פירוש על בראשית 34:13

במרמה WITH GUILE — cleverly

AND THE SONS OF JACOB ANSWERED SHECHEM AND HAMOR HIS FATHER WITH SUBTLETY. Now Hamor and Shechem spoke to her father and her brothers,¹⁴⁰Verse 11 here. but the patriarch did not answer them at all as his sons spoke in his place on this matter out of respect for him for since the affair was a source of shame to them, they did not want him to speak about it at all.
There is a question which may be raised here. It would appear that they answered with the concurrence of her father and his advice for they were in his presence, and it was he who understood the answer which they spoke with subtlety, and, if so, why was he angry afterwards?¹⁴¹Further, Verse 30. See also Ramban further, 49:5. Moreover, it is inconceivable that Jacob would have consented to give his daughter in marriage to a Canaanite who had defiled her. Now surely all the brothers gave that answer with subtlety, while Simeon and Levi alone executed the deed, and the father cursed only their wrath.¹⁴²Genesis 49:7. [But if all the brothers shared responsibility for the answer and the plan, why did Jacob single out only Simeon and Levi for chastisement?] The answer is that the craftiness lay in their saying that every male of theirs be circumcised,¹⁴³Verse 15 here. as they thought that the people of the city will not consent to it. Even if perchance they will listen to their prince and they will all become circumcised, they will come on the third day, when they were in pain,¹⁴⁴Verse 25 here. and will take their daughter¹⁴⁵“Daughter.” in Tur: “sister.” from the house of Shechem. Now this was the advice of all the brothers and with the permission of their father, but Simeon and Levi wanted to take revenge of them and so they killed all the men of the city.
It is possible that Jacob’s anger in cursing their wrath¹⁴²Genesis 49:7. was because they killed the men of the city who had committed no sin against him; they should have killed Shechem alone. It is this which Scripture says, And the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father with subtlety, and spoke, because he had defiled Dinah their sister, for they all agreed to speak to him craftily because of the base deed which he had done to them.
Now many people ask: “But how did the righteous sons of Jacob commit this deed, spilling innocent blood?” The Rabbi (Moshe ben Maimon) answered in his Book of Judges,¹⁴⁶Hilchoth Melachim, IX, 14, with slight textual changes. The Book of Judges is the last of the fourteen books which comprise Maimonides’ great life work: The Mishneh Torah, or Yad Hachazakah. saying that “sons of Noah”¹⁴⁷Or “a Noachide,” a term denoting the human race. See Seder Bereshith, Note 222. are commanded concerning Laws, and thus they are required to appoint judges in each and every district to give judgment concerning their six commandments¹⁴⁸The six commandments prohibit idolatry, blasphemy, bloodshed, incest, robbery, and eating a limb or flesh which was cut from a living creature. The seventh one is the commandment to establish courts to enforce these laws. Together, these laws are generally referred to as “the seven Noachide laws.” Ramban will later set forth his thesis that the seventh commandment also requires that they establish laws regulating all civil matters such as damages, business regulations, labor laws, etc. which are obligatory upon all mankind. “And a Noachide who transgresses one of them is subject to the death-penalty by the sword. If he sees a person transgressing one of these seven¹⁴⁸The six commandments prohibit idolatry, blasphemy, bloodshed, incest, robbery, and eating a limb or flesh which was cut from a living creature. The seventh one is the commandment to establish courts to enforce these laws. Together, these laws are generally referred to as “the seven Noachide laws.” Ramban will later set forth his thesis that the seventh commandment also requires that they establish laws regulating all civil matters such as damages, business regulations, labor laws, etc. laws and does not bring him to trial for a capital crime, he who saw him is subject to the same death-penalty. It was on account of this that the people of Shechem had incurred the death-penalty because Shechem committed an act of robbery and they saw and knew of it, but they did not bring him to trial.”
