וישלח

The deception against Shechem

In the previous post we suggested that the Torah's judgement of Yaakov, considered in the broader narrative, is unequivocal in condemning the tactics employed to obtain the berachot. When it comes to the judgement of Shimon and Levi in the episode of Shechem, we are faced with a much harder problem due to the seemingly conflicting views from within and from without the narrative.

Before discussing the question of moral judgement, however, we need to address some more immediate questions.

Upon hearing the news of Dinah's rape, the brothers are distressed. Shechem, together with his father Chamor, propose that Shechem marry Dinah as part of a wider alliance between the groups. In introducing the response of the brothers, the verse notes that they responded 'deceitfully':

וַיַּעֲנוּ בְנֵי־יַעֲקֹב אֶת־שְׁכֶם וְאֶת־חֲמוֹר אָבִיו בְּמִרְמָה וַיְדַבֵּרוּ אֲשֶׁר טִמֵּא אֵת דִּינָה אֲחֹתָם (בראשית לד:יח)

What exactly was the deception and, relatedly, why did Yaakov criticise Shimon and Levi? A quick survey of the classical commentaries suggests two main approaches:

Ramban / Ibn Ezra

The circumcision proposal was a ruse to weaken the townsmen so that they could kill the perpetrators and rescue Dinah. Yaakov and all the brothers were aligned on the plan but Shimon and Levi broke rank and killed all the males in the city. Only Shimon and Levi are therefore singled out for criticism by Yaakov as the mass killing was not part of the original plan.

The main difficulty in this approach is that it fails to explain why the Torah focuses only on Shimon and Levi when reporting the rescue of Dinah. Did the other brothers not participate in the basic plan? On a straightforward reading, it seems that the other brothers only enter to pick up the spoils after Shimon and Levi have exited the city with Dinah. 

The criticism of Yaakov is also difficult to understand:

וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אֶל־שִׁמְעוֹן וְאֶל־לֵוִי עֲכַרְתֶּם אֹתִי לְהַבְאִישֵׁנִי בְּיֹשֵׁב הָאָרֶץ בַּכְּנַעֲנִי וּבַפְּרִזִּי וַאֲנִי מְתֵי מִסְפָּר וְנֶאֶסְפוּ עָלַי וְהִכּוּנִי וְנִשְׁמַדְתִּי אֲנִי וּבֵיתִי (בראשית לד:ל)

If the original plan was to kill just the perpetrators, then this would have put them at greater risk of retaliation by the surviving residents. Perhaps these points can be answered but most difficult of all is the response of Shimon and Levi. If Yaakov consented to the preemptive attack he can hardly be accused of enabling Dinah to be treated as a harlot.    

Seforno / Bechor Shor / Shadal[1]

According to this approach, the circumcision proposal was a bluff. The assumption of the brothers was that Shechem would not be willing, or would not be able, to convince his fellow townsmen to undertake such a painful act. Accordingly he would be forced to return Dinah to her family. This approach is supported by the specific inclusion of the negative at the end of the proposal:    

וְאִם־לֹא תִשְׁמְעוּ אֵלֵינוּ לְהִמּוֹל וְלָקַחְנוּ אֶת־בִּתֵּנוּ וְהָלָכְנוּ (בראשית לד:יז)

According to this approach, the way the story unfolds is very clear. To the shock and horror of Yaakov and his family, their bluff is called. By way of a persuasive (though disingenuous) speech, Shechem and Chamor successfully convince the townsmen to perform the circumcision.

At this point, as the family are sitting in despair, Shimon and Levi decide to take matters into their own hands. The other brothers do not join in as this entire act was Shimon and Levi's initiative and was without Yaakov's consent or knowledge. It is thus also clear why Shimon and Levi are singled out for criticism by Yaakov.

The startling implication of this approach is that Yaakov would have preferred to keep to the agreement then to take military action.[2] As surprising as this may seem, this is part of the underlying tension which runs through the story. Dinah is introduced in this episode as the 'daughter of Leah' to provide the necessary context for the dispute between Yaakov (whose favoured wife was Rachel), and Shimon and Levi (sons of Leah and full brothers to Dinah). When the news is reported to Yaakov and the brothers, there is a huge difference in their reactions:

וְיַעֲקֹב שָׁמַע כִּי טִמֵּא אֶת־דִּינָה בִתּוֹ וּבָנָיו הָיוּ אֶת־מִקְנֵהוּ בַּשָּׂדֶה וְהֶחֱרִשׁ יַעֲקֹב עַד־בֹּאָם (בראשית לד:ה)

