THE DAUGHTER OF LEAH, WHOM SHE HAD BORNE UNTO JACOB. The reason [Scripture specifies the daughter of Leah] is to state that she was the sister of Simeon and Levi, who were envious for her sake and avenged her cause. And Scripture mentions further, whom she had borne unto Jacob, in order to allude to the fact that all the brothers were envious for her.

AND HE LAY WITH HER, AND HE AFFLICTED HER. He lay with her in natural gratification; and he afflicted her unnaturally. This is Rashi’s language. But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said: And he afflicted her naturally because she was a maiden.” But there is no need for this for all forced sexual connection is called “affliction.” Likewise, Thou shalt not deal with her as a slave, because thou hast afflicted her.¹²⁶ And so also: And my concubine they afflicted, and she is dead.¹²⁷ Scripture thus tells — in Dinah’s praise — that she was forced, and she did not consent to the prince of the country.

footnotes: ¹²⁶ Deuteronomy 21:14. ¹²⁷ Judges 20:5.

AND THUS IT OUGHT NOT TO BE DONE. I.e., to do violence to maidens, for the nations “had fenced themselves round” against unchastity as a result of the Flood. This is Rashi’s language. But I do not know this, for the Canaanites were immersed in unchastity with women, beasts and males, as it is written, For all these abominations have the men of the land done, that were before you,¹²⁸ and they did not begin such practices in that generation [but rather it was their traditional behavior], and even in the days of Abraham and Isaac, the patriarchs feared lest they kill them in order to take their wives. Instead, the expression, and thus it ought not to be done, refers back to the word beyisrael (in Israel): because he had wrought a vile deed in Israel… and thus it ought not to be done among them. This is why Scripture said in Israel for it was not a base deed among the Canaanites. And Onkelos translated: “It is not proper that it be done,” meaning that it is forbidden, and that is why it was a base deed in Israel.

footnotes: ¹²⁸ Leviticus 18:27.

‘MOHAR’ (DOWRY) ‘UMATAN’ (AND GIFT). Mohar [refers to the bridal gifts given at the time of] the marriage-contract which is given to maidens, as it is written, according to the dowry of virgins,¹²⁹ these being the presents which the young men send to the maidens whom they marry. Umatan are garments or silver and gold which the groom sends to her father and her brothers. In Bereshith Rabbah the Rabbis said:¹³⁰ “Mohar is parnon (the wife’s settlement); matan is parapurnon (the additional settlement above the usual dowry),” these being in the language of the Jerusalem Talmud¹³¹ “the regular dowry” and “the usufruct estate,” that is to say, that which he gives her of his properties to be accounted as if she had brought them from her father’s house, the produce of which belongs to him. The reason for this conciliatory gesture is in order that they willingly give her to him as a wife, as the maiden did not consent to him and she steadily protested and cried. This is the sense of the verse, And he spoke comfortingly unto the damsel.¹³² Therefore Shechem said, Take me this young maiden to wife,¹³³ as she was already in his house and in his power, and he feared not her brothers because he was the prince of the country and how could they take her by force out of his house? Now Shechem’s great desire was because the maiden was very beautiful. However, Scripture did not narrate her beauty as it did in the case of Sarah, Rebekah and Rachel because it did not want to mention that which was to her a stumbling-block of iniquity,¹³⁴ while Scripture speaks only in praise of the righteous women but not of this one. Similarly, Scripture does not mention what happened to her after her rescue from Shechem’s house. In line with the simple meaning of Scripture she stayed with her brothers, “shut up, living as widows,”¹³⁵ as she was considered defiled in their sight, as it is written, Because he had defiled Dinah their sister.¹³⁶ Our Rabbis have differed on this matter.¹³⁷ The most feasible opinion is that of he who says¹³⁷ that Simeon took her, and upon her death, he buried her in the land of Canaan, this being in agreement with what we have said, i.e., that she was with him in his house as a widow, and she went down with them to Egypt, and there she died but was buried in the Land of Israel. Her grave is known by tradition to this day as being in the city of Arbel with the grave of Nitai the Arbelite.¹³⁸ It is possible that Simeon brought up her remains from Egypt out of pity for her while the Israelites were still in Egypt or that the children of Israel brought them up together with the bones of her brothers — all the tribes — just as our Rabbis have mentioned.¹³⁹

footnotes: ¹²⁹ Exodus 22:16. ¹³⁰ 80:7. ¹³¹ Yerushalmi Kethuboth 5:8. ¹³² Verse 3 here. ¹³³ Verse 4 here. ¹³⁴ Ezekiel 18:30. ¹³⁵ See II Samuel 20:3. ¹³⁶ Verse 13 here. ¹³⁷ Bereshith Rabbah 80:10. ¹³⁷ Bereshith Rabbah 80:10. ¹³⁸ Aboth 1:7. He was a leader of the Sanhedrin in the early days of the Hasmoneans. As for Dinah’s grave being near that of Nitai the Arbelite, see my Hebrew commentary, p. 190, for data from other medieval itinerants. Ramban’s testimony though is that of an eye-witness when he travelled through the land. ¹³⁹ Mechilta, Exodus 13:19.