But these words do not appear to me to be correct for if so, our father Jacob should have been the first to obtain the merit of causing their death, and if he was afraid of them, why was he angry at his sons and why did he curse their wrath a long time after that and punish them by dividing them and scattering them in Israel?¹⁴²Genesis 49:7. Were they not meritorious, fulfilling a commandment and trusting in G-d Who saved them?
In my opinion, the meaning of “Laws” which the Rabbis have counted among their seven Noachidic commandments¹⁴⁸The six commandments prohibit idolatry, blasphemy, bloodshed, incest, robbery, and eating a limb or flesh which was cut from a living creature. The seventh one is the commandment to establish courts to enforce these laws. Together, these laws are generally referred to as “the seven Noachide laws.” Ramban will later set forth his thesis that the seventh commandment also requires that they establish laws regulating all civil matters such as damages, business regulations, labor laws, etc. is not just that they are to appoint judges in each and every district, but He commanded them concerning the laws of theft, overcharge, wronging, and a hired man’s wages; the laws of guardians of property, forceful violation of a woman, seduction, principles of damage and wounding a fellowman; laws of creditors and debtors, and laws of buying and selling, and their like, similar in scope to the laws with which Israel was charged, and involving the death-penalty for stealing, wronging or violating or seducing the daughter of his fellowman, or kindling his stack, or wounding him, and their like. And it is also included in this commandment that they appoint judges for each and every city, just as Israel was commanded to do,¹⁴⁹Deuteronomy 16:18. but if they failed to do so they are free of the death-penalty since this is a positive precept of theirs [and failing to fulfill a positive precept does not incur the death-penalty]. The Rabbis have only said:¹⁵⁰Sanhedrin 57a. “For violation of their admonishments there is the death-penalty,” and only a prohibition against doing something is called an “admonishment.” And such is the purport of the Gemara in Tractate Sanhedrin.¹⁵¹58b. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 192. And in the Jerusalem Talmud¹⁵²Not found in our editions. See my Hebrew commentary, ibid. they have said: “With respect to Noachide laws, a judge who perverts justice is to be slain. If he took a bribe he is to be slain. With respect to Jewish laws, [if after having heard both parties] you know perfectly well what the proper legal decision should be, you are not permitted to withdraw from the case without rendering a decision, and if you know that it is not perfectly clear to you, you may withdraw from the case. But with respect to their laws, even though you know the law perfectly well you may withdraw from it.” From this it would appear that a non-Jewish judge may say to the litigants, “I am not beholden to you,” for it is only in Israel that there is an additional admonishment — “Lo thaguru’ (ye shall not be afraid) of the face of any man,¹⁵³Deuteronomy 1:17. meaning, “You shall not gather in, [i.e., restrain], your words before any man”¹⁵⁴Sanhedrin 6b. This explanation is based upon the common root of the words thaguru and ogeir (gathering) as in the expression, gathering in summer, (Proverbs 10:5). — and surely he is not to be slain for failing to make himself chief, overseer, or ruler¹⁵⁵Proverbs 6:7. in order to judge superiors. [Ramban thus disagrees with Rambam, who writes that the people of Shechem had incurred the death-penalty by not having brought Shechem to justice.] Moreover, why does the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] have to seek to establish their guilt? Were not the people of Shechem and all seven nations¹⁵⁶Deuteronomy 7:1. idol worshippers, perpetrators of unchaste acts, and practitioners of all things that are abominable to G-d? In many places Scripture loudly proclaims concerning them: Upon the high mountains, and upon their hills, and under every leafy tree, etc.;¹⁵⁷Ibid., 12:2. Thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations, etc.?¹⁵⁸Ibid., 18:9. For all these abominations have the men of the land done, etc.¹⁵⁹Leviticus 18:27. However, it was not the responsibility of Jacob and his sons to bring them to justice.
