Genesis 34:25

Gen 34:25 And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.

Ver. 25. On the third day.] Which is the worst day to those that are wounded; the critical day, as the surgeons call it. Wicked men are witty, to take their opportunity to act villany.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gen 34:25-27. They slew all the males — Nothing can excuse this execrable villany. It was true Shechem had wrought folly in Israel, in defiling Dinah: but it ought to have been considered how far Dinah herself had been accessary to it. Had Shechem abused her in her mother’s tent, it had been another matter; but she went upon his ground, and struck the spark which began the fire. When we are severe upon the sinner, we ought to consider who was the tempter. It was true that Shechem had done ill; but he was endeavouring to atone for it, and was as honest and honourable afterward as the case would admit. It is true that Shechem had done ill, but what was that to all the Shechemites? Doth one man sin, and must the innocent fall with the guilty? This was barbarous indeed. But that which above all aggravated the cruelty, was the most perfidious treachery that was in it. The Shechemites had submitted to their conditions, and had done that upon which they had promised to become one people with them. Yet they act as sworn enemies to those to whom they were lately become sworn friends, making as light of their covenant as they did of the laws of humanity. And these are the sons of Israel! Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce. Though Simeon and Levi only were the murderers, yet others of the sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city — And so became accessory to the murder.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

34:25-29 When Simeon and Levi used circumcision to deceive and slaughter the Canaanites, they showed disdain for the sign of the covenant. Their slaughter of all the males and their plunder of the city was not justice, but brutal and excessive revenge. In their moral outrage and desire to right the wrong, they should have demanded compensation (see Exod 22:16-17; Deut 22:28-29). Instead, their passionate act of rage cost them their birthright blessing (Gen 49:5-7).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

For they were the chief of the company.

The people are punished with their wicked princes.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Here, we have Simeon and Levi, two of Jacob's sons, young men not much above twenty years old, cutting the throats of the Shechemites, and thereby breaking the heart of their good father.

I. Here is the barbarous murder of the Shechemites. Jacob himself was used to the sheep-hook, but his sons had got swords by their sides, as if they had been the seed of Esau, who was to live by his sword; we have them here,

1. Slaying the inhabitants of Shechem - all the males, Hamor and Shechem particularly, with whom they had been treating in a friendly manner but the other day, yet with a design upon their lives. Some think that all Jacob's sons, when they wheedled the Shechemites to be circumcised, designed to take advantage of their soreness, and to rescue Dinah from among them; but that Simeon and Levi, not content with that, would themselves avenge the injury - and they did it with a witness. Now, (1.) It cannot be denied but that God was righteous in it. Had the Shechemites been circumcised in obedience to any command of God, their circumcision would have been their protection; but when they submitted to that sacred rite only to serve a turn, to please their prince and to enrich themselves, it was just with God to bring this upon them. Note, As nothing secures us better than true religion, so nothing exposes us more than religion only pretended to. (2.) But Simeon and Levi were most unrighteous. [1.] It was true that Shechem had wrought folly against Israel, in defiling Dinah; but it ought to have been considered how far Dinah herself had been accessory to it. Had Shechem abused her in her own mother's tent, it would have been another matter; but she went upon his ground, and perhaps by her indecent carriage had struck the spark which began the fire: when we are severe upon the sinner we ought to consider who was the tempter. [2.] It was true that Shechem had done ill; but he was endeavouring to atone for it, and was as honest and honourable, ex post facto - after the deed, as the case would admit: it was not the case of the Levite's concubine that was abused to death; nor does he justify what he has done, but courts a reconciliation upon any terms. [3.] It was true that Shechem had done ill; but what was that to all the Shechemites? Does one man sin, and will they be wroth with all the town? Must the innocent fall with the guilty? This was barbarous indeed. [4.] But that which above all aggravated the cruelty was the most perfidious treachery that was in it. The Shechemites had submitted to their conditions, and had done that upon which they had promised to become one people with them (Gen 34:16); yet they act as sworn enemies to those to whom they had lately become sworn friends, making as light of their covenant as they did of the laws of humanity. And are these the sons of Israel? Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce. [5.] This also added to the crime, that they made a holy ordinance of God subservient to their wicked design, so making that odious; as if it were not enough for them to shame themselves and their family, they bring a reproach upon that honourable badge of their religion; justly would it be called a bloody ordinance.

