[This was first posted September 2012; revised and updated for reposting. The first commentary is from S6K discussions of the chapter; additionally we feature three commentaries which overlap sometimes, but complement each other most of the time. Why three (which means more work for admin1)? There is much to learn from all of them even if the comments might be redundant and the wordings sometimes do not match the official translation we use. These comments are interspersed within the verses; readers can easily connect the meaning even if phrasing and terms are different from the official translation. Unbracketed commentary is from Pentateuch and Haftorahs, ed. Dr. J.H. Hertz; additional commentary by RA/Robert Alter and EF/Everett Fox, whose translation The First Five Books of Moses is featured here.–Admin1.]
——————————————————–
The Genesis narratives following the ups and downs of Jacob/Israel and his family places this poignant story about the violation of Jacob’s only daughter Dinah—
- immediately after a high point in this patriarch’s life—reconciliation with Esau;
- and before yet another significant encounter with the God of his forebears, Abraham and Isaac, Who has become his God as well.
In the book Torah for Dummies by Arthur Kurzweil, readers are reminded of this:
The Torah isn’t a history book. A fundamental principle regarding the Five Books of Moses is expressed in this well-known saying among Torah scholars. ”There is no earlier or later in the Torah.” It means that the Torah isn’t a historical narration and isn’t in chronological order.
That noted, in effect we should not place any significance to the placement of this incident in the journey of the Jacob family back to the homeland where he left Isaac and Rebecca some 20+ years ago. In other words, treat it as another incident, albeit sad and tragic, in the saga of this Patriarch’s tribe; an incident that will have repercussions beyond their generation.
The focus should be on the one and only daughter of Jacob/Yaakov (still named Jacob in this text). But unfortunately, the narrative does not elaborate on Dinah as a prized daughter/sister/beautiful young woman, only that she was from Jacob’s union with first and less-loved wife Leah, and how she innocently wandered off to see other young women in the land. If the prince of the land who was enamored of her had wooed her instead of violating her, this story would read like a fairy tale and who knows, they might have lived happily ever after . . . then maybe not.
As far as we’ve read, we have not yet encountered any prohibitions against intermarriage; that would come later as YHWH separates his chosen people from the nations, and the separation is intended to keep them identifiable as representing Him and His prescribe Way of living. Further, this Jacob’s family is still just a family with 4th generation 12 sons yet to develop into tribal lines into a nation, though the translation already uses “Ysrael.” We think, however, that even if Jacob has been renamed Israel, there is no nation yet in existence at this time. That nation would officially be birthed on Sinai after the exodus from Egypt. So let’s keep our timeline and thinking straight this far into the book of Genesis/Bereshith.
This chapter reads clearly and needs no interpretation, just a few observations:
- Prince Shekem starts a crisis for the two people groups; like a spoiled brat, he takes what he sees and wants, then leaves it to his father to fix the problem;
- Shekem’s father Chamor has to do the difficult work of approaching another father to deliver the message that his son wishes to marry Dinah after violating her;
- Jacob who has learned patience in the 2 decades with Laban remains cool and self-controlled, his feelings as a father doesn’t have to be dramatized but just like every father, he must have had his own wishes for his one and only daughter but it is not for her to be disgraced;
Image from www.artvalue.com
- His sons, the blood brothers of Dinah from the same mother, Simeon and Levi, are “livid” and rightly so; but they manage to remain cool themselves plot and wait for a more opportune time to exact revenge;
- Circumcision is the sign of the covenant with Abraham; his progeny including Ishmael and Esau who are not of the promised line observed the rite;
- The lines drawn that separate Jacob/Israel’s family so far are about: Jacob and the brothers use circumcision as a requirement of any male marrying into their family;
- family or bloodline and outsiders;
- circumcised and uncircumcised;
- Shekem not only agrees for himself, but requires it of the men among his people;
- Trust and betrayal, themes that continue to run through the Jacob story.
- As a result, Jacob’s starter family does not get absorbed and disappear through intermarriage with the Hivvites.
