From the early Church Fathers to now.
“The sons of Jacob answered Sichem and his father deceitfully, being enraged at the deflowering of their sister:”
“במרמה WITH GUILE — cleverly 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).”
“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.”
The in-app commentary runs from the Fathers to the early-modern record, then stops — that's where the public-domain sources end, not where the reading does. For the modern reading, follow the sources directly.