06 Jan THE INCIDENT OF SHCHEM – THE JUSTICE OF THE ACT AND THE FAILURE OF JUDGMENT: WINNING THE BATTLE BUT LOSING THE WAR

Recent reports
describing a dramatic
U.S. operation
against Venezuelan
President Nicolás
Maduro—planned
over months,
executed with precision strikes, intelligence
superiority, and minimal open confrontation—
highlight a familiar lesson: even when a target
is viewed as wholly illegitimate, the decisive
factor is not raw force but calculated
judgment, discipline, and strategic restraint. A
similar principle is evident in the sophisticated
tactics attributed to Israeli intelligence, where
success is measured not by emotional reaction
or overwhelming violence, but by careful
planning, precise execution, and an acute
awareness of wider consequences. This
modern reality casts new light on an ancient
Torah episode. In Yaakov Avinu’s response to
the destruction of Shechem and his rebuke of
Shimon and Levi, the Torah probes the same
enduring tension—between the justice of a
cause and the danger of action driven by
passion rather than sober, responsible
calculation.

In last week’s parasha, as Yaakov blesses his
sons before his death, an apparent
contradiction emerges. On the one hand, he
sharply rebukes Shimon and Levi for going to
war and killing the people of Shchem,
describing this as the craft of Esav and
declaring that this is not our way. On the other
hand, in his blessings to his other sons, he
praises them for waging war and foretells that
their hands will prevail in subduing the
enemy. To clarify this matter, we must
elaborate and explain.
To Shimon and Levi, Yaakov says (49:5–7):
“Shimon and Levi are brothers; instruments
of violence are their tools… for in their anger
they slew a man, and in their willfulness they
uprooted an ox. Cursed be their anger, for it is
fierce, and their wrath, for it is cruel.”
Rashi explains: “This craft of murder is
violence in your hands; it is from the blessing
of Esav. It is his craft, and you have stolen it
from him.”
The message is clear: Jews do not go to war,
do not fight, and do not take up arms, even
when their sister Dinah is kidnapped, this is
not the Jewish way

On the contrary, after this severe
rebuke, Yaacov proceeds to bless
his other sons with blessings that
contain expressions of strength and
conquest.
Thus, regarding Yeudah he says
(49:8): “Yeudah—you, your
brothers shall praise; your hand
shall be on the neck of your
enemies.” Onkelos translates this in
its plain sense: Yeudah will strike
and subdue his enemies and
adversaries.
Concerning Zevulun it is stated
(49:13): “Zevulun shall dwell by the
seashore; he shall be a haven for ships.”
Onkelos explains that Zevulun will conquer
regions by way of the sea, through ships.
A similar blessing is given to Issachar
(49:14): “Issachar is a strong-boned
donkey… and he bent his shoulder to bear.”
Rashi, in the name of Onkelos, explains: “He
bent his shoulder to bear wars and to conquer
provinces, for they dwell on the border, and
the enemy will be subdued beneath him as a
laborer.”
Regarding Dan it says (49:16): “Dan shall
judge his people,” and Rashi explains: “He
will avenge his people against the
Philistines.”
Of Gad it says (49:19): “Gad—a troop shall
troop upon him, but he shall troop upon
their heel,” and Onkelos explains that the
sons of Gad were armed when they crossed
the Jordan to wage war before their brothers.
“Nephtali is a swift hind, who gives words
of beauty”—Rashi explains: “This is a
prophecy concerning the war of Sisra.”
And so it is with nearly all the tribes.
Moreover, according to the plain meaning
of Scripture, Yaacov himself says (48:22):
“Which I took from the hand of the Amorite
with my sword and with my bow.”
This being the case, clarification is needed:
why does Yaacov accuse and rebuke
Shimon and Levi for destroying the city of
Shchem, whose inhabitants were guilty of
abducting Dinah and were steeped in evil—
idol worshippers and practitioners of
immorality, committing all manner of
abominations (Ramban,34:13)?
Rather, it is clear that Yaakov did not intend
to fault Shimon and Levi for the act itself,
but for something else entirely. His claim
was that they acted without properly
weighing the danger posed by the
surrounding nations. As he explicitly said to
them (34:30): “You have troubled me,
making me odious among the inhabitants of

the land, among the Canaanites and the
Perizzites; I am few in number, and they will
gather against me and strike me, and I will be
destroyed, I and my household.” Because of
this, all the surrounding peoples gathered to
wage war against them, as Rashi explains
(48:22).
That is, Yaakov’s argument was that the
destruction of Shchem itself was justified
and correct, and even carried out with
wisdom, but it required prior calculation as to
how to neutralize the danger posed by the
other nations.
Here one must ask: why did Shimon and
Levi, in their father’s view, fail to read reality
correctly and thereby place the entire family
in existential danger? Yaakov himself
explains this when he says (49:6–7): “For in
their anger they slew a man… cursed be their
anger, for it is fierce.” Rashi explains that
this refers to the killing of Hamor and the
men of Shchem, which was done out of
anger.
In other words, the root of the error lay not in
the act itself, but in the motivation and
manner of its execution. A war waged out of
anger—even when its goal is just—
undermines sound judgment and the ability
to calculate outcomes correctly. When a
person acts in fury, he does not measure his
steps precisely, does not weigh the full range
of consequences, and may bring about a
disaster far greater than the original act.
Yaakov thus teaches a fundamental principle:
even when one is compelled to fight an
enemy and employ force, it must be done
with cool judgment, responsibility, planning,
and a broad strategic vision—not through
emotional outburst.
This clarifies well the difference between
Shimon and Levi and the other tribes. The
latter were praised for wars conducted with
orderly leadership, responsibility, and sound
judgment, whereas here the action stemmed
from emotion which, though fueled by zeal
for justice, in practice endangered the entire
community.