors, and laws of buying and selling, and their like, similar in scope to the laws with which Israel was charged, and involving the death-penalty for stealing, wronging or violating or seducing the daughter of his fellowman, or kindling his stack, or wounding him, and their like. And it is also included in this commandment that they appoint judges for each and every city, just as Israel was commanded to do, but if they failed to do so they are free of the death-penalty since this is a positive precept of theirs [and failing to fulfill a positive precept does not incur the death-penalty]. The Rabbis have only said: “For violation of their admonishments there is the death-penalty,” and only a prohibition against doing something is called an “admonishment.” And such is the purport of the Gemara in Tractate Sanhedrin.15158b. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 192. And in the Jerusalem Talmud See my Hebrew commentary, ibid. they have said: “With respect to Noachide laws, a judge who perverts justice is to be slain. If he took a bribe he is to be slain. With respect to Jewish laws, [if after having heard both parties] you know perfectly well what the proper legal decision should be, you are not permitted to withdraw from the case without rendering a decision, and if you know that it is not perfectly clear to you, you may withdraw from the case. But with respect to their laws, even though you know the law perfectly well you may withdraw from it.” From this it would appear that a non-Jewish judge may say to the litigants, “I am not beholden to you,” for it is only in Israel that there is an additional admonishment — “‘Lo thaguru’ (ye shall not be afraid) of the face of any man,” meaning, “You shall not gather in, [i.e., restrain], your words before any man” This explanation is based upon the common root of the words thaguru and ogeir (gathering) as in the expression, gathering in summer, (Proverbs 10:5). — and surely he is not to be slain for failing to make himself chief, overseer, or ruler in order to judge superiors. [Ramban thus disagrees with Rambam, who writes that the people of Shechem had incurred the death-penalty by not having brought Shechem to justice.] Moreover, why does the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] have to seek to establish their guilt? Were not the people of Shechem and all seven nations idol worshippers, perpetrators of unchaste acts, and practitioners of all things that are abominable to G-d? In many places Scripture loudly proclaims concerning them: Upon the high mountains, and upon their hills, and under every leafy tree, etc.; Thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations, etc.? For all these abominations have the men of the land done, etc. However, it was not the responsibility of Jacob and his sons to bring them to justice. But the matter of Shechem was that the people of Shechem were wicked [by virtue of their violation of the seven Noachide laws] The seventh one is the commandment to establish courts to enforce these laws. Together, these laws are generally referred to as “the seven Noachide laws.” Ramban will later set forth his thesis that the seventh commandment also requires that they establish laws regulating all civil matters such as damages, business regulations, labor laws, etc. and had thereby forfeited their lives. Therefore Jacob’s sons wanted to take vengeance of them with a vengeful sword, and so they killed the king and all the men of his city who were his subjects, obeying his commands. The covenant represented by the circumcision of the inhabitants of Shechem had no validity in the eyes of Jacob’s sons for it was done to curry favor with their master [and did not represent a genuine conversion]. But Jacob told them here that they had placed him in danger, as it is said, You have troubled me, to make me odious, here. and there, [i.e., at the time he blessed the other children], he cursed the wrath of Simeon and Levi for they had done violence to the men of the city whom they had told in his presence, And we will dwell with you, and we will become one people. here. They would have chosen to believe in G-d and trust their word, and perhaps they might have indeed returned to G-d and thus Simeon and Levi killed them without cause for the people had done them no evil at all. It is this which Jacob said, Weapons of violence are their kinship. And if we are to believe in the book, ‘The Wars of the Sons of Jacob,’ See Eisenstein, Otzar Midrashim, p. 157, and L. Ginzberg’s, The Legends of the Jews, Vol. I, pp. 404-411. their father’s fear was due to the fact that the neighbors of Shechem gathered together and waged three major wars against them, and were it not for their father who also donned his weapons and warred against them, they would have been in danger, as is related in that book. Our Rabbis have mentioned something of this conflict in their commentary on the verse, Which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow. They said, See also Bereshith Rabbah 80:9. “All the surrounding nations gathered together to join in battle against them, and Jacob donned his weapons to war against them,” just as Rashi writes there. Scripture, however, is brief about this because it was a hidden miracle, for the sons of Jacob were valiant men, and it appeared as if their own arm saved them. Scripture is similarly brief about the matter of Abraham in Ur of the Chaldees, and it did not at all mention Esau’s wars with the Horites. Instead, Scripture mentions here that there was the terror of G-d upon the cities that were round them, and they did not all assemble to pursue after the sons of Jacob for they would have fallen upon them as the sand which is on the sea-shore in multitude. And this is the meaning of the terror of G-d, for the terror and dread of the military prowess they had seen fell upon them. Therefore Scripture says, And Jacob came to Luz… he and all the people that were with him, in order to inform us that not one man among them or their servants was lost in warfare.

The meaning of "and they spoke, [because] he had defiled" is: they spoke to Shechem, who had defiled their sister — for we find "they spoke to him in peace" (Gen. 37:4), [where the verb likewise governs a person implicitly,] as [if it said] "he spoke to him." Alternatively, the sense of "because" (asher) is that they answered with deceit on account of the fact that he had defiled [her].