וּבְנֵי יַעֲקֹב בָּאוּ מִן־הַשָּׂדֶה כְּשָׁמְעָם וַיִּתְעַצְּבוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים וַיִּחַר לָהֶם מְאֹד כִּי־נְבָלָה עָשָׂה בְיִשְׂרָאֵל לִשְׁכַּב אֶת־בַּת־יַעֲקֹב וְכֵן לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה (בראשית לד:ז)

Though Yaakov's silence should not be construed as indifference, the contrast is nonetheless illuminating. The question at the back of the mind of the reader is would Yaakov have reacted in the same way if it were a son or daughter of Rachel? We are provided with the answer in due course when Yosef is reported as missing: 

וַיִּקְרַע יַעֲקֹב שִׂמְלֹתָיו וַיָּשֶׂם שַׂק בְּמָתְנָיו וַיִּתְאַבֵּל עַל־בְּנוֹ יָמִים רַבִּים׃ וַיָּקֻמוּ כָל־בָּנָיו וְכָל־בְּנֹתָיו לְנַחֲמוֹ וַיְמָאֵן לְהִתְנַחֵם וַיֹּאמֶר כִּי־אֵרֵד אֶל־בְּנִי אָבֵל שְׁאֹלָה וַיֵּבְךְּ אֹתוֹ אָבִיו׃ (בראשית לז:ד-ה)[3]

As ingenious as this approach may be, it seems to me that it suffers from a fatal flaw. The word מרמה and its derivatives, are used in four other key stories in Bereshit, all in relatively close proximity and ostensibly connected. In each case the deception referred to is a brazen act constituting falsehood rather than a mere bluff. It does not seem likely that such a word would be applied to describe a proposal where the terms themselves are clear and fair.

This leads us to suggest a variation of the above approach.

Which side of the deceit is Yaakov on?

Let us start with another question. As mentioned before, Yaakov hears the news whilst the other brothers are out in the field. This detail, however, seems extraneous to the story. Why is it important for us to know that they heard the report of the rape whilst in different locations? A possible answer was already alluded to - namely, to highlight the contrast between the passive reaction of Yaakov and the distress and anger of the brothers. However, this seems insufficient as the text could have simply reported the different reactions without reporting their separate geographies. It seems to me that the true significance of this separation relates to the fact that it enabled the brothers to conjure up a plan on the way home which Yaakov would not necessarily have been (fully) aware of. Whilst Yaakov is busy hosting Shechem awaiting the return of the brothers, the brothers are planning their deceptive manoeuvre. It is thus specifically the brothers who 'deceitfully' respond to Shechem and Chamor:

וַיַּעֲנוּ בְנֵי־יַעֲקֹב אֶת־שְׁכֶם וְאֶת־חֲמוֹר אָבִיו בְּמִרְמָה וַיְדַבֵּרוּ אֲשֶׁר טִמֵּא אֵת דִּינָה אֲחֹתָם (בראשית לד:יג)

To make this more palatable it is worth highlighting several points. First, as strange as it may seem to the modern mind, the offer of an attacker to marry the victim of rape was not only legitimate but would go some way to repair the harm caused, as subsequent to the rape, their marriage prospects would be greatly diminished (see Devarim 23:28-29). Second, notwithstanding the initial assault, the relationship seems to transform into something deeper and perhaps even mutual:

וַתִּדְבַּק נַפְשׁוֹ בְּדִינָה בַּת־יַעֲקֹב וַיֶּאֱהַב אֶת־הַנַּעֲרָ וַיְדַבֵּר עַל־לֵב הַנַּעֲרָ (בראשית לד:ג)

Compare this incident, for example, to the rape of Tamar, where the text employs some of the terminology of our story but a quite different reaction is recorded on the part of the attacker:

