Chapter 9 Chapter 8 The Rape of Dinah—Her Brother’s Revenge

Leah and Jacob's daughter Dinah went out to meet the local women.And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the master of the place, saw her, he seized her, and committed adultery with her, and defiled her.Shechem fell in love with this daughter of Jacob, fell in love with her, and comforted her with sweet words. So Shechem said to his father Hamor, "Please take this woman as a wife for me." Hamor discussed with (Jacob and his sons) and said, "The little dog Shechem has fallen in love with your maiden, please complete their marriage! Marry us as relatives. If you marry your daughters, you can also marry our daughters and live with us. Bar!"

Jacob's sons had a plan, so they replied to Shechem and his father that we cannot marry our girls to uncircumcised people, because that is our shame!We have only one condition: "If all your males are circumcised, as we are, we will marry our daughters to you and live with you as one family." Hamor and his son Shechem liked these words...so every male who went in or out of the gate was circumcised. On the third day, when the crowd was in pain, the two sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, the brothers of Dinah, came to the city with swords and killed all the males when they least expected it. , and put Hamor and Shechem to death with the sword.Then he took Dinah away from Shechem's house.

The sons of Jacob trampled on the dead bodies and plundered the city because their sister was defiled.They took their sheep, cattle, donkeys, property, women and children, and ransacked everything in the city, including every house. Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, "You have caused me trouble, and brought me a bad name in this country where the Canaanites and Perizzites live. I am small in number, and they will surely gather to kill me, me and all my family. all will perish!" They just replied: "Is it possible that the girl is treated as a prostitute?" Genesis Chapter Thirty-Four

The lynching-style punishment imposed on the rapist of Dinah and his people illuminates a fundamental issue that confronts the entire Bible and every legal system: individual responsibility and punishment, or collective responsibility and punishment. In fact, this issue has surfaced before the story of Dinah, such as the flooding of the world, the destruction of Sodom, and the collective punishment of all men and women for the sin of Adam and Eve, but these are directly out of to God.And Dinah's brother lynched the man who raped his sister and all his male clansmen, highlighting this issue from a purely human perspective.Dinah's brother tricked the rapist and his people into circumcision, then brutally killed them while their wounds were still alive, and took their women, children and property.As mentioned in the previous chapter, although Jacob condemned the behavior of his sons, it was not from a moral point of view; Jacob was troubled that their behavior would tarnish his image in the eyes of the neighboring tribes, And there may be reprisals.Jacob's son violated Jacob's principle of prudence, which is to use deceit instead of resorting to force against a stronger opponent.

The events of Dinah have nothing to do with the development of Genesis as a whole, and she never appears again in later chapters, and we know nothing of what happened to Dinah afterwards. One passage in the Midrash states that she conceived and gave birth to a baby girl who became Joseph's wife, but there is no textual support for this conjecture.Nor is there any discussion in the Bible as to whether Dinah approved of his brother's actions, and the vengeance that Jacob feared did not take place.The only sequel to the story is that, on his deathbed, Jacob recalled the lawlessness of his sons Simeon and Levi and his anger at what they had done.However, why is this single little story included in the Bible?What lessons can we learn from Brother Dinah's brutal revenge and Jacob's evasive rebuke?

Several pleading interpreters immediately find a justification for the actions of James and his sons.They pointed to the scriptures which read: "Those elder brothers destroyed the city that 'defiled their sister'." Thus showing that all the inhabitants of the city were somewhat sinful.Even Maimonides, who often questioned the inappropriateness of some characters in the Bible, argued that all the city's slain citizens were guilty of failing to bring Dinah's rapist to justice.As evidence, Maimonides cites the Law of Noah, which, according to some commentators, strictly prohibits seven specific acts.

There are several problems with this argument, though.First, rape was not among the acts strictly prohibited by Noah's law, so Maimonides had to interpret Shechem's behavior as "robbing" which is an insult to women, because in this way, women are given to materialized.Second, Noah's law did not impose a death penalty for acquiescing or even covering up the wrongdoing of criminals.Third, even the harsher Jewish law did not punish criminals who raped unmarried girls with the death penalty.Fourth, even if their crime deserves death, they have the right to demand due judicial process.Although Naimonides disagreed with Maimonides' argument, he also argued that those people deserved to die, because they were "too bad" and therefore "had no right to live" and should be deprived of the right to life.