במרמה, they demanded that the people circumcise themselves expecting them to refuse. Alternatively, they thought that Shechem and Chamor, although prepared themselves to circumcise themselves, would not be able to convince the townsfolk to follow their example. וידברו, אשר טמא; they said that the kind of ipso facto voluntary circumcision which Shechem and his father were willing to perform on themselves was not relevant after Shechem had already defiled their sister. They considered this as in the category of אתנן זונה, offering the price paid to a whore as a sacrifice on G’d’s altar.

ויענו בני יעקב, The sons of Jacob replied, etc. We have to understand exactly what wisdom Onkelos attributes to Jacob's sons when he translates the word במרמה as "with wisdom" instead of as "with guile." At first glance it appears that the sons of Jacob simply meant to deceive Chamor and Shechem. Besides, what is meant by וידברו אשר טמא את דינה? Actually, the cleverness of the sons when they answered Chamor במרמה consisted in that they answered him in such a way that their proposal seemed extremely plausible. Shechem and Chamor did not feel that they needed to be on guard against reprisals. The brothers lulled Chamor into a false sense of security by the very fact that they threatened to take some action if their proposal was not accepted; they thus made him believe that if the town accepted the proposal of mass circumcision the whole chapter of the rape would be closed. The word וידברו, a term describing harsh words, indicates that the brothers first harped on the fact that their sister had been sullied. By doing so they ensured that Chamor and Shechem could not accuse them of giving conflicting signals, i.e. suggesting intermarriage while at the same time condemning the people of Shechem for their immoral behaviour. They then continued speaking in a friendly tone, saying לא נוכל, "we cannot intermarry, etc.," suggesting that they would like to but could not under existing conditions, i.e. while the males of Shechem remained uncircumcised. When they described the condition of the local inhabitants as אשר יש לו ערלה, they meant that whereas the local people were not required to circumcise themselves, it was not enough for Chamor or Chamor and Shechem alone to perform circumcision on themselves. In fact, even if they were to circumcise themselves as a voluntary act they would still be regarded by Jews as ערלים, seeing they did not fulfil a commandment by removing their foreskin. They would consider intermarriage with the people of Shechem and the merging of the two clans only on condition that the entire male population of Shechem would be circumcised. They emphasised this in order to forestall an offer by Chamor and Shechem to circumcise only themselves and their future male offspring. The brother's entire purpose was to facilitate killing the people of Shechem with a minimum of resistance on the part of the latter. They worded their conditions so that they would not be suspected of merely tricking the people of Shechem.

במרמה, “with slyness;” the sons of Yaakov expected that only Sh’chem and his father Chamor would agree to this condition to circumcise themselves on account of their love for the girl (but they never expected that all the males of the city would do so). They reasoned that seeing that not all the males in that city would perform circumcision on themselves, they would be free to take their revenge on them. This is the mirmah that the Torah speaks about here. At any rate they were fully justified to attack the population of that city as we will explain shortly.

ויענו בני יעקב את שכם ואת חמור אביו במרמה, “the sons of Yaakov answered Shechem and his father Chamor cleverly.” It would have been appropriate for their father Yaakov to conduct these negotiations. After all, they were in their father’s presence and they should have kept quiet. However, seeing that they felt that their honor had been besmirched and they therefore had a vested interest in the matter they did not want their father to take part in the conversation at all. When they spoke up in lieu of their father they meant to honor him. Nachmanides writes as follows: seeing that what the brothers answered was at the advice of their father and with his consent, why did Yaakov afterwards become angry at Shimon and Levi when he said “you have caused me anguish?” He had been aware that they had spoken cleverly, i.e. misleadingly, in order to succeed in obtaining Dinah’s release. Besides, Yaakov had known full well that there was no question of Dinah marrying the man who had raped her and defiled her! All the brothers had answered with the same מרמה, deceitfulness, not just Shimon and Levi. Whereas Shimon and Levi carried out the retribution by themselves their father cursed only the anger of these two brothers who had carried out the deed. Actually, the deceit had consisted in the brothers leading Chamor and Shechem to believe that if they would all circumcise themselves they would be ready to intermarry. They had assumed that the people of Shechem would never allow their leader to go through with such a plan. If, by chance, they would listen to their leaders and all circumcise themselves they would then attack the town on the third day when the inhabitants were defenseless. They would then take their sister and free her. This part of the plan enjoyed a consensus and the blessing of Yaakov. When Shimon and Levi decided to kill all the menfolk this was something which had not been part of the original plan and this aroused Yaakov’s displeasure.