AND THE SONS OF JACOB ANSWERED SHECHEM AND HAMOR HIS FATHER WITH SUBTLETY. Now Hamor and Shechem spoke to her father and her brothers,¹⁴⁰ but the patriarch did not answer them at all as his sons spoke in his place on this matter out of respect for him for since the affair was a source of shame to them, they did not want him to speak about it at all. There is a question which may be raised here. It would appear that they answered with the concurrence of her father and his advice for they were in his presence, and it was he who understood the answer which they spoke with subtlety, and, if so, why was he angry afterwards?¹⁴¹ Moreover, it is inconceivable that Jacob would have consented to give his daughter in marriage to a Canaanite who had defiled her. Now surely all the brothers gave that answer with subtlety, while Simeon and Levi alone executed the deed, and the father cursed only their wrath.¹⁴² [But if all the brothers shared responsibility for the answer and the plan, why did Jacob single out only Simeon and Levi for chastisement?] The answer is that the craftiness lay in their saying that every male of theirs be circumcised,¹⁴³ as they thought that the people of the city will not consent to it. Even if perchance they will listen to their prince and they will all become circumcised, they will come on the third day, when they were in pain,¹⁴⁴ and will take their daughter¹⁴⁵ from the house of Shechem. Now this was the advice of all the brothers and with the permission of their father, but Simeon and Levi wanted to take revenge of them and so they killed all the men of the city. It is possible that Jacob’s anger in cursing their wrath¹⁴² was because they killed the men of the city who had committed no sin against him; they should have killed Shechem alone. It is this which Scripture says, And the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father with subtlety, and spoke, because he had defiled Dinah their sister, for they all agreed to speak to him craftily because of the base deed which he had done to them. Now many people ask: “But how did the righteous sons of Jacob commit this deed, spilling innocent blood?” The Rabbi (Moshe ben Maimon) answered in his Book of Judges,¹⁴⁶ saying that “sons of Noah”¹⁴⁷, Note 222. are commanded concerning Laws, and thus they are required to appoint judges in each and every district to give judgment concerning their six commandments¹⁴⁸ which are obligatory upon all mankind. “And a Noachide who transgresses one of them is subject to the death-penalty by the sword. If he sees a person transgressing one of these seven¹⁴⁸ laws and does not bring him to trial for a capital crime, he who saw him is subject to the same death-penalty. It was on account of this that the people of Shechem had incurred the death-penalty because Shechem committed an act of robbery and they saw and knew of it, but they did not bring him to trial.” But these words do not appear to me to be correct for if so, our father Jacob should have been the first to obtain the merit of causing their death, and if he was afraid of them, why was he angry at his sons and why did he curse their wrath a long time after that and punish them by dividing them and scattering them in Israel?¹⁴² Were they not meritorious, fulfilling a commandment and trusting in G-d Who saved them? In my opinion, the meaning of “Laws” which the Rabbis have counted among their seven Noachidic commandments¹⁴⁸ is not just that they are to appoint judges in each and every district, but He commanded them concerning the laws of theft, overcharge, wronging, and a hired man’s wages; the laws of guardians of property, forceful violation of a woman, seduction, principles of damage and wounding a fellowman; laws of creditors and debtors, and laws of buying and selling, and their like, similar in scope to the laws with which Israel was charged, and involving the death-penalty for stealing, wronging or violating or seducing the daughter of his fellowman, or kindling his stack, or wounding him, and their like. And it is also included in this commandment that they appoint judges for each and every city, just as Israel was commanded to do,¹⁴⁹ but if they failed to do so they are free of the death-penalty since this is a positive precept of theirs [and failing to fulfill a positive precept does not incur the death-penalty]. The Rabbis have only said:¹⁵⁰ “For violation of their admonishments there is the death-penalty,” and only a prohibition against doing something is called an “admonishment.” And such is the purport of the Gemara in Tractate Sanhedrin.¹⁵¹ And in the Jerusalem Talmud¹⁵² they have said: “With respect to Noachide laws, a judge who perverts justice is to be slain. If he took a bribe he is to be slain. With respect to Jewish laws, [if after having heard both parties] you know perfectly well what the proper legal decision should be, you are not permitted to withdraw from the case without rendering a decision, and if you know that it is not perfectly clear to you, you may withdraw from the case. But with respect to their laws, even though you know the law perfectly well you may withdraw from it.” From this it would appear that a non-Jewish judge may say to the litigants, “I am not beholden to you,” for it is only in Israel that there is an additional admonishment — “‘Lo thaguru’ (ye shall not be afraid) of the face of any man,”¹⁵³ meaning, “You shall not gather in, [i.e., restrain], your words before any man”¹⁵⁴ and ogeir (gathering) as in the expression, gathering in summer, (Proverbs 10:5). — and surely he is not to be slain for failing to make himself chief, overseer, or ruler¹⁵⁵ in order to judge superiors. [Ramban thus disagrees with Rambam, who writes that the people of Shechem had incurred the death-penalty by not having brought Shechem to justice.] Moreover, why does the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] have to seek to establish their guilt? Were not the people of Shechem and all seven nations¹⁵⁶ idol worshippers, perpetrators of unchaste acts, and practitioners of all things that are abominable to G-d? In many places Scripture loudly proclaims concerning them: Upon the high mountains, and upon their hills, and under every leafy tree, etc.;¹⁵⁷, 12:2. Thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations, etc.?¹⁵⁸, 18:9. For all these abominations have the men of the land done, etc.¹⁵⁹ However, it was not the responsibility of Jacob and his sons to bring them to justice. But the matter of Shechem was that the people of Shechem were wicked [by virtue of their violation of the seven Noachide laws]¹⁴⁸ and had thereby forfeited their lives. Therefore Jacob’s sons wanted to take vengeance of them with a vengeful sword, and so they killed the king and all the men of his city who were his subjects, obeying his commands. The covenant represented by the circumcision of the inhabitants of Shechem had no validity in the eyes of Jacob’s sons for it was done to curry favor with their master [and did not represent a genuine conversion]. But Jacob told them here that they had placed him in danger, as it is said, You have troubled me, to make me odious,¹⁶⁰ and there,¹⁴² [i.e., at the time he blessed the other children], he cursed the wrath of Simeon and Levi for they had done violence to the men of the city whom they had told in his presence, And we will dwell with you, and we will become one people.¹⁶¹ They would have chosen to believe in G-d and trust their word, and perhaps they might have indeed returned to G-d and thus Simeon and Levi killed them without cause for the people had done them no evil at all. It is this which Jacob said, Weapons of violence are their kinship.¹⁶² And if we are to believe in the book, ‘The Wars of the Sons of Jacob,’¹⁶³. See Eisenstein, Otzar Midrashim, p. 157, and L. Ginzberg’s, The Legends of the Jews, Vol. I, pp. 404-411. their father’s fear was due to the fact that the neighbors of Shechem gathered together and waged three major wars against them, and were it not for their father who also donned his weapons and warred against them, they would have been in danger, as is related in that book. Our Rabbis have mentioned something of this conflict in their commentary on the verse, Which I took out of the hand of the Amorite with my sword and with my bow.¹⁶⁴ They said,¹⁶⁵ See also Bereshith Rabbah 80:9. “All the surrounding nations gathered together to join in battle against them, and Jacob donned his weapons to war against them,” just as Rashi writes there.¹⁶⁴ Scripture, however, is brief about this because it was a hidden miracle,¹⁶⁶ for the sons of Jacob were valiant men, and it appeared as if their own arm saved them.¹⁶⁷ Scripture is similarly brief about the matter of Abraham in Ur of the Chaldees,¹⁶⁸ and it did not at all mention Esau’s wars with the Horites. Instead, Scripture mentions here that there was the terror of G-d upon the cities that were round them,¹⁶⁹ and they did not all assemble to pursue after the sons of Jacob¹⁶⁹ for they would have fallen upon them as the sand which is on the sea-shore in multitude.¹⁷⁰ And this is the meaning of the terror of G-d,¹⁶⁹ for the terror and dread¹⁷¹ of the military prowess they had seen fell upon them. Therefore Scripture says, And Jacob came to Luz… he and all the people that were with him,¹⁷² in order to inform us that not one man among them or their servants was lost in warfare.¹⁷³