Finally, and most ironically, the victims were Jewish when they were killed, since they were all circumcised.This led a certain cynical rabbi to conclude that Simeon and Levi asked them to circumcise themselves because "nobody cares if it's a Jew!" Many traditional commentators seem to assume that anyone who provokes God, the patriarch, or the patriarch's son is guilty of sin.Whoever is punished must be guilty!And those who are severely punished are even more heinous.I remember once, when I was traveling for the Russian Jews who were banned from leaving the country, there was a joke in the Soviet labor camps: one prisoner asked another prisoner what he did to get him locked up for ten years ? "I didn't do anything," replied the person asked. "Stop lying to me!" The person who asked retorted that if he didn't do anything, he would only be imprisoned for five years at most! "

If interpreters assume preconceivedly that whatever the protagonists of a biblical story do must be right, they must find fault with those whom the protagonists kill or otherwise unjustly punish.There are also different versions of this "blame the victim's head" justification, which is the point of view of some traditional Bible interpreters regarding Job.Job's friends believed that Job must have committed some crime to receive such severe punishment.Traditional commentators believe that even Bathsheba's husband (whom King David sent to die at the most dangerous front so that he could marry his wife) must have done something outrageous to make King David so treat him.This backfire-cause way of thinking leads to the idea that all disasters are the victim's own fault.American politician Patrick Buchanan once said that AIDS was God's punishment for homosexuals, while ultra-orthodox Jewish rabbis believed that the Holocaust was God's punishment for those Jews who ate pork.

Some contemporary commentators even forbid criticism of the great figures of the Bible.No matter what the great men of the Bible did, we have to find virtue in it.In the Talmud, which was passed down orally, a wise man once said bluntly that it was a mistake to think that King David was guilty of taking a wife.A few years ago, physical altercations erupted in the Knesset over what the labor minister believed to be tainted by King David's motives.Naimonides objected to this sanctification, claiming: "Our father Abraham unwittingly committed a more serious sin, because he feared for his own life that he nearly disgraced and humiliated his first wife."