But the matter of Shechem was that the people of Shechem were wicked [by virtue of their violation of the seven Noachide laws]¹⁴⁸The six commandments prohibit idolatry, blasphemy, bloodshed, incest, robbery, and eating a limb or flesh which was cut from a living creature. The seventh one is the commandment to establish courts to enforce these laws. Together, these laws are generally referred to as “the seven Noachide laws.” Ramban will later set forth his thesis that the seventh commandment also requires that they establish laws regulating all civil matters such as damages, business regulations, labor laws, etc. and had thereby forfeited their lives. Therefore Jacob’s sons wanted to take vengeance of them with a vengeful sword, and so they killed the king and all the men of his city who were his subjects, obeying his commands. The covenant represented by the circumcision of the inhabitants of Shechem had no validity in the eyes of Jacob’s sons for it was done to curry favor with their master [and did not represent a genuine conversion]. But Jacob told them here that they had placed him in danger, as it is said, You have troubled me, to make me odious,¹⁶⁰Verse 30 here. and there,¹⁴²Genesis 49:7. [i.e., at the time he blessed the other children], he cursed the wrath of Simeon and Levi for they had done violence to the men of the city whom they had told in his presence, And we will dwell with you, and we will become one people.¹⁶¹Verse 16 here. They would have chosen to believe in G-d and trust their word, and perhaps they might have indeed returned to G-d and thus Simeon and Levi killed them without cause for the people had done them no evil at all. It is this which Jacob said, Weapons of violence are their kinship.¹⁶²Genesis, 49:5. And if we are to believe in the book, ‘The Wars of the Sons of Jacob,’¹⁶³This is the Midrash Vayisu. See Eisenstein, Otzar Midrashim, p. 157, and L. Ginzberg’s, The Legends of the Jews, Vol. I, pp. 404-411. their father’s fear was due to the fact that the neighbors of Shechem gathered together and waged three major wars against them, and were it not for their father who also donned his weapons and warred against them, they would have been in danger, as is related in that book. Our Rabbis have mentioned something of this conflict in their commentary on the verse, Which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow.¹⁶⁴Further, 48:22. They said,¹⁶⁵As quoted here, the comment appears in Rashi, ibid. See also Bereshith Rabbah 80:9. “All the surrounding nations gathered together to join in battle against them, and Jacob donned his weapons to war against them,” just as Rashi writes there.¹⁶⁴Further, 48:22. Scripture, however, is brief about this because it was a hidden miracle,¹⁶⁶See Ramban above, 17:1. for the sons of Jacob were valiant men, and it appeared as if their own arm saved them.¹⁶⁷Psalms 44:4. Scripture is similarly brief about the matter of Abraham in Ur of the Chaldees,¹⁶⁸See Ramban above, 11:58. and it did not at all mention Esau’s wars with the Horites. Instead, Scripture mentions here that there was the terror of G-d upon the cities that were round them,¹⁶⁹Further, 35:5. and they did not all assemble to pursue after the sons of Jacob¹⁶⁹Further, 35:5. for they would have fallen upon them as the sand which is on the sea-shore in multitude.¹⁷⁰I Samuel 13:5. And this is the meaning of the terror of G-d,¹⁶⁹Further, 35:5. for the terror and dread¹⁷¹See Exodus 15:16. of the military prowess they had seen fell upon them. Therefore Scripture says, And Jacob came to Luz… he and all the people that were with him,¹⁷²Further, 35:6. in order to inform us that not one man among them or their servants was lost in warfare.¹⁷³See Numbers 31:49.

במרמה, they demanded that the people circumcise themselves expecting them to refuse. Alternatively, they thought that Shechem and Chamor, although prepared themselves to circumcise themselves, would not be able to convince the townsfolk to follow their example.

ויענו בני יעקב, The sons of Jacob replied, etc. We have to understand exactly what wisdom Onkelos attributes to Jacob's sons when he translates the word במרמה as "with wisdom" instead of as "with guile." At first glance it appears that the sons of Jacob simply meant to deceive Chamor and Shechem. Besides, what is meant by וידברו אשר טמא את דינה?

ויענו בני יעקב, Yaakov himself did not utter a single word of falsehood or deceit, even though seeing that he had been the injured party he could have excused such conduct. He left the matter in his sons’ care and if they used subterfuge he did not interfere. The brothers did not consider their conduct as reprehensible for people who had defiled their sister and were still holding her captive.

ויענו בני יעקב את שכם ואת חמור אביו במרמה, “the sons of Yaakov answered Shechem and his father Chamor speaking with cleverness, etc.” Nachmanides writes that although both Chamor and Shechem had addressed both Yaakov and his sons, only the sons replied, Yaakov remaining totally silent. Seeing that they felt that their father had been greatly insulted by what happened, they did not want him to get involved in the discussion at all. Nachmanides’ explanation presents us with a problem, as it appears from the plain text as if the sons of Yaakov had spoken at the instigation of their father and with his complete approval. In fact, Yaakov appears to have been fully aware of the intent of the brothers for the men of Shechem to become so weakened by their circumcision that they could be killed without putting up a fight. Seeing that the brothers said what they said in Yaakov’s presence, we must assume that their answer was inspired by their father. What is difficult to understand is Yaakov’s anger at Shimon and Levi’s conduct afterwards! Furthermore, it is quite inconceivable that Yaakov would give his consent to Dinah being married to a Canaanite, especially to a Canaanite who had already defiled her before marriage! There can be no question that the entire family was united in their answer and the reason for their answer. If so, why was Yaakov angry only at Shimon and Levi? The only thing that was objectionable was that Shimon and Levi, in their desire to avenge their sister’s rape, vented their rage on all the citizens of the town, instead of restricting themselves to punishing only Shechem. We must understand that when the verse tells us “they answered במרמה, “with cleverness,” this did not refer to their intention at that time to kill the whole town but they contemplated one of two scenarios unfolding. 1) If the people of Shechem would agree to circumcise themselves, this would afford the brothers an opportunity to rescue their sister without encountering much opposition due to the weakened state of the males of that city. 2) If the people would refuse to circumcise themselves. Shechem would then be obliged to release Dinah. Failing his doing so, they would kill Shechem only. Another difficulty in the whole episode is what made the righteous sons of Yaakov spill innocent blood? Maimonides, addressing this problem, argues that mankind had been obliged to institute a proper judiciary and to try and convict people who had broken their laws by the death penalty. Whenever a person who had committed a violation of the seven Noachide laws went untried and unpunished, every member of society had the right or duty to execute such a person by the sword. Seeing that all the people of Shechem had condoned Dinah’s rape by not trying Shechem, Shimon and Levi did not do anything wrong in killing them.. Although most of the 7 Noachide commandments are negative commandments, i.e. “don’ts,” the commandment to have a judiciary is a positive commandment, and as such the principle of the existence of the commandment is equivalent to the sinner having been forewarned and exposed himself to execution by violating the commandment does not apply here. Failure to establish courts, while a violation of the commandment, does not result in the violator becoming guilty of the death penalty. After all, the inhabitants of the land of Canaan were guilty of many severe sins such as idolatry, incest etc., but this did not authorize Yaakov’s sons to play G’d’s executioner. On the other hand, raping one of their family members was a crime committed directly against Yaakov’s family, and this is why they were within their rights, basically, to avenge this wrong when there was no court that would do so. The people of Shechem were blindly obedient to their leader, not caring that by doing so they breached the covenant G’d had made with mankind after the deluge, a covenant based on the agreement to observe the 7 Noachide commandments that apply uniformly to all of mankind. Yaakov’s anger was based solely on his sons having exposed him to the danger of being killed by hugely superior forces of the surrounding region. He also was angry at the brothers having violated their own undertaking to live peacefully with these people on condition that they circumcise their males, a condition which they had fulfilled. These people had not harmed them individually or collectively at all, and their dishonouring their promise would ruin Yaakov’s reputation in the entire region.

