Turning the brothers’ unprovoked attack on Shechem into Simeon and Levi’s rescue of Dinah

Dr. Rabbi David Frankel

The Phillip Medhurst Picture Torah. Wikipedia adapted. 

Part 1
The Sexual Offense and Abduction

Genesis 34 tells the story of how Jacob’s daughter, Dinah, was taken and “sullied” by Shechem, son of Hamor, the prince of the city. Shechem subsequently grows to love her and asks his powerful father to help him obtain Dinah for a wife, which he proceeds to do. The two men offer Jacob and his sons access to land holdings and handsome gifts in return for Dinah. Jacob’s sons respond with deceit and insist that the male population must undergo circumcision if marriages are to be arranged between the two groups. Shechem eagerly complies with this demand and, together with his father, convinces all the people of the city to do the same.

Then, on the third day of the circumcision, when the men of the city were in pain and largely defenseless, Simeon and Levi came upon the city and put all the adult males to the sword, including Hamor and Shechem. They entered the house of Shechem and extracted Dinah, who, we now learn, was living in Shechem’s house. This was then followed by the plunder of the city, apparently, by the other sons of Jacob. The women and children were taken captive and the livestock and wealth were taken for booty.

Much later, when Jacob is on his deathbed, he denounces Simeon and Levi, condemning them for their destructive wrath and cruelty (Genesis 49:5—7). In the narrative at hand, however, Jacob’s displeasure with Simeon and Levi focuses mostly on the vulnerable position vis-à-vis the local inhabitants that their odious attack on the city has put both him and his household (v. 30). Simeon and Levi reject these pragmatic concerns with the strong censure of Jacob (v. 31): “Shall our sister be treated like a common whore”?

Hamor’s Lack of Remorse
A closer examination of the details of this story raises various difficulties that point, it appears, to an earlier form of the narrative. A strange feature of the story is that the sexual offense is never so much as hinted at by either side during the rather wordy wedding negotiations (verses 8-17). Shechem tells Jacob and his sons that he is very eager to “win the favor” of the family (verse 11). We would expect Shechem to express remorse for his sordid deed and offer some form of compensation for it, as was accepted practice in a number of ancient Near Eastern societies.^[1] Instead, he offers as high a bride-price as they might demand, but completely fails to acknowledge the crime he committed. The same is true of Jacob and his sons, none of whom mention any rancor with Shechem for taking Dinah without permission from her father.

A Proto-Story without an abduction: Zakovitch’s Solution
Noting this and other anomalies, Yair Zakovitch argues that the present form of the text is heavily redacted, and that an earlier narrative once stood behind the text in its present form that did not include the rape of Dinah, or other details (like the extraction of Dinah from Shechem’s home) that derive from it.^[2]

Indeed, most of the references in the text to the “defiling” of Dinah can be readily recognized as removable appendages.

For example, verses 13-14 read,

The phrase “that he defiled their sister” appears secondary. Not only does it interrupt the natural continuity between “they answered Shechem and Hamor with deceit” and “saying to them,” it also awkwardly and unclearly uses the singular “he defiled” when both Shechem and Hamor were mentioned in the sentence.  

Is Dinah in Shechem’s or Jacobs’ house?
The strongest indication that the extraction of Dinah from the house of Shechem in verse 26b (ויקחו את דינה מבית שכם ויצאו) is secondary can be found in Shechem’s appeal to his father in verse 4, “get for me this girl as a wife,” and the similar appeals to the Jacobites that they “give” Dinah to Shechem (vv. 8, 12). How can Jacob give Dinah to Shechem if Shechem had already “taken” her (v. 2b)?!

The same problem inheres in the statement in verse 19, that Shechem complied swiftly with the requirement to undergo circumcision, “for he coveted the daughter of Jacob” (cf. also verse 8). How can Shechem covet that which he already has?!

One might also have expected that the brothers stipulate their consent to the proposed marriage with the prior return of their sister to their hands. Finally, if Dinah was indeed living in the house of Shechem, why are we not told of this from the outset? How come we learn about this important detail only after the fact, when the extraction takes place?

It seems clear, then, that in the original narrative, Dinah was at home all along. And in light of the fact that the references to Dinah’s “defilement” seem to be secondary, it seems that Shechem never laid his hands on her, only his eyes. 

Shechem Saw Her and Asked his Father for Her
If we remove all the pieces relevant to the abduction and rape from the opening of the story, we are left with a simple account that reads well:

The story of Samson and the woman from Timnah (Judges 14:1-2) provides us, I suggest, with a clear parallel for this kind of narrative opening.