But even when traditional interpreters want to find fault with the great figures of the Bible, they can always find an excuse.Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, a modern Orthodox interpreter, puts Namonides' views in terms of acceptable religion: (Nymonides) It is safe to believe that when we can identify with the characters in the Bible, and still remember that these great men are still mortals, we also have to fight against the many difficulties and temptations that pervade every step of our life (sometimes they can't overcome) we can truly use them as our role models and learn from them...   Indeed, reading the Bible "literally" is not easy.The Torah portrays the biblical heroes and heroines as complex, ordinary people who sometimes attain spiritual exaltation and are corrupted by envy; they may sin, yet there is always some spiritual element that enables them to Overcome your weaknesses and accomplish great things.It is precisely because they have experienced a battle between heaven and man that they are worthy of praise, and therefore it is possible for us to emulate them. Jewish scripture commentators believe: "The greater the man, the stronger his evil nature." And the reason why they are great lies in their ability to overcome their powerful evil nature.Psychologist David Rapaport offers the following interpretation of this theme in the Midrash about the life of Moses. Before the pharaoh could taste the plague, he sent his court painter to paint a portrait of his future enemy Moses.The pharaoh then took the portrait to the physiognomists and asked them to analyze Moses' strengths and weaknesses.After looking at the portraits carefully, everyone thought that Moses was a weak and vain person, it was very easy to intimidate or flatter him, and he was no match for Pharaoh at all.Later, Moses made the Pharaoh helpless and suffered a lot. The Pharaoh ordered all the painters and physiognomy to come, and said, "If the portrait is not good, it is the face that looks wrong!" He yelled.Later, Moses came to see Pharaoh and asked for the liberation of the Jews. Pharaoh asked him to decide whether the painter or the physiognomy was negligent, so that the dereliction of duty could be executed.Moses answered both correctly: "I am indeed weak and vain in nature, that is my natural trait, but I have spent a lot of time correcting it." "The great men in the Bible are perfect and cannot do harm to nature, so the people they hurt must deserve what they have done." This kind of view is not consistent with real life and the Jewish Bible.The Torah, like all great literature, assumes that no one is perfect; it is this recognition that makes the Torah so enduring and influential.Great men in the Bible also made mistakes, got emotional, or broke the law; they often justified, denied, or hid their sins and sins.However, the Bible does not ignore these shortcomings.Like the painter who painted the portrait of the seventeenth-century English statesman Cromwell, no "wart and blemish" is spared by the biblical text. Some commentators believe that the people killed in revenge by Simeon and Levi must have committed some crime.This view conveys a gross misinterpretation of the axioms of justice, because it assumes that right and wrong have to do with status and not with behavior.If the person doing something is a patriarch, patriarch's son, prophet, king, or other important person, then the next step is to rationalize what they did, no matter how much wrong it caused (this applies even more to God. So, of course, he cannot be wrong) It is the job of the defense lawyer type interpreter to figure out why, not whether, what these great men did was justified.By analogy, if a great man does something inhumane to a small man, it means that the latter must have deserved what he deserved. The way of discussing justice and axioms based on status has been seen frequently in history, and of course it is not the monopoly of Jews or scripture interpreters. "Whatever the king does is right" is a principle of common law.Right and wrong based on status has often been used against Jews or people of Jewish descent.Early Christian theology held that the persecution of the Jews, whether it was mass protests, inquisitions, the Holocaust, or apartheid, could always be justified by the double collective evil of opposing and killing Jesus Christ.For the Nazis, anything the Jews do is bad, and it is said that in Poland today, as long as something bad happens, everyone still thinks "it must be the Jews who are doing tricks." The necessary condition for justice and axioms is whether they are guilty or not Decisions are made based on a fair assessment of the subject's actions and intentions, not their status.Bible interpreters who fail to recognize that the great men in the Bible also did wrong things are actually self-destroying the Great Wall of justice and axioms.We have to think openly about one thing: those innocent citizens who were massacred by Simeon and Levi may be as innocent as the Jews who have been collectively revenged and persecuted for thousands of years.We should not find or fabricate a self-justified reason to exonerate this inhuman massacre; nor should we be satisfied with Jacob's scolding of the murderous son who evaded the seriousness.If Bible stories can be used as teaching materials for justice and axioms, then we must condemn Simeon and Levi’s massacres from a moral standpoint, and at the same time, take a step back to understand why they have such a great anger and make them do this. This is an act of revenge that hurts nature and implicates the innocent. The Bible certainly understands the urge for revenge in human nature.In a very subtle and innovative point of view in a later law code, God commanded Moses: "Designate ... several cities as cities of refuge ... in which manslaughter may take refuge." Those sanctuaries are not accessible to murderers who intend to kill Those who escaped from the "blood debtor" but who caused death through negligence had the right to receive protection here, waiting for the flames of the bitter master's vengeance to cool down.Thus, the Bible suggests that