[Avodah] Did RSRH Write LH about Shimon and Levi

[Yitzhak Grossman]

On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:14:47 EST
T613K at aol.com wrote:

> From: Yitzhak Grossman _celejar at gmail.com_ (mailto:celejar at gmail.com) 

...

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

> TK:   I still read Rashi this way and find it very hard to read  into Rashi's 
> words any suggestion that Dinah was seduced.  But I do  appreciate your 

I never said that there's a suggestion that she was seduced, just that
there's no unambiguous indication that she was raped.

> honesty in attempting to check it out and acknowledging that  many (most?) 
> meforshim understand the story as I do.

What's your basis for suggesting 'most'?


> TK:  I believe that Mizrachi is far more commonly read and accepted  than 
> Nachlas Ya'akov (and I am going to admit my ignorance and tell you that I  never 
> heard of NY before now)

He certainly is, and I too had never heard of the NY before, although
it does seem to be a distinguished and important work on Rashi.  But
again, if we're going to argue from authority, then remember that I
have quoted explicit *Medrashim* that she was not abducted (although I
believe that there are also statements from Hazal to the contrary).

> RYG: [quoting Nachlas Yakov]: >>  "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",  <<
>  
> TK:  The pasuk FIRST says he raped her and only the pasuk AFTER that  says 
> "va'ye'daber al lev ha'na'ra."  Normally seduction works by first  courting the 
> girl and obtaining her consent.  It would be a  highly unusual form of 
> seduction in which you first have relations with the girl  and then have the 
> flirtation and seduction afterwards.  

Agreed.  I, too, did not find this argument compelling.
  
> Instead, the pasukim clearly imply that after he raped her, Shechem was  
> taken by her and belatedly had remorse for what he had done, or even if he  didn't 
> have remorse, he fell in love with her and wanted that feeling to be  
> reciprocated -- he wanted to make the relationship permanent and romantic.  

They imply nothing about rape; that's conjecture.  The fact that he
engaged in subsequent persuasion may simply have been, as I have
suggested before, an attempt to convince her to remain with him.  It
would be quite natural for a young girl to feel remorse for a sin
committed in the heat of passion, especially after realizing in a
cooler moment what a really bad idea the relationship is and how upset
her family would be about it.

> I don't remember where I saw it but somewhere I saw (maybe somebody quoted  
> here on Avodah) that Shechem typically took girls against their will, 
> exercising  his right and power as a prince to take any girl he wanted for a night.   
> Dinah's case was unusual in that after violating her, he was actually taken 
> with  her on an emotional and maybe even spiritual level.  Normally he did not  
> care if the girls he violated loved him or wanted to stay with him after the  
> rape (which he probably didn't even think of as rape but just as a normal thing 
>  for a prince to do) but Dinah was unusual.

This is all pure speculation, and without basis in the text.

> RYG: [still quoting NY]:  >> "...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,..."  <<
>  
> TK:  That's what Ramban says -- that "vayishkav osah vaye'aneha" is  one act 
> of forcible intercourse.  But Rashi takes the two words "vayishkav"  and 
> "vaye'aneha" as two different actions, and therefore has to explain the  difference 
> between the two -- which he takes as "kedarka" and "shelo  kedarka".  However 
> it seems clear to me that he does not mean  "kedarka" to mean "with her 
> consent."

You *still* have given no compelling reason for this 'clarity';  you
just keep declaring it to be so, without giving any logical basis for
your view.

> RYG [still quoting NY]:  >> "...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...."  <<
>  
> TK:  This Gemara is very difficult to reconcile with the actual  pesukim -- 
> which do not at all imply that Dinah went willingly with  Shechem.  However, it 

Again, your preconception.  There's no textual basis for the assumption
that she did *not* go willingly with him.

> is -- surprisingly -- not uncommon for a captive to  develop feelings for her 
> captor.  It is a psychological defense mechanism,  especially when the 
> captive is not released right away but is forced  to  remain with her captor and to 
> remain dependant on him for her survival.   This even has a name -- the 
> "Stockholm Syndrome."  

[snipped discussion of Stockholm Syndrome.]

Again, certainly plausible, but nothing more than conjecture.

> RYG: >> He  [Nachlas Yakov] 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.  <<
>  
> TK:  My close reading of the text leads me to exactly the opposite  
> conclusion, and I interpret Rashi accordingly.  There was kidnapping and  rape and if 
> there was any seduction involved, it was AFTER the crimes had been  committed.  

You have given very little detail of the basis of your "close
reading".  It seems to be mostly your preconception, repeated over and
over.

Again, I'm not sure you appreciate the fundamental issue here.  I'm not
claiming that the text implies seduction; I'm merely claiming that it
is fascinatingly silent on the basic question of Dinah's role in the
episode, and that it easily supports such a reading.  You have given
virtually no evidence from the Biblical text for rape.  You have quoted
extensively from Ramban, who does interpret it as rape, but you have
yet to make a clear argument, which, again, does not mean merely
vigorously repeating your views and insisting on their correctness, for
rape.

I don't need to make any such argument for seduction, since I'm merely
arguing for possibility, not necessity.

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