... This is difficult: If [only] Shechem sinned, what was the sin of the [rest of the] city [for which they ‎deserved] to die? Rambam (Hilchot Melachim 9:14) answered that Noachides are commanded to ‎set up courts, and [for]any sin which they violate, they are killed. Here, they witnessed the evil act ‎‎[of Shechem kidnapping Dinah] and did not judge him. For this they deserved to die, for they failed ‎to judge him. But truthfully, these words are surprising, for how could they have judged the son of ‎their prince, since they feared him? Even though they are commanded to judge, that is when they ‎can judge, but “G-d exempts one who is under duress” (Bava Kama 28b), and how could they have ‎judged him?
It appears that there is no difficulty [explaining why all the males in Shechem deserved to die], ‎because [a war between] two nations is different. The Jewish people and the Canaanites are ‎considered two nations, as it is written “and we will be one nation” (Bereishit 34:16), [implying ‎that] initially they were not considered one nation. Therefore they were permitted to fight, like ‎any nation who fights another nation, which the Torah permits. Even though the Torah says, ‎‎“When you draw near to a city to fight it, you shall offer peace” (Devarim 20:10), that applies when ‎they have done nothing to Israel. When they have acted against Israel, as they did here when they ‎breached them to commit an evil act, then even though only one of them sinned, since he is part ‎of the nation and since they instigated, it is permitted to avenge this from all of them.‎ This is so with all wars which they encountered, like “Attack the Midianites” (Bamidbar 25:17). Even ‎though there were many who had done nothing, this is not a [valid] distinction. Since they were ‎members of the nation who acted wickedly against [the Jewish people], it was permitted to ‎engage [all the Midianites] in war, and such is the case with all wars.‎

Jakobs Söhne sprachen vor dem alten Vater, weil sie etwas sprechen wollten, was nicht ganz mit der jüdischen Ehre und Geradheit übereinstimmte. War ein Makel daran, so sollte der nur auf sie fallen können. Für sich waren sie ganz beruhigt, denn es war ja der, der טמא את דינה, und um sie aus seinen Klauen zu retten, hielten sie sich zu allem berechtigt. Seine Vorspiegelungen zogen sie gar nicht in Erwägung.

במרמה, “with slyness;” the sons of Yaakov expected that only Sh’chem and his father Chamor would agree to this condition to circumcise themselves on account of their love for the girl (but they never expected that all the males of the city would do so). They reasoned that seeing that not all the males in that city would perform circumcision on themselves, they would be free to take their revenge on them. This is the mirmah that the Torah speaks about here. At any rate they were fully justified to attack the population of that city as we will explain shortly.

אשר טמא BECAUSE HE HAD DEFILED — Scripture (the Sacred Historian) says that there was no deception (מרמה) in this because he had defiled Dinah their sister (Genesis Rabbah 80:8).

וידברו, אשר טמא; they said that the kind of ipso facto voluntary circumcision which Shechem and his father were willing to perform on themselves was not relevant after Shechem had already defiled their sister. They considered this as in the category of אתנן זונה, offering the price paid to a whore as a sacrifice on G’d’s altar.

Actually, the cleverness of the sons when they answered Chamor במרמה consisted in that they answered him in such a way that their proposal seemed extremely plausible. Shechem and Chamor did not feel that they needed to be on guard against reprisals. The brothers lulled Chamor into a false sense of security by the very fact that they threatened to take some action if their proposal was not accepted; they thus made him believe that if the town accepted the proposal of mass circumcision the whole chapter of the rape would be closed. The word וידברו, a term describing harsh words, indicates that the brothers first harped on the fact that their sister had been sullied. By doing so they ensured that Chamor and Shechem could not accuse them of giving conflicting signals, i.e. suggesting intermarriage while at the same time condemning the people of Shechem for their immoral behaviour.

They then continued speaking in a friendly tone, saying לא נוכל, "we cannot intermarry, etc.," suggesting that they would like to but could not under existing conditions, i.e. while the males of Shechem remained uncircumcised. When they described the condition of the local inhabitants as אשר יש לו ערלה, they meant that whereas the local people were not required to circumcise themselves, it was not enough for Chamor or Chamor and Shechem alone to perform circumcision on themselves. In fact, even if they were to circumcise themselves as a voluntary act they would still be regarded by Jews as ערלים, seeing they did not fulfil a commandment by removing their foreskin.

They would consider intermarriage with the people of Shechem and the merging of the two clans only on condition that the entire male population of Shechem would be circumcised. They emphasised this in order to forestall an offer by Chamor and Shechem to circumcise only themselves and their future male offspring. The brother's entire purpose was to facilitate killing the people of Shechem with a minimum of resistance on the part of the latter. They worded their conditions so that they would not be suspected of merely tricking the people of Shechem.