The rape of Dinah?

[CMike]

You are hearing incorrectly then.

You are confusing jewish women with radical feminists.

 

[savagewind]

You are hearing incorrectly then.

You are confusing jewish women with radical feminists.

What is the relationship between this thread and radical feminists?

 

[CMike]

Very good question:

 

[Levite]

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

I think you're taking a fairly large leap from disagreement to "idiosyncratic nonsense."

I am quite familiar with the Women's Torah Commentary: I studied with half of the contributors at one time or another. I am not questioning their scholarliness or suitability to interpret.

I am disagreeing with this particular interpretation of Frymer-Kensky's. Just as scholars of all kinds disagree with other scholars, from time to time. I understand her contentions, and though I think they are interesting and perfectly respectable scholarly arguments, I happen to think she is wrong about the way she wishes to render these verses, how she wishes to construct their meaning as pshat.

Doesn't mean I think she's nonsensical or anything. I simply think that she is a scholar who is wrong about a particular point. There are many scholars with whom I disagree on one point or another-- modern scholars, classical scholars, men and women. It doesn't necessarily mean anything other than I feel that they are wrong on the given point.

I already noted that I am sympathetic to her critical agenda, and that I think her interpretation makes an excellent and effective midrash.

But it just strikes me as ridiculous to be outraged and suppose that I am somehow disrespecting Frymer-Kensky or minimizing the scholarship of her or her fellow contributors because I think she's wrong on this particular point when it comes to pshat meaning. Hell, I've made the same criticism of Rashi, on occasion, and it doesn't mean I am painting Rashi to be some kind of joke.

 

[Me Myself]

This may be irrevelant but I felt the need to comment on a book called "The Red Tent" that talks about Dinah.

It was good, though I think almost copmletley ficticious novel.

If this comment is deemed too irrelevant by any jewish member, just say and I delete it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I am disagreeing with this particular interpretation of Frymer-Kensky's.

Sadly, you do not even see what you're doing here. On what grounds to you reduce it to a "particular interpretation of Frymer-Kensky's?"

 

[Levite]

Sadly, you do not even see what you're doing here. On what grounds to you reduce it to a "particular interpretation of Frymer-Kensky's?"

Because she's the one who's putting it forth in the source you cited. I would disagree with it if someone else put it forth elsewhere, also. The issue isn't Frymer-Kensky, the issue is the interpretation. I don't actually care who put it forth, or where. I care about it as a suggested rendering of pshat meaning that I believe not to be adequately supportable as pshat.

*Post Removed*

I'm sorry, but that is simply ridiculous. CMike contemptuously dismissed it simply for being "radical feminism." I have no problem with it being feminist, nor do I think it is radical. Nor do I have any problem with it as a midrash-- only as a pshat reading. Even the argument for it as a pshat reading I acknowledged was sophisticated and interesting-- not at all nonsense or fluff-- despite my disagreement with it.

And yes, I am saying that there is a critical agenda. The Women's Torah Commentary is largely authored by women, with an admitted purpose of trying to more clearly bring out women's voices in text and tradition, and examine text in light of Jewish feminist and related concerns. I don't see how that's different than, for example, the Jewish Study Bible having an academic critical agenda, or (if there were such a thing) a Kabbalistic Torah Commentary would have a mystical agenda, or a Recovery Torah Commentary would have a self-help agenda. Everyone has an agenda in reading a text: noting that isn't reductive or dismissive, it's just noting a fact.

Scholars are entitled to disagree with one another. The mere act of doing so isn't disrespectful or contemptuous.

I get that you find this interpretation persuasive, and I get that you are pleased with the Women's Torah Commentary and value its scholarship. That's great: I also value its scholarship, especially considering many of the authors are my teachers, colleagues, friends, and relatives. And I get that you found my reasons for disagreement and how I do read the text to be unpersuasive: that's fine, nothing compels you to agree with me, and if you find another scholar's view compelling, wonderful. I'm just happy that there are educated Jewish laypeople reading this kind of scholarship and finding it useful and compelling-- regardless of what particular interpretation or reading they are choosing to espouse.

