[Avodah] Did RSRH Write LH about Shimon and Levi

[Yitzhak Grossman]

[We are discussing the question of the tenability of the suggestion
that Dinah was seduced, rather than, as conventionally assumed, raped.]

RnTK brought to my attention the comment of Rashi to the verse
(Bereishis 34:7) "ve'chen lo ye'aseh":

"le'anos [lamed ayin nun vav tav] es he'besulos, she'ha'umos gadru
azman min ha'arayos al yedei ha'mabul"

http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/olam_hatanah/mefaresh.asp?book=1&perek=34&mefaresh=rashi

She argued that this implies that Rashi interprets the episode as
rape.  I promised to check the super-commentaries, and I have done so.
Although there certainly are those who understand Rashi this way, most
notably Rav Eliyahu Mizrahi, I also found the super-commentary Nahalas
Ya'akov, who says *exactly* what I've been saying all along:

"And even though the Rav [i.e. Rashi] wrote "le'anos es ha'besulos",
which implies, that everything depended on that which he [Shechem]
oppressed her against her will, which is theft, we can say, that it is
not so [lav davka], first, for it is not evident from the text that he
raped her, but on the contrary "va'ye'daber al lev ha'na'ra", and also,
if we assume that he raped her, how did the Rav know to interpret
"va'ye'a'ne'ha" - "shelo ke'darka", perhaps "va'ye'a'ne'ha" means,
"ke'darka" but rape, against her will, and certainly according to what
the Shas says (Yoma 77b) "she'inah mi'bios aheros", implying that she
became desirous of him and he withheld further intercourse from her,
and it is implausible ["dohek"] that first he had intercourse with her
against her will and afterward she became desirous of him.

And that which Rambam wrote that it was theft even though he seduced
her, this is because we rule that seduction of a minor is considered
rape ["ones"], and Dinah at that time was six or seven years old, and
she was still in her father's domain, and it is therefore called theft,
but the liability ["hiyuv", i.e. the sin for which he was liable] was
still theft, and not "ervah".

And if the Rav did indeed mean by "le'anos", that he raped her, we can
say that they only restricted themselves from and prohibited
[intercourse with] unmarried women through rape, and not consensual
[relations]."

Nahalas Yehoshua (by Rav Ya'akov Selenik, the son of Rav Binyamin
Aharon Selenik, the author of Responsa Masas Binyamin) to the above
verse.

He leans toward seduction based on a close reading of the text, and
inclines toward interpreting Rashi's comment accordingly, although he
does admit the possibility that Rashi assumes rape. Baruch
she'kivanti.

Incidentally, Wolf2191 (http://ishimshitos.blogspot.com) notes
(in private correspondence) that Shadal assumes rape:

http://www.tora.us.fm/tnk1/jdl/MefarsheyTanach001-34.htm

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters