Dinah and Shechem: Understanding Different Motivations Behind the Same Action

Full Summary

This shiur addresses several apparent contradictions in Rashi (רש"י)'s commentary regarding the story of Dinah and Shechem. The first contradiction involves Rashi giving two different explanations for why the tragedy occurred: because Yaakov withheld Dinah from Esav, and because Yaakov delayed fulfilling his vow to return to Beit El. The second involves the Midrash's statement that Dinah fell from a 'mohel' (circumcised) to an 'arel' (uncircumcised) when Esav himself was uncircumcised. The third addresses why Shimon and Levi, who performed the same act of wiping out Shechem, received different consequences - Shimon's descendants being associated with licentiousness (Ba'al Pe'or), while Levi's were associated with rebellion (Korach). The Rav explains that the Midrash's statement that Shimon and Levi 'did not seek each other's counsel' doesn't mean they didn't plan together, but rather that they had different motivations for the same action. Using the Rambam (רמב"ם)'s distinction between relations with an idolatrous woman (capital offense) versus a non-idolatrous gentile woman (flagellation), the Rav suggests there were two aspects to Shechem's violation: the licentiousness aspect (making Dinah a zonah) and the idolatry aspect (connecting her to idol worship). Shimon was motivated by outrage at the licentiousness - the violation of a Jewish woman's sanctity through casual intimacy. Levi was motivated by the idolatry connection - the spiritual contamination through association with an idol worshipper. This explains their different future trajectories: Levi's tribe became the ultimate opponents of idolatry (never participating in the Golden Calf, never ceasing circumcision), while Shimon's tribe, focused only on women's licentiousness, had no protection against men's involvement with idolatrous practices, leading to Ba'al Pe'or. The shiur resolves the contradictions by explaining that both of Rashi's reasons were valid - each precipitated a different aspect of the tragedy. Yaakov's failure to appreciate the difference between a mohel and arel led to the idolatry component, while his delay in fulfilling his vow (showing he viewed obligations as personal choices rather than absolute rights others have over him) led to the licentiousness component. The Rav concludes with a profound discussion about the nature of obligations, using the Mishnah (משנה)'s teaching about borrowers who don't repay. True obligation means recognizing that others have rights over us - it's not about our priorities or what we want to do. When Yaakov delayed his vow, he treated his obligation to God as a personal choice rather than recognizing God's absolute right over him. This lesson applies to all areas of Avodas Hashem (ה׳): we must serve God not because it gratifies us or aligns with our priorities, but because we recognize we have no choice - we are owned by Him and must fulfill His rights over us.