2. Seizing the prey of Shechem, and plundering the town. They rescued Dinah (Gen 34:26), and, if that was all they came for, they might have done that without blood, as appears by their own showing (Gen 34:17); but they aimed at the spoil; and, though Simeon and Levi only were the murderers, yet it is intimated that others of the sons of Jacob came upon the slain and spoiled the city (Gen 34:27), and so became accessory to the murder. In them it was manifest injustice; yet here we may observe the righteousness of God. The Shechemites were willing to gratify the sons of Jacob by submitting to the penance of circumcision, upon this principle, Shall not their cattle and their substance be ours? (Gen 34:23), and see what was the issue; instead of making themselves masters of the wealth of Jacob's family, Jacob's family become masters of their wealth. Note, Those who unjustly grasp at that which is another's justly lose that which is their own.

II. Here is Jacob's resentment of this bloody deed of Simeon and Levi, Gen 34:30. Two things he bitterly complains of: - 1. The reproach they had brought upon him thereby: You have troubled me, put me into a disorder, for you have made me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, that is, "You have rendered me and my family odious among them. What will they say of us and our religion? We shall be looked upon as the most perfidious barbarous people in the world." Note, The gross misconduct of wicked children is the grief and shame of their godly parents. Children should be the joy of their parents; but wicked children are their trouble, sadden their hearts, break their spirits, and make them go mourning from day to day. Children should be an ornament to their parents; but wicked children are their reproach, and are as dead flies in the pot of ointment: but let such children know that, if they repent not, the grief they have caused to their parents, and the damage religion has sustained in its reputation through them, will come into the account and be reckoned for. 2. The ruin they had exposed him to. What could be expected, but that the Canaanites, who were numerous and formidable, would confederate against him, and he and his little family would become an easy prey to them? I shall be destroyed, I and my house. If all the Shechemites must be destroyed for the offence of one, why not all the Israelites for the offence of two? Jacob knew indeed that God had promised to preserve and perpetuate his house; but he might justly fear that these vile practices of his children would amount to a forfeiture, and cut off the entail. Note, When sin is in the house, there is reason to fear ruin at the door. The tender parents foresee those bad consequences of sin which the wicked children have no dread of. One would think this should have made them to relent, and they should have humbled themselves to their good father, and begged his pardon; but, instead of this, they justify themselves, and give him this insolent reply, Should he deal with our sister as with a harlot? No, he should not; but, if he do, must they be their own avengers? Will nothing less than so many lives, and the ruin of a whole city, serve to atone for an abuse done to one foolish girl? By their question they tacitly reflect upon their father, as if he would have been content to let them deal with his daughter as with a harlot. Note, It is common for those who run into one extreme to reproach and censure those who keep the mean as if they ran into the other. Those who condemn the rigour of revenge shall be misrepresented, as if they countenanced and justified the offence.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 25. On the third day, when they were sore] When the inflammation was at the height, and a fever ensued which rendered the person utterly helpless, and his state critical, Simeon and Levi, the half brothers of Dinah, took each man his sword, probably assisted by that portion of the servants which helped them to take care of the flock, came on the city boldly, betach, securely - without being suspected, and being in no danger of meeting with resistance, and slew all the males. Great as the provocation was, and it certainly was very great, this was an act or unparalleled treachery and cruelty.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

