The Rape of Dina?

The episode of the violation of Dina by Shechem is one of the most troubling passages in the Torah. Most troubling is the reaction of the two fathers, Yaakov and Chamor. The former’s reaction is totally passive, a seeming disinterest that is appalling; meanwhile, the latter’s response is so sanguine as to be unintelligible - how could any father not be horrified by his son’s act of rape, even to the point of trying to negotiate a treaty based on that son’s feelings of “love”? Furthermore, how could Chamor’s townspeople not expect Dina’s family to avenge such an abominable crime?

The answer is simple, if shocking: according to the plain meaning of the verses, as Rav Papa notes (Yoma 77b), Dina was not raped. She goes out “to see with the girls of the land” (34:2) and we know whom they went to see: the boys of the land. (See Rashi ibid.) Furthermore, the expression of force, “chazaka” or “tefisa,” which we find by every case of rape in Scripture (Bemidbar 5:13; Devarim 22:25, 28; II Shemuel 13:14) and defines an act of intercourse as being against the woman's will, is missing here. The term “inui,” which does appear here, does not indicate force, but any case of mistreatment of the body, self-inflicted, imposed, or willing, as seen by its use to describe fasting (Vayikra 23:32), slavery (Bereishit 15:13), and even adultery (Devarim 22:24). Moreover, from the psychological standpoint, the usual case of rape results in disgust on the part of the rapist for his victim; so Amnon casts his half-sister Tamar into the streets (II Shemuel 13:15-19), and so the rapist is enjoined to marry and never to divorce his victim unless she desires it (Devarim 22:29). As regards Shechem, on the contrary, “his soul clung to Dina… and he loved the girl, and he spoke to the girl’s heart” (34:3).  

Bearing this in mind, we can now understand the three distinct views of Dina's experience. Rape is an objective crime; seduction, however, is not. It is subject to interpretation, in this case three of them: that of Yaakov (“for Dina his daughter had been defiled” [v. 5]); that of his sons (“for an abomination had been committed in Yisrael” [v. 7]); and that of Chamor (“Shechem my son longs for your daughter” [v. 8]).

Let us examine these three views. To Yaakov’s mind, his daughter has been defiled; his baby, unaccustomed to the attentions of men she is not related to, has been taken advantage of by the local prince, a youth who may have slept with half the girls in his town already. Perhaps she even believes she is in love with him. He is upset, but he remains silent; what can he say now? He certainly does not want to leave his daughter in the hands of this fiend, but he cannot force her to leave either. 

For Yaakov’s sons, Dina’s brothers, it is a clear-cut case of rape - statutory rape, perhaps, but the legal difference is slight. “For an abomination had been committed in Yisrael, to sleep with a daughter of Yaakov - such cannot be done!” They all decide to act with guile, convincing the townspeople to circumcise themselves. Shimon and Levi, the zealots, alone murder every male, but everyone helps in the plunder (v. 25-28).

Chamor, on the other hand, sees it as a case of young love. Apparently, he is serious, seeing a full socioeconomic assimilation in his town’s future. Indeed, his townsmen see circumcision as a prerequisite for the assimilation of Yisrael amid the Chivi. They suspect nothing, since they see nothing wrong with the whole situation.

            Who is right? The verse notes repeatedly (v. 13, 27), as the brothers introduce and consummate their plot, that Shechem is guilty only of  “defiling their sister;” yet the unit ends with Shimon and Levi’s sharp rebuff to their father:  “Shall our sister be made a harlot?” Though Yaakov may be in the right at this late hour, it is his inaction that has led to the initial problem. Yaakov had no reason for stopping in the town of Shechem and buying land there; he has a divine imperative to return to Beit El, and then to his father in Chevron, not to dawdle along the way. Like the modern Western story of assimilation, Yaakov fails to show his children what separates them from the people of the land - and is then unduly shocked when his offspring want to intermarry. The message is clear: to maintain the integrity of the Jewish people, it is necessary for the younger generation to see why their heritage sets them apart. Dina, like her brother Yehuda, who leaves home to take a Canaanite wife,  eventually returns to the fold; but, all too often, their modern counterparts do not. And, like Yaakov, we then have only ourselves to blame.