The rape of Dinah?

[Horrorble]

The "creative interpretation" that promotes the feminist agenda and has nothing to do with the text.

Was it a feminist website?

 

[Levite]

Examples please?

Seriously??!

ויקח לו למך שתי נשים

למה אמרת אחתי הוא ואקח אתה לי לאשה ועתה הנה אשתך קח ולך

ויצא לוט וידבר אל חתניו לקחי בנתיו

ואלעזר בן אהרן לקח לו מבנות פוטיאל לו לאשה

כי יקח איש אשה ובא אליה ושנאה ושם לה עלילת דברים והוציא עליה שם רע ואמר את האשה הזאת לקחתי ואקרב אליה ולא מצאתי לה בתולים

ואת אחינעם לקח דוד מיזרעאל ותהיין גם שתיהן לו לנשים

And those are just off the top of my head....

First, from The Torah: A women's Commentary:

While I have great respect for the late Tikvah Frymer-Kensky (z"l), and was fortunate to be on friendly terms with both her and her husband-- also a fine rabbi-- I disagree with her here.

As the word ענה is used in Devarim, it clearly has to do with causing the victim suffering, a violation. And the fact that in Devarim it uses the language of ותפשה there is, to my mind, unpersuasive in light of the fact that it uses עמה there, whereas in Bere****, though it does not use ותפשה, it does use אתה: thus the language surrounding the act balances out, not making either term persuasive on its own, but requiring the larger context, with which I don't feel Frymer-Kensky made a convincing case.

...treating someone like a whore is hardly the same as raping her.

Not in modern parlance, no. But in the ancient world, to have sex with a woman without permission of her father or family, and without paying a price for her virginity or hand in marriage, was to treat her like a whore. While I like to think that Shimon and Levi are being idiomatic, and are also concerned with avenging the suffering of their sister, at the very least they are being literal, and avenging what would be the gravest of insults to the honor of both their sister and their family.

Furthermore, much has been made of Shechem's protestations of love for Dinah and, as has been noted elsewhere, rape is a crime of hatred rather than love.

But the understanding of that psychological nuance is a very modern one. To imagine that the Biblical authors would comprehend that and phrase the narrative accordingly is simply not reasonable. And imposing it as an interpretive requirement of the pshat meaning strikes me as deeply retrojective.

There is ample midrash seeking to blame Dinah for what happened.

Sure, but again, that's midrash, not pshat reading. I am perfectly open to those midrashim being acceptable readings, just as I am open to Dinah and Shechem being doomed lovers as an acceptable reading-- as midrash. But not as pshat.

I do not insist that you find the above 'convincing' but I do suspect that others will find it worthy of further consideration and, in time, perhaps you will as well.

It's not that I'm not sympathetic to the desire for there to be further female voices in Tanach, and greater examples of narratives incorporating female viewpoints. I am. And given the paucity of such, I heartily support and applaud making and teaching midrashim to fill those voids. But rendering pshat meaning is a different matter, and while I do think it can sometimes involve a fair amount of flexibility and creativity, and much may be made of idioms, metaphors, and other devices of language-- especially in areas of halachic concern-- there is only so far I think pshat can stretch. Especially when the whole genre of midrash exists in no small part to help us find or make meanings when the pshat is incomplete or insufficient or otherwise cries darsheni.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

First, from The Torah: A women's Commentary: ...

While I have great respect for the late Tikvah Frymer-Kensky (z"l), and was fortunate to be on friendly terms with both her and her husband-- also a fine rabbi-- I disagree with her here. ...

Levite, this is really outrageous. You've reduced the issue to one of an errant interpretation on the part of one person. If you have information suggesting that the quote from the Woman's Commentary was simply some idiosyncratic nonsense from Frymer-Kensky, please present it. What I see is a Torah Commentary, endorsed by the WRJ, and representing the best collaborative efforts of:

Dr. Tamara Cohn Eskenazi, Editor
Rabbi Andrea L. Weiss, Ph.D., Associate Editor

Rabbi Hara E. Person, Managing Editor
Dr. Judith R. Baskin, Post-biblical Consulting Editor
Rabbi Sue Levi Elwell, Ph.D., "Voices" Consulting Editor
Barbara Z. Koppel, Project Coortinator

Editorial Board

Dr. Rachel Adler
Dr. Tikva Frymer-Kensky z"l
Cantor Sarah Sager
Dr, Judith R. Baskin
Rabbi Laura Geller
Rabbi Judith Schindler
Dr. Sherry Blumberg
Dr. Carol Meyers
Rabbi Ruth Sohn
Rabbi Sue Levi Elwell, Ph.D.
Dr. Carol Ochs
Dr. Ellen Umansky
Dr. Judith Plaskow​

To simply dismiss the analysis and the likely research and scholarship underpinning the analysis as Frymer-Kensky mishigas is startling, especially coming from you.

 

[CMike]

The Torah means what it means.

It's intention is based on the author, not on what a group wants it to mean.

 

[savagewind]

The Torah means what it means.

It's intention is based on the author, not on what a group wants it to mean.