According to this text, when Samson goes down to Timnah, he sees the Philistine woman (וירא אשה), and asked his parents to take her for him as a wife (קחו אותה לי לאשה). This is almost exactly the language used in our story, Shechem sees Dinah and asks his father to take her for him as a wife.^[5] This was then followed in verse 6 with Hamor’s compliance with his son’s request.

In short, in the original form of the story, Shechem did not abduct and rape Dinah, he did not fall in love with Dinah, and his soul did not cleave to her. Like Samson with the woman from Timnah, Shechem simply saw her in the crowd and wanted to marry her.

Part 2
Simeon and Levi

Another element of the story that seems suspiciously secondary is the place of Simeon and Levi. It is striking that these two brothers are never mentioned in the story before the verse that describes their violent revenge (v. 25). Hamor and Shechem address all the sons of Jacob in verses 8-12, and they all reply in deceit in verses 13-17. Why then did they not all participate in the attack upon the city together? Stated differently, if Simeon and Levi were the main assailants, why do we not hear of their particular stance from the outset?

Adding Simeon and Levi
In its original form, the story seems to have related that all the “sons of Jacob” acting as a group killed the male inhabitants and plundered the city. This coincides perfectly with the fact that the “sons of Jacob” throughout the narrative until this point refers to all the sons.

Zakovitch, thus, reconstructs the original form of verse 25, which first mentions Simeon and Levi, as follows:

The LXX’s Solution
The ancient translators of the Torah into Greek (or the editors of the particular Hebrew text that they translated) were sensitive to this problem. They rendered verse 13—14 as follows:

Following this rendition, Simeon and Levi were the ones who spoke in deceit. Presumably, at least at this juncture in the story, the other brothers were as unaware of the scheme that Simeon and Levi were plotting as was Jacob.

The Greek rendition of the passage is likely a conscious attempt to resolve the tension in the text. Or, to put it somewhat differently, the Greek version represents a further stage in the secondary process of introducing Simeon and Levi into the text, since, as argued above, in the original story all the sons of Jacob attacked the city, killing and plundering in unison.

Following this, the final exchange between Jacob and Simeon and Levi in verses 30—31 should be deemed editorial. The original story ends well with the report of the destruction and plunder of the city in the previous verses. Further, the final retort to Jacob, “Shall our sister be treated like a prostitute” clearly presupposes the rape.

The Reason for the Supplement: Jacob’s Inexplicable Curse
The editor introduced Simeon and Levi into the story and presented them as the main assailants under the influence of Jacob’s otherwise inexplicable condemnation of Simeon and Levi in Genesis 49:5-7.

This text originally was not referring to this episode in Schechem, but to a story that has been lost.  But the editor of the Shechem story wondered: Where do we find the kind of violent killing and enraged destruction to which Jacob refers?  To what event was Jacob referring? The editor’s answer was that Jacob was referring to the destruction of Shechem. When that story tells of the attack of the “sons of Jacob” it must be referring specifically to Simeon and Levi!^[6] And in order to clarify this to the readers of the story, this editor added references to Simeon and Levi into the text.^[7]

This also helps account for the addition of the rape and abduction of Dinah. The curse of Jacob refers to fierce anger in connection with the destruction wrought by Simeon and Levi. There must, then, have been some terrible provocation that ignited the wrath of Simeon and Levi. The addition of the rape explained the wrath.

The Original Meaning of Jacob’s Curse
Despite the attempt to make the Dinah story conform to the curse, originally, this curse had nothing to do with our story and contains elements that do not overlap. For instance, Genesis 49:6 refers to the cruel and senseless torturing to death of oxen; Genesis 34 never so much as hints at this, although it does mention plunder. Moreover, as James Kugel astutely points out, the “blessings” of Jacob Genesis 49:5-7 originally related to Simeon and Levi as tribal units, not as individuals,^[8] as is indeed the case in nearly all of Jacob’s blessings.^[9]

It indeed seems to make more sense that the tribes of Simeon and Levi are punished with dispersal throughout the land for crimes they perpetrated as tribes. After all, tribes are subject to dispersion whereas two individuals are not. In fact, verse 6 probably does not even refer to a single tribal event but rather a repetitive tribal form of behavior. This is consistent with NJPS, which translates the Hebrew perfects as presents, “For when angry they slay men and when pleased they maim oxen.”

The Influence of the Curse of Reuben on that of Simeon and Levi
The “blessing” to Reuben in verse 4 does actually refer to an event in the life of Reuben the individual.  It is likely that this facilitated the expectation that the following “blessing” to Simeon and Levi likewise refers to their individual life histories.^[10] Thus, it would have been natural for a biblical editor to “midrashically” understand Jacob’s words concerning Simeon and Levi as relating to their deeds as individuals (rather than tribes) and then seek out the story to which this refers.