וַתֹּאמֶר לוֹ אַל־אָחִי אַל־תְּעַנֵּנִי כִּי לֹא־יֵעָשֶׂה כֵן בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אַל־תַּעֲשֵׂה אֶת־הַנְּבָלָה הַזֹּאת׃ וַאֲנִי אָנָה אוֹלִיךְ אֶת־חֶרְפָּתִי וְאַתָּה תִּהְיֶה כְּאַחַד הַנְּבָלִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַתָּה דַּבֶּר־נָא אֶל־הַמֶּלֶךְ כִּי לֹא יִמְנָעֵנִי מִמֶּךָּ׃ וְלֹא אָבָה לִשְׁמֹעַ בְּקוֹלָהּ וַיֶּחֱזַק מִמֶּנָּה וַיְעַנֶּהָ וַיִּשְׁכַּב אֹתָהּ׃ וַיִּשְׂנָאֶהָ אַמְנוֹן שִׂנְאָה גְּדוֹלָה מְאֹד כִּי גְדוֹלָה הַשִּׂנְאָה אֲשֶׁר שְׂנֵאָהּ מֵאַהֲבָה אֲשֶׁר אֲהֵבָהּ וַיֹּאמֶר־לָהּ אַמְנוֹן קוּמִי לֵכִי׃ (שמואל ב' יג:יב-טו)

In other words, the Torah goes out of its way to moderate the severity of the actions of Shechem. Perhaps this is intended to explain, but not necessarily to condone, the hesitancy of Yaakov to act against Shechem. 

Finally, it should be noted that there was no injunction at the time against intermarriage with the local population. We are of course aware that for Yitzchak and Yaakov it was deemed necessary that they marry someone from outside of the land of Israel, but this was mainly out of concern of assimilation into the local families and clans. As the nation became more established and their own identity and presence strengthened, this was no longer a priority.[4] 

All of this is by no means intended to justify the actions of Shechem, but it lends context to why it may appear that Yaakov was willing to entertain the proposal post factum - once Shechem and Chamor had fulfilled their side of the agreement. This would fit the general mould of Yaakov who, following the painful fallout from the deceit of his father, cannot tolerate any deceit from his side.[5]

This approach would explain why Yaakov reacted so negatively to their actions. It would similarly explain the response of Shimon and Levi. If Yaakov was angry that they should inly have killed the direct perpetrators, then their response – הכזונה יעשה אחותינו – does not address the issue at hand. On the other hand, if we say that what was at stake here was the choice between accepting the business proposal of Shechem in exchange for Dinah's hand in marriage (hence the reference to 'harlotry') or not, then their message to Yaakov is eminently clear.[6]

The moral judgement

In light of the above we may revisit the question of the Torah's moral judgement. Within the narrow boundaries of the narrative, Shimon and Levi are portrayed as the heroes who will not standby whilst their sister is abused. They are the ones who refuse to be bought off by Shechem and Chamor's economic incentives and, ultimately, they risk their lives to save their sister. Most significantly, Shimon and Levi are given the last word in the dispute with Yaakov.

The fears of Yaakov that the locals will attack him are in fact never realised thus undercutting his main argument and vindicating Shimon and Levi:

 וַיִּסָּעוּ וַיְהִי חִתַּת אֱלֹקים עַל־הֶעָרִים אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתֵיהֶם וְלֹא רָדְפוּ אַחֲרֵי בְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב (בראשית לה:ה)

Furthermore, by distancing Shimon and Levi from the plundering, Shimon and Levi are portrayed as singularly focused on Dinah's rescue with no ulterior motive.

But this is not the end of the matter. On Yaakov's deathbed he revisits the incident:

שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי אַחִים כְּלֵי חָמָס מְכֵרֹתֵיהֶם׃ בְּסֹדָם אַל־תָּבֹא נַפְשִׁי בִּקְהָלָם אַל־תֵּחַד כְּבֹדִי כִּי בְאַפָּם הָרְגוּ אִישׁ וּבִרְצֹנָם עִקְּרוּ־שׁוֹר׃ אָרוּר אַפָּם כִּי עָז וְעֶבְרָתָם כִּי קָשָׁתָה אֲחַלְּקֵם בְּיַעֲקֹב וַאֲפִיצֵם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל (בראשית מט:ה-ז)

It is Yaakov, then, that has the last word after all.