NSB@S6K
————————————————-
This chapter is an exception to the series of peaceful scenes from Patriarchal life and character—a tale of dishonour, wild revenge, and indiscriminate slaughter.
Genesis/Bereshith 34
1 Now Dina, Lea’s daughter, whom she had borne to Yaakov, went out to see the women of the land.to see. ‘and be seen,’ is added in the Samaritan text. The Heb. idiom ‘to see, to look upon’ means ‘to make friendship with’. If was wrong of Jacob to suffer his daughter alone and unprotected to visit the daughters of the land (Adam Clarke).
[EF] to see: To visit.
[RA] to go seeing among the daughters of the land. The infinitive in the Hebrew is literally “to see,” followed not by a direct object, as one might expect, but by a partitive (the particle be), which suggests “among” or “some of.” Although the sense of the verb in context may be something like “to make the acquaintance of” or “travel around among,” the decision of several modern translations to render it as “to visit” is misconceived. Not only does that term convey anachronistic notions of calling cards and tea, but it obliterates an important repetition of terms. This is one of those episodes in which the biblical practice of using the same word over and over with different subjects and objects and a high tension of semantic difference is especially crucial. Two such terms are introduced in the first sentence of the story: “to see” and “daughter.” Dinah, Jacob’s daughter, goes out among the daughters of the land, an identity of terms that might suggest a symmetry of position, but the fact that she is an immigrant’s daughter, not a daughter of the land, makes her a ready target for rape. (In the Hebrew, moreover, “sons,” and “daughers,” banim and banot, are differently inflected versions of the same word, so Dinah’s filial relation to Jacob is immediately played against Shechem’s filial relation to Hamor, and that in turn will be pointedly juxtaposed with the relation between Jacob and his sons.) Shechem’s lustful “seeing” of Dinah is immediately superimposed on her “seeing” the daughters of the land.
2 And Shekhem son of Hamor the Hivvite, the prince of the land, saw her: he took her and lay with her, forcing her.humbled. i.e. dishonoured; the Heb. implies by force.
[EF] Hamor: Heb. “donkey.” Some take the name to prove that they were donkey-drivers, while others see it as an insult to the character. forcing: Or “humbling.”
Image from en.wikipedia.org
[RA] saw…took…lay with…abused. As elsewhere in Genesis, the chain of uninterrupted verbs conveys the precipitousness of the action. Took” will become another thematically loaded reiterated term. “Lay with” is more brutal in the Hebrew because instead of being followed by the preposition “with” (as, for example, in Rachel’s words to Leah in 30:15), it is followed by a direct object–if the Masoretic vocalization is authentic–and in this form may denote rape.
3 But his emotions clung to Dina, Yaakov’s daughter-he loved the girl, and he spoke to the heart of the girl.comfortingly. lit. ‘spoke to the heart’ of the damsel; Isaiah XL,2. He tried to console her by his words of love, and his declared wish to make her his wife.
[RA] his very self clung. The Hebrew nefesh (life-breath) is used here as an intensifying synonym of the personal pronoun. (“His very self” in verse 8 represents the same Hebrew usage.) The psychology of this rapist is precisely the opposite of Amnon’s in 2 Samuel 13, who, after having consummated his lust for his sister by raping her, despises her. Here, the fulfillment of the impulse of unrestrained desire is followed by love, which complicates the moral balance of the story.
4 So Shekhem said to Hamor his father, saying: Take me this girl as a wife! get me this damsel. It was the parent’s duty to secure a wife for the son; cf. XXI,21.
[RA] Take this girl. “Take,” which indicated violent action in the narrator’s report of the rape, now recurs in a decorous social sense—the action initiated by the father of the groom in arranging a proper marriage for his son. In verse 17, Jacob’s sons will threaten to “take” Dinah away if the townsmen refuse to be circumcised, and in the report of the massacre, they take first their swords and then the booty. Shechem refers to Dinah as yaldah, “girl” or “child,” a term that equally suggests her vulnerability and the tenderness he now feels for her.
