Genesis 34:1-34:31

Surf The Site

Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a   26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50

THE STORY OF DINAH AND SHECHEM

Shechem, like Troy, is sacked in vengeance for the abduction of a princess by the king's son, yet another of the Homeric myths that echo or parallel in the Yehudit. Both stories probably originate in the Ugaritic text "Keret" (as does the conquest of Yericho by Yehoshu'a in Joshua 6 - click here for an explanation), in which El orders Prince Keret to besiege Udum (a variant of Adam/Edom), where his lawful wife Hurriya (the Chorite name for Kena'an and originally the Chorite Chavah/Eve) has taken refuge with her lover. The story of the rape probably hides a historical incident: perhaps the defeat of her tribe by Shechemite Emorites, after which Dinah's tribe assimilated with Shim'on's, possibly for protection. However, after Shim'on forfeited his lands (Genesis 49:5/7), and the tribal remnants joined Yehudah as a sub-clan (Joshua 19: 1/9, 1 Chronicles 4:24 ff) - a fact which may explain Shim'on's absence from Mosheh's blessing in Deuteronomy 33 - Dinah lost her identity.

According to one Midrash, Asnat (Asenath), who married Yoseph and was the daughter of the high priest of On (Genesis 41:45 ff) - Greek Heliopolis - was Dinah's daughter by Shechem. This is used to explain Ya'akov's blessing of Ephrayim in Genesis 48, giving him "one shoulder [shechem means shoulder, as noted in the previous chapter] above his brothers, which I won from the Amorites with my sword and bow" – but in truth that Midrash is simply an attempt to deal with the problem of Yoseph marrying out, and his sons Ephrayim and Menasheh therefore not being halachically members of the tribe.

Shechem (שכם) = "a shoulder", and the town of Shechem was the political capital of Yisra-El until David: thus conferring top-dogship on Ephrayim – you can see why his being halachically Jewish mattered later on. A shoulder was also the royal portion in Greece: when Creon expelled Oedipus from Thebes he laid the haunch, not the shoulder, before him at a sacrificial feast, to symbolise the deposition.

The circumcision would probably have taken place by use of a flint lancet (Exodus 4:25). The practice was originally Egyptian.

One other point before we start: we have no idea for how long after leaving Esav Ya'akov remained encamped outside Shechem, but it matters. Our sense of the tale is that it happened almost immediately after the tribe's arrival, but if so: how old was Dinah? The order of birth of Ya'akov's children is given unequivocally: 

Leah was the older of the two sisters and she mothered his first four sons, Re'u-Ven, Shim'on, Levi and Yehudah. When Rachel saw that she was barren, she gave Ya'akov her handmaiden, Bilhah, to become a surrogate mother on her behalf; Bilhah then mothered Dan and Naphtali. Leah, no longer having babies of her own, decided to do the same thing with her maidservant, Zilpah; Zilpah mothered Gad and Asher. Leah then became pregnant again ,and had three more children: Yisaschar, Zevulun and, last of all, Ya'akov's only daughter, Dinah. Finally, Rachel mothered Yoseph, and will shortly fall pregnant with Ben-Oni (Binyamin).

Making Dinah the youngest of the thirteen. Ya'akov spent not more than twenty-one years in Padan-Aram, so even if the first child came in the first year, and even if Bilhah and Zilpah were having babies at the same time, Dinah cannot have been more than eight or nine at the time of Penu-El. So even if Ya'akov stayed at Shechem for several years, we are about to hear a tale of a barely pubescent girl.

34:1 VA TETSE DINAH BAT LE'AH ASHER YALDAH LE YA'AKOV LIROT BIVNOT HA ARETS

וַתֵּצֵא דִינָה בַּת לֵאָה אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה לְיַעֲקֹב לִרְאוֹת בִּבְנוֹת הָאָרֶץ

KJ (King James translation): And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land.

BN (BibleNet translation): And Dinah, the daughter of Le'ah, who she had mothered with Ya'akov, went out to see the daughters of the land.

BIVNOT: As we have seen so often, prepositional prefixes are regularly ellided with the noun in Yehudit; this is really BI VENOT. I haven't noted every instance, but am on this occasion.

What do you do, as a female anyway, when you go to see the daughters of the land? What men do is obvious. Given her age, I imagine it would have been hop-skotch and sewing. 

The real answer, and the real meaning of that strange phrase, is that you either go out and gossip about who got the May Queenship and who got to be her ladies-in-waiting, and learn your own priestess skills and duties, and start performing them, or you get chosen yourself to partake in the joys of the orgiastic rites, serving as a hierodule in the fertility rituals – not very different from Mardi Gras actually.

34:2 VA YAR OTAH SHECHEM BEN CHAMOR HA CHIVI NESI HA ARETS VA YIKACH OTAH VA YISHKAV OTAH VA YE’ANEYHA

וַיַּרְא אֹתָהּ שְׁכֶם בֶּן חֲמוֹר הַחִוִּי נְשִׂיא הָאָרֶץ וַיִּקַּח אֹתָהּ וַיִּשְׁכַּב אֹתָהּ וַיְעַנֶּהָ

KJ: And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her.

BN: And Shechem the son of Chamor the Chivi, the prince of the land, saw her; and he took her, and lay with her, and humbled her.

Is he the eponymous Shechem of the town? Note that his father's name means "donkey", which is much more likely a priestly title than a person's name; following Sha'ul's story in the Book of Samuel, probably a dynastic title of the priest-king of Shet, which was an Egyptian cult, but interesting if correct, because it changes the nature of the all-important city of Shechem. But he was also a Chivite and "prince of the land" - which land?

What does not come across in English translation is the fable or pantomime level at which these tales are being told. Remember that these all belonged to the oral tradition before they were set down on paper, so the aural becomes very important. In the previous tale we heard about Heel (Ya'akov), who ran away to his Uncle White (Lavan), married Cow (Le'ah) and then Sheep (Rachel), as well as Modest (Bilhah) and Cow Droppings (Zilpah), then stole Uncle White's sheep, et cetera; now we are reading about Shoulder of Lamb (Shechem) who "defiled" Cow's daughter (Dinah) and whose father Donkey (Chamor) wants them to be married. It changes everything, doesn't it, when you suddenly hear it like that?!

