The Tragedy of Dinah - Genesis 34:1-34:31

On today's episode of Timeless Wisdom.

For years, I have been stymied by a question, and I came up with the answer last week. Here is the question that has always stymied me. When I would speak about human-animal differences and distinctions and so on, one of the common things that you hear, especially among animal devotees, is Animals only kill other species, they don't kill their own. The only species to kill its own species is human. You hear that all the time. And it always struck me, it has always bothered me, not bothered me emotionally, it bothered me intellectually that there was a weakness to that argument, but I could never figure it out. And here it is staring me in the face for all these years that I'm talking about this. For, for us, the human being, the other species is not leopards and zebras. It's another ethnic or racial group. That's our equivalent of other species. For the human being, for a Canaanite, an Egyptian was as— is as foreign, as unreal, if you will, as a mosquito would be to a lion. You just swat it. It has no worth. Now, you then raise— you still have the issue of the— what about all the maltreatment of your own group? Okay, that's a separate issue, which obviously is a terrible commentary on humanity. But the real evils in history have overwhelmingly been against other groups. They are not real. I told you, it's the Torah's greatest law. I am convinced as I get older. The greatest moral achievement of the Torah is you will love the stranger. It is to be found nowhere, as far as I know.

That's coming up on Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager, and it starts right now.

We live in a time where the moment you question the narrative, you're told to stop thinking and start complying. That's why what Angel is doing matters. With eye-opening documentaries like Thank You, Dr. Fauci and RFK: Legacy, Angel is willing to explore the issues others avoid. In a culture shaped by gatekeepers Viewers, Angel offers something rare: a platform for truth-seeking storytelling that isn't constrained by fear or conformity. Go to angel.com/prager, join the Angel Guild, and watch these films today.

Welcome to Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Hear thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs. And to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles, go to DennisPrager.com. .com.