But I still disagree with this particular reading. And doing so doesn't make me Charedi, or make me not a feminist, or make me disrespectful of Tikva Frymer-Kensky or any other scholar-- female or male. It makes me a trained scholar with a different view of the text, whose disagreement is both respectful and nuanced. And yes, it is this particular reading. There are many other feminist readings of text-- both Torah and Talmud as well as halachah-- that I do agree with, and that I readily espouse, and teach others. Disagreeing with this one doesn't taint my whole attitude toward Jewish feminism and/or critical textual study.

 

[CMike]

My beef is that the Torah and what is in it is based on the intentions of the author.

I find it offensive when people try to change it to fit their agenda.

 

[savagewind]

My beef is that the Torah and what is in it is based on the intentions of the author.

I find it offensive when people try to change it to fit their agenda.

I think most people will agree with that.

What is a woman's agenda to offer a feminine perspective? Do you believe men can understand what Dibnah did and how she felt better than a woman can?

 

[savagewind]

The account was written by a man about a woman. Do you not suppose Dinah's perspective may have gone unknown for all these years?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sadly, you do not even see what you're doing here. On what grounds to you reduce it to a "particular interpretation of Frymer-Kensky's?"

Because she's the one who's putting it forth in the source you cited.

Fair enough. Let's look ...

• My first reference can be found in post #9. It is a reference to the Jewish Women's Archive entry on DINAH: BIBLE. where we read:

  The story is set during the ancestral period in the city of Shechem, the geographical center of a movement in which people of diverse backgrounds, customs, and religious beliefs merged to become the community of Israel. Dinah goes out “to visit the women of the region” (the indigenous people, 34:1). The phrase implies an openness to and acceptance of outsiders. Dinah’s subsequent sexual intercourse with Shechem, the Hivite prince of the region, is the ultimate symbol of acceptance. And Hamor speaks to Jacob about “giving” his daughter in marriage to Shechem, in the same way that the Jacobites and Shechemites will "give and take” wives, live and trade in the same region, and hold property together peacefully.
  
  But separatist tendencies within Jacob’s community (represented by Simeon, Levi, and the other sons of Jacob) are threatened by this possibility and by Shechem’s intercourse with Dinah. They want to resist intermarriage. Their idea of “give and take” is “taking” the sword, killing all the Shechemite males, plundering the city, and taking their wives and children. The story passes “judgment” (the meaning of Dinah’s name) on their friendly attitude.
  
  The story invites two opposing interpretations. The traditional understanding is that Dinah has been raped by Shechem. Her brothers Simeon and Levi retaliate by violently slaying and plundering Shechem, Hamor, and the Shechemite community. But the retaliation puts Jacob’s group in jeopardy by making subsequent social intercourse and peaceful coexistence impossible. Jacob thus reprimands his sons for their behavior. But concerning the question of whether Dinah has been raped, the final clue comes in the last sentence of the story. Simeon and Levi say, “Should our sister be treated like a whore?” (34:31). Prostitutes engage in sexual intercourse for financial gain, and their sexual actions involve mutual consent. Rape therefore does not characterize either prostitution or what has happened to Dinah. Furthermore, one of the purposes of sexual intercourse in the ancient world was to create permanent bonding and obligation; but in prostitution, there is no bonding or obligation. By saying that Dinah has become like a prostitute, Simeon and Levi might be suggesting that, from their perspective, Dinah and Shechem’s intercourse could never lead to bonding and obligation. They are not suggesting that she was raped.
  
  Upon hearing the news about his daughter, Jacob is at first silent; then he negotiates Dinah’s marriage to Shechem. If Dinah has been raped, Jacob ignores his obligation to protect the women of his household and ignores Dinah’s suffering. This seems peculiar—does it suggest that Dinah was not raped? In the Hebrew Scriptures, rape is generally indicated by a cry for help from the woman (showing lack of consent) and violence on the part of the man (indicating a forcible, hostile act).
  