ויענו בני יעקב את שכם ואת חמור אביו במרמה, “the sons of Yaakov answered Shechem and his father Chamor speaking with cleverness, etc.” Nachmanides writes that although both Chamor and Shechem had addressed both Yaakov and his sons, only the sons replied, Yaakov remaining totally silent. Seeing that they felt that their father had been greatly insulted by what happened, they did not want him to get involved in the discussion at all. Nachmanides’ explanation presents us with a problem, as it appears from the plain text as if the sons of Yaakov had spoken at the instigation of their father and with his complete approval. In fact, Yaakov appears to have been fully aware of the intent of the brothers for the men of Shechem to become so weakened by their circumcision that they could be killed without putting up a fight. Seeing that the brothers said what they said in Yaakov’s presence, we must assume that their answer was inspired by their father. What is difficult to understand is Yaakov’s anger at Shimon and Levi’s conduct afterwards! Furthermore, it is quite inconceivable that Yaakov would give his consent to Dinah being married to a Canaanite, especially to a Canaanite who had already defiled her before marriage! There can be no question that the entire family was united in their answer and the reason for their answer. If so, why was Yaakov angry only at Shimon and Levi? The only thing that was objectionable was that Shimon and Levi, in their desire to avenge their sister’s rape, vented their rage on all the citizens of the town, instead of restricting themselves to punishing only Shechem. We must understand that when the verse tells us “they answered במרמה, “with cleverness,” this did not refer to their intention at that time to kill the whole town but they contemplated one of two scenarios unfolding. 1) If the people of Shechem would agree to circumcise themselves, this would afford the brothers an opportunity to rescue their sister without encountering much opposition due to the weakened state of the males of that city. 2) If the people would refuse to circumcise themselves. Shechem would then be obliged to release Dinah. Failing his doing so, they would kill Shechem only. Another difficulty in the whole episode is what made the righteous sons of Yaakov spill innocent blood? Maimonides, addressing this problem, argues that mankind had been obliged to institute a proper judiciary and to try and convict people who had broken their laws by the death penalty. Whenever a person who had committed a violation of the seven Noachide laws went untried and unpunished, every member of society had the right or duty to execute such a person by the sword. Seeing that all the people of Shechem had condoned Dinah’s rape by not trying Shechem, Shimon and Levi did not do anything wrong in killing them. Although most of the 7 Noachide commandments are negative commandments, i.e. “don’ts,” the commandment to have a judiciary is a positive commandment, and as such the principle of the existence of the commandment is equivalent to the sinner having been forewarned and exposed himself to execution by violating the commandment does not apply here. Failure to establish courts, while a violation of the commandment, does not result in the violator becoming guilty of the death penalty. After all, the inhabitants of the land of Canaan were guilty of many severe sins such as idolatry, incest etc., but this did not authorize Yaakov’s sons to play G’d’s executioner. On the other hand, raping one of their family members was a crime committed directly against Yaakov’s family, and this is why they were within their rights, basically, to avenge this wrong when there was no court that would do so. The people of Shechem were blindly obedient to their leader, not caring that by doing so they breached the covenant G’d had made with mankind after the deluge, a covenant based on the agreement to observe the 7 Noachide commandments that apply uniformly to all of mankind. Yaakov’s anger was based solely on his sons having exposed him to the danger of being killed by hugely superior forces of the surrounding region. He also was angry at the brothers having violated their own undertaking to live peacefully with these people on condition that they circumcise their males, a condition which they had fulfilled. These people had not harmed them individually or collectively at all, and their dishonouring their promise would ruin Yaakov’s reputation in the entire region.

And they said to them: We are not able to do this thing — to give our sister to a man who has a foreskin, for that would be a disgrace to us.

חרפה הוא THAT WERE A DISGRACE — Amongst us it is somewhat of a blot on our pedigree, for if one wishes to revile another, he says to him: “You are an uncircumcised person”, or “the son of an uncircumcised person”. The word חרפה always means “reviling”.

"A disgrace" — for all generations; and this is the meaning of "for he had committed an outrage in Israel" (Gen. 34:7). "Who has a foreskin" — the foreskin of the flesh. Its sense is something burdensome; and similarly: "of uncircumcised lips" (Ex. 6:12); "their ear is uncircumcised" (Jer. 6:10) — on account of the excess [flesh]. Those who say that Hashem told Abraham "be wholesome" (Gen. 17:1), implying that before his circumcision he was lacking, have the matter inverted. The animals prove the point [since they are whole without circumcision]. And if they ask: why was something that Hashem created cut away? — the navel cord likewise proves the point [since it too is cut, and this is no imperfection].

כי חרפה היא לנו, it would appear that none of the circumcised men among us were fit to marry our sister.

כי חרפה היא לנו, “for it is something shameful in our eyes.” Their argument was as follows: “if you do not circumcise yourselves as part of the bargain then one fine day you will declare all of us as baaley mum, cripples or deformed because we lack a foreskin.”

לתת את אחותינו, “to give our sister.” Afterwards they spoke of “we will take our daughter.” In the first instance they spoke on their own behalf, whereas later on they spoke on behalf of their father. It is possible that the word “our daughter” is used here in a sense similar to “our sister,” as we find in Kings II 8,18 where Yoram the son of King Yehoshaphat of Yehudah is reported to have taken a daughter of king Achav of Israel as a wife although Achav did not have a daughter. The word “daughter” there clearly refers to “sister.” This is also the way Targum Yonathan translates it.

Only on this condition will we agree to you: if you become like us, that every male among you be circumcised.

נאות לכם means WE WILL CONSENT UNTO YOU: it has the same meaning as (2 Kings 12:9) ויאותו “and they consented”. להמול means TO BE CIRCUMCISED — It is not an active infinitive (Kal), but a passive infinitive (Niphal).

Then we will give our daughters to you, and your daughters we will take for ourselves, and we will settle among you and become one people.

