What are we to make of the fact that Shekhem, the foreigner, at least had the decency to want to establish a lifelong relationship with the woman he forcefully violated, whereas Amnon threw Tamar out of his home immediately after using her to satisfy his lust?
The Torah in Parashat Vayishlach tells of the unfortunate incident involving Yaakov’s daughter, Dina, who was abducted and violated by Shekhem, the prince of the city bearing the same name, Shekhem. To retaliate for the crime, two of Dina’s brothers, Shimon and Levi, fool the people of Shekhem into undergoing circumcision in exchange for allowing Shekhem to marry Dina, and then capitalize on their frailty by launching an assault and killing the entire male population of the city.
Several intriguing parallels exist between this story and another tragic instance of rape recorded in the Tanakh – the rape of Tamar, King David’s daughter, by her half-brother Amnon, as told in Sefer Shemuel II (chapter 13). In both instances, the offender was the son and heir apparent of the ruling monarch – Shekhem was the son of the city’s ruler, and Amnon was David’s son. The fathers of both victims – Yaakov and David – did not react to the crime, but the victims’ brothers violently avenged their sisters’ honor: Shimon and Levi retaliated by killing the men of Shekhem, and Avshalom, Tamar’s brother, slew Amnon. Moreover, both retaliations were done by way of false friendly gestures: Shimon and Levi deceptively offered Dina’s hand in marriage as well as partnership with the city of Shekhem, and Avshalom joined Amnon’s wool-shearing celebration. We also find a clear textual parallel linking the two contexts. Before she is violated by her brother, Tamar pleads, “Do not rape me, for this is not done in Israel; do not commit this disgraceful act” (Shemuel II 13:12). Her plea is reminiscent of the Torah’s description of the reaction of Dina’s brothers to her abduction: “The men were grieved…for a disgrace was committed in Israel…such a thing is not to be done” (34:7).
The Midrash, in Bereishit Rabba (80:26), develops this connection further, by depicting Dina as “borrowing” the plea Tamar would make centuries later. After Shimon and Levi’s deadly assault on Shekhem, the Midrash relates, they came to bring Dina out of the city, but she was hesitant to leave, and pleaded, “Va-ani ana olikh et cherpati” – “But where shall I go with my shame?” – the same words uttered by Tamar in pleading with her brother to desist. Dina, as a rape victim, was concerned about her future marriage prospects, as Shekhem, who desperately wished to marry her, had been killed by her brothers. In the ancient world victims of rape were considered undesirable as marriage partners, and for this reason, the Torah requires a rapist to marry the victim (Devarim 22:29). Though this seems counterintuitive, this law was designed to ensure that the woman would be cared for after her violation. Dina would thus not leave the palace, the Midrash relates, until Shimon agreed to marry her. This Midrashic passage not only “imports” a verse from the story of Amnon and Tamar to the context of Dina, but also adds another important parallel. Tamar also pleaded with Amnon after the crime not to send her away, just as the Midrash describes Dina as begging her brother to marry her after Shekhem’s assassination.
This parallel also underscores the crucial difference between the two incidents. Amnon rejects Tamar’s pleas, and, in disgust, sends her away. In Dina’s case, however, Shekhem strongly desired her hand in marriage even after the crime. Whereas Amnon despised his victim after the act of defilement, Shekhem longed to be married to his victim.
How might we explain this difference between the two offenders? What are we to make of the fact that Shekhem, the gentile, at least had the decency to want to establish a lifelong relationship with the woman he forcefully violated, whereas Amnon threw Tamar out of his home immediately after using her to satisfy his lust?
One possibility is that Amnon’s hostility toward Tamar after satisfying his lust was the product of intolerable pangs of conscience which Shekhem was incapable of feeling. Amnon did not actually hate Tamar; overcome by guilt and shame, he hated himself, and in order to deal with those painful emotions, he transferred them onto Tamar, the source of his failure. Shekhem, however, felt no such pangs of guilt. In his society and mindset, royal figures were entitled to forcefully abduct women they desired, just as Pharaoh and Avimelekh abducted Sara. For Shekhem, Dina continued to be an object of desire even after the crime, and she never became an object of shame as Tamar became for Amnon.
(Based on an article by Eitan Finkelstein)