The contradiction, it seems, is intended to reflect a complex duality. Whilst their passionate reactions were honorary and commendable, their defiance betrays their imprudence. They have the last word in our narrative, but the exaggerated strength of their convictions and the rhetoric employed, raises an eyebrow. Taking the law into one's own hands based on one's own sense of justice is always a precarious endeavour and fraught with danger. That danger is plainly evident in the sequel when they again act extra-judicially, only this time to plot against their brother, Yosef. Not without good reason does Rashi see Shimon and Levi as the chief instigators there:

וַיֹּאמְרוּ אִישׁ אֶל אָחִיו, וְעַתָּה לְכוּ וְנַהַרְגֵהוּ - מִי הֵם? אִ"תֹּ רְאוּבֵן אוֹ יְהוּדָה, הֲרֵי לֹא הִסְכִּימוּ בַּהֲרִיגָתוֹ; אִ"תֹּ בְּנֵי הַשְּׁפָחוֹת, הֲרֵי לֹא הָיְתָה שִׂנְאָתָן שְׁלֵמָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וְהוּא נַעַר אֶת בְּנֵי בִלְהָה וְאֶת בְּנֵי זִלְפָּה וְגוֹ', יִשָּׂשכָר וּזְבוּלֻן לֹא הָיוּ מְדַבְּרִים בִּפְנֵי אֲחֵיהֶם הַגְּדוֹלִים מֵהֶם; עַל כָּרְחֲךָ שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי הֵם שֶׁקְּרָאָם אֲבִיהֶם אַחִים (רש"י – בראשית מט:ה)[7]

When Yaakov curses Shimon and Levi on his deathbed, he too appears to link the two incidents (see 49:6 above) and the Midrash notes the significance of this link:

הִתְחִיל קוֹרֵא שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי אַחִים, אַחִים דִּפְחָתָא, אָמַר לָהֶם אַחִים הֱיִיתֶם בְּדִינָה, דִּכְתִיב (בראשית לד, כה): וַיִּקְחוּ שְׁנֵי בְנֵי יַעֲקֹב שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי אֲחֵי דִינָה אִישׁ חַרְבּוֹ, וְלֹא אַחִים לְיוֹסֵף שֶׁמְּכַרְתֶּם אוֹתוֹ (בראשית רבה צט:ז)

Yaakov's prophetic condemnation of Shimon and Levi at the end of his life causes us to wonder whether they acted beyond the scope of the limited objective of rescuing Dinah? Was it a rescue operation or was it vengeance, or a mixture of both? Unlike Yaakov's initial rebuke, which was based on practical considerations, this time it is a moral challenge. They are accused of killing out of anger. Within the immediate story, where Shimon and Levi risk their lives for the sake of Dinah, there is no place for criticism – especially when the alternative position is the passivity of Yaakov. Once the dust has settled, however, there is room for reflection and refinement. The refinement of the character trait of Levi will accompany us throughout the rest of the Torah.

The character development of Levi

In the prelude to Moshe's birth, his parents (as yet unknown) are introduced as follows:

וַיֵּלֶךְ אִישׁ מִבֵּית לֵוִי וַיִּקַּח אֶת־בַּת־לֵוִי (שמות ב:א)

The anonymity itself is interesting but for our purposes I would like to note the emphasis on the tribe. A man from the tribe of Levi unites with a woman from the tribe of Levi for the purpose of defying the decree of Pharaoh. The only direct reference we have until this point to the character personified by Levi is the story of Shechem. This suggests that the defiance of Levi in that story is replicated in the story of the birth of Moshe. What Shechem effectively wanted to achieve through assimilation, Pharaoh now attempts to achieve through infanticide. Against this decree Moshe's parents rebel and the future leader of the nation is born.

Moshe's earliest recorded actions are also very much reminiscent of the rash actions of Levi. As with Levi, Moshe cannot bear to see the abuse of his brethren:

וַיְהִי בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וַיִּגְדַּל מֹשֶׁה וַיֵּצֵא אֶל־אֶחָיו וַיַּרְא בְּסִבְלֹתָם וַיַּרְא אִישׁ מִצְרִי מַכֶּה אִישׁ־עִבְרִי מֵאֶחָיו (שמות ב:יא)

Without considering the consequences, he intervenes to kill the Egyptian oppressor. So far so similar. On day 2 he intervenes again – this time, however, the fight is between two Israelites thus disproving the notion that his interventionism is purely driven by nationalistic tendencies. In the third story, taking place upon his arrival in Midian, he saves Tzipporah from the abusive Shepherds. Here Moshe demonstrates that his sense of justice is truly universal, as the incident does not involve any Israelite. The act of Levi which started with a noble but overly personal fight for family honour has been reworked into a universal ideal.