וְנָתַנּוּ THEN WILL WE GIVE — The second נ has a Dagesh because it serves the purpose of two -נ s - וְנָתַנְנוּ (cf. Rashi on Genesis חנני 33:11). ואת בנותיכם נקח לנו AND WE WILL TAKE YOUR DAUGHTERS TO US — You will find that in the proposition which Hamor made to Jacob (Genesis 34:9) and in the reply of Jacob’s sons to Hamor (in this verse) they (both parties to the proposition) regarded the sons of Jacob as being the more important — that they should take of the daughters of Shechem whomsoever they would select for themselves and that they should give their daughters to them (the men of Shechem) as they (Jacob’s sons) would think fit, as it is written, “and we will give our daughters’’ — as we think fit — “and we will take your daughters unto us” — whomsoever we please. When, however, Hamor and his son spoke to the inhabitants of their city (v. 21) they reversed the matter, saying, “their daughters we will take to us for wives, and our daughters we will give unto them", instead of saying “they will give their daughters to us, and they will take our daughters to themselves", in order to induce them to consent to be circumcised.

ונתנו את בנותינו לכם, "and then we will give our daughters to you, etc." Here the brothers displayed great astuteness. As a rule, swindlers prefer to be very vague when describing the conditions under which they enter into commitments; not only that, but they usually leave the other party many loopholes in order to lure that party into entering into the desired contract. The sons of Jacob reversed this procedure in order to remove any doubt from the people of Shechem that they were being tricked. They offered their daughters in marriage without reservations and explained that as a result they themselves would marry the local girls. All of this was designed to convince Chamor and his people that their intentions were honourable.

But if you do not accept from us to be circumcised, we will take our daughter and go.

"Our daughter" — because she was young. And they were speaking on behalf of their father.

ולקחנו את בתנו, even though she is at this point in time locked up in your house we will liberate her from you. והלכנו, with all our wealth which you would otherwise benefit from.

ואם לא תשמעו, "If you are not agreeable, etc." This was also a clever move. They did not threaten retaliatory action for the rape of their sister but only told Chamor that in that case they would take their sister and leave the region. They made it clear that they did feel insulted and that therefore they could not consider remaining in a region where rape went unopposed. On the other hand, if the people were to circumcise themselves en masse this would show a change of heart on their part towards the laws of sexual purity. It was the brothers' astuteness that caused Chamor to tell his people that the family of Jacob were sincere (verse 21). The brothers also intended to speed up a decision by Chamor and Shechem personally when they held out the prospect of "we will take our daughter and leave." Perhaps Chamor thought that as soon as Dinah would be removed from the region the brothers would prepare to take their revenge.

ולקחנו את בתינו, “we will take our houses, etc.” They did not threaten to liberate their sister by force. The reason they did not was because they were speaking on behalf of their father.

And their words were pleasing in the eyes of Hamor and in the eyes of Shechem the son of Hamor.

And the young man did not delay in doing the thing, for he had desired the daughter of Jacob; and he was more honored than all the household of his father.

"And he did not delay" (ve-lo eḥar) — this is not grammatically like "and he delayed until now" (Gen. 32:5), but rather it is from the heavy, doubled binyan [Pi'el]; and it is a past-tense verb, on the pattern of "Naboth was blessed" (1 Kings 21:13).

והוא נכבד, in spite of his high reputation he did not hesitate to agree to circumcise himself, because he had taken such a liking to the daughter of Yaakov.

והוא נכבד מכל בית אביו, “and he was the most revered person of his father’s family.” He knew that they would not refuse his request.

(1) LOST NO TIME. From the same root as (Exod. 22:28), "Do not put off," which is a pi'el, like (Exod. 23:24), "smash" [t'shaber]. (2) AND HE WAS RESPECTED. And people heeded him.

And Hamor and Shechem his son came to the gate of their city, and they spoke to the men of their city, saying:

These men are at peace with us; let them dwell in the land and engage in commerce in it — and the land is wide of extent before them. Their daughters let us take for ourselves as wives, and our daughters let us give to them.

שלמים means peaceable and whole hearted. והארץ הנה רחבת ידים FOR THE LAND, BEHOLD, IT IS LARGE ENOUGH (literally, wide-handed) — the metaphor is that of a man whose hand is large and generous, and the idea is: “You will lose nothing if they dwell and trade in the land, for much merchandise is brought here and there are no buyers for it”.

THESE MEN ARE PEACEABLE WITH US. The men of the city thought that they hated them as they saw them dejected, and it angered them very much. Perhaps they guarded themselves against them and installed in their city bars and doors, for Jacob’s sons were mighty men and valiant men for the war. But now Hamor and his son Shechem told them, “Do not fear and do not keep distant from them for they are whole-hearted with us.”

"They are at peace with us" — in peace. "Broad of hands" — [meaning] places [of space]; as in "and there shall be a place for you" (Deut. 23:13).

שלמים הם אתנו, they are of a totally peaceful disposition towards us. They do not intend to revenge themselves for the indignity their family has suffered.

שלמים הם אתנו, "they are at peace with us." They do not harbour hatred against us that we should have to be afraid they are out to trick us. When the Torah quotes Chamor and Shechem as saying: "we will take their daughters for ourselves," this was a clever ploy by Chamor and Shechem who wanted to make their own people believe them that Jacob's sons harboured no enmity because they considered the local people superior, so much so that they looked forward to intermarry with them.