YE'ANEYHA (ויענה): "defiled", or "humbled", but - in what way? Why is rape presumed - no rape is ever described but only "alleged" by the inferences of translators and commentators, somewhat in the manner of tabloid journalists.The answer lies in the euphemism of YE'ANEYHA? Did he sleep with her outside her priestess role, and thereby render her ineligible to serve as a priestess; this would have upset Levi and Shim'on enormously because of its tribal implications. It may simply have been that Ya'akov was amongst those who disapproved of the orgiastic rites, and therefore her mere participation was an affront (consider the Muslim woman today, who faces death, even at the hands of her own family, if she is found to have lost her virginity before marriage). Loss of her virginity other than in the rites of Asherah would have made her unmarriageable. The distinct impression of the next verse is that Romeo-Shechem saw Juliet-Dinah, and two sets of pilgrim lips did rather more than pray.

34:3 VA TIDBAK NAPHSHO BE DINAH BAT YA'AKOV VA YE'EHAV ET HA NA'ARA VA YEDABER AL LEV HA NA'AR

וַתִּדְבַּק נַפְשׁוֹ בְּדִינָה בַּת יַעֲקֹב וַיֶּאֱהַב אֶת הַנַּעֲרָ וַיְדַבֵּר עַל לֵב הַנַּעֲרָ

KJ: And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel.

BN: And he fell madly for with Dinah bat Ya'akov, and he loved the damsel, and he spoke soft words to the damsel.

It certainly does not sound like rape; though there is not yet any suggestion of her reciprocating. Notice, given everything that was discussed about the parental relationships with Yitschak and Yishma-El, that she was Le'ah's daughter in verse 1 but Ya'akov's here.

Notice too that she is described as a NA'ARA (נַּעֲרָ), but this will change to YALDAH (יַּלְדָּה) in the next verse. NA'ARA is anyway an error, which most "pointed" versions recognise by placing a kamets under the Reysh (ר) to allow its pronunciation as NA'ARA, though really they need to add a final Hey (ה) as well and make it properly feminine as NA'ARAH. That apart, a NA'ARAH usually means a young adolescent, around the age of puberty, whereas a YALDAH is most definitely a pre-pubsecent girl. So whether he raped or not, Shechem understands that Dinah is young for marriage.

ISHAH, the word used in the next verse, means "woman", and is usually understood to be one who has obtained her full womanhood by marrying and producing a child; here, however, like the French "femme"or German "frau", it is in the specific sense of "wife", which could as well apply to a 14 year old virgin as to a fifty year old mother of twelve.

34:4 VA YOMER SHECHEM EL CHAMOR AVIV LEMOR KACH LI ET HA YALDAH HA ZOT LE ISHAH

וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁכֶם אֶל חֲמוֹר אָבִיו לֵאמֹר קַח לִי אֶת הַיַּלְדָּה הַזֹּאת לְאִשָּׁה

KJ: And Shechem spake unto his father Hamor, saying, Get me this damsel to wife.

BN: And Shechem spoke to his father Chamor, saying, "Get me this damsel for my wife.

Which makes Ya'akov going to get his own wife, and to some degree the Eli-Ezer tale previously, still more baffling, or should I say still more specific to the customs of that one tribe, though they were not the norm in the region.

And today we would shout paedophile, and have the culprit locked up, but this is the age at which Mary married Joseph and mothered Jesus, this was almost certainly the age of Rachel when Ya'akov asked Lavan for her hand, this was the normal age at which girls were married in the ancient Levant - as soon as they reached puberty, around thirteen or fourteen. And for their own protection, as much as for their fulfilling of the fertility commandments.

34:5 VE YA'AKOV SHAMA KI TIM'E ET DINAH VITO U VANAV HAYU ET MIKNEHU BA SADEH VE HECHERISH YA'AKOV AD BO'AM

וְיַעֲקֹב שָׁמַע כִּי טִמֵּא אֶת דִּינָה בִתּוֹ וּבָנָיו הָיוּ אֶת מִקְנֵהוּ בַּשָּׂדֶה וְהֶחֱרִשׁ יַעֲקֹב עַד בֹּאָם

KJ: And Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter: now his sons were with his cattle in the field: and Jacob held his peace until they were come.

BN: Now Ya'akov heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter; and his sons were with his livestock in the field; and Ya'akov held his peace until they came.

VE SHAMA YA'AKOV: Perfectly correct grammar, but stylistically idiosyncratic in the context of the Bible until now. VA YISHMA YA'AKOV is what we would expect, employing the Vav Consecutive.

Having speculated DInah's age, it might also be interesting to work out the ages of the boys at this time, by going back to the Padan Aram list of births and reckoning twenty years for his stay there. If Dinah is now fourteen, then we have been in Shechem for as much as five years; but even then the eldest of the boys - and Shim'on and Levi were second and third eldest - cannot have been much above twenty at this time.

TIM'E (טמא): even this does not have to infer rape; she would be defiled by losing her virginity even if by consent.

Given the status of women in society at that time, and the significance of virginity, actually the best possible outcome for Dinah is that this man who has "raped", or simply "seduced" her then marries her, giving her the safety and support of the tribe; because a woman without a husband had no status or rights, and a woman who was not a virgin, even if the loss of virginity was the consequence of rape, was not marriageable. By forcing the man to marry her, she now has to suffer what is effectively repeated rape, assuming the marriage continues to be consummated; but economically and socially she is protected for life. This may sound barbaric, and certainly surprising, but Deuteronomy 22:28-29 confirms it, and the Dinah-Shechem tale becomes its allegorical precedent:

"If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her. He may not divorce her all his days."

That last clause is probably the most important: the prohibition against divorcing her ensuring lifelong protection.