  But the intercourse of Shechem does not fit this pattern. Genesis 34:2 reports that he sees Dinah, takes her (the Hebrew word for “take” is often used for taking a wife), lies with her (a euphemism for sexual intercourse), and shames her (the NRSV combines the last two verbs, rendering “lay with her by force,” a reading that should be contested). Then the text (v. 3) provides three expressions of affection: first it says he bonds with her (the NRSV uses “was drawn” to her, but the word bonds more appropriately represents a word used for marital bonding), then that he loves her, and finally that he speaks tenderly to her. From this description Shechem appears to be a man in love, not a man committing an exploitative act of rape. Rapists feel hostility and hatred toward their victims, not closeness and tenderness.
  
  So why does the text include the verb to shame (or to humble, put down), and why does it record that Jacob’s daughter has been “defiled” (34:5; compare 34:13, 27)? Shame, or intense humility, usually relates to failure to live up to societal goals and ideals. Because sexual intercourse should be part of marital bonding, it is shameful for an unmarried woman like Dinah to have sex. The declaration of love and desire for marriage comes after she and Shechem have intercourse. Furthermore, Dinah’s intercourse with Shechem makes her “defiled,” a term (Hebrew tm&#8217 indicating here an unacceptable sexual act. The unacceptability of premarital sex in this case is intertwined with the response of Dinah’s brothers, who insist that Shechem’s requested marriage with her would be an unacceptable union.
  
  Ironically, if there is a rape in this story, it is Simeon and Levi who “rape” the people of Shechem’s city. It is their behavior that is violent, hostile, and exploitative. Shechem’s desire for marital bonding stands in tension with Simeon and Levi’s determination that no such liaison take place. The tension between marriage within a group (endogamy) and marriage with outsiders (exogamy) is dramatized in this story of love and violence. The premarital sexual act is the narrative’s representation of the violation of group boundaries. Also, the fact that Shechem figures prominently first as a friend and then as a victim of Jacob’s group may prefigure what another biblical narrative reports—that Shechem is peacefully incorporated into Israel but then is violently destroyed (see Judges 9).

  Neither the entry nor its bibliography reference Frymer-Kensky.
  ***
• My second reference can be found in post # 31, specifically from The Torah: A Women's Commentary Commentary on Vayishlach is attributed to Shawna Dolansky and Risa Levitt Kohn (see pg. xiii). As with the previous citation, I see no reference to Frymer-Kensky.
  ***
• My third reference can likewise be found in post # 31. It is a reference to The 'Rape' of Dinah: An Historical and cultural Critique of Virginity in the Ancient Near East by Prof. Carie Johnsen - a 29 page scholarly investigation of the topic at hand.
  
  And yes, Johnsen does, indeed, reference Frymer-Kensky's "Reading Women in the Bible.[/i] As I noted:

  Parenthetically, from the reference in point 1 immediately above:

  Frymer-Krensky points out that the word inna follows the word "lay with" which would indicate that rape was in fact not the case. The order of the words suggests that disgrace followed their laying together. She notes that had it been a case of rape the disgrace (inna) would have preceded their laying together.

  So, there's your smoking gun: a parenthetical reference (three sentences out of 29 pages) to the third reference cited in posts 9 and 31.

And your dismissal in post # 42?

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.

And why?

Because she's the one who's putting it forth in the source you cited.

Poor Tikva. She get's all the blame -- despite you being "on friendly terms with both her and her husband" or the fact that she was not the author of the Women's Commentary cited.

This is not the drash of one woman and it certainly is not the error of one woman. Framing it in this way is a distortion and a dismissal that reeks of patronizing chauvinism. Instead of repeating how you are "friendly" with your sole target, you would do well to acknowledge that collectively, and in many cases individually, those responsible for the linguistic and sociological analysis have far better credentials than the two of us combined. That does not make them right, but it does argue for far greater respect.

 

[Levite]

...This is not the drash of one woman and it certainly is not the error of one woman. Framing it in this way is a distortion and a dismissal that reeks of patronizing chauvinism. Instead of repeating how you are "friendly" with your sole target, you would do well to acknowledge that collectively, and in many cases individually, those responsible for the linguistic and sociological analysis have far better credentials than the two of us combined. That does not make them right, but it does argue for far greater respect.

