“בת לאה THE DAUGHTER OF LEAH — so Scripture calls her. Why not the daughter of Jacob? But just because she “went out” she is called Leah’s daughter, since she, too, was fond “of going out” (Genesis Rabbah 80:1), as it is said (30:16) “and Leah went out to meet him”. With an allusion to her they formulated the proverb: “Like mother, like daughter”.”

“THE DAUGHTER OF LEAH, WHOM SHE HAD BORNE UNTO JACOB. The reason [Scripture specifies the daughter of Leah] is to state that she was the sister of Simeon and Levi, who were envious for her sake and avenged her cause. And Scripture mentions further, whom she had borne unto Jacob, in order to allude to the fact that all the brothers were envious for her.”

“AND HE LAY WITH HER, AND HE AFFLICTED HER. He lay with her in natural gratification; and he afflicted her unnaturally. This is Rashi’s language. But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said: And he afflicted her naturally because she was a maiden.” But there is no need for this for all forced sexual connection is called “affliction.” Likewise, Thou shalt not deal with her as a slave, because thou hast afflicted her. And so also: And my concubine they afflicted, and she is dead. Scripture thus tells — in Dinah’s praise — that she was forced, and she did not consent to the prince of the country.”

“AND THUS IT OUGHT NOT TO BE DONE. I.e., to do violence to maidens, for the nations “had fenced themselves round” against unchastity as a result of the Flood. This is Rashi’s language. But I do not know this, for the Canaanites were immersed in unchastity with women, beasts and males, as it is written, For all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you, and they did not begin such practices in that generation [but rather it was their traditional behavior], and even in the days of Abraham and Isaac, the patriarchs feared lest they kill them in order to take their wives. Instead, the expression, and thus it ought not to be done, refers back to the word beyisrael (in Israel): because he had wrought a vile deed in Israel… and thus it ought not to be done among them. This is why Scripture said in Israel for it was not a base deed among the Canaanites. And Onkelos translated: “It is not proper that it be done,” meaning that it is forbidden, and that is why it was a base deed in Israel.”

“‘MOHAR’ (DOWRY) ‘UMATAN’ (AND GIFT). Mohar [refers to the bridal gifts given at the time of] the marriage-contract which is given to maidens, as it is written, according to the dowry of virgins, these being the presents which the young men send to the maidens whom they marry. Umatan are garments or silver and gold which the groom sends to her father and her brothers. In Bereshith Rabbah the Rabbis said: “Mohar is parnon (the wife’s settlement); matan is parapurnon (the additional settlement above the usual dowry),” these being in the language of the Jerusalem Talmud “the regular dowry” and “the usufruct estate,” that is to say, that which he gives her of his properties to be accounted as if she had brought them from her father’s house, the produce of which belongs to him. The reason for this conciliatory gesture is in order that they willingly give her to him as a wife, as the maiden did not consent to him and she steadily protested and cried. This is the sense of the verse, And he spoke comfortingly unto the damsel. Therefore Shechem said, Take me this young maiden to wife, as she was already in his house and in his power, and he feared not her brothers because he was the prince of the country and how could they take her by force out of his house? Now Shechem’s great desire was because the maiden was very beautiful. However, Scripture did not narrate her beauty as it did in the case of Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel because it did not want to mention that which was to her a stumbling-block of iniquity, while Scripture speaks only in praise of the righteous women but not of this one. Similarly, Scripture does not mention what happened to her after her rescue from Shechem’s house. In line with the simple meaning of Scripture she stayed with her brothers, “shut up, living as widows,” as she was considered defiled in their sight, as it is written, Because he had defiled Dinah their sister. Our Rabbis have differed on this matter. The most feasible opinion is that of he who says that Simeon took her, and upon her death, he buried her in the land of Canaan, this being in agreement with what we have said, i.e., that she was with him in his house as a widow, and she went down with them to Egypt, and there she died but was buried in the Land of Israel. Her grave is known by tradition to this day as being in the city of Arbel with the grave of Nitai the Arbelite. It is possible that Simeon brought up her remains from Egypt out of pity for her while the Israelites were still in Egypt or that the children of Israel brought them up together with the bones of her brothers — all the tribes — just as our Rabbis have mentioned.”

“AND THE SONS OF JACOB ANSWERED SHECHEM AND HAMOR HIS FATHER WITH SUBTLETY. Now Hamor and Shechem spoke to her father and her brothers, 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? 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. [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, 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, and will take their daughter 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 wrath 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, saying that “sons of Noah”, 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 commandments 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 seven 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? 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 commandments 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, 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: “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. And in the Jerusalem Talmud 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,” meaning, “You shall not gather in, [i.e., restrain], your words before any man” 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 ruler 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 nations 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.;, 12:2. Thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations, etc.?, 18:9. For all these abominations have the men of the land done, etc. 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] 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, and there, [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. 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. And if we are to believe in the book, ‘The Wars of the Sons of Jacob,’. 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. They said, 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. Scripture, however, is brief about this because it was a hidden miracle, for the sons of Jacob were valiant men, and it appeared as if their own arm saved them. Scripture is similarly brief about the matter of Abraham in Ur of the Chaldees, 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, and they did not all assemble to pursue after the sons of Jacob for they would have fallen upon them as the sand which is on the sea-shore in multitude. And this is the meaning of the terror of G-d, for the terror and dread 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, in order to inform us that not one man among them or their servants was lost in warfare.”