34:6 VA YETSE CHAMOR AVI SHECHEM EL YA'AKOV LEDABER ITO

וַיֵּצֵא חֲמוֹר אֲבִי שְׁכֶם אֶל יַעֲקֹב לְדַבֵּר אִתּוֹ

KJ: And Hamor the father of Shechem went out unto Jacob to commune with him.

BN: And Chamor the father of Shechem went out to Ya'akov to speak with him.

Which you probably would not do if you knew your son had raped the girl; or only if you thought that an offer of marriage might make the matter acceptable. Or perhaps if you were scared that the girl's brothers might need placating with a 50 shekel reparation and a prediction of Deuteronomy 22.

34:7 U VENEY YA'AKOV BA'U MIN HA SADEH KE SHAM'AM VA YIT'ATSVU HA ANASHIM VA YICHAR LAHEM ME'OD KI NEVALAH ASAH VE YISRA-EL LISHKAV ET BAT YA'AKOV VE CHEN LO YE'ASEH

וּבְנֵי יַעֲקֹב בָּאוּ מִן הַשָּׂדֶה כְּשָׁמְעָם וַיִּתְעַצְּבוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים וַיִּחַר לָהֶם מְאֹד כִּי נְבָלָה עָשָׂה בְיִשְׂרָאֵל לִשְׁכַּב אֶת בַּת יַעֲקֹב וְכֵן לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה

KJ: And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard it: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob's daughter; which thing ought not to be done.

BN: And Ya'akov's sons came in from the field when they heard it; and the men were upset, and very angry, because he had wrought a vile deed in Yisra-El by lying with Ya'akov's daughter; which thing ought not to be done.

YISRA-EL (ישראל): this word seems out of place here, anachronistic; it implies the nation which did not yet exist; we can therefore treat it as a comment by the Redactor.

Was King David familiar with this verse? Connections between this tale and that of the rape of Tamar by Amnon (2 Samuel 13) cannot be overlooked.

In a sense we are dealing here with a classic tale about the problems of integration and assimilation. The customs of Ya'akov's tribe are very different from those of the native peoples. Indeed, his culture is very Jewish: the girl should be a virgin at marriage, not mix with non-Jewish girls, not marry out - a ghetto mentality in short, as was normal among nomadic tribes. The conflict arises when Dinah herself, as in v1, "goes out to the daughters of the land". One could tell exactly the same story today about a Hindu from Wembley Park or a Bengali from Stepney.

It is wonderfully expressed though! (but see it in the context of the far worse thing they contemplate doing, and the not as bad but still bad thing they actually do, to Yoseph their brother later on).

As to the "rape", men do not often rape women, and then comfort them, and then ask for their hand in marriage. For one thing it confesses the rape. For another it establishes a sado-masochistic relationship from the outset. And even to send his father to ask, in an honourable manner… no, the rape allegation must have come afterwards, something in the manner of "To Kill A Mockingbird" (something in the manner, too, of Pharaoh's daughter finding this lovely little "Hebrew" boy, floating among the bulrushes - Exodus 2): either a way for her clansmen to assert her virtue, when in fact she slept with him willingly; or a pretext for the massacre of the town. In the parallel Homeric tale, Helen of Troy leaves most willingly with Paris, though he is accused of abducting her.


34:8 VA YEDABER CHAMOR ITAM LEMOR SHECHEM BENI CHASHKA NAPHSHO BE VIT'CHE TENU NA OTAH LO LE ISHAH

וַיְדַבֵּר חֲמוֹר אִתָּם לֵאמֹר שְׁכֶם בְּנִי חָשְׁקָה נַפְשׁוֹ בְּבִתְּכֶם תְּנוּ נָא אֹתָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה

KJ: And Hamor communed with them, saying, The soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter: I pray you give her him to wife.

BN: And Chamor spoke with them saying, "The soul of my son Shechem longs for your daughter. I beseech you, give her to him for a wife...

Why is Chamor approaching the sons and not the father (Eli-Ezer did the same with Lavan rather than Betu-El in Genesis 24)? And why does he describe her to them as "your daughter" when she is their sister? As so often, less to this story than meets the eye. But also confirmation that the term means more than just "daughter", as BEN means more than just "son" - kinswoman in the tribal sense, fellow priestess in the clerical, guildswoman in the professional, chorister in the musical, etc.

And as to CHASHKA NAPHSHO, this is splendidly euphemistic, because it is clearly not his soul that is doing the longing, though it does insist that this is Romeo Montagu, not Jeffrey Epstein.

34:9 VE HIT'CHATNU OTANU BENOTEYCHEM TITNU LANU VE ET BENOTEYNU TIK'CHU LACHEM

וְהִתְחַתְּנוּ אֹתָנוּ בְּנֹתֵיכֶם תִּתְּנוּ לָנוּ וְאֶת בְּנֹתֵינוּ תִּקְחוּ לָכֶם

KJ: And make ye marriages with us, and give your daughters unto us, and take our daughters unto you.

BN: "And make marriages with us; give your daughters to us, and take our daughters for yourselves...

Daughters as opposed to sons being the manner of integration. Which is worth commenting on, as we have been witnessing it in changing forms throughout the text. "Give your daughters to us" is patrilocal, and sets the determination of tribal belonging and identity with the father; thus, in Judaism, it is the daughter who stays in, the son who goes out (if a Jewish girl marries a non-Jewish man, their children may still be Jewish; if a Jewish man marries a non-Jewish girl, their children are automatically regarded as non-Jewish). And this of course we knew, from the conflict between Ya'akov and Lavan earlier, and from previous episodes as well - this is why Yishma-El left home for Edom and why Esav is in Se'ir now; this is why Av-Raham sent Eli-Ezer to fetch a wife for Yitschak from Charan. See also verse 21 below.

