Difference between revisions of "Sin and Slaughter of Shekhem/2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Condoning the Act</b> – Ibn Kaspi and Abarbanel assert that the people of  Shekhem did not protest the taking of Dina, and as such were guilty of complicity.<fn>Ibn Kaspi points to Hashem's warning to Yechezkel that if he does not chastise wrongdoers, he himself will be held accountable: "בְּאָמְרִי לָרָשָׁע מוֹת תָּמוּת וְלֹא הִזְהַרְתּוֹ... הוּא רָשָׁע בַּעֲוֹנוֹ יָמוּת וְדָמוֹ מִיָּדְךָ אֲבַקֵּשׁ".</fn> Rambam adds that in not prosecuting Shekhem, they violated the Noachide law to institute legal procedures, which is itself punishable by death.<fn>Ramban questions Rambam, asserting that if this were true, then Yaakov should not have rebuked his children, but rather been the first to join them.  He suggasts that the Noachide law does not refer to the establishment of courts but rather to the making of laws.  Though the latter includes setting up a court system, negligence in that area does not incur death.  See also the Or HaChayyim who similarly questions Rambam's understanding.</fn></li> | <li><b>Condoning the Act</b> – Ibn Kaspi and Abarbanel assert that the people of  Shekhem did not protest the taking of Dina, and as such were guilty of complicity.<fn>Ibn Kaspi points to Hashem's warning to Yechezkel that if he does not chastise wrongdoers, he himself will be held accountable: "בְּאָמְרִי לָרָשָׁע מוֹת תָּמוּת וְלֹא הִזְהַרְתּוֹ... הוּא רָשָׁע בַּעֲוֹנוֹ יָמוּת וְדָמוֹ מִיָּדְךָ אֲבַקֵּשׁ".</fn> Rambam adds that in not prosecuting Shekhem, they violated the Noachide law to institute legal procedures, which is itself punishable by death.<fn>Ramban questions Rambam, asserting that if this were true, then Yaakov should not have rebuked his children, but rather been the first to join them.  He suggasts that the Noachide law does not refer to the establishment of courts but rather to the making of laws.  Though the latter includes setting up a court system, negligence in that area does not incur death.  See also the Or HaChayyim who similarly questions Rambam's understanding.</fn></li> | ||
| − | <li><b>Actively took Dina</b> – Or HaChayyim asserts that the people of the city participated in the taking of Dina, thereby transgressing the Noachide | + | <li><b>Actively took Dina</b> – Or HaChayyim asserts that the people of the city participated in the taking of Dina, thereby transgressing the Noachide law regarding theft.<fn>See above that this is a capital crime under the Noachide laws while rape is not.  He explains that the verse highlights that "they defiled her" rather than saying "and they took her" to show that the "stolen item" was not returnable.  Had it been, they would have retrieved Dina without killing the whole city.</fn></li> |
<li><b>Joined in the sexual assault</b> – Tosafot goes even a step further to suggest that Dina was raped by the other men of Shekhem as well.<fn>He apparently maintains that killing one who rapes is justified.</fn></li> | <li><b>Joined in the sexual assault</b> – Tosafot goes even a step further to suggest that Dina was raped by the other men of Shekhem as well.<fn>He apparently maintains that killing one who rapes is justified.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li>The brothers never meant the Shekhemites to circumcise themselves. Their speech was rather intended to shame and rile Shekehm and Chamor into fighting against them, enabling them to take revenge.</li> | <li>The brothers never meant the Shekhemites to circumcise themselves. Their speech was rather intended to shame and rile Shekehm and Chamor into fighting against them, enabling them to take revenge.</li> | ||
