GEN1412 One of the complaints against globalization is that the rich countries that impose market institutions in developing countries also try to evade these same institutions by obtaining special political favors. We see that Jacob not only encouraged equitable market institutions for others; he also subjected himself to them by paying full price for his field. Globalization can be a force for economic and humanistic benefit as long as the powerful groups that spread it and the cultures that adopted keep it in perspective. Worldwide markets are a good basis for prosperity and understanding, but we need to be careful not to follow the example of [the Roman Empire], which used to them as a bridgehead for immorality and domination. Instead, we need to follow the example of Jacob, who realized that the marketplace is a benefit when it has grace – a sense of proportion and propriety. MEIR 15-6

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1413 Dinah who has gone to visit some of the non-Israelite neighbor women, (literally “the daughters of the land”) is raped by Shechem, Son of Hamor the Hittite, prince of the area.  The Hebrew reads he took her, lay (with) her, and raped her. The “rape” term literally means to afflict or oppress – thus are the Israelites treated by Pharaoh in Egypt. In spite of the etymology of rape, the biblical narrator does not treat Shechem’s rape as an act of violence and considers it compatible with love. At least so Shechem’s attitude is portrayed. The language of Genesis 34:3 thus softens: “His (Shechem’s) soul clung to Dinah … he loved the girl and spoke coaxingly to her (literally ‘upon her heart’),” and asked his father to obtain her for his wife. The language of victimization resumes in Genesis 34:5. Jacob heard that he (Shechem) had sullied his daughter, literally “rendered her unclean.” The body, especially the woman’s body, is a vessel that can be rendered unclean, a commodity, like an edible, that can be made unfit for consumption by improper use or storage. Jacob, the father, is silent about the matter, but Dinah’s brothers are enraged. The narrative paints a real difference between the more patient, acquiescent, deal-making old men and the impatient youths who grab what they want (in the case of Shechem) or are quick to vengeance (in the case of Dinah’s brothers) .… Shechem, they say, has committed an outrage in Israel.… the sons of Jacob and the point of view they represent—accused Shechem of acting in a barbarous fashion, breaking accepted rules of civilized interaction Genesis 34:7. Throughout, Dinah is called “daughter of Jacob,” for the injury is done to Jacob and his sons and not only to Dinah. Dinah herself recedes into the background and is mentioned only once more at the end of the tale, for though she is central to the story—without her there would be no plot—the story is not about her, but about the contest for honor and the struggle for power between two groups of men linked by her. NIDITCH 108-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1414 See [[GEN1413]] Genesis 34:2 force NIDITCH 108-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1415 See [[GEN1413]] Genesis 34:2 force NIDITCH 108-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1416 See [[GEN1413]] Genesis 34:2 force NIDITCH 108-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1417 See [[GEN1142]] Genesis 22:16 swear JOURNEY 548-9

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1419 See [[GEN1420]] and [[GEN1421]] Genesis 34:25 slew AMJV 67 and AMJV 275-6

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1418 In the case of [this verse], a J account of the capture of Shechem, J employs the word meerma (guile) to describe the form of deception employed by Jacob’s sons to gain the confidence of Hamor and Shechem after the rape of their sister Dinah. Here again, meerma seems to be a justifiable form of deception. Since Dinah had been the victim of Shechem, “guile” was a permissible form of deception to achieve compensation for the wrong. This form of deception is seen as permissible and perhaps laudable but at no time does J employ the idea of it being “lying” even though J does have a category of lying which involves an extremely deceptive action or words involving Israelite and non-Israelites. See Exodus 5:9 The deceptions of the sons of Jacob do, however, have some type of retribution attached to them, as is revealed in J’s version of the blessings of Jacob’s sons. See Genesis 49:5-7.

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1420 [Is revenge ever justified? … T]here is considerable disagreement about whether or not Simon and Levi did the right thing.   On the surface, Jacob was still angry at them many years later for their act of revenge, and he cursed Simeon and Levi on his deathbed. Genesis 49:5-7.  Nachmanides states that the brothers were indeed wrong and sinful in their act of revenge.  Commentary on Genesis 34:13, 49:5.  Even those commentaries that defend the action of these brothers explain their actions differently, never legitimizing revenge.   Maimonides writes that the attack of the people of the town was indeed justified, as they deserved the punishment of death under Noahide law for allowing the rape and kidnapping to continue without protest. Law of Kings 9:14.  [See also, 34:14 AMJV 67].  Maharal justified Simeon and Levi’s action as an act of war between two nations, not one family pitted against another family.   Gur Aryeh commentary on Genesis 34:13.   But no commentary justifies the act of revenge by Simeon and Levi as legitimate.  AMJV 275-6

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1421 Rabbi Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, in his commentary to the Torah, states that in a time of legal war against Israel, many of the concepts governing Judaism are changed, and it may be appropriate to kill people (even innocents) when it is not normally permitted t do so.  He says that in the time of war, the rules are different and that innocent people may be killed if necessary to defeat the enemy.   Genesis 9:5 with Ha’amek Davar commentary.   That is why the verses in Ecclesiastes 3:8 say in one verse that “there is an appropriate time (and reaction) for war,” and “an appropriate time (and reaction) to hate.”  This idea also helps us understand how Maimonides could rule that Simeon and Levi were justified in killing all the people in the city of Shechem when, in reality, only their leaders actually kidnaped and raped their sister Dina.   Nachmanides takes strong issue with Maimonides and states that Simeon and Levi were wholly unjustified in killing the entire townspeople for their heinous acts of the leaders.   Nachmanides commentary on Genesis 34:13;49:5.   Wherein rests the argument between Maimonides and Nachmanides? In his Torah commentary, Maharal helps resolve the argument.   He explains that if Simeon and Levi were reacting to individuals who kidnaped and raped their sister, then they were not justified in killing the entire city’s people (the approach of Nachmanides-Ramban). But if this was a war between two peoples, between the Jewish nation and the tribe of people living in Shechem, then in war it is totally justified to kill the people in the entire town, even if they are civilians, as a means of defeating the enemy (the approach of Maimonides-Ramban). Gur Aryeh commentary on Genesis 34:13.  In Judaism, the laws of war are distinct from those governing personal or collective self-defense.  AMJV 67

SHOW FULL EXCERPT