This takes a further developmental step at the story of the golden calf:

וַיַּעֲמֹד מֹשֶׁה בְּשַׁעַר הַמַּחֲנֶה וַיֹּאמֶר מִי לַה' אֵלָי וַיֵּאָסְפוּ אֵלָיו כָּל־בְּנֵי לֵוִי (שמןת לב:כו)

On this occasion, Levi is even prepared to turn against his brothers in the pursuit of justice. His zeal is now directed on his own.  That they were capable of meeting out justice without favoritism and nepotism, makes them eligible to become the guardians of the law and ensure that everyone stands equally before it:[8]

לֹא־תַכִּירוּ פָנִים בַּמִּשְׁפָּט כַּקָּטֹן כַּגָּדֹל תִּשְׁמָעוּן לֹא תָגוּרוּ מִפְּנֵי־אִישׁ כִּי הַמִּשְׁפָּט לֵאלֹקים הוּא (דברים א:יז)

The climax of this turnaround is when Pinchas from the tribe of Levi faces off with Zimri from the tribe of Shimon. Here, as in Shechem, both are once again acting outside the confines of the law, but this time they are on opposing sides. Pinchas, like his ancestor Levi, harnesses the element of surprise in response to the immoral act of Zimri – this time not to avenge the family honour – but for God's honour. In our discussion on this topic (see here) we noted the parallels between the episode of Pinchas and the tribe of Levi at the golden calf. The parallels with the episode of Shechem are equally illuminating and support the suggestion that the various actions involving the tribe of Levi form part of a wider dynamic fundamental to understanding the role of the tribe.      

The significance of this development can be seen in the final blessings to the tribes given by Moshe.

וּלְלֵוִי אָמַר תֻּמֶּיךָ וְאוּרֶיךָ לְאִישׁ חֲסִידֶךָ אֲשֶׁר נִסִּיתוֹ בְּמַסָּה תְּרִיבֵהוּ עַל־מֵי מְרִיבָה׃ הָאֹמֵר לְאָבִיו וּלְאִמּוֹ לֹא רְאִיתִיו וְאֶת־אֶחָיו לֹא הִכִּיר וְאֶת־בנו [בָּנָיו] לֹא יָדָע כִּי שָׁמְרוּ אִמְרָתֶךָ וּבְרִיתְךָ יִנְצֹרו (דברים לג:ח-ט)

In the earlier blessings the two brothers are grouped together and condemned for their harsh action against Shechem. In the later blessings, Levi is praised for taking decisive action against his brothers whilst Shimon is entirely absent. In the earlier blessings Levi's anger is cursed – ארור אפם כי עז; in the later blessings it is Levi's incense which has the power to turn away God's anger:     

יוֹרוּ מִשְׁפָּטֶיךָ לְיַעֲקֹב וְתוֹרָתְךָ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל יָשִׂימוּ קְטוֹרָה בְּאַפֶּךָ וְכָלִיל עַל־מִזְבְּחֶךָ (דברים לג:י)

The Torah thus testifies that Levi has successfully refined and channeled his idealism and zeal, earning him the right to be the spiritual leader of the people.    

---

[1] Ramban subsumes part of this approach into the first approach.

[2] Some have noted that when the Giv'onim duped the Israelites into a peace agreement, the Israelites honour it nevertheless – See Joshua 9. The significance is that these are the only two recorded stories in Tanach involving the Hivite people. 

[3] See Grossman, סיפורה של משפחה, p.415-426. Grossman generally adopts the second of the two approaches discussed earlier. 

[4] This is a subject of debate in the Midrashim – see Bereshit Rabbah (Albeck) 84:35

[5] This can be seen most strongly in Yaakov's reaction when Lavan accuses him of deception in stealing the teraphim.

[6] One still needs to explain why only Shimon and Levi took part in the killings if the assault was indeed planned together by the brothers. It may be that they pulled out once the initial shock had subsided and sensing that Yaakov would not be on board with the plan. The fact that they join in the plundering is suggestive of their connection to the original plan.

[7] R. Amnon Bazak (נקודת פתיחה, p.82-84) points to the significance of Yosef travelling to Shechem in search of his brothers only to be told by the mysterious man that they had moved on to Dotan. Basing himself on Rashi, he suggests that this represents the brotherly loyalty demonstrated in Shechem but which was now absent with regard to Yosef.

One might add that Shimon and Levi's provocative response to Yaakov - 'shall our sister be treated like a harlot' (effectively accusing Yaakov of selling her out as argued above) - sounds somewhat hypocritical in light of their later role in the sale of Yosef.     

[8] It is ironic that the tribe known for extra-judicial action become the upholders of the law yet have no place in the regular military(!).