footnotes: ¹⁴⁰ Verse 11 here. ¹⁴¹ Further, Verse 30. See also Ramban further, 49:5. ¹⁴² Genesis 49:7. ¹⁴³ Verse 15 here. ¹⁴⁴ Verse 25 here. ¹⁴⁵ “Daughter.” in Tur: “sister.” ¹⁴² Genesis 49:7. ¹⁴⁶ Hilchoth Melachim, IX, 14, with slight textual changes. The Book of Judges is the last of the fourteen books which comprise Maimonides’ great life work: The Mishneh Torah, or Yad Hachazakah. ¹⁴⁷ Or “a Noachide,” a term denoting the human race. See Seder Bereshith ¹⁴⁸ The six commandments prohibit idolatry, blasphemy, bloodshed, incest, robbery, and eating a limb or flesh which was cut from a living creature. The seventh one is the commandment to establish courts to enforce these laws. Together, these laws are generally referred to as “the seven Noachide laws.” Ramban will later set forth his thesis that the seventh commandment also requires that they establish laws regulating all civil matters such as damages, business regulations, labor laws, etc. ¹⁴⁸ The six commandments prohibit idolatry, blasphemy, bloodshed, incest, robbery, and eating a limb or flesh which was cut from a living creature. The seventh one is the commandment to establish courts to enforce these laws. Together, these laws are generally referred to as “the seven Noachide laws.” Ramban will later set forth his thesis that the seventh commandment also requires that they establish laws regulating all civil matters such as damages, business regulations, labor laws, etc. ¹⁴² Genesis 49:7. ¹⁴⁸ The six commandments prohibit idolatry, blasphemy, bloodshed, incest, robbery, and eating a limb or flesh which was cut from a living creature. The seventh one is the commandment to establish courts to enforce these laws. Together, these laws are generally referred to as “the seven Noachide laws.” Ramban will later set forth his thesis that the seventh commandment also requires that they establish laws regulating all civil matters such as damages, business regulations, labor laws, etc. ¹⁴⁹ Deuteronomy 16:18. ¹⁵⁰ Sanhedrin 57a. ¹⁵¹ 58b. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 192. ¹⁵² Not found in our editions. See my Hebrew commentary, ibid. ¹⁵³ Deuteronomy 1:17. ¹⁵⁴ Sanhedrin 6b. This explanation is based upon the common root of the words thaguru ¹⁵⁵ Proverbs 6:7. ¹⁵⁶ Deuteronomy 7:1. ¹⁵⁷ Ibid. ¹⁵⁸ Ibid. ¹⁵⁹ Leviticus 18:27. ¹⁴⁸ The six commandments prohibit idolatry, blasphemy, bloodshed, incest, robbery, and eating a limb or flesh which was cut from a living creature. The seventh one is the commandment to establish courts to enforce these laws. Together, these laws are generally referred to as “the seven Noachide laws.” Ramban will later set forth his thesis that the seventh commandment also requires that they establish laws regulating all civil matters such as damages, business regulations, labor laws, etc. ¹⁶⁰ Verse 30 here. ¹⁴² Genesis 49:7. ¹⁶¹ Verse 16 here. ¹⁶² Genesis, 49:5. ¹⁶³ This is the Midrash Vayisu ¹⁶⁴ Further, 48:22. ¹⁶⁵ As quoted here, the comment appears in Rashi, ibid. ¹⁶⁴ Further, 48:22. ¹⁶⁶ See Ramban above, 17:1. ¹⁶⁷ Psalms 44:4. ¹⁶⁸ See Ramban above, 11:28. ¹⁶⁹ Further, 35:5. ¹⁶⁹ Further, 35:5. ¹⁷⁰ I Samuel 13:5. ¹⁶⁹ Further, 35:5. ¹⁷¹ See Exodus 15:16. ¹⁷² Further, 35:6. ¹⁷³ See Numbers 31:49.