Part 3
Dinah

A third element of the current story also seems to be a supplement, the name Dinah. I suggest that the original story spoke simply of the “sons of Jacob” and “the daughter of Jacob.” The name “Dinah” is conspicuously missing in verses 4, 8, 12, 14, 17 and 19, all of which appear to derive from the original story. On the other hand, “Dinah” is mentioned in verses 3, 5, 13b and 26b, all of which refer to or presuppose the rape and are therefore secondary.

In light of this evidence, I suggest that the two remaining references to Dinah in verses 1 and 25, are also supplements.

The Reference to Dinah in Verse 25
We already saw that the inclusion of Simeon and Levi in this verse is a supplement. In all likelihood, the same editor glossed his addition “Simeon and Levi” with the following phrase, “the brothers of Dinah.” (This supplement aims to point out that these three were full siblings, with same father and mother.) The distinction between the verse in its original form and in its final form may thus be as follows:

The fact that we do not find the phrase “the brothers of Dinah” following the other references in the text to “the sons of Jacob” suggests that it is an addition here.^[11]

A Nameless Daughter: The Story’s Opening (verse 1)
The account opens with an awkward and lengthy naming of Jacob’s daughter. I believe if we remove the name and the name of her mother, we obtain a much smoother text, in which the daughter of Jacob goes out to visit the daughters of the land.^[12] 

This suggestion accords well with what we find in many biblical narratives, where the female characters are left nameless (cf. Mrs. Noah; Mrs. Lot, Mrs. Potiphar, etc.) It also accords with the fact that we are never told of Dinah’s thoughts or feelings in the matter of her fate throughout the narrative. Originally, she was a completely minor character who was not raped and then loved by her assailant. She was simply a girl in her father’s house. Her name hardly mattered since she was not the subject of the narrative. The specification of her name, “Dinah daughter of Leah” (verse 1), goes hand in hand with the conversion of the unnamed “sons of Jacob” of the original story into “Simeon and Levi.” The latter are characterized as “brothers of Dinah” since, as opposed to most of the other sons of Jacob (save Reuben and Judah), who are only half brothers of Dinah, Simeon and Levi are sons of Leah and therefore full brothers. The editor thus sought to emphasize that specifically Simeon and Levi responded as they did to the rape since it was their sister that was involved.

I suspect that the final editor also supplied Jacob’s daughter with a name in order to give the reader a more concrete sense of her identity as a human character and thereby highlight the sense of outrage felt by her brothers Simeon and Levi over her “defilement.”

Conclusion
Justifying the Deceit?

Many have suggested that the purpose of the story in its final editorial form was to justify the deceit and destruction of the city.^[13] Two elements in the final form of the story would seem to indicate that this is so. First, the repeated editorial references to the “defilement” of Dinah seem to imply that the revenge was understandable and justified. Second, the final retort of Simeon and Levi to Jacob with the words “Shall our sister be treated like a prostitute” (verse 31) closes the story. The editor gives Simeon and Levi the final word, indicating that his sympathies are with them.

While this seems to make sense, it is important to distinguish clearly between the concern to justify a crime and the concern to point to extenuating circumstances that help mitigate its severity at least to some extent.^[14] The latter may be the intention of the final editor of Genesis 34.

In the original form of the story of the sack of Shechem, the Israelite offense was cold, calculated and completely unprovoked. The deceitful ploy and massacre were motivated by one concern: to amass great wealth and appropriate women and children as slaves and concubines. In this form, the story served as a biting critique of the cruel and undignified act of betrayal of the children of Jacob. The sons of Jacob duped not only the people of Shechem but their own father as well, for they knew that Jacob would never have countenanced such an act of deceit and murder in the interests of plunder. By adding Dinah and presenting her as a victim of abduction and defilement, the editor rendered the massacre a response to a provocation. It was not cold and calculated and it was not about greed. It was a crime of passion and vengeance. As Jacob would later characterize it, it was a product of the brothers’ cursed wrath.

This explains why the editor continually refers to the “defilement” of Dinah. This is not meant as a justification of the massacre. Rather, it seeks to highlight the motivation behind the destruction. It provides the circumstances that allow us to appreciate the assailants’ distraught mental condition during their attack without thereby justifying it.