OK, so it's not necessarily Tikva's personal original drash, and it was my error that I apparently mistook it as such-- I'm not "targeting" anyone! I actually don't care if it's the drash of one person or a hundred people. I still disagree with it. And just because they have amazing credentials doesn't mean that I can't legtimately do so. And I already stated clearly that the issue was not Tikva Frymer-Kensky, or any other individual scholar, or this or any other specific commentary. The issue is the interpretation. I would disagree with it if it came from Tikva, if it came from Rachel Adler, if it came from Rashi, if it came from Ramban, or if it was espoused by the CCAR, the RA, or the RCA.

I have gone to great lengths to try and be clear that this is simply a disagreement about a scholarly conclusion as to how to read the text. I made it quite clear that I respected the source and authority of the scholarship I disagreed with, and praised what I disagreed with as excellent in other regards. It is beyond ludicrous that this translates out to you as patronizing chauvinism. Despite your offhand concession that their academic collective stature doesn't guarantee that they're right, I can only conclude that the only way I would not be guilty of patronizing chauvinism would be to agree with the WTC's point here.

I don't understand how your apparent expectation that I refrain from disagreeing with the Women's Torah Commentary because of their vast collective credentials is any different than a Charedi expectation that nobody disagree with or rule differently than their rebbe or rabbayim, because they are "gedolei torah." No scholar or group of scholars or school of scholarship is beyond thoughtful and respectful disagreement, and such disagreement doesn't indicate any kind of contempt, dismissive, patronizing, or otherwise.

I am doing my level best to make this machloket l'shem shamayim, and you are not helping. Never mind the fact that, as someone raised by a Jewish feminist scholar and married to a Jewish feminist scholar, who has himself taught classes in Jewish feminist thought, getting called a chauvinist for having the temerity to disagree with a single drash in the Women's Torah Commentary is fairly insulting.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

OK, so it's not necessarily Tikva's personal original drash, and it was my error that I apparently mistook it as such-- I'm not "targeting" anyone! I actually don't care if it's the drash of one person or a hundred people. I still disagree with it.

Very well.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I don't understand how your apparent expectation that I refrain from disagreeing with the Women's Torah Commentary because ...

I have no such expectation, nor have I ever expressed such an expectation. I do, however, reject your repeated efforts to reduce its commentary to an error by a single individual and then dismiss it as such (while insisting that you are friendly to a person who, apparently, had little or no role in defining the content of that commentary).

 

[Levite]

I have no such expectation, nor have I ever expressed such an expectation. I do, however, reject your repeated efforts to reduce its commentary to an error by a single individual and then dismiss it as such.

I did no such thing. I erroneously believed that this particular comment was from Tikva Frymer-Kensky, but that is in no way, shape, or form the same thing as "reducing" the entire commentary to a single person's error. I repeatedly said I appreciated and valued the commentary, and spoke highly of all the contributors' scholarship, while maintaining my disagreement with one specific rendering in one specific application.

It was you who read intent and agenda into my words, and rather than asking if those were my intentions and agenda, which I could have clarified readily, you presumed, and attacked.

 

[CMike]

The account was written by a man about a woman. Do you not suppose Dinah's perspective may have gone unknown for all these years?

Totally irrelevant.

The Torah wasn't written to give a Dinah, Yakov, Jacob, and Joshua perspective.

The Torah was written was to tell what happened, teach us lessons, and give us a guidelines how to lead our lives in order for us to get close to G-D.

The touchy, feely, gee I wonder how Dinah felt really has nothing to do with learning Torah.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I did no such thing. I erroneously believed that this particular comment was from Tikva Frymer-Kensky, but that is in no way, shape, or form the same thing as "reducing" the entire commentary to a single person's error.

That was precisely what you did.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The touchy, feely, gee I wonder how Dinah felt really has nothing to do with learning Torah.

Sadly, it clearly has nothing to do with your Torah study.

 

[CMike]

I disagree with Levite a great deal.

He disagrees with the commentary.

For goodness sake get over it.

 

[Freelance_Policeman]

Not so. I cannot comment in the blue thread, but I can ask: Will you please read Genesis 34:1-5 again?

How else would the family learn that she had had sex with the guy?

I'm not seeing what you want me to see...