| − | <li>Alternatively,  the brothers hoped to convince Shekhem and his city to circumcise themselves so that they could kill them while they were weak.<fn></fn>  He suggests, though, that the real trickery lay in the intentional ambiguity of their words.  though they implied otherwise, they never actually agreed to let Shekhem marry Dina.<fn>They told Shekehm that if he were to circumcise himself:  "בְּזֹאת נֵאוֹת לָכֶם"  This was understood to mean that they would agree to the request to take Dina, but in reality all the brothers had said was that the act would be of benefit to them.</fn> Thus, in the end, they did not go back on their word.</li> | + | <li>Alternatively,  the brothers hoped to convince Shekhem and his city to circumcise themselves so that they could kill them while they were weak.<fn>This is how the Or HaChayyim reads the deceit as well.  He elaborates as to the "wisdom" of their trickery, pointing out how they managed to convince Shekhem and Chamor that they were sincere in their words.</fn>  He suggests, though, that the real trickery lay in the intentional ambiguity of their words.  though they implied otherwise, they never actually agreed to let Shekhem marry Dina.<fn>They told Shekehm that if he were to circumcise himself:  "בְּזֹאת נֵאוֹת לָכֶם"  This was understood to mean that they would agree to the request to take Dina, but in reality all the brothers had said was that the act would be of benefit to them.</fn> Thus, in the end, they did not go back on their word.</li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
| − | <point><b>Yaakov's reaction: "עכרתם אותי"</b> – This approach might claim that Yaakov did not question the morality of his | + | <point><b>Yaakov's reaction: "עכרתם אותי"</b> – This approach might claim that Yaakov did not question the morality of his children's actions but only chastised them that the deed was to endanger the family due to possible retaliation by surrounding peoples.</point> |
<point><b>Yaakov's rebuke in Bereshit 49</b> – Or HaChayyim suggests that Yaakov's words do not relate to the episode in Shekhem at all, but rather the sale of Yosef.  Thus here, too, there is no condemnation of the brothers' deeds.<fn>Abarbanel disagrees and suggests that Yaakov was unaware of the brothers' plan to kill the enitre city and did not condone it. Had they only killed Shekehm, that might have been justified, but the rest of the city was undeserving of death, especially after agreeing to enter into a covenant with Hashem.  As such, it was clear that the brothers were not motivated by righteous anger, but acted violently just to gain booty. <br/>As Abarbanel earlier justified the brothers' actions by suggesting that the inhabitants of the city legally deserved death for complicity, it is not clear why Yaakov should condemn them.</fn></point> | <point><b>Yaakov's rebuke in Bereshit 49</b> – Or HaChayyim suggests that Yaakov's words do not relate to the episode in Shekhem at all, but rather the sale of Yosef.  Thus here, too, there is no condemnation of the brothers' deeds.<fn>Abarbanel disagrees and suggests that Yaakov was unaware of the brothers' plan to kill the enitre city and did not condone it. Had they only killed Shekehm, that might have been justified, but the rest of the city was undeserving of death, especially after agreeing to enter into a covenant with Hashem.  As such, it was clear that the brothers were not motivated by righteous anger, but acted violently just to gain booty. <br/>As Abarbanel earlier justified the brothers' actions by suggesting that the inhabitants of the city legally deserved death for complicity, it is not clear why Yaakov should condemn them.</fn></point> | ||
| − | <point><b>Hashem's evaluation | + | <point><b>Hashem's evaluation</b><ul> |
| − | <li>Abarbanel suggests that Hashem agreed with the brothers, as evidenced by the fact that He put fear into the surrounding cities and protected Yaakov's family.</li> | + | <li><b>Hashem assented</b> – Abarbanel suggests that Hashem agreed with the brothers' acts, as evidenced by the fact that He put fear into the surrounding cities and protected Yaakov's family. </li> |