the urge to avenge a manslaughter may be as strong as the urge to avenge a manslaughter.For the sufferer, it doesn't make much difference whether it is intentional or unintentional. The person they love has died, and the person who caused his death deserves his crime and deserves his life. I hear these cries every time I fight for murderers from the death penalty of murder to the death penalty of incarceration.I will never forget the case of murdering her husband: "My client was convicted of murder for shooting her husband; in my appeal, I raised the fact that the deceased had abused his wife for a long time, so I reduced her sentence to a death sentence. As I was closing my argument, an old woman came up to me and showed me a photo of my son, who I will never see again because of your client. She deserves my pain too. "I can understand why the families of the sufferers resent me for reducing the sentence of the criminals who took away their relatives, but the experience does not necessarily mean that it is justified. The Bible finds ways to protect murderers with lesser negligence, allowing them to hide in a designated place for a period of time, so as not to be hurt by the vengeful fire of the bitter lord.If the murderer leaves the sanctuary and is found and killed by the sufferer, "then the avenger is not responsible for any murder." The Bible believes that when the avenger kills, "the blood in his heart is boiling hot" is less guilty than cold-blooded murder.Such insights later became fundamental principles of biblical law.Originally derived from the story of "Genesis", killings are divided into different levels of cold-blooded killings, hot-blooded killings and warm-blooded killings. Dinah's brother massacred the entire family of Hamor, which was between bloody revenge and cold-blooded punishment.In the case of the former, we can understand that the murderers were furious at the insult of their virginal sister; carry out. (A passage in Midash even feels that their actions made potential converts to Judaism feel that they could not fully trust the Jews because they had to be circumcised.) Moreover, the biblical narrative does not make any connection between Dinah's insult and She made her personal wishes clear.Dinah, like many of the women in Genesis, left no word from the beginning of her ordeal to its end. It is not surprising that we never hear from the rape victims themselves, since in biblical times and for so long after, rape was seen as a crime committed against the victim's father, husband or fiancé.There is such a passage in the Bible: "If a man meets an unmarried virgin and coerces her to submit to the lust of the flesh, the punishment for this man is to pay the woman's father fifty silver coins and marry her as his wife, and he will never be married. Divorce.” The rationale for this punishment was that defilement of a virgin was tantamount to destroying the woman’s father’s possessions, causing her to slip in price in the marriage market.The rapist must pay to compensate the woman's father and relieve the woman's father of having an unmarried daughter.Paradoxically, according to the Bible, the rapist must be punished because he "degrades" women. In order not to make you wonder who the real victims of biblical rape are, please compare the difference between the unbetrothed and betrothed victims.If it was the former, the rapist would be fined fifty silver coins and marry the woman; if it was the latter, the rapist would be sentenced to death.In addition, if a betrothed virgin is raped without crying out, she is also put to death, because her failure to resist is tantamount to her consent, thus violating her marriage contract. This male-centric view of rape has long lingered.As recently as 1964, the Georgia Supreme Court described rape as a crime that violated "the most precious quality of all human beings," namely the "purity" of women, a quality that would be "defiled for life" by rape. 1992 In 1998, the Ohio court cited a 1707 case that described adultery as the most serious injury to a husband's property. For the ambiguous part of the Dinah incident, we must understand it against the background of such a patriarchal system.Some commentators believe that both Shechem and Dinah were initially at fault.As mentioned in a passage in Midash: Jacob and his sons concentrated on studying the book of the law in the study, but Dinah went out to watch the singing and dancing women, who were hired by Shechem...to lure her out. Such discourse casts Jewish men as savvy scholars, non-Jewish men as scheming philistines, and Jewish women as easy prey. Some rabbis blamed Dinah for walking out of his father's tent so casually.One rabbi suggested to her: "Dress like a whore when you go out." Others thought that if she had stayed at home like a womanly woman, "nothing would have happened." Women." There is a chapter in "Midashi" explaining that "women always like to go to the street to show their faces." Whatever the reason, Dinah did not stay home, and something happened.And exactly what happened is the subject of much debate among commentators.Most people agree that Shechem's initial contact with Dinah was Shechem's forcible invasion in spite of Dinah's resistance.Rahi thinks Dinah was sodomized; Ibn Ezra thinks it was sexual intercourse in general, but because the woman is still a virgin, it counts as assault. Regardless of the initial encounter between Shechem and Dinah, it is even more ambiguous in what way the two will interact next.We know Shechem's attitude toward Dinah: he loved her and would do anything to marry her; we also know that Shechem "softly comforted" Dinah that she was safe and secure in his home.Since Dinah never spoke, though, we can only guess what she thought of the man who first assaulted her, then appeased her, and finally got circumcised in order to marry her. The phrase "softly comforting" suggests the attitude of both parties, showing that Dinah was calmed by Shechem's words, but her reaction is never explicitly stated. There is a chapter in "Midashi" that alarmistly says that if a woman has a good time with an uncircumcised man, she will never be able