9:00 AM
Gil Student
The incident between Shekhem and Dinah, and the subsequent reaction of Dinah's brothers, seems quite puzzling at a first reading. The Midrash Rabbah tells us that Shekhem had seduced Dinah into sleeping with him.[1] Thus, we are speaking of a consensual relationship. Even according to the view that Shekhem initially forced Dinah, the Gemara in Yoma (77b) implies that certainly afterwards Dinah was interested in continuing the relationship.[2] Thus, even if the relationship started off improperly, after the incident the hurt was mended and Dinah was willing to forgive the offense. This hardly seems like an atrocity. Even if there were charges to bring against Shekhem, Dinah was not interested in pressing those charges. Yet, the reaction of Ya'akov's sons implies that the offense was tremendous and unforgivable.
When Ya'akov's sons heard about the incident with Shekhem and Dinah they cried out, "Such a thing may not be done!" (Bereishis 34:7) Rashi explains that following the Flood the nations instituted among themselves various stringent rules regarding relations. While they may not have followed all of the laws of the Torah, they tried to maintain a high level of morality regarding relationships between men and women.
Indeed, this can be seen in Avraham's fear that Pharoah and Avimelekh would kill him in order to marry his wife. Because of this, he and Sarah lied and said that they were not married. Evidently, even murderers who lacked basic fear of God still maintained a respect for the sanctity of marriage and would not sleep with a married woman. Despite all of their other lackings, these people continued the post-Flood societal norms regarding relations.
Therefore, even though there was no actual law prohibiting a single man from sleeping with a single woman, it was not allowed based on this post-Flood custom. When Shekhem and Dinah slept together before marriage, they violated perhaps one of the few universal norms of the time. This disregard for societal standards is what appalled Ya'akov's sons. Indeed, the Midrash Lekah Tov states that Shekhem was the first in history to violate the societal norms set after the Flood.[3]
Society is bound together very tenuously by the sometimes unspoken standards of the community. Our interaction depends on a sustained trust of proper responses and behaviors. When everyone follows all of the rules then society functions as expected. However, when someone breaks even one of the rules he opens a floodgate that can be closed only by tremendous effort, if ever. Until Shekhem, the societal norms remained binding. However, once Shekhem violated an accepted standard of behavior he opened the door for others to violate this and other standards. An inviolable law is honored by all. A rule that has exceptions is followed only by those who choose to. Everyone else will find their circumstances to be important enough to merit exceptions.
Shekhem was the first to discover situational ethics. He decided that his situation was an exception to the official rule. Two consenting people in a mutual relationship, who could object to that? Society could object because Shekhem broke down the ties that connect the community. After him, societal norms were no longer binding.[4]
The midrash tells us that two of the things for which the Jewish people merited redemption from Egypt were that they maintained distinct Jewish names and language.[5] This is somewhat surprising because there is no actual obligation to use a Jewish name or speak a Jewish language. Based on the above, however, we can understand that the Jews maintained their own community and were able to sustain their societal norms throughout their long sojourn in Egypt.
In our own lives we face similar societal norms on different levels. However, in our world that so values independence we can choose whether to conform or not. We must recognize that sometimes conforming to accepted patterns of speech and styles of dress is not meaningless but is an affirmation of the unspoken rules of the society in which we live. Granted, communities in every time and place are different. However, every society has norms and conforming to them is not mindless but an act of upholding the community.
Every person is created in the Divine image and is unique just like God. It is part of our duty in life to nurture our own talents and personalities. However, we must balance this with a need to be part of a community. "It is not good that man be alone" (Bereishis 2:18). Aside from the mitzvos one can only fulfill as part of a larger group, it does, indeed, take a proverbial village to raise a person. Not only through one's childhood, but throughout one's life one needs to be part of a community for both physical, psychological and spiritual support. For this reason, if not for the sake of others who clearly need societal support, one must overcome one's natural selfishness and, in areas specific to each community, conform to societal practices for the greater good.
[1] Koheles Rabbah 10:8. Cf. Targum Yonasan; Pardes Yosef in the name of Siah Yitzhak.
[2] Cf. Rashi, Yoma 77b sv. mi-bi'os aheiros
[3] Brought down in Torah Shelemah, Bereishis ch. 34 no. 22 in the notes.
[4] This is all in addition to the objections of the family members who were affected by the entire relationship that, to outsiders but not to the couple, seemed abusive.
[5] Vayikra Rabbah 32:5; Bamidbar Rabbah 20:22; Shir HaShirim Rabbah 4:12; Tanhuma, Balak 16; Mekhilta on Exodus 12:6 (Bo, par. 5); Torah Shelemah on Exodus 1:1, vol. 8 p. 9 n. 26.