| − | <li>Many of the classical sources suggest that the act was sanctioned explicitly by Hashem, who might have even have put the thought into their heads.<fn>See Theodotus who says this or Judith who suggests that Hashem put a sword into Shimon's hands.  In the Testament of Levi, Levi points out how he knew this was doing Hashem's bidding because when Sarah and Rivkah were similarly in danger of being ravished, Hashem also acted to prevent the atrocity.</fn> Jubilees further asserts that the brothers were "written for a blessing" for their act.  Soon after, Levi was rewarded with the priesthood.<fn>Jubilees only has Levi rewarded because he marries within the family of Terach while Shimon marries a Cananite. For Jubilees, it was not the rape itself which was so problematic, but the potential marriage to a non-Jew.  Thus, in Shimon's intermarriage, he undid any merit he might have gained by trying to prevent Dina's intermarriage.</fn></li> | + | <li><b>Hashem rewarded</b> – Many of the classical sources suggest that the act was sanctioned explicitly by Hashem, who might have even have put the thought into their heads.<fn>See Theodotus who says this or Judith who suggests that Hashem put a sword into Shimon's hands.  In the Testament of Levi, Levi points out how he knew this was doing Hashem's bidding because when Sarah and Rivkah were similarly in danger of being ravished, Hashem also acted to prevent the atrocity.</fn> Jubilees further asserts that the brothers were "written for a blessing" for their act.  Soon after, Levi was rewarded with the priesthood.<fn>Jubilees only has Levi rewarded because he marries within the family of Terach while Shimon marries a Cananite. For Jubilees, it was not the rape itself which was so problematic, but the potential marriage to a non-Jew.  Thus, in Shimon's intermarriage, he undid any merit he might have gained by trying to prevent Dina's intermarriage.</fn></li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Taking of the Spoils</b> – Or HaChayyim justifies the looting as payment for embarrassing Dina and the family ("דמי בושת").</point> | <point><b>Taking of the Spoils</b> – Or HaChayyim justifies the looting as payment for embarrassing Dina and the family ("דמי בושת").</point> | ||
| − | <point><b>Shimon and Levi versus the other brothers</b></point> | + | <point><b>Shimon and Levi versus the other brothers</b> – Abarbanel and Or HaChayyim do not differentiate between the brothers and presentt hem as all acting together.</point> |
| − | <point><b>Why wait for the third day?</b> According to Abarbanel the brothers killed the men on the third day after taking Dina captive, immediately after the circumcision | + | <point><b>Why wait for the third day?</b> According to Abarbanel the brothers killed the men on the third day after taking Dina captive, immediately after the circumcision.  At this moment they were both weak and in great pain and, thus, easily overcome.</point> |
| − | <point><b>Polemical motivations</b></point> | + | <point><b>Polemical motivations</b> – Jubilees</point> |
</opinion> | </opinion> | ||
<opinion name="">Reneged on the Deal | <opinion name="">Reneged on the Deal | ||
Version as of 04:35, 4 December 2014
Shimon and Levi in Shekhem
Exegetical Approaches
Fundamentally Justified
Complicit in the Original Sin
Sources:Jubilees, Judith, Testament of Levi, Joseph and Aseneth, Baalei HaTosafot, Rambam, R. Yosef ibn Kaspi, Abarbanel, Or HaChayyim #21
Did Shekhem deserve death? Rambam, Abarbanel and Or HaChayyim maintain that the act of taking DIna against her will falls under the category of "theft" which is a capital crime under the Noachide laws.2 Tosafot, on the other hand, apparently assumes that it is justified to punish rape with death, even though neither Noachide nor Torah law does so.34
In what did the city sin? These commentators differ in their assessment of the specific wrongdoing of the people of the city:
- Condoning the Act – Ibn Kaspi and Abarbanel assert that the people of Shekhem did not protest the taking of Dina, and as such were guilty of complicity.5 Rambam adds that in not prosecuting Shekhem, they violated the Noachide law to institute legal procedures, which is itself punishable by death.6
- Actively took Dina – Or HaChayyim asserts that the people of the city participated in the taking of Dina, thereby transgressing the Noachide law regarding theft.7
- Joined in the sexual assault – Tosafot goes even a step further to suggest that Dina was raped by the other men of Shekhem as well.8
"אֲשֶׁר טִמְּאוּ" – Tosafot, Ibn Kaspi and Or HaChayyim point to these words as evidence that the entire city was implicated in the crime.