But daughters also raises a separate question. The implication is a plurality, yet we only know of one, Dinah. Does Ya'akov have other daughters not previously mentioned? Is the inference that the sons already have children, including daughters, old enough to marry? The oldest son cannot have been much more than early twenties at this time, so he is likely to be married, or at least seeking a wife. Or is there a larger clan or tribe with Ya'akov, in which case, where did it appear from? Shepherds, cattleherds, household servants, the retinue of a wealthy sheikh - but were all of them circumcised tribesmen? Certainly the Av-Rahamic covenant required it - see Genesis 17:10.

The only other viable explanation is that the Shechemites fear attack from the nomadic Jacobites, who are either looking to become sedentary or else continuously raiding, and are negotiating a treaty for future friendship, which includes an offer of inter-tribal marriage. Whichever version we prefer, the story is transformed. We have moved from the close family story of Ya'akov and his sons to the broader integration of a much bigger immigrant tribe. Which places us back in the same realm of hostility and xenophobic concern that Av-Ram and Yitschak experienced with Avi-Melech.

34:10 VE ITANU TESHEVU VE HA ARETS TIHEYEH LIPHNEYCHEM SHEVU U SECHARUHAH VE HE'ACHAZU BAH

וְאִתָּנוּ תֵּשֵׁבוּ וְהָאָרֶץ תִּהְיֶה לִפְנֵיכֶם שְׁבוּ וּסְחָרוּהָ וְהֵאָחֲזוּ בָּהּ

KJ: And ye shall dwell with us: and the land shall be before you; dwell and trade ye therein, and get you possessions therein.

BN: "And you shall dwell with us; and the land shall be before you; dwell and trade in it, and get yourselves possessions it it."

Clearly it is an invitation to merge the tribes and share the land. Interesting precedent for those of us who live in countries that like to regard themselves as multi-cultural, but still in reality occupy ghettos - we may well eat shishlik and sushi and listen to kletzmer and rap, and drink vodka and ouzo, and holiday in the Bahamas and Tenerife, but we want our kids to marry inside our culture, and stay inside our faith whatever "our culture" and "our faith" may be.

VE HE'ACHAZU BAH: from the root ACHAZ (אחז) = "to take hold of" or "to seize"; here in the Hiphil or causative form, which makes it even stronger. "Get yourselves possessions therein" is the sort of thing that might be said to a new-immigrant who arrives with little or nothing - getting off the boat at Ellis Island, say. But Ya'akov is arriving complete with tribe, servants and great wealth in flocks and herds. However, this is not what is being said to Ya'akov; this is an acknowledgement of conquest, albeit not military conquest; this is a surrender to a coloniser (ironic, given where this is geographically, and what is happening in the same place today). The same verb is used repeatedly by Yehoshu'a during the conquest of Kena'an when he affirms that the land is being given by YHVH for a possession; see Joshua 22:9, for example, where the word is used as a noun - אֲחֻזָּתָם - ACHUZAT, which also happens to be the name of Avi-Melech's friend in the parallel episode in Genesis 26:26.

The root ACHAZ also gives King Achaz (Ahaz); cf 2 Chronicles 28:16 ff, 2 Kings 16:1 ff, Isaiah 7:1 ff and 38:8.


34:11 VA YOMER SHECHEM EL AVIYHA VE EL ACHEYHA EMTSA CHEN BE EYNEYCHEM VA ASHER TOMRU ELAY ETEN

וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁכֶם אֶל אָבִיהָ וְאֶל אַחֶיהָ אֶמְצָא חֵן בְּעֵינֵיכֶם וַאֲשֶׁר תֹּאמְרוּ אֵלַי אֶתֵּן

KJ: And Shechem said unto her father and unto her brethren, Let me find grace in your eyes, and what ye shall say unto me I will give.

BN: And Shechem said to her father and her brethren, "Let me find favour in your eyes, and what you shall say to me I will give...

Again he is portrayed as honourable. Why then turn on him in such anger afterwards?

34:12 HARBU ALAI ME'OD MOHAR U MATAN VE ETNAH KA ASHER TOMRU ELAY U TENU LI ET HA NA’ARA LE ISHAH

הַרְבּוּ עָלַי מְאֹד מֹהַר וּמַתָּן וְאֶתְּנָה כַּאֲשֶׁר תֹּאמְרוּ אֵלָי וּתְנוּ לִי אֶת הַנַּעֲרָ לְאִשָּׁה

KJ: Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife.

BN: "Ask me for whatever dowry and gift you deem appropriate, and I will give exactly what you tell me to; but give me the damsel as a wife."

MOHAR: Translated as dowry, but really it should be translated as "bride-price"; the two may be similar in material terms, but culturally they are every different; effectively the father of the groom is purchasing the girl from her father, as a piece of property.

NA'ARA again and not NA'ARAH.

And, pray, what more could Shechem do, or offer, to assert his morality and his good intentions in this matter?

34:13 VA YA'ANU VENEY YA'AKOV ET SHECHEM VE ET CHAMOR AVIV BE MIRMAH VA YEDABERU ASHER TIM'E ET DINAH ACHOTAM

וַיַּעֲנוּ בְנֵי יַעֲקֹב אֶת שְׁכֶם וְאֶת חֲמוֹר אָבִיו בְּמִרְמָה וַיְדַבֵּרוּ אֲשֶׁר טִמֵּא אֵת דִּינָה אֲחֹתָם

KJ: And the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father deceitfully, and said, because he had defiled Dinah their sister:

BN: And Ya'akov's sons answered Shechem and his father Chamor with guile, and spoke as they did because he had defiled Dinah, their sister.

BE MIRMAH (במרמה): if this is deceitful, then what has the rest of the story been about? And how very unusually, to portray the central protagonists in a tale as the bad guys, and the people they do down as the good guys; yet, once again, it is Ya'akov who is made to appear in a bad light – or in this case, his sons, who have clearly taken their father for a role-model. Why did the Beney Yisra-El want to keep all these stories about their unworthy patriarch anyway? A nation needs heroes and role-models. Who would write a history of the great Presidents of America that put Richard Nixon on the cover?