Justifying Jacob’s Curse
It is in this context that we must understand the editor’s depiction of Simeon and Levi harshly censuring their father to his face with the words, “Shall our sister be treated like a common whore”? This, again, does not serve as a justification, even if it comes at the end of the narrative. Rather, it contributes to the characterization of Simeon and Levi as insolent hotheads who have no respect for the pragmatic reason of their elders (whom they dupe) and fully deserve their final condemnation. We must recall that the final editor worked with Genesis 34 in conjunction with Jacob’s final words in Genesis 49. Thus, he presented the rebuke of Simeon and Levi to their father as a prelude to Jacob’s final condemnation of Simeon and Levi. He obviously was interested in justifying Jacob’s final curse.

This may also explain why he added the elements of Shechem’s love for Dinah subsequent to the defilement and abduction, and his active attempt to formalize the union with marriage.^[15] For if Shechem was trying to do the right thing, then Jacob’s condemnation of the exaggerated reaction of Simeon and Levi in Gen 49:5-7 seems that much more justified. The editor’s choice to end with Simeon and Levi getting the last word adds punch to Jacob’s final curse, since it implies that he has been holding this in his entire life, and only now on his deathbed do these sons hear what he really thought.

___________________

Rabbi Dr. David Frankel did his doctorate at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem under the direction of Prof. Moshe Weinfeld. His publications include The Murmuring Stories of the Priestly School (VTSupp. 89) and The Land of Canaan and the Destiny of Israel (Eisenbrauns). He teaches Hebrew Bible to M.A. and Rabbinical students at the Schechter Institute of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem, where he lives with his wife and five children.

[1] See Eve Levavi Feinstein’s TABS essay, “The Rape of the Unbetrothed Virgin in Torah and Assyrian Laws.”  

[2] Zakovitch, Assimilation, 185—192; idem., Jacob: Unexpected Patriarch, transl. Valerie Zakovitch, New Haven: Yale University, 2012, 120—129.

[3] The formulation of verse 13b is extremely awkward. Tur-Sinai (פשוטו של מקרא, כרך ראשון, עמ’ 58) suggests emending וידברו אשר טמא את דינה אחתם to  על דבר אשר טמא את דינה אחתםand compares to על דבר אשר ענה את אשת רעהו at Deut. 22:24. Note also the even closer formulation of 2 Sam13:22, כי שנא אבשלום את אמנון על דבר אשר ענה את תמר אחתו. I consider this emendation compelling, particularly in light of the parallel to the story of the rape of Tamar, which, as shown by Zakovitch (Assimilation, 188—192) served as a model for the final editor.

[4] One significant quibble that I have with Zakovitch concerns his analysis of verses 2-4, where the rape is first reported. Zakovitch maintains that verse 2b is secondary, and that verse 3 follows naturally after verse 2a. Accordingly, Shechem sees Dinah and immediately falls in love with her and speaks to her heart (וידבר על לב הנערה). It is a classic case of “love at first sight.” The rape of verse 2b disrupts this natural continuity. Rape does not coincide with falling in love. The rape was added, Zakovitch tells us, so as to justify the response of the brothers. The problem with this reconstruction is that the phrase דבר על לב of verse 3 does not refer to romantic wooing, but to the expression of words of comfort and appeasement in the wake of suffering. (For דבר על לב as consolation and appeasement see Gen. 50:21; Isa. 40:2; 2 Sam. 19:8; Ruth 2:13. In Isa. 40:2 God himself punished Israel twofold for her sins, and he therefore must now placate her. Similarly, in 2 Sam. 19:6-8, David humiliates his warriors following the squelching of the Absalom rebellion by ignoring their great sacrifice on his behalf and mourning the death of Absalom instead. Joab warns David that they may well abandon him. David must therefore placate them by publicly receiving them and offering them his thanks.)  Since one cannot placate someone without first doing them wrong, the statement of verse 3 must follow the rape. After Shechem raped Dinah, his soul cleaved to her, he grew to love her, and he sought to appease her and comfort her, promising to marry her. While it is undoubtedly true that rape is a crime of violence and does not coincide with falling in love, we must be careful not to superimpose our contemporary awareness about the phenomenon of rape with what may have been considered a reasonable dramatic scenario for the biblical writer. (The sociological question as to whether or not rapists fall in love with their victims is completely immaterial to the exegesis of our story or to the question of whether or not Shechem may be said to have raped Dinah. See Lyn M. Bechtel, “What if Dinah is not Raped? (Genesis 34),” JSOT 62 (1994), 28—29, 31; Shemesh, Rape. There is no reason to assume that the narrator of the story had a particularly developed awareness of the psychological tendencies of rapists.) In the narrative created by the final editor, Shechem raped Dinah and then fell in love with her. Indeed, that is why he takes her into his home.

[5] The formulation would seem to imply that Hamor was with Shechem when the latter spotted Dinah.