5 Now Yaakov had heard that he had defiled Dina his daughter, but since his sons were with his livestock in the fields, Yaakov kept silent until they came home. 6 Hamor, Shekhem’s father, went out to Yaakov, to speak with him. 7 But Yaakov’s sons came back from the fields when they heard, and the men were pained, they were exceedingly upset, for he had done a disgrace in Israel by lying with Yaakov’s daughter, such (a thing) is not to be done!vile deed. Or, ‘folly’ (RV). The Heb. word translated by ‘folly’ means senseless wickedness, total insensibility to moral distinctions.
in Israel. Since the word means ‘the people of Israel’, it is strictly an anachronism, because the nation was not yet in existence. The latter part of this sentence must therefore be regarded not as spoken by Jacob’s sons, but as the reflection of Scripture on the incident, wherein it points out that in the homes of the Patriarchs high conceptions of morality were entertained, and the defilement of a daughter was looked upon as an outrage against family honour and morality that demanded stern retribution.
[EF] disgrace: A different Hebrew word from the one rendered “disgraced” in 15:2.
[RA] a scurrilous thing in Israel. This use of this idiom here is a kind of pun. “A scurrilous thing in Israel” (nevalah beYisra’el) is in later tribal history any shocking act that the colelctive “Israel” deems reprehensible (most often a sexual act). But at this narrative juncture, “Israel” is only the other name of the father of these twelve chidlren, and so the phrase also means “a scurrilous thing against Israel.”
for he had done a scurrilous thing in Israel by lying with Jacob’s daughter, such as ought not be done. This entire clause is a rare instance in biblical narrative of free indirect discourse, or narrated monologue. That is, the narrator conveys the tenor of Jacob’s sons’ anger by reporting in the third person the kind of language they would have spoken silently, or to each other. It is a technical means for strongly imprinting the rage of Jacob’s sons in the presence of their father who has kept silent and, even now, gives no voice to his feelings about the violation of his daughter.
8 Hamor spoke with them, saying: My son Shekhem— his emotions are so attached to your daughter, (so) pray give her to him as a wife![EF] his emotions are so attached: Speiser uses “has his heart set on.” pray give: The repetition of “give” suggests a greediness on their part.
9 And make marriage-alliances with us: give us your daughters, and our daughters take for yourselves, 10 and settle among us! The land shall be before you: settle down, travel about it, obtain holdings in it!The cordiality of Hamor’s invitation is to be contrasted with what he told his townsmen in v. 23. To induce them to adopt his suggestion, he promises that it would be profitable to them, and they would gradually absorb the rich possessions of Jacob’s household.
[EF] travel about: Or “trade.”
[RA] go about it. The Hebrew verb saar has the basic meaning of “to go around in a circle” and the extended meaning of “to trade.” But at this early point of tribal history, Jacob and his sons are seminomadic herdsmen, not at all merchants, so the commercial denotation of the term seems unlikely in context.
11 And Shekhem said to her father and to her brothers: May I only find favor in your eyes! However much you say to me, I will give-in-payment,[RA] And Shechem said . . .” . . . what ever you say to me, I will give.” The father had begun the negotiations by asking for Dinah as wife for his son and then immediately opened up the larger issue of general marriage-alliances with Jacob’s clan and the acquisition of settlement rights by the newcomers. Shechem now enters the discussion to speak more personally of the marriage and the bride-price. (According to biblical law, a man who raped an unbetrothed girl had to pay a high fine to her father and was obliged to marry her.) After the two instances of “taking” earlier in the story, he insists here on “giving”: he will give whatever the brothers stipulate in the expectation that they will give him Dinah as wife.
12 to whatever extreme you multiply the bride-price and the marriage-gift, I will give however much you say to me— only give me the girl as a wife!dowry. The purchase price, mohar, given to the father and brothers of the bride.
gift. Personal presents to the bride.
[RA] give me the young woman. Addressing the brothers, Shechem does not refer to Dinah now as yaldah, “girl, but as “na’arah, the proper term for a nubile young woman.