25. Simian and Levi, Dinah’s brethren. Because Moses says that the slaughter took place on the third day, the Hebrews think that, at that time, the pain of the wound was most severe. The proof, however, is not valid; nor is it of much moment. Although Moses names only two authors of the slaughter, it does not appear to me probable that they came alone, but that they were the leaders of the troop: for Jacob had a large family, and it might be that they called some of their brothers to join them; yet, because the affair was conducted by their counsel and direction, it is ascribed to them, as Cartage is said to have been destroyed by Scipio. Moses also calls them the brothers of Dinah, because they were by the same mother. We have seen that Dinah was the daughter of Leah; for which reason Simon and Levi, whose own sister she was by both parents, were the more enraged at the violation of her chastity: they were therefore impelled, not so much by the common reproach brought upon the holy and elect race, (according to their recent boast,) as by a sense of the infamy brought upon themselves. However, there is no reader who does not readily perceive how dreadful and execrable was this crime. One man only had sinned, and he endeavored to compensate for the injury, by many acts of kindness; but the cruelty of Simon and Levi could only be satiated by the destruction of the whole city; and, under the pretext of a covenant, they form a design against friends and hospitable persons, in a time of peace, which would have been deemed intolerable against enemies in open war. Hence we perceive how mercifully God dealt with that people; seeing that, from the posterity of a sanguinary man, and even of a wicked robber, he raised up a priesthood for himself. Let the Jews now go and be proud of their noble origin. But the Lord declared his gratuitous mercy by too many proofs for the ingratitude of man to be able to obscure it. Moreover, we hence learn that Moses did not speak from carnal sense; but was the instrument of the Holy Spirit, and the herald of the celestial Judge; for though he was a Levite, he yet is so far from sparing his own race, that he does not hesitate to brand the father of his tribe with perpetual infamy. And it is not to be doubted that the Lord purposely intended to stop the mouths of impure and profane men, such as the Lucianists, who confess that Moses was a very great man, and of rare excellence; but that he procured for himself, by craft and subtlety, authority over a great people, as if, indeed, an acute and intelligent man would not have known that, by this single act of wickedness, the honor of his race would be greatly tarnished. He had, however, no other design than to extol the goodness of God towards his people; and truly there was nothing which he less desired than to exercise dominion, as appears clearly from the fact, that he transferred the office of priesthood to another family, and commanded his sons to be only ministers. With respect to the Shechemites, although in the sight of God they were not innocent; seeing they preferred their own advantage to a religion which they thought lawful, yet it was not the Lord’s will that they should be so grievously punished for their fault; but he suffered this signal punishment to follow the violation of one maid, that he might testify to all ages his great abhorrence of lust. Besides, seeing that the iniquity had arisen from a prince of the city, the punishment is rightly extended to the whole body of the people: for since God never commits the government to evil and vicious princes, except in righteous judgment, there is no wonder that, when they sin, they involve their subjects with them in the same condemnation. Moreover, from this example let us learn, that if, at any time, fornication prevail with impunity, God will, at length, exact punishments so much the more severe: for if the violation of one maid was avenged by the horrible massacre of a whole city; he will not sleep nor be quiet, if a whole people indulge in a common license of fornication, and, on all sides, connive at each other’s iniquity. The sons of Jacob acted indeed wickedly; but we must observe that fornication was, in this manner, divinely condemned.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(25) Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brethren.—As born of the same mother, they, with Reuben and Judah, were especially bound to espouse their sister’s cause, but the method they took was cruel in the extreme. And it seems that these two were the leaders in the plot, having probably excluded Reuben from it, as a man of feeble character and opposed to bloodshed (Gen_37:22); and Judah, as one too honourable to take part in so nefarious a transaction. Long afterwards Jacob speaks of it in terms of the strongest reprobation (Gen_49:5-7). In executing their cruel deed, they would command the services of the more active and fierce portion of Jacob’s servants; but they must have been not boys, but men of ripe manhood, before they could have had influence or power enough for so terrible an exploit.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

25. And it came to pass] In this verse the Compiler has combined the two versions: (1) that which ascribes the treacherous deed to the sons of Jacob generally; and (2) that in which Simeon and Levi alone are the perpetrators of the massacre.

when they were sore] The effects of the operation rendered the Shechemite males powerless to defend themselves. In this version there is a vein of coarse and repulsive humour. The Canaanites were not only put to the sword, but by their submission to the Israelite rite they had been outwitted. At the time of the attack, they were unable to offer any resistance.

unawares] Better than R.V. marg. boldly. LXX ἀσφαλῶς = “safely,” Lat. confidenter. The meaning is that the people of Shechem were secure and unsuspecting, when the attack was made. Not the courage of the assailants, but the sense of security on the part of their victims, is indicated. Cf. “the careless Ethiopians” (Eze_30:9).

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword,.... Whom they had been just treating with in a seeming friendly manner: Shechem was the chief aggressor, and his crime was very heinous; but considering that he did all he could, after the fact was committed, to make recompence for the injury done, he deserved other treatment, at least mercy should have been shown him. Hamor, perhaps, was too indulgent to his son, connived at his sin, and did not punish him for it; and, it may be, approved of it, and now dies for it:

and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went out; where she was kept from the time of her being ravished by Shechem, with an intention to marry her, could the consent of her parents and relations be obtained; for it does not appear that he kept her to carry on a criminal conversation with her, but a courtship in order to marriage.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Greatest. On that day a fever and inflammation likewise often take place. See Hippocrates on fractures, Valesius sac. (Phil. xii.) (Menochius) --- Brothers of Dina by Lia, and both of a fiery temper. They were assisted by some servants, (Menochius) and afterwards the other children helped to pillage the city. (Theodotion, ap. Eusebius, ix. 22.)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

On the third day, when the pain and grief of wounds is the greatest, as physicians note,

when they were sore, and therefore not well able to defend themselves; for circumcision caused great pain in children, which was the ground of that exclamation, Exo 4:25, much more in grown men. See Jos 5:8.