“וְנָתַנּוּ THEN WILL WE GIVE — The second נ has a Dagesh because it serves the purpose of two -נs - וְנָתַנְנוּ (cf. Rashi on Genesis חנני 33:11). ואת בנותיכם נקח לנו AND WE WILL TAKE YOUR DAUGHTERS TO US — You will find that in the proposition which Hamor made to Jacob (Genesis 34:9) and in the reply of Jacob’s sons to Hamor (in this verse) they (both parties to the proposition) regarded the sons of Jacob as being the more important — that they should take of the daughters of Shechem whomsoever they would select for themselves and that they should give their daughters to them (the men of Shechem) as they (Jacob’s sons) would think fit, as it is written, “and we will give our daughters’’ — as we think fit — “and we will take your daughters unto us” — whomsoever we please. When, however, Hamor and his son spoke to the inhabitants of their city (v. 21) they reversed the matter, saying, “their daughters we will take to us for wives, and our daughters we will give unto them", instead of saying “they will give their daughters to us, and they will take our daughters to themselves", in order to induce them to consent to be circumcised.”

“(Chapter 34, Verse 20) And Emor and his son Sichem came to the gate of their city, and they spoke to the men of the city, saying, these men are peaceful with us. Where now the Septuagint translated it as 'peaceful', Aquila interpreted it as 'consummated' or 'perfected', for which in Hebrew it is read () Salamim. From this it is clear that what we said above about Salem is true.”

“שלמים means peaceable and whole hearted. והארץ הנה רחבת ידים FOR THE LAND, BEHOLD, IT IS LARGE ENOUGH (literally, wide-handed) — the metaphor is that of a man whose hand is large and generous, and the idea is: “You will lose nothing if they dwell and trade in the land, for much merchandise is brought here and there are no buyers for it”.”

“THESE MEN ARE PEACEABLE WITH US. The men of the city thought that they hated them as they saw them dejected, and it angered them very much. Perhaps they guarded themselves against them and installed in their city bars and doors, for Jacob’s sons were mighty men and valiant men for the war. But now Hamor and his son Shechem told them, “Do not fear and do not keep distant from them for they are whole-hearted with us.””

“‘MIKNEIHEM’ AND THEIR SUBSTANCE AND ALL THEIR BEASTS. The reason for referring to cattle by the word mikneihem is that beasts of the herds which are in the field are called mikneh — [from the root kanah, which means “acquire”] — because whether they are clean or unclean, they are the mainstay of a man’s substance, just as it is written, Behold, the hand of the Eternal is ‘b’miknecha’ (upon thy cattle) which are in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the herds, and upon the flocks. And those which do not constitute a herd, as, for example, single beasts in the house, are not called mikneh, and they are included in the term, and all their beasts. It may be that [mikneh and “all their beasts” both refer to the same cattle], and the redundancy is for the purpose of emphasis, meaning, and all their beasts which were very numerous.”

“שני בני יעקב TWO OF THE SONS OF JACOB — They were his sons (the sons of Jacob, a wise and clever man), but they acted as any man named Simeon and Levi would do — as other people would do who were not his sons — for they did not take counsel with him (Genesis Rabbah 80:10). אחי דינה DINAH’S BROTHERS — because they risked their lives for her they are designated as her brothers (Genesis Rabbah 80:10) בטח IN SECURITY — because they (the men of Shechom) were ill. The Midrashic explanation, taking בטח in the sense of confident, is: that they relied upon the strength (i.e. the merits) of the old man (Jacob) (Genesis Rabbah 80:10).”

“חילם means THEIR WEALTH. Examples are: (Deuteronomy 8:17) “hath gotten me this (חיל) wealth”; (Numbers 19:18) “and Israel acquireth (חיל) wealth”; (Psalms 49:11) “and they leave (חילם) their wealth to others”. שבו has the meaning of taking captive (i.e. it is the Kal. perfect, 3rd pl. of the root שבה and means “they took captive”), and therefore it is accented on the last syllable (whereas שָׁבוּ, accented on the first syllable, is the same form of the verb שוב and means “they returned”).”

“Those who are brothers according to faith to the injured one, if they are in the priestly order, like Levi, are among the subjects (Simon, in fact, is interpreted as "obedience"). They are extremely displeased if somebody who is their intimate friend according to faith is offended. However, they should not proceed to demand blood, nor should they expect extremely severe punishments for the corruptors, so as not to listen to Christ, who said to them, "You have made me hateful, so that I am now evil in the eyes of all the inhabitants of the land." It is necessary to remember what Jesus said in reproof to Peter, who was holding his sword, "Put up again your sword into its sheath: all those who take the sword shall perish with the sword." In fact, it is not fitting for us, who are inclined toward piety in God, to be armed with swords but rather to be patient. Even though some people want to persecute us, we must reproach them to be good. We must be patient but never silent, as we must refer to him who judges rightly. Those who want to avoid destruction must be careful not to leave the tabernacle of the father, that is, the house of God, in order not to be received into the herds of the heretics and other strangers. After moving out of the father's tabernacle, Dinah was brought to the house of Shechem. She would have never been reproached if she had stayed in the paternal houses and had lived constantly in the holy tabernacles. David declares how that thing is beautiful and very useful by singing, "One thing I have asked of the Lord, this I will earnestly seek: that I should dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, that I should behold the fair beauty of the Lord and survey his temple. For in the days of my affliction he hid me in his tabernacle: he sheltered me in the secret of his tabernacle."”

“עכרתם YE HAVE TROUBLED ME — This has the same meaning as (Berakhot 25b) “troubled (עכורים) waters” (i.e. waters that are disturbed, not clear). He meant “Now my mind will never be clear (without worry)”. There is an Agada, (Genesis Rabbah 80:12) “He said: the wine in the cask was clear but you have troubled it”. The Canaanites had a tradition that they would fall by the hands of the sons of Jacob, but they thought that this would happen only when the condition was fulfilled as expressed in the verse (Exodus 23:30) “when thou shalt in-crease, then shalt thou inherit the land”; consequently they had been silent until now (i.e. they had not attacked them). מתי מספר means A FEW MEN.”