THESE MEN ARE PEACEABLE WITH US. The men of the city thought that they hated them as they saw them dejected, and it angered them very much. Perhaps they guarded themselves against them and installed in their city bars and doors, for Jacob’s sons were mighty men and valiant men for the war.¹⁷⁴ But now Hamor and his son Shechem told them, “Do not fear and do not keep distant from them for they are whole-hearted with us.”

footnotes: ¹⁷⁴ Jeremiah 48:14.

‘MIKNEIHEM’ AND THEIR SUBSTANCE AND ALL THEIR BEASTS. The reason for referring to cattle by the word mikneihem is that beasts of the herds which are in the field are called mikneh — [from the root kanah, which means “acquire”] — because whether they are clean or unclean, they are the mainstay of a man’s substance, just as it is written, Behold, the hand of the Eternal is ‘b’miknecha’ (upon thy cattle) which are in the field, upon the horses, upon the asses, upon the camels, upon the herds, and upon the flocks.¹⁷⁵ And those which do not constitute a herd, as, for example, single beasts in the house, are not called mikneh, and they are included in the term, and all their beasts. It may be that [mikneh and “all their beasts” both refer to the same cattle], and the redundancy is for the purpose of emphasis, meaning, and all their beasts which were very numerous.

footnotes: ¹⁷⁵ Exodus 9:3.