I think the point is that no one knows for absolute surety what it means. There are disagreements within Judaism between men of Judaism. Now someone says there are also women of Judaism who have contributed some insight and you cry FOUL!

 

[CMike]

I think the point is that no one knows for absolute surety what it means. There are disagreements within Judaism between men of Judaism. Now someone says there are also women of Judaism who have contributed some insight and you cry FOUL!

Wrongo. There are a lot of learned women in judaism.

Don't confuse those women with women who simply want to create a feminist spin and thereby changing the meaning.

jewish women doesn't equal feminist.

 

[Horrorble]

First, from The Torah: A women's Commentary

I want this book so badly but it is £40, wwwwhhhhyyyy!? I will save for this.

 

[Horrorble]

Wrongo. There are a lot of learned women in judaism.

Don't confuse those women with women who simply want to create a feminist spin and thereby changing the meaning.

jewish women doesn't equal feminist.

Can an observant Jewish woman be a feminist?

 

[savagewind]

Wrongo. There are a lot of learned women in judaism.

Don't confuse those women with women who simply want to create a feminist spin and thereby changing the meaning.

jewish women doesn't equal feminist.

Isn't it true the understanding of scripture evolves with changing society? For a long time the viewpoint of women has been mostly a mystery to most men. Now it isn't. The expressed understanding of Dinah from a woman's perspective is new. It's not "feminist". It's not political.

ps I think wrongo is not a word allowed on the blue thread.

 

[CMike]

Can an observant Jewish woman be a feminist?

Yes but an observant women wouldn't change the meaning of the Torah to promote an agenda.

And observant jewish woman follows the Torah, not the other way around.

 

[CMike]

Isn't it true the understanding of scripture evolves with changing society? For a long time the viewpoint of women has been mostly a mystery to most men. Now it isn't. The expressed understanding of Dinah from a woman's perspective is new. It's not "feminist". It's not political.

ps I think wrongo is not a word allowed on the blue thread.

No, the meaning doesn't evolve.

The meaning is based on the intention of the author, it's not based on the attention of the reader.

 

[savagewind]

No, the meaning doesn't evolve.

The meaning is based on the intention of the author, it's not based on the attention of the reader.

That is true. You are bothered, it seems, that men can have a difference of opinion among themselves (is it all right that they do?) but woman can't. What is it about the women's perspective that is bothering you please?

I do agree that the writer had something in mind that should not be changed by women OR MEN.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Don't confuse those women with women who simply want to create a feminist spin and thereby changing the meaning.

In other words:

If a more accurate understanding of the Biblical Hebrew comes from a woman it isn't scholarship, it's feminist spin.​

That is not only bigoted, it's idiotic. What, precisely, is the 'feminist' content of claiming that the Torah is not referring to rape?

 

[CMike]

That is true. You are bothered, it seems, that men can have a difference of opinion among themselves (is it all right that they do?) but woman can't. What is it about the women's perspective that is bothering you please?

I do agree that the writer had something in mind that should not be changed by women OR MEN.

Once again you are confusing feminist women who wish to change the meaning with normal jewish women.

 

[CMike]

In other words:

If a more accurate understanding of the Biblical Hebrew comes from a woman it isn't scholarship, it's feminist spin.
​

That is not only bigoted, it's idiotic. What, precisely, is the 'feminist' content of claiming that the Torah is not referring to rape?

From your feminist site

The story of Dinah deals with the Israelites’ attempt to establish social boundaries for marriage

No it's not.

It has to do with the prince raping Dinah and the brothers getting revenge.

 

[Tarheeler]

***MOD POST***​

This thread is in the Judaism DIR, and is subject to Rule 10. There have been several questionable post thus far, and everyone needs to keep the rules in mind when posting. Please pay particular attention to the bolded:

10. Discuss Individual Religions Forums/Same Faith Debates/"Only Sections"
The DIR subforums are for the express use for discussion by that specific group. They are not to be used for debate by anyone. People of other groups or faiths may post respectful questions to increase their understanding. Questions of a rhetorical or argumentative nature or that counter the beliefs of that DIR are not permitted. DIR areas are not to be used as cover to bash others outside the faith. The DIR forums are strictly moderated and posts are subject to editing or removal.

-For any DIR or discussion sub-forum that is colored blue, non-members of that area are limited only to respectful questions, and are not allowed to make any non-question posts.

-For any DIR or discussion sub-forum that is colored green, non-members of that area may make respectful posts that comply with the tenets and spirit of that area. This includes questions, as well as knowledgeable comments.

The Same Faith Debates subforum is specifically for debate between members of the same faith. Members that are not part of a same faith debate thread's selected faith may not post at all in those threads. The Political "Only" subforums are also used specifically for that group and may not be posted in by members that do not correspond to the political position of the subforum. These two forums are colored purple.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

From your feminist site

The story of Dinah deals with the Israelites’ attempt to establish social boundaries for marriage

No it's not.

It has to do with the prince raping Dinah and the brothers getting revenge.

Unless, of course, it doesn't.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Parenthetically ...

Names in the Bible are important ...

