“Now Dinah, the daughter whom Leah had borne to Jacob, went out to visit the daughters of the land.” The verse appears quite innocent, like the verse “Jacob left [lit: went out of] Beer-sheba, and set out for Haran”. On this verse, Rashi comments: “It was only necessary to write that Jacob went to Haran, so why mention his leaving? It teaches us that the departure of a righteous person makes an impression, for while the righteous person is in the city, he is its glory and brilliance; he is its splendour. When he departs, its splendour and brilliance depart”. Rashi adds an example in support of his view: “And so it says of Naomi and Ruth: ‘So she set out from the place [where she was, with her two daughters-in-law, and they went on the way to return to the land of Judah]’. However, in regard to Dinah, Rashi writes: “[She is called] daughter of Leah – and not daughter of Jacob – because of her ‘going out’  for she [Leah] also one who was in the habit of ‘going out’, as it says: ‘[When Jacob came home from the field in the evening,] Leah went out to meet him [and said, "You are to sleep with me, for I have hired you with my son's mandrakes]." And he lay with her that night’ (Genesis 30:16).”

This critical approach can be found in the writings of other commentators as well. R. Bahya b. Asher (13th cent.) writes: “And in regard to ‘Dinah went out’, it teaches us that she went out adorned, as did her mother Leah, of whom the Bible says: ‘Leah went out to meet him’. In other words, she followed in her mother’s footsteps, and the Bible criticizes a woman is in the habit of going out…but she is praised when she is modest and stays in her home…”

The modern Etz Hayim: Torah and Commentary follows the same trend, stating: “Girls of marriageable age normally would not leave a rural encampment to venture alone into an alien city. The narrative subtly criticizes Dinah’s highly unconventional behavior through its use of the Hebrew stem meaning ‘to go out’ (יצא)”.

As opposed to this approach, Nahmanides (1194-1270) explains: “And the reason it says ‘the daughter whom Leah had borne to Jacob’ is to tell us that she is the sister of Simeon and Levi, who take her revenge in their jealousy.” In other words, Nahmnides rejects the attempt to say that mentioning Leah is meant to imply some flaw in Dinah’s behavior. Rather, it is mentioned in order to emphasize Dinah’s relationship to Simeon and Levi, which is important for understanding the rest of the story. Further on, Nahmanides explains: “And Shechem’s desire was great, because the girl was very beautiful, but the Bible does not describe her beauty as it does in regard to Sarah, Rebecca and Rachel, because it does not wish mention her beauty as being a source of sin, for it speaks in praise of the righteous and not of that.” Nahmanides raises an interesting question. Of Sarah we are told: “As he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, I know what a beautiful woman you are” (12:11), and “When Abram entered Egypt, the Egyptians saw how very beautiful the woman was” (12:14). Of Rebecca we are told: “The maiden was very beautiful” (24:16), and “The men of the place might kill me on account of Rebecca, for she is beautiful” (26:7). And we are told: “Rachel was shapely and beautiful” (29:17). It should be noted that Sarah’s beauty is mentioned in the context of her being taken to Pharaoh’s house. Similarly, Rebecca’s beauty is noted when she is carried off by Abimelech. Joseph’s beauty is also described – “Now Joseph was well built and handsome” (29:6) – just before we are told: “After a time, his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph and said, Lie with me” (29:7). As opposed to all of these examples, we are provided with no physical description of Dinah, even though the context would seem to demand it. Nahmanides adds: “And the Bible tells us that she was forced and did not submit to the prince of the land, in order to praise her.”

In a similar vein, Abravanel (1437-1508) explains: “It is not to criticize her that she is one who went out as her mother went out, as Rashi states, for Leah was so modest that Jacob did not recognize her when he came to her. And when she went out to him saying ‘You are to sleep with me’, she went out only to the entrance of her home, and her intent was pure. Thus, this verse is intended to praise Dinah, and what happened was not a result of her being accustomed to going out, for she was the daughter of Leah who was accustomed to staying at home, while Rachel would go tend the flocks and Leah would not go out.”

1. Why do the commentators try to find flaws in Dinah’s conduct? Do they wish to blame her for being raped?

2. Can we infer from Nahmanides that the reason the Bible does not describe Dinah is so that we not blame her, but rather conclude that Shechem alone was responsible? Can we deduce from the absence of any description of Dinah’s appearance that the Bible takes the view that a woman’s appearance and behavior cannot be viewed as explanations or excuses for sexual assault?

3. At the end of the story, we are told: “On the third day, when they were in pain, Simeon and Levi, two of Jacob's sons, brothers of Dinah, took each his sword, came upon the city unmolested, and slew all the males.” This conduct is severely criticized by Jacob, yet we do not find any mention of Divine censure or punishment. Can a justifiable act be immoral? Can a moral act be unjustifiable? Is Jacob’s criticism directed at the morality of the conduct or at its wisdom?

4. Why did Simeon and Levi kill all the men of the city? In the Mishneh Torah, Maimonides explains: “Because Shechem stole, and they saw and knew and did not judge him” (Laws concerning Kings 9:14). In other words, their guilt was in doing nothing. In different circumstances, German-Jewish journalist Kurt Tucholsky (1890-1935) wrote, about a week prior to his death: “A country is not only what it does – it is also what it puts up with, what it tolerates.” Is this approach morally satisfactory? Does it advocate or justify “collective punishment”?