Simeon and Levi: these two only are mentioned, because they were authors of the counsel, and conductors of the rest in the execution; but it is probable, from Gen 34:27, that most of their brethren were confederate with them, and that they had a considerable number of their servants with them, who would be ready enough to revenge their masters’ quarrel, and to punish so great a villany; but all that was done is justly ascribed to them two, as it is common for all writers to say this or that was done by such a captain or general, when in truth it was done by his soldiers.

Dinah’s brethren; so they were both by the father and mother, which made them more forward and zealous than the rest.

All the males; such of them as were grown up, by comparing Gen 34:29, for these, or some of them, seem to have been the abettors of the injury against their sister and family. Their sin in this act was manifold; that they did it without sufficient authority, and against their father’s mind, as appears from Gen 34:30, and Gen 49:6, which they well knew; and without all bounds, rashly, unjustly, and cruelly punished the innocent and the guilty together, and ushered in this fact with horrible deceit and lying, and that under pretence of friendship and show of religion.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

25. On the third day — After the operation was performed. At this time the pain and fever arising from the wound in the flesh attains its height, and renders the person weak and helpless. Jacob’s sons had planned for this.

Simeon and Levi — The second and third sons of Leah, Dinah’s own brothers. Genesis 33:34. These are mentioned as leaders in all this action of cruelty. Perhaps some of their brothers went with them, (see Gen_34:27,) but are not specially mentioned because they were not leaders in the action. We are not to suppose that Simeon and Levi, alone and unattended, wrought all the slaughter and ruin here described. They doubtless commanded a large number of the servants of the household. Comp. Gen_14:14.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, literally, in their being in pain; dte h+san ejn tw ponw (LXX). Inflammation and fever commonly set in on the third day, which was for that reason regarded as the critical daythat two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah"s brethren (i.e. sons of the same mother, Leah), took each man his sword, and came upon the city accompanied by their servants (Keil), or their father"s men (Murphy), but this is doubtful (Lange). That the other sons of Jacob and brethren of Dinah did not pursue their thirst for vengeance to the same extremity as Simeon and Levi seems apparent from ver. 27; yet it is quite possible that they joined with Simeon and Levi in the assault upon the city (Rosenm "Speaker"s Commentary") which they made boldly,i.e. either they themselves feeling confident of success because of the sickness which lay upon the inhabitants (Ainsworth, Dathe, Rosenm Murphy, &c.), or, while the city was lulled into security in consequence of the treaty (Onkelos, Josephus, Keil, Lange), or perhaps referring only to the fact that they encountered no opposition, and came in safety (ajsfalwv) to the city (LXX, Kalisch);and slew all the males. Probably the town was small.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

They slew all the males - Nothing can excuse this execrable villainy. It was true Shechem had wrought folly in Israel, in defiling Dinah: but it ought to have been considered how far Dinah herself had been accessary to it. Had Shechem abused her in her mother's tent, it had been another matter; but she went upon his ground, and struck the spark which began the fire. When we are severe upon the sinner, we ought to consider who was the tempter. It was true that Shechem had done ill; but he was endeavouring to atone for it, and was as honest and honourable afterwards as the case would admit. It was true that Shechem had done ill, but what was that to all the Shechemites? Doth one man sin, and must the innocent fall with the guilty? This was barbarous indeed. But that which above all aggravated the cruelty, was the most perfidious treachery that was in it. The Shechemites had submitted to their conditions, and had done that upon which they had promised to become one people with them. Yet they act as sworn enemies to those to whom they were lately become sworn friends, making as light of their covenant as they did of the laws of humanity. And these are the sons of Israel? Cursed be their anger, for it was fierce.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

But on the third day, when the Shechemites were thoroughly prostrated by the painful effects of the operation, Simeon and Levi (with their servants of course) fell upon the town בּטח (i.e., while the people were off their guard, as in Eze 30:9), slew all the males, including Hamor and Shechem, with the edge of the sword, i.e., without quarter (Num 21:24; Jos 10:28, etc.), and brought back their sister. The sons of Jacob then plundered the town, and carried off all the cattle in the town and in the fields, and all their possessions, including the women and the children in their houses. By the sons of Jacob (Gen 34:27) we are not to understand the rest of his sons to the exclusion of Simeon, Levi, and even Reuben, as Delitzsch supposes, but all his sons. For the supposition, that Simeon and Levi were content with taking their murderous revenge, and had no share in the plunder, is neither probable in itself nor reconcilable with what Jacob said on his death-bed (Gen 49:5-7, observe שׁור עקּרוּ) about this very crime; nor can it be inferred from ויּצאוּ in Gen 34:26, for this relates merely to their going away from the house of the two princes, not to their leaving Shechem altogether. The abrupt way in which the plundering is linked on to the slaughter of all the males, without any copulative Vav, gives to the account the character of indignation at so revolting a crime; and this is also shown in the verbosity of the description. The absence of the copula is not to be accounted for by the hypothesis that Gen 34:27-29 are interpolated; for an interpolator might have supplied the missing link by a vav, just as well as the lxx and other ancient translators.