And again, why is it the sons who are answering on behalf of their father? Is he distancing himself? And which sons - all eleven can't be speaking? (Presumably it's Shim'on and Levi, as sons 2 and 3, and if you are wondering why Re'u-Ven, the eldest, is not part of this, maybe it's because he's hanging out in Bilhah's tent even now, pressing pilgrim's lips to pilgrim's lips in a manner that is most incestuously unholy - see Genesis 35:22.

34:14 VA YOMRU ALEYHEM LO NUCHAL LA'ASOT HA DAVAR HA ZEH LATET ET ACHOTENU LE ISH ASHER LO ARLAH KI CHERPAH HI LANU

וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֲלֵיהֶם לֹא נוּכַל לַעֲשׂוֹת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה לָתֵת אֶת אֲחֹתֵנוּ לְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לוֹ עָרְלָה כִּי חֶרְפָּה הִוא לָנוּ

KJ: And they said unto them, We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one that is uncircumcised; for that were a reproach unto us:

BN: And they said to them, "We cannot do this one thing, to give our sister to a man who is uncircumcised; that would be a breach of covenant by us...

Is this really just a pretext, part of the guile referred to in verse 13; or is it a matter of rite and endogamy? In every other sense they should be happy that Shechem wants to do the honourable thing, since no longer virgin she is otherwise unmarriageable. Later of course they will force-circumcise the whole people - or will they? Look carefully at those lines in relation to this verse. And compare David at Gat, acquiring his dowry for Michal (1 Samuel 18:25-27).

34:15 ACH BE ZOT NE'OT LACHEM IM TIHEYU CHAMONU LEHIMOL LACHEM KOL ZACHAR

אַךְ בְּזֹאת נֵאוֹת לָכֶם אִם תִּהְיוּ כָמֹנוּ לְהִמֹּל לָכֶם כָּל זָכָר

KJ: But in this will we consent unto you: If ye will be as we be, that every male of you be circumcised;

BN: "Only on this condition will we give our consent to you; if you will be as we are, that every male among you be circumcised...

34:16 VE NATANU ET BENOTEYNU LACHEM VE ET BENOTEYCHEM NIKACH LANU VE YASHAVNU IT'CHEM VE HAYIYNU LE AM ECHAD

וְנָתַנּוּ אֶת בְּנֹתֵינוּ לָכֶם וְאֶת בְּנֹתֵיכֶם נִקַּח לָנוּ וְיָשַׁבְנוּ אִתְּכֶם וְהָיִינוּ לְעַם אֶחָד

KJ: Then will we give our daughters unto you, and we will take your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will become one people.

BN: "Then will we give our daughters to you, and we will take your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will become one people...

This appears to suggest that endogamy is less important than circumcision; it also shows that tribes can and did merge. Which helps us understand who the Beney Yisra-El really were: an amalgamation through marriage of many tribes and ethnic groups.

We can thus read Shim'on and Levi as Ya'akovite or Yisra-Elite in the broadest sense, rather than the narrow literal one of actual sons of Ya'akov.

This is also not as extraordinary as it may sound. All cultures do it. Christianity and Islam have spent the last thousand-plus years doing it, all over the world. The so-called "democratic" nations are doing it as you read: yes, we will be happy to trade with you, but only if you accept our way of doing democracy, only if you buy into our moral and ethical codes (which we don't actually keep but you must), etc. It is a means of asserting predominance, a form of bullying really.

34:17 VE IM LO TISHME'U ELEYNU LEHIMOL VE LAKACHNU ET BITENU VE HALACHNU

וְאִם לֹא תִשְׁמְעוּ אֵלֵינוּ לְהִמּוֹל וְלָקַחְנוּ אֶת בִּתֵּנוּ וְהָלָכְנוּ

KJ: But if ye will not hearken unto us, to be circumcised; then will we take our daughter, and we will be gone.

BN: "But if you will not hearken to us, to be circumcised, then we will take our daughter, and we will be gone."


Interesting that the Yisra-El speak as the more powerful people who can set the terms of co-existence. Or is that because this is the Beney Yisra-El version, and if there were a Shechemite version it would read very differently?

Is it possible that something of the same order was the problem with Avi-Melech?

34:18 VA YIYTVU DIVREYHEM BE EYNEY CHAMOR U VE EYNEY SHECHEM BEN CHAMOR

וַיִּיטְבוּ דִבְרֵיהֶם בְּעֵינֵי חֲמוֹר וּבְעֵינֵי שְׁכֶם בֶּן חֲמוֹר

KJ: And their words pleased Hamor, and Shechem Hamor's son.

BN: And their words pleased Chamor, and Shechem, Chamor's son 

Where actually is the guile in all this ("guile" is not my commentary, but the word used in verse 13)? Do they think they are tricking the people into circumcision, or are they simply being disingenuous in proposing it? Meaning: did they intend the massacre, the conquest of the city, the conquest, all along – and Dinah just the convenient pretext? "Conquest" of course takes us back a few verses to VE HE'ACHAZU BAH (verse 10).

34:19 VE LO ECHAR HA NA'AR LA'ASOT HA DAVAR KI CHAPHETS BE VAT YA'AKOV VE HU NICHBAD MI KOL BEYT AVIV

וְלֹא אֵחַר הַנַּעַר לַעֲשׂוֹת הַדָּבָר כִּי חָפֵץ בְּבַת יַעֲקֹב וְהוּא נִכְבָּד מִכֹּל בֵּית אָבִיו

KJ: And the young man deferred not to do the thing, because he had delight in Jacob's daughter: and he was more honourable than all the house of his father.

BN: Nor did the young man procrastinate about getting the thing done, because he was so delighted by Ya'akov's daughter; and he was honoured above all the house of his father.