13 But Yaakov’s sons answered Shekhem and Hamor his father with deceit, speaking (thus) because he had defiled Dina their sister,with guile. Knowing that they were outnumbered by the citizens of Shechem, Jacob’s sons resort to devious methods to carry out their determination to avenge their sister’s dishonour. Their proposal would, if adopted, render the male population weak and helpless for a time; and this would give them the opportunity of making a successful attack. But why should all the men of the city suffer for the misdeed of one of their number? The sons of Jacob certainly acted in a treacherous and godless manner. Jacob did not forgive them to his dying day; see XLIX,7.
[EF] with deceit: Another example of a key word in the Yaakov stories; see 27:35 and 29:35.
[RA] deceitfully. This is the same term, mirmah, that was first attached to Jacob’s action in stealing the blessing, then used by Jacob to upbraid Laban after the switching of the brides.
they spoke as they did because he had defiled Dinah their sister. “As they did because” is merely a syntactically ambiguous “that” in the Hebrew—quite possibly a means for introducing another small piece of free indirect discourse.
14 they said to them: We cannot do this thing, give our sister to a man who has a foreskin, for that would be a reproach for us![RA] We cannot do this thing. They begin as though their response were a flat refusal. Then they ignore the offer of generous payment and instead stipulate circumcision—to be sure, a physical sign of their collective identity, but also the infliction of pain on what is in this case the offending organ.
15 Only on this (condition) will we comply with you: if you become like us, by having every male among you circumcised. 16 Then we will give you our daughters, and your daughters we will take for ourselves, and we will settle among you, so that we become a single people.[RA] become one folk. This ultimate horizon of ethnic unification was perhaps implied but certainly not spelled out in Hamor’s speech.
17 But if you do not hearken to us, to be circumcised, we will take our daughter and go. 18 Their words seemed good in the eyes of Hamor and in the eyes of Shekhem son of Hamor, 19 and the young man did not hesitate to do the thing, f or he desired Yaakov’s daughter. Now he carried more weight than anyone in his father’s house.[EF] desired: Not the same Hebrew term as in 2:9. carried more weight: I.e. was more respected.
[RA] the lad. There was no previous indication of Shekhem’s age. The term na’ar is the masculine counterpart of the term he used for Dinah in verse 12 and suggests that he, too, is probably an adolescent.
20 When Hamor and Shekhem his son came back to the gate of their city, they spoke to the men of their city, saying:unto the gate. The usual place of assembly
21 These men are peaceably disposed toward us; let them settle in the land and travel about in it, for the land is certainly wide-reaching enough for them! Let us take their daughters as wives for ourselves, and let us give them our daughters.[EF] peaceably disposed: Or “friendly,” “honest.”
[RA] Their possessions in livestock and all their cattle. Although, in keeping with the biblical convention of near verbatim repetition, Hamor’s speech repeats the language used by the sons of Jacob, there had been no mention before of the Hivites becoming masters of the newcomers’ livestock. This may reflect a tactic of persuasion on the part of Hamor; it may equally reflect the Hivites’ cupidity.
22 But only on this (condition) will the men comply with us, to settle among us, to become a single people: that every male among us be circumcised, as they are circumcised. 23 Their acquired livestock, their acquired property and all their beasts-will they not then become ours?! Let us only comply with them, that they may settle among us!be ours. This argument proves Hamor’s disingenuousness.
24 So they hearkened to Hamor and to Shekhem his son, all who go out (to war) from the gate of his city: all the males were circumcised, all who go out (to war) from the gate of his city.all that went out of the gate. Cf. on XXIII, 10. Probably the able-bodied men, to the exclusion of the old men and boys, who would not be affected by the proposal of intermarriage.
[EF] all who go out . . .: I.e., all able-bodied men.
[RA] all who sallied forth. In Abraham’s negotiations with the Hittites in chapter 23, the town elders or members of the city council are referred to as “all the assembled [or, those who come in] in the gate of [the] town.” Here they are designated as “all who go out from the gate.” There are good grounds to suppose that the latter idiom has a military connotation: troops came out of the gates of walled cities to attack besiegers or to set out on campaigns, and “to go out and come in” is an idiom that means “to maneuver in battle.” The reference to the Hivites as fighting men makes sense in context because they are about to render themselves temporarily helpless against attack through the mass circumcision.