רחבת ידים, “enough large places:” we find the word: יד used in this sense also in Deuteronomy. 23,13 ויד תהיה לך, “you shall have a small place there” and explained in this sense by Ibn Ezra.

שלמים הם אתנו, “they are of a peaceful disposition toward us.” Chamor and Shechem made this statement as the people of their town believed that Dinah’s family now hated everyone in their town, having had visual evidence of the faces of Yaakov’s sons after the rape of their sister. רחבת ידים, “the land is big enough,” according to Ibn Ezra this is a reference to the many areas in the region which offered good pasture.

Only on this condition will the men agree to dwell with us, to become one people: that every male among us be circumcised, just as they are circumcised.

בהמול means by every male of us being circumcised (infinitive Niphal).

"Ye'otu" (will consent) — from the root of "for unto You it is fitting" (Jer. 10:7); the quiescent letter hidden after the servile prefix-letter takes the place of the first root-letter (pe ha-po'al). "Be-himol" (by circumcising) — [its meaning] is explicit.

Their livestock and their property and all their animals — will they not be ours? Only let us agree to them, and they will dwell with us.

אך נאותה להם LET US CONSENT UNTO THEM in this matter, and because of this they will dwell with us.

‘MIKNEIHEM’ AND THEIR SUBSTANCE AND ALL THEIR BEASTS. The reason for referring to cattle by the word mikneihem is that beasts of the herds which are in the field are called mikneh — [from the root kanah, which means “acquire”] — because whether they are clean or unclean, they are the mainstay of a man’s substance, just as it is written, Behold, the hand of the Eternal is ‘b’miknecha’ (upon thy cattle) which are in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the herds, and upon the flocks. And those which do not constitute a herd, as, for example, single beasts in the house, are not called mikneh, and they are included in the term, and all their beasts. It may be that [mikneh and “all their beasts” both refer to the same cattle], and the redundancy is for the purpose of emphasis, meaning, and all their beasts which were very numerous.

Behold, they [the men of Shechem] had evil designs against Jacob and his sons — as is evident from their saying "their livestock and their acquisitions."

מקנהם וקניים וכל בהמתם, “their cattle, their chattels and all their livestock.” According to Nachmanides the word מקנה refers to animals which form part of the herd, and which represented the backbone of the family’s wealth. Animals that were not part of carefully supervised herds, are called בהמות, i.e. stray animals tagging along. It is also possible that the reason why Chamor spoke both about מקנה and about בהמות was to emphasise that the livestock of Yaakov’s family was extremely numerous.

And all who went out of the gate of their city heeded Hamor and Shechem his son, and every male — all who went out of the gate of his city — was circumcised.

כל יוצאי שער עירו, “here the Torah speaks about people leaving his city,” whereas in 23,10, it spoke about כל באי עירו, “all the people coming into the gate of the town.” In this instance no one was allowed to leave the city until after he had been circumcised. In chapter 23 above everybody came in order to pay their respects to Sarah on the occasion of her forthcoming burial.

And all they who came out of the gate of his city received from Hamor and from Shekem, his son; and they circumcised every male, all who came out of the gate of the city.

And it came to pass on the third day, when their pain prevailed over them, that two sons of Jacob — Simeon and Levi, brothers of Dinah — each took his sword, came upon the city that dwelt in security, and slew every male.

שני בני יעקב TWO OF THE SONS OF JACOB — They were his sons (the sons of Jacob, a wise and clever man), but they acted as any man named Simeon and Levi would do — as other people would do who were not his sons — for they did not take counsel with him (Genesis Rabbah 80:10). אחי דינה DINAH’S BROTHERS — because they risked their lives for her they are designated as her brothers (Genesis Rabbah 80:10) בטח IN SECURITY — because they (the men of Shechom) were ill. The Midrashic explanation, taking בטח in the sense of confident, is: that they relied upon the strength (i.e. the merits) of the old man (Jacob) (Genesis Rabbah 80:10).

"On the third day" — the third day is always severe, as it is half of a [lunar] quarter. This deed that Simeon and Levi did, they did with the knowledge of their brothers, as it is written "with deceit" (Gen. 34:13); and "the sons of Jacob" (Gen. 34:27) — these are all of them. Yet Jacob's anger burned specifically against Simeon and Levi, because they were the ones who killed the men of Shechem.

ויהרגו כל זכר, these men had not circumcised themselves in order to become Jews and embrace monotheism but only in order to lay their hands on the vast possessions of the family of Yaakov, as their leaders Chamor and Shechem had promised them.