34:20 VA YAVO CHAMOR U SHECHEM BENO EL SHA'AR IYRAM VA YEDABRU EL ANSHEY IYRAM LEMOR

וַיָּבֹא חֲמוֹר וּשְׁכֶם בְּנוֹ אֶל שַׁעַר עִירָם וַיְדַבְּרוּ אֶל אַנְשֵׁי עִירָם לֵאמֹר

KJ: And Hamor and Shechem his son came unto the gate of their city, and communed with the men of their city, saying,

BN: And Chamor and Shechem his son came to the gate of their city, and spoke with the men of their city, saying...

Again it is in the gate of the city where these things happen.


34:21 HA ANASHIM HA ELEH SHELEMIM HEM ITANU VA YESHVU VA ARETS VE YISCHARU OTAH VE HA ARETS HINEH RACHAVAT YADAYIM LIPHNEYHEM ET BENOTAM NIKACH LANU LE NASHIM VE ET BENOTEYNU NITEN LAHEM

הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה שְׁלֵמִים הֵם אִתָּנוּ וְיֵשְׁבוּ בָאָרֶץ וְיִסְחֲרוּ אֹתָהּ וְהָאָרֶץ הִנֵּה רַחֲבַת יָדַיִם לִפְנֵיהֶם אֶת בְּנֹתָם נִקַּח לָנוּ לְנָשִׁים וְאֶת בְּנֹתֵינוּ נִתֵּן לָהֶם

KJ: These men are peaceable with us; therefore let them dwell in the land, and trade therein; for the land, behold, it is large enough for them; let us take their daughters to us for wives, and let us give them our daughters.

BN: "These men are peaceable with us; therefore let them dwell in the land, and trade with us; for behold the land is large enough for them; let us take their daughters to us for wives, and let us give them our daughters...


SHELEMIM: Ironic in the circumstances; helpful to us as interpreters, relating it back to Genesis 33:18, where we read "VA YAVO YA'AKOV SHALEM IR SHECHEM", and wondered what exactly the word SHALEM meant in the context.

So many amalgamations and assimilations of tribes are referred to, it is nice to have a genuine example to read about - even if it doesn't actually achieve completion.

Though this is being done by proxy, once again Ya'akov is negotiating a place to live, just as he did with Lavan. Why not go back to the land of his inheritance, as he told Lavan he was planning to do? My reading is that the Ya'akov we are dealing with now, the patriarchal Yisra-El, was never actually a son of Yitschak, but in fact came from Padan Aram in the manner described here, arriving only now; but two completely different histories have been synthesised. As always with the Tanach, we are obliged to read the text at multiple levels simultaneously.

Circumcision as a rite was more than just a physical act; did the Shechemites understand all the implications, or was this just pragmatism?


34:22 ACH BE ZOT YE'OTU LANU HA ANASHIM LASHEVET ITANU LIHEYOT LE AM ECHAD BE HIMOL LANU KOL ZACHAR KA ASHER HEM NIMOLIM

אַךְ בְּזֹאת יֵאֹתוּ לָנוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים לָשֶׁבֶת אִתָּנוּ לִהְיוֹת לְעַם אֶחָד בְּהִמּוֹל לָנוּ כָּל זָכָר כַּאֲשֶׁר הֵם נִמֹּלִים

KJ: Only herein will the men consent unto us for to dwell with us, to be one people, if every male among us be circumcised, as they are circumcised.

BN: "Only on this condition will the men agree to dwell with us, to become one people, that every male among us be circumcised, as they are circumcised.


The rape, if such it ever was, has been forgotten; this is now a tribal affair.

Was there really any choice in this for the Shechemites? Was it conquest or really assimilation?


34:23 MIKNE'HEM VE KINYANAM VE CHOL BEHEMTAM HA LO LANU HEM ACH NE'OTAH LAHEM VE YESHVU ITANU

מִקְנֵהֶם וְקִנְיָנָם וְכָל בְּהֶמְתָּם הֲלוֹא לָנוּ הֵם אַךְ נֵאוֹתָה לָהֶם וְיֵשְׁבוּ אִתָּנוּ

KJ: Shall not their cattle and their substance and every beast of theirs be ours? only let us consent unto them, and they will dwell with us.

BN: "Shall not their cattle and their substance and all their beasts be ours? Only let us agree this with them, and they will dwell with us."


Self-interest rules; they want the alliance because Ya'akov is very wealthy and through marriage they will be too; and the devil integrated by marriage is better than the devil living outside the city and likely to maraud, not to mention seek revenge for a defiled princess. Or simply go elsewhere and spread his wealth to other clans and villages.

Note that there is no reference to worship of gods in either direction, overt or tacit; there appears to be neither treaty nor covenant, which is unusual.


34:24 VA YISHME'U EL CHAMOR VE EL SHECHEM BENO KOL YOTSEY SHA'AR IYRO VA YIMOLU KOL ZACHAR KOL YOTS'EY SHA'AR IYRO

וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶל חֲמוֹר וְאֶל שְׁכֶם בְּנוֹ כָּל יֹצְאֵי שַׁעַר עִירוֹ וַיִּמֹּלוּ כָּל זָכָר כָּל יֹצְאֵי שַׁעַר עִירוֹ

KJ: And unto Hamor and unto Shechem his son hearkened all that went out of the gate of his city; and every male was circumcised, all that went out of the gate of his city.

BN: And everyone who went out of the gate of his city listened to Chamor and to Shechem his son, and agreed; and every male was circumcised, everyone that went out of the gate of his city.


Note the constant repetition of "his" city - in verse 2 we were told that Chamor was the "prince" of this land, so presumably he didn't need to consult, but could have ordered. Though, on the other hand, princes who give orders of this kind without prior consultation may not continue in their princehood for very long!

Note also the completely insignificant and purely coincidental connection between Sha'ar = "gate" and Se'ir = Esav's new home-city, even though both are written the same (שער).


