Lost & Crowned

The troubling trials and tribulations of the two tribes of Shimon and Levi are triggered in this week's parsha. Having received word that their sister Dinah had been viciously violated by the villainous Shechem, her brothers seek vengeance via a veil of compromise. In response to Shechem and his father Chamor's provocative proposal that the families intermarry, the Torah tells us

Yaakov's sons answered Shechem and his father Chamor cleverly and they spoke (because he had defiled their sister Dinah). They said to them "We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to a man who is uncircumcised...Only on this condition will we agree with you: If you become like us by letting every male among you become circumcised. Then we will...become a single people. But if you will not listen to us to be circumcised, we will take our daughter and go." (34:13-17)

After agreeing to the plan, and convincing their compatriots as well, Shechem, Chamor, and their countrymen undergo circumcision. The text continues

And it came to pass on the third day, when they (the people of Shechem) were in pain, that two of Yaakov's sons, Shimon and Levi, Dinah's brothers, each took his sword...and killed every male...Then they took Dinah from Shechem's house and left...Yaakov said to Shimon, and to Levi, "You have greatly perturbed me, making me hated among the inhabitants of the land"...And they said "Should he treat our sister like a harlot?" (34:25-31)

In response to their query, Yaakov answers...nothing! He is silent; he does not respond. Well, at least until his deathbed, at which point he laces into Shimon and Levi and lambastes them for their actions (See, Parshas VaYechi, 49:5-7).

The aforementioned series of events are so perplexing on so many levels, that virtually every Commentator addresses them. Whether it is about the legality of the tribes' actions (killing the entire city), Yaakov's initial "shocked" response, Yaakov's subsequent [lack of] response to Shimon and Levi's professed justification, or his seeming equivocation on the issue by excoriating them for it years later, the commentaries are filled with analysis.

Of course the first and most obvious question regards Yaakov's initial reaction when he learns of the decimation of the city of Shechem. As the Ramban tells us

There is a question here, for it appears that [Yaakov's sons] answered (Shechem) with Yaakov's approval and counsel, for they were in his presence [when they spoke], and he knew...they were speaking with deception. If so, why did he become angry with them? Furthermore...all the brothers gave this deceptive response, although it was only Shimon and Levi who did the act [of killing the men].

The Ramban answers that originally the brothers (and Yaakov) thought Shechem would never agree to such a deal, and thus they could demand Dinah's return. Furthermore, even if Shechem did accede to the brothers' demands, the tribes would take advantage of the townspeople's weakened state and overpower them in order to liberate Dinah. In other words, it was a RESCUE MISSION; no mention was made of terminating the town.

How does the Ramban know that? How does he know Shimon and Levi did not confer with Yaakov? It is based on a Medrash (Bereishis Rabbah), and it is a Medrash Peliyah (a "wondrous" or "bewildering" Medrash) at that. On the passuk we quoted above-"two of Yaakov's sons, Shimon and Levi, Dinah's brothers, each took"-the Medrash raises two questions:

o Why tell us they were Yaakov's sons? Don't we know that?
o Why tell us there were two of them, can't we count?

The answer to the first question is well known (and is stated above), but the response to the second may surprise you. The Medrash explains that they are called "Yaakov's sons" to highlight that they should have conferred with Yaakov about their plan (to kill the inhabitants), but they did not. We are informed that there were two of them to teach us that they each individually and separately came up with the "wipe-out-the-city" idea on their own, without conferring with each other! Well that's a surprise, and certainly contrary to our image of their conspiring with each other (bolstered by Yaakov's statement to them on his deathbed that his "soul not enter into their conspiracy").

If you're underwhelmed by my designation of the above Medrash as a "bewildering" one, it's because I haven't given you the perplexing part yet. The Medrash goes on to suggest that "had they conferred with each other, they would not have done the act (of wiping out the city)!" WHAT??!! HOW CAN THAT BE?! If Shimon decided on his own to kill all the males, and Levi came to the identical determination on his own, why would they come to the opposite conclusion if they discussed it ahead of time? Are we employing a "two-negatives-equal-a-positive" theory? That's bewildering!

In order to attempt an answer, let us briefly trace the divergent histories of Shimon and Levi post-Shechem (N.B.-we must bear in mind, when offering any critique of the Holy Shevatim, that we cannot even remotely relate to their level of holiness, and thus it should not be viewed through the lens of our inferior eyes).

Things don't get much better for them in next week's parsha, as they are collectively tagged as the instigators of Yosef's sale. But then a funny thing happens on the way to their redemption: Shimon misses it. When Yosef seeks a pretense to see his brother Binyamin-and to test the brothers' fealty to him-he send his brothers back to Yaakov with provisions, but without Shimon. In order to ensure their return to Egypt with Binyamin, Yosef chooses a hostage, and it's no coincidence that he picks Shimon. As Rashi tells us "Yosef intended to separate him from Levi, lest the two of them conspire to kill him." (42:24). Well that explains why Yosef chose one of them, but why Shimon? None of Yosef's maneuvers were arbitrary; everything was calculated. Why did he imprison Shimon, causing him to miss an opportunity to make a tikkun for his sale?