25 But on the third day it was, when they were still hurting, that two of Yaakov’s sons, Shim’on and Levi, Dina’s full-brothers, took each man his sword, they came upon the
city (feeling) secure, and killed all the males, Dinah’s brethren. These words are added to emphasize that Simeon, Levi and Dinah were children of the same mother, and therefore they felt the more acutely the insult and the desire for revenge.
[EF] Shim’on and Levi: They are condemned for this incident by Yaakov in 49:5-7.
26 and Hamor and Shekhem his son they killed by the sword. Then they took Dina from Shekhem’s house and went off.[RA] by the edge of the sword. The Hebrew idiom is literally “the mouth of the sword”—hence the sword is said to “consume” or “eat” in biblical language.
and they took Dinah from the house of Shechem. Meir Sternberg (1985), who provides illuminating commentary on the interplay of opposing moral claims in this story, shrewdly notes that this is a shocking revelation just before the end of the story: we might have imagined that Shechem was petitioning in good faith for Dinah’s hand; now it emerges that he has been holding her captive in his house after having raped her.
27 Yaakov’s (other) sons came up upon the corpses and plundered the city, because they had defiled their sister.[RA] for they had defiled their sister. This angry phrase becomes a kind of refrain in the story. Again, it sounds like the free indirect discourse of Simeon and Levi, offered as a justification for the massacre they have perpetrated. Precisely in this regard, the element of exaggeration in these words should be noted: only one man defiled Dinah, but here a plural is used, as though all the males of the town could in fact be held accountable for the rape.
28 Their sheep, their oxen, their donkeys—whatever was inside the city and out in the field, they took, 29 all their riches, all their little-ones and their wives they captured and plundered, as well as all that was in the houses. 30 But Yaakov said to Shim’on and to Levi: You have stirred-up-trouble for me, making me reek among the settled-folk of the land, the Canaanites and the Perizzites! For I have menfolk few in number; they will band together against me and strike me, and I will be destroyed, I and my household!Jacob has been criticized for merely rebuking his sons because their action might cause him personal danger, and not pointing out the heinous crime they had done in taking advantage of the helplessness of men with whom they had made a pact of friendship. Scripture, however, often lets facts speak for themselves, and does not always append the moral or the warning to a tale. Moreover, this chapter is supplemented by Jacob’s Blessing in XLIX,5 f. In reference to Simeon and Levi, the dying Patriarch there exclaims: ‘Simeon and Levi are brethren; weapons of violence their kinship… Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce, and their wrath, for it was cruel.’
[RA] stirred up trouble. The root meaning of the verb is “to muddy.”
31 But they said: Should our sister then be treated like a whore?Jacob’s sons reply that the dishonour of their sister had to be avenged, and there was only one course of action to follow. High-spirited and martial men have among all nations and throughout history often yielded to blind cruelty when dealing with an outrage of this nature.
Image from blogs.christianpost.com
[RA] Like a whore should our sister be treated? The very last words of the story are still another expression—and the crudest one—of the brothers’ anger and their commitment to exact the most extravagant price in vindication of what they consider the family’s honor. (The Hebrew might also be rendered as “shall he treat our sister,” referring to Shechem, but the third-person singular does sometimes function in place of a passive.) It is surely significant that Jacob, who earlier “kept his peace” and was notable for his failure of response, has nothing to say, or is reported saying nothing, to these last angry words of his sons. (Only on his deathbed will he answer them.) This moment becomes the turning point in the story of Jacob. In the next chapter, he will follow God’s injunction to return to Bethel and reconfirm the covenant, but henceforth he will lose much of his paternal power and will be seen repeatedly at the mercy of his sons, more the master of self-dramatizing sorrow than of his own family. This same pattern will be invoked in the David story: the father who fails to take action after the rape of his daughter and then becomes victim of the fratricidal and rebellious impulses of his sons.
Reader Comments