In the Hebrew Bible, Dinah (Hebrew: דִּינָה, Modern Dina Tiberian Dînā ; "Judged; vindicated") was the daughter of Jacob, one of the patriarchs of the Israelites, and Leah, his first wife. The episode of her abduction and violation by a Canaanite prince, and the subsequent vengeance of her brothers Simeon and Levi, commonly referred to as "The Rape of Dinah", is told in Genesis 34. [Wikipedia]

As for textual analysis ...

The 19th century scholar Julius Wellhausen divided the Dinah story between two original texts, the Elohist, which tells of Jacob's purchase of land at Shechem and his erection of an altar, and the Jahwist, telling the rape-and-vengeance story which takes up the bulk of the narrative. Wellhausen believed that the Jahwist's story was designed to cast a bad light on the northern Kingdom of Israel, which had Shechem as its first capital, the Jahwist text itself originating in the southern Judah. The brief Elohist account of the purchase of land by Jacob in Genesis 33 represents the northern kingdom's more peaceable account of the origins of Shechem.

Later scholars have questioned Wellhausen's analysis, often drastically, but the general view is that Genesis does combine originally separate strands and does not pre-date the 1st millennium BC. Post-Wellhausian scholars have suggested two layers of narrative within Genesis 34 itself, an older account ascribing the slaughter of Shechem to Simeon and Levi alone, and a later addition (verses 27 to 29) involving all the sons of Jacob. One contemporary biblical scholar, Alexander Rofé, has suggested that the verb describing Dinah as "defiled" was added at this time also, as elsewhere in the Bible only married or betrothed women are "defiled" by rape; the fact that Genesis 34 is the sole exception suggests that it reflects a "late, postexilic notion that the idolatrous gentiles are impure [and supports] the prohibition of intermarriage and intercourse with them." The anachronistic preoccupation with racial purity indicates a date in the 5th or 4th centuries BC, when the restored Jewish community in Jerusalem was similarly preoccupied with anti-Samaritan polemics. It is not clear that Dinah was actually raped at all in the original story: the narrative is vague about what happened between Shechem and Dinah (the verb translated as "humbled" or "violated" can also mean "to subdue"), and the older version of Genesis 34 may therefore reflect a custom of abduction marriage. [ibid]

Finally, we have more issues in this pericope than whether or not Dinah was raped. So, for example ...

In the story, Shechem, the son of a local king falls in love with Dinah, daughter of Jacob, sleeps with her and asks his father to request her hand for him. His father, King Hamor, paid a ceremonial visit to Jacob’s house, where he offered peaceful coexistent with the new immigrants: “Please let my son marry your daughter, and let us marry each other; give us from your daughters and take from ours. And the land shall for you to settle, to trade and to posses.” (Genesis 34:8). Shechem also made the customary and lawful offer: “Please let me pay the required Mohar (dowry) and marry your daughter” (Genesis 34:12). Whether the Law of Moses is divine or just a codification of local customs, it specifies that one must offer a Mohar after sleeping with an available woman, and then he must marry her. This is all described in Exodus 22:15, and is subject to acceptance by her father. (If he refuses, he will just take the money). Indeed, the only other mention of Mohar in the whole Bible is in the story of Shechem and Dinah! It is as if the story was made to illustrate the concept of peaceful resolution to pre-marital sex. But before Jacob could accept or reject the Mohar, his sons jumped in, saying “we would like to take-up your offer, but you see, we have this custom called circumcision, and we could not possibly intermarry with people who are not circumcised. Now, if you and your entire male population were to circumcise, we would be glad to grant your wish”. Incredibly, Shechem promptly takes the request to his people and convinces them to circumcise. On the third day, as the newly circumcised people of Shechem are hurting, two of Dinah’s brothers, Simeon and Levy (yes, the archetype of organized-professional priesthood), swords in hands, massacred every male in the city of Shechem. Not only do they reduce the circumcision ritual to an act of macho-challenge, but they also call attention to the fact that the case of rape is really a case of prohibited seduction between two lovers who dare cross imaginary boundaries set by narrow-minded self-appointed spiritual leaders. To the chagrin of later date clergy, the Bible goes out of its way to tell us that Jacob’s son put forth the circumcision challenge with deception in mind! (Genesis 34:13) And the fact that they threatened to have Dinah removed from Shechem’s house during the negotiations (Genesis 34:17), implies that she was there as guest, not as a hostage! Jacob, who saw through the brother’s pretentious performance as defenders of the family honor, reproached his two sons: “you made me look ugly in front of the inhabitants. They are many and they could retaliate and finish me off!” (Genesis 34:30) Not one word about moral issues!

And what is God’s position? Having nothing to do with moral behavior, He is smart enough to stay out of the story altogether.

The impartiality of the storyteller proves once again that the integrity of the Bible is far greater than that of its characters, even if they are claimed to be our ancestors. [source]

But it seems all too easy and all too convenient to reduce frame the debate as one over errant midrash by flakey feminists.

 

[CMike]

Another feminist spin.

It's not even up to medresh.

 

[savagewind]

Another feminist spin.

It's not even up to medresh.

What I hear you saying is only men can know the truth. Is that right? If a woman says something new, it can't be true.