[6] The connection between these two passages was already noted by medieval commentators, who also engage in a kind of inner-biblical exegesis, but in the reverse direction. For example, Rashi comments on the phrase, “in their anger they slayed a man,”

[7] This is Zakovitch’s solution. I actually prefer a slightly different editorial scenario according to which a single editor incorporated the cursing element of Reuben’s blessing (with only v. 3 as original) and the cursing of Simeon and Levi in the text of Genesis 49 while simultaneously introducing the account of Reuben’s sin (Gen. 35:21-22a) and the expanded narrative of Genesis 34 into Genesis. All of this material serves a single purpose – to justify the preeminent status of the next in line, Judah. Originally, the words of Genesis 49:5-7 were an independent unit from some other narrative context, and they were expressed by someone other than Jacob (probably God) and belonged to a later narrative context.  

[8] See James Kugel, “The Story of Dinah in the Testament of Levi,” HTR 85 (1992) 1-34 [14].

[9] Only the censure to Reuben in verse 4 for mounting his father’s bed speaks of a personal life-history. Jacob’s reference to Judah in verse 9 as rising from prey like a lion, on the other hand, has nothing to do with the past life of Judah as an individual. It refers to the character and history of the tribe. The same thing may be said for Issachar, who is said to bend his shoulder to the burden to become a serf (verse 15), or for Joseph, who is shot at and harried by archers (verse 23).

[10] This type of exegesis is precisely what we find in the Midrash. The Midrash takes Jacob’s statement about Judah, מטרף בני עלית, “You rise, my son, from prey” (Gen. 49:9) as referring to Judah’s recoiling from killing Joseph (see 37:26—27). Similarly, it identifies the archers who shoot at Joseph in verse 23 as the brothers who defamed Joseph with their evil speech. See Rashi on the verses.

[11] This is one of my quibbles with Zakovitch, who thinks this phrase is original.  I also question Zakovitch’s assignment of verse 17 to the editor (Assimilation, 187), whereas I believe it is original. In this verse the brothers state, ואם לא תשמעו אלינו להימול ולקחנו את בתנו והלכנו. Zakovitch takes this statement as implying awareness of Dinah’s presence in Shechem’s house. I doubt, however, that the verse is meant to be taken literally. The statement “we will take our daughter and go” is just their way of saying that they will take the offer of giving their daughter off the table. It is quite possible, however, that the editor found a basis in this verse for his interpretation of the story as one of abduction and rape. 

[12] This is supported by the fact that this verse in its current form appears to reflect Priestly writing. The reference to a woman who “bears a child to a man” indeed reflects clear Priestly usage; see, e.g., Gen. 16:15—16; 21:3—4; 22:20, 23; 25:12; 36:4; Num. 26:59. Most of the material in Genesis 34 is non-Priestly in style.

[13] It is sometimes claimed that the final editors despised foreigners and even promoted the vengeful massacre as a contemporary model. This would theoretically explain the repeated emphasis on the “defilement” of Dinah and account for the fact that Simeon and Levi are given the final word at the end of the narrative. See, for example, Yairah Amit, עריכה מובלעת ופולמוס סמוי בפרשת אונס דינה  in Texts, Temples and Traditions: A Tribute to Menahem Haran (Michael V. Fox et al eds; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1996), 11*-28*; Alexander Rofe, “Defilement of Virgins in Biblical Law and the Case of Dinah (Genesis 34),” Biblica 86 (2005): 369-375. Nevertheless, I believe that the analysis presented above, particularly that of verses 1-4, demonstrates the erroneousness and one-sidedness of this approach. The same editor that depicted Shechem as a rapist also depicted him as bearing a genuine love for Dinah and a real concern to promote her welfare by marrying her. The final editor’s addition concerning Dinah’s residence in the house of Shechem (verse 26b) serves to reinforce the sense that Shechem’s motives were positive. He earnestly seeks out the marriage and even undergoes circumcision. What is more, he has his entire city do the same – in spite of the fact that he had the girl in any event!      

[14] Many post-biblical (and even late biblical) interpreters suggest various circumstances that are designed to account for Aaron’s role in the making of the golden calf. See on this James Kugel, Traditions of the Bible: A Guide to the Bible As It Was at the Start of the Common Era, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard, 1998), 717-719, 731-732. These commentators seek to mitigate the severity of Aaron’s guilt without in any way intending to exonerate him for his role in the idolatrous incident.

[15] Note how this depiction of Shechem stands in stark contrast with the depiction of Amnon, who rapes his sister Tamar in 2 Samuel 13. Whereas Amnon casts Tamar away in hatred after he rapes her, Shechem takes Dinah into his home and goes to great lengths to obtain her family’s consent that he marry her.