"וַיַּעֲנוּ בְנֵי יַעֲקֹב... בְּמִרְמָה" – Abarbanel raises two possible understandings of the brothers' plan:
- The brothers never meant the Shekhemites to circumcise themselves. Their speech was rather intended to shame and rile Shekehm and Chamor into fighting against them, enabling them to take revenge.
- Alternatively, the brothers hoped to convince Shekhem and his city to circumcise themselves so that they could kill them while they were weak.9 He suggests, though, that the real trickery lay in the intentional ambiguity of their words. though they implied otherwise, they never actually agreed to let Shekhem marry Dina.10 Thus, in the end, they did not go back on their word.
Yaakov's reaction: "עכרתם אותי" – This approach might claim that Yaakov did not question the morality of his children's actions but only chastised them that the deed was to endanger the family due to possible retaliation by surrounding peoples.
Yaakov's rebuke in Bereshit 49 – Or HaChayyim suggests that Yaakov's words do not relate to the episode in Shekhem at all, but rather the sale of Yosef. Thus here, too, there is no condemnation of the brothers' deeds.11
Hashem's evaluation
- Hashem assented – Abarbanel suggests that Hashem agreed with the brothers' acts, as evidenced by the fact that He put fear into the surrounding cities and protected Yaakov's family.
- Hashem rewarded – Many of the classical sources suggest that the act was sanctioned explicitly by Hashem, who might have even have put the thought into their heads.12 Jubilees further asserts that the brothers were "written for a blessing" for their act. Soon after, Levi was rewarded with the priesthood.13
Taking of the Spoils – Or HaChayyim justifies the looting as payment for embarrassing Dina and the family ("דמי בושת").
Shimon and Levi versus the other brothers – Abarbanel and Or HaChayyim do not differentiate between the brothers and presentt hem as all acting together.
Why wait for the third day? According to Abarbanel the brothers killed the men on the third day after taking Dina captive, immediately after the circumcision. At this moment they were both weak and in great pain and, thus, easily overcome.
Polemical motivations – Jubilees
Reneged on the Deal
Sources:Sefer HaYashar, Sefer Yosef HaMekannei, Peirush HaRosh, Hadar Zekeinim, Ma'asei Hashem, HaKetav VeHaKabbalah
Yaakov's reaction
Hashem's evaluation
"וַיַּעֲנוּ בְנֵי יַעֲקֹב... בְּמִרְמָה"
"אֲשֶׁר טִמְּאוּ"
Why did they kill them on the third day?
Taking of the Spoils
Shimon and Levi versus the other brothers
Yaakov's blessing in Bereshit 49
Polemical motivations
Practically Necessary
To Retrieve Dina
Yaakov's reaction
Hashem's evaluation
"וַיַּעֲנוּ בְנֵי יַעֲקֹב... בְּמִרְמָה"
"אֲשֶׁר טִמְּאוּ"
Why did they kill them on the third day?
Taking of the Spoils
Shimon and Levi versus the other brothers
Yaakov's blessing in Bereshit 49
Polemical motivations
Deterrence for the Future
Yaakov's reaction
Hashem's evaluation
"וַיַּעֲנוּ בְנֵי יַעֲקֹב... בְּמִרְמָה"
"אֲשֶׁר טִמְּאוּ"
Why did they kill them on the third day?
Taking of the Spoils
Shimon and Levi versus the other brothers
Yaakov's blessing in Bereshit 49
Polemical motivations
Sinned
Sources:Ramban, R. Hirsch, R. D"Z Hoffmann
Yaakov's reaction
Hashem's evaluation
"וַיַּעֲנוּ בְנֵי יַעֲקֹב... בְּמִרְמָה"
"אֲשֶׁר טִמְּאוּ"
Why did they kill them on the third day?
Taking of the Spoils
Shimon and Levi versus the other brothers
Yaakov's blessing in Bereshit 49
Polemical motivations