34:25 VA YEHI VA YOM HA SHELISHI BI HEYOTAM KO'AVIM VA YIK'CHU SHENEY VENEY YA'AKOV SHIM'ON VE LEVI ACHEY DINAH ISH CHARBO VA YAVO'U AL HA IYR BETACH VA YAHARGU KOL ZACHAR

וַיְהִי בַיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי בִּהְיוֹתָם כֹּאֲבִים וַיִּקְחוּ שְׁנֵי בְנֵי יַעֲקֹב שִׁמְעוֹן וְלֵוִי אֲחֵי דִינָה אִישׁ חַרְבּוֹ וַיָּבֹאוּ עַל הָעִיר בֶּטַח וַיַּהַרְגוּ כָּל זָכָר

KJ: And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.

BN: And it came to pass on the third day, when they were still in pain, that two of the sons of Ya'akov - Shim'on and Levi, Dinah's brethren - took each man his sword, and came upon the city unawares, and slew all the males.


So it was by conquest in the end. If we regard the rape of Dinah as a euphemism for the slaughter of a tribe, then this makes sense. If we treat it as the sexual violation of the woman, then first it is not certain that it even happened, and second - is the massacre of the town not rather an over-reaction? All three are children of Le'ah incidentally, but where are the other brothers in all this, and especially Re'u-Ven, who is the firstborn and therefore, if there is a go'el in this matter, should be leading it, not absent from it - Shim'on and Levi are Le'ah's 2nd and 3rd sons respectively?

From the later tribal map there is no obvious link from Shim'on (southern Negev desert) to Shechem (modern Nablus, at the northern boundary of the West Bank; just by Beit Shan on the adjacent map); for Levi there is a connection, for Shechem would later become one of his refuge-cities under Yehoshu'a's division (Joshua 20:7), and indeed a very important Levitical city, the place where Yehoshu'a would make his final speech to the nation (Joshua 24); so it may well be that we are reading a Levitical scroll explaining or justifying its sources, and of course for the Levites to live and intermarry in any of the refuge-cities would have been a problem without the circumcision discussed here.

At the same time, having Levi as an agent in this despicable calumny does not set a great role-model for what will be Mosheh and Aharon's tribe, and more significantly the tribe that produces both the Kohanim and Leviyim until this day. Or maybe the opposite is the case. Today we see conquerors in the negative, but that is a recent phenomenon. Those who conquered were always labelled "the great" in the past, and the conquest of Shechem was a mere taster for the conquest by Yehoshu'a later on. "Levi the Great", honoured for this deed by having his tribe selected to lead the Exodus from Egypt and become the Priestly family? We cannot simply reject that hypothesis because it clashes with our zeitgeist; but we can reject it on the basis of Ya'akov's reaction, now and when he delivers his will in Genesis 49. Ya'akov is so opposed to it, both Shim'on and Levi will be left without physical inheritance - stripped of their birthrights and their blessings, so to speak! - and we can say that he at least "came in peace" to Shechem.

I noted earlier the Homeric parallels; dare we suggest that the idea of temporarily disabling the men through circumcision was sufficiently "wily" and "cunning" - to use Homer's description of Odysseus - to be described as a Trojan Horse? "Wily" and "guile" as synonyms?

34:26 VE ET CHAMOR VE ET SHECHEM BENO HARGU LE PHI CHAREV VA YIK'CHU ET DINAH MI BEIT SHECHEM VA YETS'E'U

וְאֶת חֲמוֹר וְאֶת שְׁכֶם בְּנוֹ הָרְגוּ לְפִי חָרֶב וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת דִּינָה מִבֵּית שְׁכֶם וַיֵּצֵאוּ

KJ: And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went out.

BN: And they slew Chamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and departed.

Interesting that Dinah was in Shechem's house all this while. Presumably, according to the marriage-contract, she had actually married Shechem. But also note that the wife went to join the husband's clan, patrilocally, just like the Beney Yisra-El.

Shechem became the capital of Yisra-El for several centuries, before Yeru-Shala'im took that role, and the Ark was kept there, and Yehoshu'a held the annual covenant renewal there; so how Yisra-El came to rule Shechem is an important tale. So important that it centres on Dinah, then Levi and Shim'on, then Ya'akov, but no one else! But it makes Dinah the "goddess" of Shechem, and thereby of the whole tribe. See Dictionary of Names for details of the connections between Dinah and Danae/Diana the moon-goddess.

Why did they then leave? Having conquered the city, why not then go in and occupy it? (One could ask the same question, say, of Alexander of Macedon, or Napoleon Buonaparte; and the answer is usually: because they were moving on to the next conquest, to the enlargement of their empires).

34:27 BENEY YA'AKOV BA'U AL HA CHALALIM VA YAVOZU HA IYR ASHER TIM'U ACHOTAM

בְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב בָּאוּ עַל הַחֲלָלִים וַיָּבֹזּוּ הָעִיר אֲשֶׁר טִמְּאוּ אֲחוֹתָם

KJ: The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because they had defiled their sister.

BN: Ya'akov's sons came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because they had defiled their sister.

Or if not occupy it, then to purify it, reconsecrating it to YHVH or Elohim or even Pachad Yitschak, like the Maccabees cleansing the temple a millennium later. But no, we are told that they simply spoiled it. What does spoiled mean in this context, given that the general practice of spoiling includes burning down the town and taking away as much treasure as possible, but also "defiling" the women?

CHALALIM (החללים): slaughtered rather than merely slain. There is an implicit degree of pleasure in "slaughter".

34:28 ET TSO'NAM VE ET BEKARAM VE ET CHAMOREYHEM VE ET ASHER BA IR VE ET ASHER BA SADEH LAKACHU

אֶת צֹאנָם וְאֶת בְּקָרָם וְאֶת חֲמֹרֵיהֶּם וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר בָּעִיר וְאֶת אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׂדֶה לָקָחוּ

KJ: They took their sheep, and their oxen, and their asses, and that which was in the city, and that which was in the field,

BN: They took their flocks and their herds and their asses, and whatever was in the city, and whatever was in the field...