ויהרגו כל זכר. They killed every male. Why did they kill people who had not actively committed a sin? Why did they not first kill the truly guilty, i.e. Shechem? Actually, the sons of Jacob did not intend to kill anyone except the guilty party; however, all the inhabitants formed a human barrier to protect their king and prince. As a result the sons of Jacob were forced to kill the townspeole under the heading of killing a רודף, a pursuer, someone who endangers the life of the avenger. When the Torah states that they killed all the males this means that they succeeded in killing Chamor and his son only after killing the other males in the town. Had they not done so they could not have executed someone who was guilty of death. Another reason they killed all the males in the city was that they had all been accessories to the crime by keeping Dinah captive after the rape. This was tantamount to kidnapping. According to the Noachidic law the penalty for kidnapping is death. Gentiles are not guilty of the death penalty for sleeping with an unmarried girl. You will note that the Torah (or the brothers) describes all the people of having "defiled their sister" (34,26). This shows that they all shared equally in the guilt of kidnapping. The reason the Torah does not speak about these people having "stolen" their sister is that the principal sin they were guilty of was that it was the kind of robbery which could not be made good. [If you kidnap a virgin and you give back a woman who has been defiled by sexual intercourse out of wedlock this is not a proper restoration. Ed.] The Torah makes it plain by using the term "they had defiled," that if the sin had not been one that could not be reversed the brothers would not have killed all the males in the town. While it is certainly true that the people of Shechem were not the only ones in the world guilty of such crimes, and Noachides who have committed robbery are all guilty of the death penalty, the brothers could certainly not be expected to play executioners in all such instances. They lacked the power to do so. Jacob himself alluded to this when he accused Shimon and Levi as "distressing" him, especially in view of the fact that his family was "numerically weak" (verse 30). Another reason why the Torah speaks of "who had defiled" is to justify the brothers looting the belongings of the inhabitants of Shechem. Their property served as דמי בושת, compensation for the humiliation Dinah had suffered at the hands of these people. The amount of such compensation is determined in accordance with the relative stature of the victim as well as the perpetrator of the crime. In this instance both Shechem and Dinah were of very elevated stature so that the compensation due was of the highest category. The entire possessions of the townspeople may not have sufficed to provide adequate compensation for the shame Dinah had suffered. She was a person who was unique in the whole world. When I mentioned earlier that a self-confessed sinner is free from financial penalties, this does not apply to the money paid as compensation for shaming someone (Ketuvot 41). In his Hilchot Melachim chapter 9,14, Maimonides explains that the reason all the inhabitants of Shechem were guilty of death was that they had failed to establish a judiciary which would deal with the robbery committed by Shechem. Whence does Maimonides know that the common people had to judge their king or crown prince? Is it not a fact that even amongst the Israelites individuals do not have to testify against the King, and one does not sit in judgment of him (Sanhedrin 16)? Accordingly, we are forced to conclude that the guilt of the people of Shechem consisted in their being active accessories to the crime. They may even have advised Shechem how to successfully rape Dinah. Nachmanides refutes Maimonides' argument claiming that the Noachides were not commanded to establish a permanent judiciary but to settle matters that come up for litigation. He claims that the death of the people of Shechem was primarily for the sin of idolatry which all of them had been guilty of for a long time. His words require proof, and they do not account for the brothers looting the town.

ויהי ביום השלישי בהיותם כואבים, “It was on the third day when they are in pain:” they were all in pain and regretted having agreed to undergo circumcision: when Yaakov’s sons heard about this and they also heard that Chamor and Sh’chem had altered the conditions they had agreed to with them, i.e. that no one was allowed to leave the town before he had undergone circumcision, plus their having presented the whole agreement as due to enhancing the honour of the people of Sh’chem instead of in response to an ultimatum by the sons of Yaakov, plus the fact that they boasted that henceforth the herds and flocks of Yaakov’s family would (verse 23) be theirs, they decided to attack the city’s inhabitants. The reason they had waited until the third day was that it took the people of Sh’chem until that day to complete the process of circumcising all the men and boys. On that day those who had been circumcised on the first day were still suffering from pains and relatively weak. This is why the Torah writes: ויבואו על הער בטח, “they came into the city unopposed, without having to worry.” This is also how Onkelos translated it. A different exegesis: Shimon and Levi entered the town while the inhabitants were sitting, feeling themselves secure. ויהרגו כל זכר, “they killed every male inhabitant; they were all guilty as gentiles are also commanded to appoint a judicial court in every town and when it became known that Sh’chem had raped Dinah and abducted her, refusing to release her, he should have been tried and convicted.”

ויהי ביום השלישי בהיותם כואבים, “it was on the third day, when they were in pain, etc.” It is an accepted fact in science that amongst all creatures the “third” is always relatively weak. It makes no difference whether it is the third day after a woman has given birth or whether it is the third day in the development of anything else. This is all due to the fact that the third day was under the aegis of the planet Mars. This is why the pain after a wound has been inflicted is always greater on the third day. This is why the pain of circumcision is greatest on the third day, weakening the person who has undergone this procedure. Our sages in Shabbat 86, have ruled that it is permissible to perform all kinds of procedures otherwise prohibited on the Sabbath for a person on the third day after he has been circumcised, as he is weak and even his life may be in some danger. Experts of a science known as Techunah, (a form of astronomy) wrote that the third day is the day under the influence of the horoscope cancer which in turn is presided over by Samael. Samael’s personal servant is the planet Mars. This knowledge prompted our sages in Taanit 27 to decree that the אנשי מעמד, the Israelites representing the people every day in the Temple, were not to fast on Sundays (first day of the week) as this was the third day after Adam had been created on Friday, the 6th day of the week, so that in counting a completed universe this day was actually the third day. This is also the reason we take some fragrant plants at the conclusion of the Sabbath and pronounce a benediction over them as the third day is ushered in and we want to face it having performed an additional mitzvah. Our spiritual self is strengthened by means of the pleasant fragrance. ויקחו שני בני יעקב שמעון ולוי, ”and Shimon and Levi, two of Yaakov’s sons, took, etc.” By reading the text carefully it is possible to deduce the ages of these two sons of Yaakov when they destroyed the city of Shechem. We know from the text that Yaakov stayed at his uncle Lavan for twenty years. During the first 14 years he worked for his two wives Rachel and Leah, whereas during the remaining six years he worked in order to establish an economic base for himself and his family. After the first seven years of his service Lavan cheated him by giving him Leah instead of Rachel as his wife. Leah bore Reuven for Yaakov after a pregnancy of seven months. Another seven months (or so) later Shimon was born. It follows that when Yaakov left Lavan and interrupted his journey at Sukkot, Shimon was 2 months shy of 12 years old. Yaakov stayed at Sukkot for 18 months before moving on to Shechem. This means that at that time Shimon was 13 years and four months. His younger brother Levi was only 12 years and nine months old at that time. The Torah called both of them by the name איש, meaning they had attained puberty. This is the meaning of the words איש חרבו, “each man his sword.”

