וּבְנֵ֨י יַעֲקֹ֜ב בָּ֤אוּ מִן־הַשָּׂדֶה֙ כְּשָׁמְעָ֔ם וַיִּֽתְעַצְּבוּ֙ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים וַיִּ֥חַר לָהֶ֖ם מְאֹ֑ד כִּֽי־נְבָלָ֞ה עָשָׂ֣ה בְיִשְׂרָאֵ֗ל לִשְׁכַּב֙ אֶת־בַּֽת־יַעֲקֹ֔ב וְכֵ֖ן לֹ֥א יֵעָשֶֽׂה׃
Os filhos de Jacó, pois, vieram do campo logo que souberam do caso; e entristeceram-se e iraram-se muito, porque Siquém havia cometido uma insensatez em Israel, deitando-se com a filha de Jacó, <span class="x" onmousemove="Show('perush','Pois sobre todos os povos recaía a obrigação de guardia dos preceitos dados a Noé, estabelecido com ele e com toda sua descendência após o dilúvio. Uma das proibiçõs graves, é o rapto. Outra, o desrespeito a uma virgem, sem que esta lhe haja sido dada por seu pai. Por qualquer dentre ambas, a penalidade pode ser a morte, pois não há diferença entre eles. A cidade que não julgar, em caso assim, incorre toda ela na penalidade, que é execução a fio de espada.');" onmouseout="Hide('perush');">coisa que não se devia fazer</span>.
Contemporary Halakhic Problems, Vol II
There are grounds for assuming the existence of an interdiction against intermarriage pre-dating the Sinaitic covenant. This is manifest in the biblical narrative concerning the incident which occurred between Dinah, the daughter of Jacob, and Shechem, the son of Hamor, as well as the subsequent narrative concerning Tamar, the daughter-in-law of Judah. The Torah censures the actions of Shechem in harsh terms: "Ki nevalah asah be-Yisra'el—He has committed a heinous deed in Israel; ve-khen lo ye'aseh—and such a deed cannot be sanctioned" (Genesis 34:7). The Brisker Rav, Rabbi Yitzchak Ze'ev Soloveitchik, examines this verse and offers an illuminating interpretation. Given the structure of society in antiquity, Shechem's action was not entirely unparalleled. It must be remembered that Hamor ruled the area as an absolute monarch. Shechem was a member of the aristocracy, a princeling, and, quite apparently, could do as he wished with any damsel in his father's domain. Why, then, is the deed deemed so heinous? The Brisker Rav points out that the Gemara, Avodah Zarah 36b, declares that at an early point in history, the Court of Shem, the son of Noah, promulgated a decree against intermarriage. When Tamar is found to be with child, Judah passes judgement: "Bring her forth, and let her be burnt." Tamar is condemned to death but her punishment is, in terms of Halakhah, incongruous. She was ostensibly a widow at the time. Fornication is not a capital transgression. The Gemara indicates that Tamar was punished, not for simple harlotry, but for the infraction of having violated the edict of the Bet Din of Shem, i.e., for apparently consorting with a gentile. The Gemara declares that even in the pre-Sinaitic era there existed a prohibition forbidding members of the family group from which stemmed the progenitors of the people destined to become the community of Israel from intermarrying with members of a gentile nation. From the early dawn of history the people of Israel sought to preserve their ethnic purity and legislated against intermarriage.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
