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

GEN1422 In this way, they employ trickery involving the seat of male reproductive power to despoil those who had despoiled their sister. The tale’s irony is grounded in themes of sexuality and vengeance. Sexual control, moreover, is a political matter. The brothers have restored the honor of Jacobs household and repossessed the woman, thereby rejecting Shechemite might overtures that would eliminated the difference between Israelite and Other, a contrast essential to the author’s self-definition. NIDITCH 109

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1423 The biblical account of the revenge taken by Simon and Levi against the people of Shechem, in retaliation for the dishonor suffered by their sister Dinah, illustrates the potential danger of a rash act. Jacob felt responsible for the security of his clan. He reacted with a sharp rebuke [this verse]. Simon and Levi stood accused of endangerment. People may be endangered by packs of wild dogs that roam the streets of the cities. It is the responsibility of the authorities to remove this hazard from inhabited areas. Prior to their settling in the Promised Land, the ancient Israelites were given the following assurance by God: “I will give peace in the land … and I will cause evil beasts to cease [their attacks] in the land” Leviticus 26:6.   According to Rabbi Judah (2nd cent.), God did not promise to change the nature of wild beasts to make them docile. To make the streets secure the wild beats would have to be physical removed (Sifre, Lev. 26:6).   The ethical obligation to correct dangerous conditions was enacted into biblical law. A person who digs a pit on property accessible to the public must cover it to prevent possible injuries Exodus 21:33-34. Flat-roofed homes must have parapets to protect visitors from falling off Deuteronomy 22:8. This law was broadly interpreted by the rabbis to include all dangerous conditions which pose a danger to innocent people. Hence the prohibition of harboring dangerous dogs in a home or of placing a broker ladder against the wall of one’s home Ketubot 41b.   Containers of medicine normally carry a warning label which reads: “Keep out of reach of children.” Consideration for the protection of children dictates reasonable preventive measures. However, it does not indicate a ban on medicine, which properly belongs in the home. What about poison, for which there is no common practical need? Does the occasional use of poison for exterminating purposes justify the risk which its presence entails? Josephus (1st cent.) was unequivocal in his objection. “Let no Israelite keep any poison that may cause death, or any other harm” (Antiq., bk. 4, 8:34). Poison may be used under proper safeguards to exterminate rodents. Whatever is left should be disposed of in a manner which will create no danger to man and animals alike. Does the same ethical prohibition apply to the possession of guns in a private home? Rampant crime has produced a growing demand for guns for reasons of self-defense. There are instances where guns have proved useful in driving off criminals. Unfortunately, there are may more instances of guns falling into the hands of minors which tragic results. In urban areas, where police protection is available, the possession of a gun is risk which should not lightly be assumed.   A rabbinic decree (2nd cent.) prohibited the sale of offensive weapons to individuals who are suspected of harboring a criminal intent Avodah Zarah 16b.  In modern societies licensing procedures have been instituted to keep guns out of the hands of criminal elements. Such procedures have proved woefully inadequate. There is a need tor stricter gun-control laws. Ethical considerations make such legislation imperative. BLOCH 106-7

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1424 [As a further example of Divine chesed, which we are to emulate], God appeared to Jacob when he returned to Padan Aram to pronounce the blessing of [consolation] the mourners after the death and burial of Deborah, Rebecca’s nurse (Rashi).   Genesis Rabbah 81:5; cp. Rashi on Genesis 25:11 AHAVCH 24

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN1425 It was taught: “The mitzvah of procreation attaches to the man and not to the woman.  Whence do we derive this? R. Yosef said: From the verse: ‘And God said to him: “Be fruitful and multiple” [preh ureveh, (singular), and not pruh urevuh (plural)]” Yevamot 65b TEMIMAH-GEN 149

SHOW FULL EXCERPT