Once slavery begins, the fate (and descendants) of these two tribes radically diverge. Shimon, in essence, becomes the lowest of all the tribes, culminating in the ignominy of the incident with Zimri, the LEADER of the tribe. He openly and brazenly is intimate with a Midianite princess in the plain view of Moshe and all the Elders, helping cause a disastrous plague that claims 24,000 lives. Thereafter, Shimon does not even receive a regular portion in Eretz Yisrael (essentially he receives a "sub-division" of Yehudah). Finally, and tragically, they are the first of the ten tribes that are lost.

By sharp contrast, Levi's stock rises sharply once the Egyptian experience begins. Moshe, Aharon, and Pinchas are all leaders of the nation, and are of the highest moral character. The crown of the Kehuna (Priesthood) is bestowed upon the tribe and, together with their Levite cousins, they are blessed with the opportunity to serve Hashem in the Bais HaMikdash.

While they are obviously the greatest luminaries of their tribe, it is no coincidence we have chosen Moshe, Aharon and Pinchas as our examples, for it is with them that our attempted explanation of the dramatically different fates of the two tribes shall begin. Clearly both Shimon and Levi, as individuals, exhibited that there are moments when one must fight, and even kill, in order to preserve that which is just. But it is through their descendants that we may get a glimpse of the motivating force that drove them to such a conclusion.

Although the tribe of Levi is generally thought of as a peaceful one, perhaps due to their status as the "clergy" in Egypt-learning Torah during the enslavement-as well as their status as the bearers of the vessels of the Tabernacle, the Aron, etc., in fact they have quite a "violent" history. Though we come to know Moshe quite intimately-through his constant presence throughout the last four Books of the Torah-first impressions still matter. His first act in the Torah? He kills a man! That's his intro? That's how Hashem wants us to first view him as a man? YES! His action is wholly justifiable; it's heroic! It was an outgrowth of the characteristic that his grandfather Levi displayed, and it was played to perfection. It was precisely the type of killing-to save a fellow Jew-that was necessary at the moment.

And that was precisely the attitude displayed by his tribe when Moshe makes his famous clarion call after viewing the desecration of G-d's Name at the Eigel HaZahav (Golden Calf). Demanding justice for Hashem's Glory, Moshe famously utters "Mi LaHashem Aylaay" "Whoever is for Hashem, join me!" The tribe of Levi jumps into action and slays three thousand men that day, even though many of them were close relatives! They did not allow for mixed priorities; if it was for the defense of Hashem and Torah values then count them in! Even at the expense of emotions towards family; they had the purest of intentions.

Aharon Kohen Gadol? Well we have no acts of recorded violence perpetrated by him, but his mantra, his essence, that which he was known for, was "Oheiv Shalom V'Rodef Shalom," "He loved peace and pursued peace." While that may sound as peaceful as it gets, it is important to note the terminology employed. The term "Rodef" means "pursuer", and is traditionally used in the context of a killer (one who pursues another to kill him). Aharon understood that in order to have peace, sometimes one must kill for peace. Which is why his name is continually invoked in connection with his Grandson Pinchas, after he slays Zimri from the tribe of Shimon. Pinchas clarified the Halacha with Moshe, and then kills Zimri for the sake of the honor of the Torah. That killing was the most peaceful act that one could commit, and you don't have to take my word for it, Hashem says so! Pinchas is bestowed with the "covenant of peace" directly by Hashem.

Of course it is precisely at this juncture that we begin to achieve clarity with respect to the different attitudes beholden by Shimon and Levi. The Medrash tells us that the tribe of Shimon surrounded Pinchas and wanted to kill him in order to seek vengeance for their slain leader, even though he was fully justified in his actions! Look who all of a sudden doesn't believe in justified killing! When it came to Shechem, sure, it was for the honor of our family and our Torah values. Now, when Pinchas kills for that reason-no good!

We see now that their vigilantism varied. Shimon's was about vengeance, it was about striking back when their family was harmed, whether justified or not. That may sound good on paper, but other than in the context of war, it is not allowed. Levi, on the other hand, understood that his willingness to kill must be channeled for the sake of Hashem; that is not merely acceptable, it's commendable. And it provides us with the explanation of the perplexing Medrash above, as well as to why Yosef chose Shimon as his hostage.

Why would the Medrash suggest that if Shimon and Levi had conferred with each other they never would have wiped out the city of Shechem? Because Levi would have realized that Shimon's motives did not match his. Levi was undertaking the act L'Shem Shamayim (for the Sake of Heaven), while Shimon's was more retribution. Though their means and the end were identical, their underlying impetuses were incongruous. One whiff of Shimon's motivation and Levi would demur.

The brothers in general-and Yosef in particular-may have become aware of that difference after the episode of Shechem, which may explain Yosef's actions as well. Given the choice as to which of the co-conspirators to put under lock and key, Yosef chose the one most dangerous; the one who may just flat-out kill him (proper motives or not). More importantly, perhaps he felt Levi the more deserving of the two for a chance at redemption since his motives were pure.

Shimon is the first tribe to be lost, while Levi thrives to this very day. It is due to Levi's proper channeling of that Middah into a productive one, that fights for G-d's Glory, not one that just fights. And therein lies the lesson for us all. Yes oftentimes we must fight, even for peace, but it must be with proper motive in mind. It must be for the sake of the Torah, for the sake of Hashem, not merely because it feels right.

Levi understood that; Shimon did not. That may explain why the tribe of Shimon is ultimately LOST, AND the tribe of Levi CROWNED!

Good Shabbos.

This week's TMOT is dedicated in memory of my Mother, Rus bas Tzvi Noach (HK"M).