Chapter 34 raises some, uh, fascinating and difficult issues. Now, Dina, the daughter whom Leah had born to Jacob, went out to visit the daughters of the land. She's the one daughter here, the rest are sons. And we already have, uh, some, uh, difficult some interesting and pregnant ideas in the very first verse. First of all, it is mentioned who Dinah is the daughter of, which mother. Remember, Jacob has a number of, of wives here who are concubines who give, uh, who give birth. It's to note, and I quote Sarna, uh, to clarify the singular role of Shimon and Levi, who were among her full brothers. Okay, Dina was the only daughter. Now she went out to see the daughters of the land. This is a very independent act on her part, to leave the family and just explore around. Any of you know who traditional culture know that daughters don't do that. And there is— I don't know if the Torah is implying in any way a a negative, to cast negative aspersions on Dina, but it is making the point, uh, which needs to be made. She did not deserve what happened to her. That's absurd. But she, her acts precipitated the process that you will now know about. It wasn't as if she were sitting home and what happened to her happened to her. A daughter in, in the traditional world, a, an unwed woman Even a wed woman who walks around alone, and you could find that out today. I remember when I was in Morocco in 1968, I was 20 years old, and I've, I traveled there alone. That's okay for a man, but I'll never forget, in the middle of Morocco somewhere, 4 American women, uh, bumped into me somewhere, at a restaurant, I don't know where, and said, "Could you please pose as our husband?" Plural, "our husband." And I thought they were joking. And they might have been joking on the husband part, but they just wanted a man to whom they belonged, so to speak, to travel with. And with great, great, deep deep difficulty. And I acceded to their request only because I'm so chivalrous. These were 4 women who were actually all teachers on an exchange program in Spain and had crossed the Straits of Gibraltar, as I had, to get to Morocco. But in other words, this idea though is very rare that a woman can go out on her own. It is still, it is rare in the world today. Can you imagine how much so it was in the ancient world? America and Western Europe, and maybe a few other places, are very rare in the ability of a woman to be allowed to go on her own. Needless to say, I thank God. I believe in that deeply. But it gives you an idea of what she did. She took a very risky thing, and unfortunately, she was hurt for it. At any rate, she went out alone. But it is interesting, and this is my theory, it says to, uh, to look at, to study, as it were, to see the daughters of the land. And, and that's the Torah's way of saying she was not going out looking for trouble. She wanted to see how the women were living. And I think that that is a purposeful Torah addition. If it just would have said, now Dina, the daughter whom Leah bore, went out to the land, it would have been different. This is the Torah's way, I am convinced, of saying she was not looking for trouble. She was not looking for men. She was not going out flirtatiously. All she did was want to check on how women lived in, in, outside of her own closed world. Also, she was probably lonely. She only had all these brothers who probably didn't relate to her at all. So she wanted female companionship. Makes a very reasonable thing for her to do. So she did a reasonable and gutsy thing, though traditional commentators do in fact criticize her for going out on her own. Or in fact, to be more precise, which is just as bad from a— if chauvinism is what we're talking about, and we are, is her father never should have let her go out. That's a traditional commentary on this. You know, should never have allowed this to happen. Didn't, didn't watch over her carefully enough. Verse 2: Shechem son of Hamor the Hivite, chief of the country, saw her and took her and lay with her by force. The English here is not nearly as good as as it should be. It's saw her. It's actually vayikachota, one— well, it's actually four verbs in one sentence about what Shechem did. He saw her, he took her, he lay with her, and he oppressed her. In modern Hebrew, it would actually be tortured her, but it's, it's not meant as that way. He oppressed her. He made her suffer. Would be the most inuyim, vayaneha, would be the most precise thing. 4 verbs, and, and it's fascinating: saw, took, lay, oppressed, caused to suffer. Which is exactly how it works in a rape. I mean, it is, it is almost a perfect, you know, it doesn't— there, it's a perfect description of a rape in a sense. He saw, he took, He lay, he made her suffer. I mean, when you think about it, it's a very concise and apt description of a rape, which starts, of course, with the eye, the organ of arousal for males, for better and for worse, which is a subject unto itself. But that is what he did, those 4 things. By the way, the last is important, "vayeanecha," and he made her suffer. Is very important. It again shows she was not part of this. This, folks, is not a traditional, well, yeah, come with me, honey, and they went to his apartment. This was a rape. It makes it clear in the way it is described. There is no way around it. Yes, I, I don't know, I don't know why, uh, well, even an humbled her would be the same category, I guess, from Oni from, which is poverty, so almost impoverished her or lowered her status. It's possible. But whatever it is, it's— does anybody have oppressed her? Defiled. Defiled. What other verbs? Well, defiled is certainly— huh? Violated. Violated. Well, they all have the same connotation. Now, I have always— please forgive me for having a gallows humor here. But I have always found the next verse to be almost, almost funny in light of the verse that we just had before this. What is the very next verse? It is almost a pathetic commentary on the male. That's how I, that's how I actually see it. Uh, it says, uh, after all of that, it says, and his— and I want to translate it. I don't like the way they do it. And his, his soul stuck to Dinah, the daughter of Yaakov, of Jacob. He loved the, the girl, and he spoke to her heart. Okay, they have it here obviously more linguistically, uh, flowingly: being strongly drawn to Dinah, daughter of Jacob, and in love with the maiden, he spoke to the maiden tenderly. Now, I, I, I just— I have always found that to be remarkable. After all he did to her, then he falls in love with her. I mean, and unfortunately, this is not bizarre. I mean, this may be bizarre to a woman to imagine, how does a guy do that and then fall in love with you after he has done that and then speak softly to you? Sweetly. And yet, I mean, my God, women who have been— were beaten by their husbands, a subject certainly that is unfortunately only too topical, uh, husbands will then speak very softly and tell their wives how much they love them. This juxtaposition of violence and love is— is— exists. This is not— this is a realistic picture of, of many, God forbid not all, or even the majority of men's behavior. But certainly of many men's behavior. This, the, the very next verse is how much he loved her and how, how sweetly he spoke to her right after he, he oppresses her. Now it's an interesting question when it says, why do you have this? The literal is, and he spoke to her heart. Uh, here it says spoke to her tenderly. What do you have? Spoke comfortingly. What do you have? Tenderly also. Yeah, so if tenderly, comfortingly, kindly. Okay, uh, it's interesting because the literal is just he spoke to her heart. So it sounds like he would start saying all sorts of lovely, gushy, romantic things to her. Uh, but you wonder, did he apologize? You know, you wonder, was any of that, gee, I'm really sorry you know, I got overcome. Who knows if there was any even element. Does he even think he did anything wrong? Frankly, I don't know. How many of you think that he thought he did anything wrong, that that's implied by he spoke tenderly or comfortingly to her? Just 2 of you. You don't think that? So 1 of you. It's— well, to comfort her means that he thinks that he did something wrong. Why would I comfort you if you haven't been hurt? I'm not amazed. I know it happens. I'm laughing because gallows humor represents reality. It's, it's a, it's a painful laugh. That's what gallows humor means. It's a painful laugh of recognition that there are men who do that. Yes. No, we, we have every reason to assume that she was a virgin, but it does not use the term virgin here in the strict use of the term virgin. It means maiden. They use virgin. Oh, excuse me, excuse me, there that uses— no, excuse me, there it uses maiden as well. That is correct. Yes, I'm sorry. No, there it does not use— it does not— excuse me, there it is in Isaiah, it does not use either na'arah or betulah, uses alma. Yes, it doesn't use either term. So we're really— which is all young woman and so on, right? It does not use either one. Uh, okay. Uh, boy, am I happy I knew that one. I'll tell you, I haven't taught Isaiah. Uh, all right.

This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this.

We live in a time where the moment you question the narrative, you're told to stop thinking and start complying. That's why what Angel is doing matters. With eye-opening documentaries like Thank You, Dr. Fauci and RFK: Legacy, Angel is willing to explore the issues others avoid. In a culture shaped by gatekeepers, Angel offers something rare: a platform for truth-seeking storytelling that isn't constrained by fear or conformity. Go to angel.com/prager, join the Angel Guild, and watch these films today.

Now back to more of Dennis Prager's Timeless Wisdom.