And they came upon the city with confidence [betach]. Rashi explains that they were confident in the strength of the Elder. Some say that this Elder refers to Abraham their grandfather, who had prayed for Jacob’s children when they would come to Shechem, as Rashi explains in Parashat Lech Lecha regarding the verse And Abram passed through the land to the place of Shechem (Genesis 12:6). It can also be interpreted that [the word] betach [means] they were confident that the Canaanites and Perizzites would not seek to take revenge on their behalf [i.e., on behalf of the people of Shechem], because they would say: “Since they [the people of Shechem] entered into the religion of the circumcised, they are not of our people,” and thus they would give up on them.

ויהי ביום השלישי בהיותם כואבים, “It was on the third day, when they were in a lot of pain, etc.;” according to Rashi every wound or injury is especially painful on the third day after it has been inflicted. His explanation appears to conflict with what the Talmud stated in the chapter dealing with circumcision, where the washing of the wound on the third day if it occurs on the Sabbath is permitted, adding that it is clear from this that it may certainly be washed on the first day after the circumcision. (Shabbat, 134) Some commentators hold that the Torah described the last day when the brothers could kill with impunity, as they had failed to do so on the first or second day when no resistance at all would have been forthcoming. Some commentators say that the inhabitants of the town were numerous, and not all of them had gone along with the request of their king and prince until the third day of their deliberations. This was the day when all the male inhabitants of the town were in great pain and could not defend themselves. There is yet another opinion according to which the brothers actually killed the men of Shechem on the first day after their circumcision, the day which was the third day after Dinah’s rape.

And Hamor and Shechem his son they slew at the edge of the sword; and they took Dinah from the house of Shechem and went out.

ואת חמור ואת שכם בנו הרגו, they went looking for them and found them.

ויקחו את דינה מבית שכם, “they took Dinah from the house of Sh’chem;” Rabbi Yudon claims that they had to drag her along on the floor, as she was unwilling to come along willingly. Rabbi Chunia claims that it is a known fact that a girl or woman who has had sexual relations with a gentile is difficult to separate from that gentile (Compare Bereshit Rabbah 80,11).

And Hamor and Shekem his son they killed with the edge of the sword; and they took Dinah from the house of Shekem, and went forth.

The sons of Jacob came upon the slain to strip them, and they plundered the city that had defiled their sister.

על החללים UPON THE SLAIN — to strip the slain.

העיר אשר טמאו, unless according to the mores of Shechem (city) such behaviour was no longer considered despicable, Schechem would not have done what he did. He felt sure he could get away with it, as his townspeople would not object. However raping virgins was commonplace in Shechem already. They behaved in the manner described in Genesis 6,2 “they took women for themselves from wherever they chose.” [the punishment for this type of violence had been the deluge. Ed.]

בני יעקב באו על החללים, The sons of Jacob came upon the slain and plundered the city. This means that all of Jacob's sons participated in the looting. They were entitled to do so as they had all suffered humiliation by the rape of their sister. Each one was entitled to take his share. Maimonides has written in Hilchot Na-arah Betulah chapter 2 that the court gives due consideration to the respective stature in society of both the rapist and the victim before it decides the amount of money to award to the victim's father and to her family. Dinah's brothers were all included in what Maimonides described as the victim's "family." This is why they all assembled there to determine their respective shares of the compensation due them. When they determined that the combined wealth of the townspeople was not adequate, they simply carted off all their belongings on behalf of their father to whom all this belonged. Although we have a rule that if someone is executed for a crime we do not exact financial penalties in addition, this rule does not apply to Gentiles (compare Tossaphot Eyruvin 62).

Their flocks and their cattle and their donkeys, and whatever was in the city and whatever was in the field, they plundered.

And all their wealth and all their little ones and their wives they took captive and plundered, along with everything that was in the houses.

חילם means THEIR WEALTH. Examples are: (Deuteronomy 8:17) “hath gotten me this (חיל) wealth”; (Numbers 19:18) “and Israel acquireth (חיל) wealth”; (Psalms 49:11) “and they leave (חילם) their wealth to others”. שבו has the meaning of taking captive (i.e. it is the Kal. perfect, 3rd pl. of the root שבה and means “they took captive”), and therefore it is accented on the last syllable (whereas שָׁבוּ, accented on the first syllable, is the same form of the verb שוב and means “they returned”).

