פרשה: וישלח · עלייה: חמישי (הוד)

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.

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."

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

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

קום עלה בית אל, "Arise and proceed to Bet El, and settle there." The reason G'd said that Jacob should settle there though Bet El is in the land of the Canaanites is to reassure Jacob that he had nothing to fear from the local population.

The meaning could also be that G'd told Jacob to settle in Bet El in preference to his present location near Shechem. He should not settle anywhere until he had built an altar at the site he had experienced the vision of the ladder.

הסירו את אלוהי הנכר, "Remove the foreign gods!" Seeing that Jacob was about to leave the present location he was afraid that perhaps someone would take along trinkets which had served the people of Shechem as idols. Since Jacob's entourage did not include idol worshippers of the local population there had not been anyone who could neutralise these gods before they had come into the tents of Jacob's camp. Once that happened there is no way a Jew can neutralise these gods except by destroying them completely.

Avodah Zarah 43 teaches that when one forces a Gentile to renounce his idol or even that belonging to a friend of his, such renunciation is legally valid. Once the idol has become the possession of a Jew, the only way it can be neutralised is by utterly destroying it. The Talmud distinguishes between adult Gentiles and children, however. The reason Jacob or the brothers did not force the surviving women of Shechem to neutralise these gods may have been that those women were halachically in the same category as children, i.e. that their actions had no validity in law. It is also possible that the sons of Jacob had simply not been careful to differentiate between different kinds of the loot. When they examined it at home it was already too late to do anything about neutralising these objects and making them usable for a Jew. Some of these idols may even have been hidden within other larger vessels which the sons of Jacob had captured. Another possibility is that the gods which had been neutralised in time somehow became mixed with others which had not.

Jacob instructed the members of his household to purify themselves because contact with idols defiles a person. Maimonides writes in Hilchot Avot Ha-Tumah chapter six that any אב הטומאה, source of serious impurity, which confers impurity through touch or through carrying same, not only confers impurity on any person who touches same but also on anyone touching or carrying objects that have been in touch with the person who is אב הטומאה. Accordingly, Jacob was quite right when he instructed his people to purify themselves and their clothing even if not they personally, but only their clothing had been in contact with the idolatrous trinket. Jacob was also very precise in referring to שמלותיכם, your garments. He meant that the garments worn by the people of Shechem at the time they were slain had to be purified also.

You may ask that there should have been no need to change clothing seeing that clothing could have become defiled only through direct contact with the idolatrous object, an אב הטומאה, and even if these garments had been in direct contact with the idolatrous object they could not have conferred impurity on a human being seeing they themselves were not primary sources of impurity. When we read in Psalms 106,28: ויאכלו מזבחי מתים, "they ate sacrifices offered to the dead," the word "dead" is understood to be a reference to idolatry. Idolatry and the dead are equated halachically for the purpose of the transference of impurity. Chulin 3 states that the sword of a slain person is of the same degree of impurity as the person who has been slain with it. [normally it would be of a lesser degree, seeing it is not the original source of that impurity, Ed.] According to Maimonides Hilchot Tum-at met chapter chapter 5 the example of "sword" is applicable to any of the objects that were attached to the slain person at the time he died, including his garments. According to the foregoing the garments of the people of Shechem then were capable of transferring impurity to human beings just as the sword which kills a person.

ויסעו, ויהי חתת אלוקים על הערים, They departed; the fear of the Lord was on the cities in their region. Perhaps the Torah informs us here of the surprising fact that although the departure of Jacob's family from Shechem must have been perceived by the local inhabitants as a flight, they were so overcome with the fear of the Lord that they did not pursue them. Alternatively: although by the time the local inhabitants became aware of it, Jacob's family had long gone and thereby escaped their determination to attack them, they were so afraid of the Lord that they decided not to give chase.

ויקראו למקום א־ל בית אל, He named the place El Bet El. Although Jacob had already named this place Bet El when he fled from Esau, he repeated naming the place El Bet El; he meant that G'd specifically associated His name with that site. The reason he thought so was that G'd had revealed Himself to him there. The reason he returned to this place was that G'd had meanwhile fulfilled the promise He made to Jacob at the time of his flight from Esau. The site had therefore assumed an even higher degree of sanctity in Jacob's eyes.

לא יקרא שמך יעקב כי אם ישראל, "You will not be called Jacob but Israel, etc." We need to understand the difference between when G'd renamed Abram and when he renamed Jacob. Berachot 13 states that anyone who calls Abraham Abram nowadays violates a positive commandment, whereas it is permissible to refer to Jacob as either Jacob or Israel. Although our rabbis in the Talmud there point out that the Torah itself refers to Israel as Jacob after G'd renamed him, in view of the fact that we ignore the words לא יקרא when it comes to Jacob, why should the same rule not apply to Abraham and we should have the choice of calling him by either name?

Perhaps the very fact that G'd limited the good news when He renamed Jacob by saying: "your name is Jacob," made this change of name qualitatively different from that of Abraham at the time. There had been no need for G'd to repeat "your name is Jacob." Who did not know this? Surely what G'd meant by this was that Jacob's permanent name would remain Jacob, but that on some occasions he would be referred to by an additional name, i.e. Israel. Why would it bother G'd that we should not refer to Abraham's original name? I believe there is a very good reason. We have to remember that names describe the nature of its bearers' souls, their essence. The Talmud Berachot 7 illustrates this point. Jacob's essence then is described by the name Jacob. Whenever he enjoyed a large measure of Holy Spirit he was referred to as "Israel." There is certainly no reason why Jacob should be deprived of his original name on account of an occasional infusion of רוח הקודש. It was quite different in the case of Abraham who retained all the letters of his original name in his expanded name also. This is why G'd commanded to call him only by his new and expanded name Abraham. By doing so one did not deny his original name at all. Perhaps Chronicles I,1 26 refers to this when it states: "Abram is Abraham." When the Torah said: "your name shall not be called, etc," the meaning is that it should not be called exclusively Jacob but also Israel. This is exactly parallel to Genesis 17,5 where Abraham's name was changed.