http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/3064#.Uzsufpt3u1s Two zealots are focused upon in our parasha: Shimon and Levy. And the eternal question is: Were they correct in their deed or not? This parasha has certainly been one of the more misinterpreted portions in the Torah in modern times, and, as a consequence, so many improper conclusions have been drawn from it.
[Written in 1992. Translated from the Hebrew by Lenny Goldberg.]
Two zealots are focused upon in our parasha: Shimon and Levy. And the eternal question is: Were they correct in their deed or not? This parasha has certainly been one of the more misinterpreted portions in the Torah in modern times, and, as a consequence, so many improper conclusions have been drawn from it.
One reason for confusion is that in order to understand our parasha, many immediately jump to parshat Vayechi, in which there are verses directly dealing with the act of Shimon and Levy. Indeed, one who reads parshat Vayechi can easily reach the conclusion that Yaakov clearly views their act as a mistake when he says, "Cursed be their anger for it was fierce..." These words are directed at the actions of Shimon and Levy in Sh?chem, and such words certainly seem to put the deed in a negative light. As a result, this is how many love to interpret the parasha, condemning the brothers Shimon and Levy for their action in Sh?chem.
Yet, in contrast to this simplistic understanding, there are huge questions. Firstly, one who reads parshat Vayishlach will notice that the Torah finishes the story with Shimon and Levy having the upper hand. In response to Yaakov's argument that "you have troubled me, to make me odious among the inhabitants of the land," Shimon and Levy promptly answer him: "As a harlot should one deal with our sister?" And so the episode ends, without a peep from Yaakov, with the brothers clearly putting the matter at rest.
And indeed, the argument of Yaakov, that "you have troubled me to make me odious among the inhabitants of the land" seems to fall flat on its face, as the Almighty puts fear of G-d upon all the inhabitants of the cities of which Yaakov was afraid. Could this not be a clear sign that the Almighty was giving an OK to the deed?
More than that, pay attention to the argument of Yaakov. He is not opposing them on a moral basis. He is not criticizing them for wiping out an entire city unjustly. This is not his argument. His is a practical one - that all the goyim will come after us now.
If you are not yet convinced, it is written in the Midrash that on the flag of the tribe of Shimon was nothing more and nothing less than a picture of the city of Sh?chem! Now ask yourselves: Could one have on his flag a symbol of something that reminded him of his sin?
And so, certainly, the act of Shimon and Levy was a correct and positive act. So much so, that it waves proudly on the flag of Shimon.
The fact is that none of the Jewish commentators condemn the act. For example, Rambam explains that Shimon and Levy were justified in wiping out the entire city, because the people of Sh?chem did not put Sh?chem Ben Hamor on trial for his crime of raping Dina, thus violating the seven laws of B?nei Noach. Therefore, they were deserving of the death penalty. The Maharal argues with the Rambam, stating that one can't expect a people to put its prince on trial, because they are afraid of him. He therefore offers an alternative explanation. The Maharal says that the children of Israel acted as one would in any other war, where a law of collective punishment applies. Though one is supposed to "call for peace" first, this is only when you were not wronged by the enemy. But since, in this case, they "broke the fence" first with their rape of Dina, one need not call them to peace. (Gur Aryeh, Vayishlach)
All this makes us quite curious to know why Yaakov said in parshat Vayechi: "Cursed is their anger for it was fierce...."
The answer to this question touches upon the deep and delicate subject concerning the motive that stands behind the actions of a person. Yaakov, in his wisdom, evidently understood that, while the act of Shimon and Levy was a Kiddush Hashem, he also eventually came to the conclusion that the motive behind the deed was not 100% pure. When did Yaakov understand this? When it became clear that the major culprits in the selling of Yosef were the same Shimon and Levy (as the sages tell us elsewhere).
Yaakov knew that their zealotry was not always channeled in the proper direction. He said to them: "For in their anger they slew men, and in their self-will they maimed an ox." Rashi tell us that the "men" they slew were Hamor and the men of Sh?chem, and the "ox" they maimed was Yosef, who was termed "ox". This was the problem. After being zealous for a good cause, they went out later to hurt their brother. The act of plotting to kill Yosef shed light on their act in Sh?chem. It meant that their motive there was somehow flawed; they were not acting solely Leshem Shamayim. It showed that there was a character trait of anger in them, not always directed properly.
This is whyYaakov said "cursed is their anger, for it is fierce." Yaakov did not curse them, but rather their anger, to tell us that they are not cursed, but only "their anger" is. That is, he cursed their use of the attribute of zealousness derived from anger, not Leshem Shamayim.
Interestingly enough, we see that the tribe of Levi indeed succeeded in cleansing its motives, and acting Leshem Shamayim. It was they who slew their brethren for the sin of the Golden Calf, and it was Pinchas who was also zealous for G-d's sake, slaying Zimri. Interestingly, Zimri Ben Salu, the Jewish leader who prostituted himself, was from the tribe of Shimon. Pinchas, who was zealous against such immorality, came from the tribe of Levy. A zealot and son of a zealot - but this time with absolutely pure motives. The tribe of Levy succeeded in sublimating it's attribute of anger, thereby purifying it's motives, as Yaakov requested. Shimon apparently did not straighten out his middot, falling victim to the very same sin he was once zealous for.
Topic: Schehem and modern day societies. (Read 4408 times)