"All that was in the house" — meaning in the house of Hamor, or in the house of Shechem.

And Jacob said to Simeon and to Levi: You have troubled me, bringing enmity between us and the inhabitants of the land — the Canaanites and the Perizzites. I am a people few in number, and they will gather against me and strike me down, and I and my household will be destroyed.

עכרתם YE HAVE TROUBLED ME — This has the same meaning as (Berakhot 25b) “troubled (עכורים) waters” (i.e. waters that are disturbed, not clear). He meant “Now my mind will never be clear (without worry)”. There is an Agada, (Genesis Rabbah 80:12) “He said: the wine in the cask was clear but you have troubled it”. The Canaanites had a tradition that they would fall by the hands of the sons of Jacob, but they thought that this would happen only when the condition was fulfilled as expressed in the verse (Exodus 23:30) “when thou shalt in-crease, then shalt thou inherit the land”; consequently they had been silent until now (i.e. they had not attacked them). מתי מספר means A FEW MEN.

"Metei mispar" (few in number) — metei is equivalent to "men" (anashim); and that which can be counted is few. Therefore R. Aharon ha-Kohen, head of the academy, erred when he interpreted "and let his men (metav) be a number" (Deut. 33:6) according to its literal sense. "To make me odious" — meaning they will hate me, as a person hates something that has become putrid.

להבאישני, the local population would accuse us of having gone back on our agreement after the people of Shechem had circumcised themselves.

Yaakov said. Yaakov had thought that they intended to rescue Deenah with their subterfuge and perhaps to kill Shechem as well, not to slaughter the entire city.

עכרתם אותי, “you have caused me to become tainted.” Yaakov referred to their having spilled innocent blood. He used the term עכירה, similar to a person who introduces a turbid appearance into wine by adding sediments. Yaakov’s previously clear image had now been tainted. The inhabitants of the land were now able to point at Yaakov saying that he had dealt evilly with peaceful people. Bereshit Rabbah at the end of Genesis 80, describes this as a barrel of wine which had contained clear wine now having turned cloudy. Although it had been a tradition that the Canaanites would become the victims of the Jews, Yaakov felt his sons should have waited until they were numerically strong enough to overcome the Canaanites without miracles. Once they had taken possession of the land of Israel they could have punished the people of Shechem with Yaakov’s blessing. This is why he added ואני מתי מספר, “and I am few in number.”

And they said: Shall our sister be treated like a woman who goes out to the open field?

הכזונה implies as one unprotected. אחותנו The Targum renders it as an accusative — ית אחתנא “our sister”,) so that the meaning is: Should one (be permitted to) make our sister become as a woman who has no-one to protect her (Genesis Rabbah 80:12).

"And they said" — [that is,] Simeon and Levi. "Should he treat our sister as a harlot?" — [meaning,] Shechem [treated] our sister [thus].

?הכזונה, only a harlot does not have anyone standing up in her defense, avenging violence done to her. יעשה, “shall the people who you are afraid of rising up against us be allowed to get away with such conduct? את אחותנו, who was not a harlot. It is incumbent upon us to avenge her disgrace. Once the inhabitants of the region will understand this they will have no reason to attack us.”

ויאמרו הכזונה יעשה את אחותינו, They said: "Should we have let him treat our sister like a harlot?" We need to understand how such a reply could have had any bearing on Jacob's concern for the survival of his family in a possible confrontation with the other Emorites in the region? After all, Jewish law provides that if the surrender of a specific individual is demanded by enemy forces as a condition to save the lives of the remaining prisoners, then such an individual must be surrendered (Jerusalem Talmud Terumah chapter eight) in order to save the lives of all the people who this individual is part of. There is no requirement for all the people to become martyrs even if the alternative is the commission of a serious crime of ערוה, incest or other sexual crime. Seeing that this is so before such a sin has been committed, it is all the more so after the crime has already been committed and cannot be reversed! Perhaps the brothers merely wanted to calm the fears of their father saying that a confrontation with the Emorites would be a real danger only if they had killed the people of Shechem without an adequate reason. Under the circumstances, when kidnapping and rape had been committed, they did not think the other Emorites would raise much of a fuss. Legally speaking, of course, Shechem had not been guilty of harlotry seeing Dinah had been unattached at the time. Categories of sexual intercourse forbidden to the Gentiles include only homosexuality, adultery, bestiality, and intercourse with the sister of the same mother. It is also possible that the brothers considered their action as one that would serve notice on the Emorites not to take liberties with their family. Having seen what happened to an individual who used violence against a member of Jacob's family, the Emorites would take this to heart and be forewarned of the consequences of such deeds in the future.

?הכזונה יעשה את אחותנו,“is he (Sh’chem) to be allowed to treat our sister as if she were a harlot?” Rashi explains the word את in this phrase as emphasising the singular mode as the word אחותנו, occurs several times in the Bible in the plural mode although not spelled in the plural mode with the letter י. [In Aramaic it would then have to be spelled אחותנא instead of אחתנא.

הכזונה יעשה את אחותנו, “is our sister to be treated like a whore?” Rashi wrote כתרגומו ית אחתנא, but I have not been able to understand what he had in mind.