A total massacre, Biblical ethnic cleansing. But why? To kill Shechem is one thing, but this is quite another. As ever there is more to it than meets the eye. This is undoubtedly conquest, not assimilation. Throughout this chapter, my feeling is that we should replace the name Ya'akov with the name Yisra-El, and speak not of "the sons of Ya'akov", but "the Children of Israel", and set this tale alongside those of Yehoshu'a as an account of the conquest. Though Ya'akov gets mentioned, he does not participate; though Ya'akov condemns his sons, it is not until afterwards. I do not believe that this is part of the epic that is his life-story; or if it is, it can only be at the junction of Egyptian Shet-worship with Aramaean Lavan-worship and Kena'ani Dinah-worship, and some mythological conjoining of the various cults, all moon-cults but also very different moon-cults, and the tale another aspect of Ya'akov's Milky Way...

LAKACHU (לקחו): confirmation of the thieving of treasure.

CHAMOREYHEM: As Ya'akov, having married Uncle White's Sheep, then steals his sheep, so here, having killed Prince Donkey, all his donkeys are taken away as booty.

34:29 VE ET KOL CHEYLAM VE ET KOL TAPAM VE ET NESHEYHEM SHAVU VA YAVOZU VE ET KOL ASHER BA BAYIT

וְאֶת כָּל חֵילָם וְאֶת כָּל טַפָּם וְאֶת נְשֵׁיהֶם שָׁבוּ וַיָּבֹזּוּ וְאֵת כָּל אֲשֶׁר בַּבָּיִת

KJ: And all their wealth, and all their little ones, and their wives took they captive, and spoiled even all that was in the house.

BN: And all their wealth, and all their children and their wives, they took captive and spoiled, everything that was in the house.

The apparent cynicism of this commentator again proven to be actually rather more than good guesswork. For they did indeed leave the women and children alive, but spoiled the women. Nice people, these Beney Yisra-El! Is "spoil" the same as "defile"? Is "took captive" the same as "rape"? Is "terrorist" the same as "freedom fighter", and "loophole discoverer" the same as "tax evader"? History is written by the victors, and the victor always manages to find language that renders his wickednesses necessary and good, while vilifying the other side.

34:30 VA YOMER YA'AKOV EL SHIM'ON VE EL LEVI ACHARTEM OTI LE HAV'IYSHENI BE YOSHEV HA ARETS BA KENA'ANI U VA PERIZI VA ANI METEY MISPAR VE NE'ESPHU ALAI VE HIKUNI VE NISHMADETI ANI U VEYTI

וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב אֶל שִׁמְעוֹן וְאֶל לֵוִי עֲכַרְתֶּם אֹתִי לְהַבְאִישֵׁנִי בְּיֹשֵׁב הָאָרֶץ בַּכְּנַעֲנִי וּבַפְּרִזִּי וַאֲנִי מְתֵי מִסְפָּר וְנֶאֶסְפוּ עָלַי וְהִכּוּנִי וְנִשְׁמַדְתִּי אֲנִי וּבֵיתִי

KJ: And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and I being few in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house.

BN: And Ya'akov said to Shim'on and Levi, "You have caused me untold trouble, making me odious to the inhabitants of the land, to the Kena'ani and the Perizi; and I, being few in number, they will gather themselves together against me and smite me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house."

ACHARTEM: Odious. Yes, that makes a good choice of word for the translation. Odious. As Sabra and Shatila were odious. As Dir Yassin was odious (but you need both links to get the full picture of the odiousness, here, and here; and then look again at my closing comment in the Sabra-Shatila link). As what happened to the Jews of Yatrib and Poland was odious. As hypocrisy is odious.

Why mention the Perizim in particular, when there were so many peoples? Does it give us a clue to their geographical location?

The use of the "I" here is extraordinary. An extended essay could be written on the subject by senior high school or university students.

Again Ya'akov is scared. This makes for a picture of Bedouin nomads trying to caravanserai, fouling their nest, and being scared they will be kicked out. Frankly, they should have been kicked out, and not by men, but by their own god.

Or is it a later attempt to shake off the guilt of the massacre at the time that Shechem became the capital? Which would be a good reason, if the story does really belong in Yehoshu'a, for moving it back to Genesis.

In Jewish commentary, Ya'akov is heavily criticised for his response here; though attention is drawn to the rebuke of Shim'on and Levi in his death-bed blessings (Genesis 49:5/7) - this really is rather a cop-out. There is much to discuss here. Does Ya'akov's response show us that he approves or disapproves? A fundamentalist position at the time would not have batted an eyelid at the massacre; our sensibilities today are very different. Would later Levites have been proud of their warrior heritage, now that they have become priests and Temple administrators?

Ya'akov's inferences are the correct ones to draw. They have made themselves feared and hated, and as we know from the Intifada, that is not an effective way to come into someone else's land hoping to live in peace and harmony.

34:31 VA YOMRU HA CHE ZONAH YA'ASEH ET ACHOTENU

וַיֹּאמְרוּ הַכְזוֹנָה יַעֲשֶׂה אֶת אֲחוֹתֵנוּ

KJ: And they said, Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot?

BN: And they said, "No one treats our sister like a harlot?"

What happened to the rest of the story? It is clearly incomplete. Or is this the deliberate style of the Tanach, to give us a taste without the whole meal? Ya'akov's answer, if given, would resolve all outstanding questions, but ending on the tonic rather than the dominant as this does allows the Shim'on-Levi position to hold sway. So we have a decision of propaganda by the Redactor. "Who would disdain an answer to the ovens? Any answer?" is the rhetorical question asked by Rabbi Solomon Klinitsky on a visit to Israel in the early 1950s. As with Shim'on and Levi, it leaves open to question far more than it appears to ask.

Pey break; end of chapter 34

Surf The Site
Genesis: 1a 1b 1c 1d 2a 2b 2c 2d 3 4a 4b 4c/5 6a 6b 7 8 9 10 11a 11b 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25a 25b 26a   26b 27 28a 28b 29 30a 30b 31a 31b/32a 32b 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44a 44b 45 46 47a 47b 48 49 50

Copyright © 2020 David Prashker

All rights reserved

The Argaman Press