to leave him again! ’” This early account of the phallic attachment complex shows that Dinah did voluntarily stay with Shechem, and not necessarily just because of his words of comfort. It is common for the rapist to comfort the victim today, especially in the case of rape by an acquaintance; the most effective way for the rapist to prevent the victim from calling the police is to comfort the victim.We all know that wife-beaters often sweet-talk their victims afterwards, promising never to do it again, only to see the same old drama repeated over and over again.Of course, it is also possible that Dinah would not accept Shechem's trick at all, because she knew it was just a way to get her to submit.Looking at it from another perspective, perhaps Shechem's rape of Dinah was just a demonstration of the primitive courtship ritual of their people, a violent and male-superior custom, which has been common since ancient times.Although it all started with atrocities, and maybe Shechem really fell in love with Dinah and comforted her later, we will never know the truth because we cannot hear what Dinah said. As for whether Simeon and Leigh didn't know, or even cared about their sister's attitude towards Shechem, they also had no way of knowing.Shechem had violated the honor of those who possessed Dinah by imposing it without their consent.Right and wrong, of course, because there are so many unknowns, it is impossible to decide.Perhaps these brothers saved their sister from a marriage that the woman refused and the man insisted on; however, if they kidnapped the sister from the man she loved and killed the man's entire family, then that's another matter up! The Bible only tells us that these older brothers just can’t stand their sisters being raped but only accept shame fees, and marry their sisters to settle the matter. How decent they think this is! "Isn't it okay to let the girl be treated as a prostitute?" They asked forcefully.In fact, the Bible itself deals with the rape of unbetrothed virgins in exactly that way.In the story of Dinah, the remedy proposed by the people of Shechem was very close to the punishment that was later enforced by the biblical code, which was to pay the victim's father and marry the victim as his wife.The solution they proposed is exactly the later decree of the Bible, so why should they be punished by genocide?What's more, these elder brothers who were angry that their younger sister was treated as a commodity later treated their younger brother Joseph in a similar way and sold him as a slave. A passage in the Midash that speaks of Jacob's blessing to his sons clarifies the contradiction: When Reuben withdrew after receiving his blessing, Jacob called Simeon and Levi to him, and said these words to them: "You are brothers of Dinah, but not of Joseph, whom you sold into slavery. Therefore The weapon you used to kill Shechem is the sword of injustice! What right do you have to draw your sword?" Another place in the Bible sees the matter in a different tone.Just after the events at Dinah, Jacob mentions early events in his last words Simeon and Levi are such brothers, connected by blood by the sword of injustice! My spirit, do not conspire with them, my soul, do not associate with them! Because they kill people in anger! Because they wantonly cut the hamstrings of cattle. Cursed be their wrath, fierce; cursed their wrath, cruel. I want them to be separated in Jacob's house and scattered all over Israel! Jacob reproaches Simeon and Levi on his deathbed.By this time, his daughter Dinah's anger at the rape and his son's vengeance had cooled, emphasizing his condemnation of the abuse of lynching.Despite this, the two tribes of Simeon and Levites prospered, and the Levites later became full-time priests and became priests. This story is like a psychological test of "telling stories by watching ink", which has been reinterpreted in each era to meet the conditions and needs of that era.In fact, regarding the story of Dinah, especially the guilt or innocence of the two avenging brothers, there have been different opinions throughout the ages.In biblical times, when violence and revenge between tribes was the norm, the actions of Simeon and Levi were praised as justice.In the ensuing years, as the laws and regulations gradually took shape, Jacob's condemnation became important.Later, when interracial marriage became the focus of attention, the story was interpreted as a condemnation of interracial marriage, and the fact that Shechem raped Dinah was not as serious as his later attempt to marry her. In the post-Holocaust era, some have stepped back and praised Simeon and Levi for their law enforcement: “A clearly visible revisionist line has emerged in postwar biblical scholarship that sees Simeon And Levi are the real 'heroes', not Jacob...for they took up arms and demanded justice from Shechem for their sister's defilement." Simeon and Levi were the real heroes, they stood up for ideas Their uncompromising attitude makes them the most complex, vivid and fascinating characters in the story. We are not surprised that this passage of Dinah's story was used by fanatics to support their own revenge.In 1994, a Jewish doctor named Baruch Goldstein murdered twenty Muslims in Hebron, West Bank, based on this story.Likewise, Islamic and Christian extremists have cited this passage to support their killings.Some feminists today argue that Dinah's story offers a different perspective on the horrors of rape than later laws in the Bible.They did not exonerate the genocide, they just praised Dinah's brother, at least they understood the humiliation of rape better than the legislators who later required the rapist to pay the "real" victim (the woman's father) as a cover-up fee. It is both great and dangerous that the Bible is inconclusive on the subject of morality.Because there is a lot of space left in the scriptures, the Bible can last forever and produce new meanings as the times change, allowing future generations to rediscover it.And it is precisely because of this quality that the stories of the Bible may be used by demons, or villains, to justify their most heinous crimes.