Keil & Delitzsch — Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (1861–1891) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API. (Old Testament only.)

The Revenge of Simeon and Levi

v. 25. And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, when the men of Shechem were confined to their beds with the inflammation following the operation to which they had consented, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah’s brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males. These two brothers of Dinah constituted themselves the avengers of their sister and carried out their design in such a shocking manner. The city was defenseless, all the inhabitants believing themselves secure. The boldness of Simeon and Levi, therefore, was nothing but treachery and bloodthirstiness.

v. 26. And they slew Hamor and Shechem, his son, with the edge of the sword, in relentless fury, for against these two their anger was chiefly kindled, and took Dinah out of Shechem’s house, and went out. Thus the first part of their plan of revenge was carried out.

v. 27. The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because they had defiled their sister. Simeon and Levi having returned to their father’s camp with their sister, the other sons of Jacob were inflamed with the same fanatical hatred and plundered the city in the excess of their fury.

v. 28. They took their sheep, and their oxen, and their asses, and that which was in the city, and that which was in the field,

v. 29. and all their wealth, and all their little ones, and their wives took they captive, and spoiled even all that was in the house. It was a systematic and thorough pillage of the slain which was practiced by the sons of Jacob, extending even to the innocent members of the murdered men’s families. It was a revolting crime which the sons of Jacob committed.

v. 30. And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites. Jacob performed his duty as father in rebuking his sons with great severity for their indefensible crime, telling them that they had probably brought disaster upon him in making him and his family to stink before the inhabitants of the country, that they would be considered an abomination in the sight of all men. And I, being few in number, being only a small band with all the men that belong to my household, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house. That this fear of Jacob was by no means groundless, is indicated in Gen 35:5. The depth of Jacob’s horror over the deed of his sons may be seen in the words of his last blessing, Gen 49:5-7. Deeds of violence are just as reprehensible in the children of God as immodesty and immorality.

v. 31. And they said, Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot? In trying to excuse themselves, the sons of Jacob implied that men would generally have treated their sister as Shechem had done, and that they felt it to be their duty to revenge the wrong. But they passed over his offer of an atonement for his crime and their own terrible guilt. The fact that other men do wrong to us can never excuse our doing wrong in return.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

שני בני יעקב TWO OF THE SONS OF JACOB — They were his sons (the sons of Jacob, a wise and clever man), but they acted as any man named Simeon and Levi would do — as other people would do who were not his sons — for they did not take counsel with him (Genesis Rabbah 80:10).

אחי דינה DINAH’S BROTHERS — because they risked their lives for her they are designated as her brothers (Genesis Rabbah 80:10)

בטח IN SECURITY — because they (the men of Shechom) were ill. The Midrashic explanation, taking בטח in the sense of confident, is: that they relied upon the strength (i.e. the merits) of the old man (Jacob) (Genesis Rabbah 80:10).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

ויהי ביום השלישי בהיותם כואבים, this was because the pains are strongest on the third day after the circumcision. In view of this the sages permitted bathing the child with hot water on the Sabbath after the circumcision, if it coincided with being the third day after the operation.(Shabbat 134). Even hot water boiled on the Sabbath itself is permissible to be used for this when there is no other, as the potential danger to the life of the infant overrides the Sabbath legislation not to boil anything on that day.

ויקחו שני בני יעקב, in this instance, Shimon and Levi, although all the brothers were in complete agreement of what was being planned. We know this from verse 13 ויענו בני יעקב במרמה, “the sons of Yaakov responded, deceitfully.” When it came to carrying out their plan, the other brothers were afraid and did not risk their lives in that undertaking. Only Shimon and Levi considered the fate of their sister as paramount. אחי דינה; the Torah accords them full points for considering themselves as the brothers of Dinah par excellence, although at least four more of the brothers were Dinah’s brothers both from the father and from the mother.

בטח, they were feeling as secure as if they were numerous and not 2 against a whole town.

Radak on the Tanakh — English translations: “Sefaria Community Translation” (CC0 1.0 (public-domain dedication)); “Eliyahu Munk, HaChut Hameshulash” (CC BY 4.0); “Rabbi Mike Feuer, Jerusalem Anthology” (CC BY 4.0); and “R. David Kimhi on the first book of Psalms, Translated by R.G. Finch, London, 1919” (public domain). Text via Sefaria.