Yes, he fell desperately, fell deeply in love with her. Yes. But we still— but you should know, the whole— the question I posed to you is not just an interesting one, it's one that is fair to pose throughout this chapter. Do they think they did anything wrong? They meaning he and his father or any of his friends who knew about it. See, that's the interesting question. And I'm not certain, frankly. I don't know. Did men in, in that world at that time, was it simply so par for the course? A woman is alone, I like the way she looks, I take her and I sleep with her. Is that so par for the course that, uh, that, you know, you don't think twice about it? Yeah. Yes, but he was defiled in, in, as you will see, in Israel's, in, in the, in his clan's morality. In their clan's morality is taking a person, a woman, from another clan. I am sure they had rules about single women in their clan. But taking a single woman from another clan— listen, I have developed this theme constantly with you. The idea that you owe anything to people not of your group is an incredibly radical notion in human history. Let me tell you something about this. You're gonna like this. For years I have been stymied by a question, and I came up with the answer last week. Here is the question that has always stymied me. When I would speak about human-animal differences and distinctions and so on, one of the common things that you hear, especially among animal devotees, is Animals only kill other species, they don't kill their own. The only species to kill its own species is human. You hear that all the time. And it always struck me, it has always bothered me, not bothered me emotionally, it bothered me intellectually that there was a weakness to that argument, but I could never figure it out. And here it is staring me in the face for all these years that I'm talking about this. For, for us, the human being, the other species is not leopards and zebras. It's another ethnic or racial group. That's our equivalent of other species. For the human being, for a Canaanite, an Egyptian was as— is as foreign, as unreal, if you will, as a mosquito would be to a lion. You just swat it. It has no worth. Now, you then raise— you still have the issue of the— what about all the maltreatment of your own group? Okay, that's a separate issue, which obviously is a terrible commentary on humanity. But the real evils in history have overwhelmingly been against other groups. They are not real. I told you, it's the Torah's greatest law. I am convinced as I get older. The greatest moral achievement of the Torah is you will love the stranger. It is to be found nowhere, as far as I know. The, the member of another clan that I would owe something to— this is extraordinary. And so the question really, really arises: did they think they did wrong? I have one other point to make here, and then I'll take you— one other important point. I have said often, to the chagrin of many feminists, that— not all feminists, many feminists, and only feminists who are into contemporary feminist theory, not the traditional feminist belief of equality, which I count myself as a feminist— but rather the notion that rape, the current popular notion that rape is an act of violence not an act of sex. And it's not true. It's an act of violence and an act of sex. It, it is— there are times where the violence is overwhelmingly the case, but there are times when it is sex is overwhelmingly the case. In this instance, it's sex. He was not there in order to be violent. He was there in order to take her sexually. Which is— that is what, when I have said, and this, in— this bothers, and I understand that it bothers a lot of women, when I have said on the radio or elsewhere that rape is natural. And I never ask, why do some men rape? I ask a totally opposite question: how have we created a culture wherein so few men rape? That, to me, is a much more interesting question. Rape is natural. What this guy did, what Shechem did, and that's part of this story. Why is this story in here? The story has absolutely, or almost no, later ramifications. There is a little with the two brothers who did the act. But why is this story in there? There are so many stories undoubtedly left out with regard to Jacob and his children. The story is there to teach. Torah means teacher, as I explained very early on. Torah does not mean history, it does not mean law, contrary to common parlance. It means teacher. It is here— this story is to teach. This teaches you about the way in which the world looked at strangers and looked at women. This is already the third time we have other stories, remember. Don't Tell them you're my sister. With Abraham and Sarah, for example. Tell them you're my sister so that they won't kill me and rape you. That was what he assumed would happen. It was a given. That's the way they treat good-looking women that they like from other cultures. Is it because they love violence? No, it's because, ah, a woman I'm attracted to, I will sleep with her. It doesn't help understand the issue of rape, the issue of culture, the issue of men, if we have a political agenda rather than a human understanding of what rape is about. Yes?

I have to take issue with what you're just saying. I think you might be looking at that from a male point of view. He wants her sexually, but that's a violent act of rape.

Of course, of course that's correct. I'm not looking at it from the— well, I said it's both an act of violence and an act of sex. That's exactly correct.

Separating this particular instance, for example, by saying this was an act of violence.

From her perspective, it's 100% violence. But, but the— but that's not what's declared when feminists declare. They don't say, "From our perspective." They say, "As a fact." Rape is an act of violence, not sex. I don't think that this is the most important point in the world, but it's so often said now that it's become important, and it just— there's an intrinsic part of me that can't stand when, when I think something is not true and a lot of people keep saying it. He is getting what he wants through violence. If he could have gotten what he wanted not violently, then he would have taken it not violently. But obviously that's not the way women operate.

He probably, but I think it's pretty poor, he's not, uh, he's red or pink, he's in love, but he would be happy with how it affects her. It's like if he found her with a broken leg lying somewhere, he might go over and comfort her. And so if he found her this way and he comforted her— yeah, just assuming that that's Well, or he actually—

look, we have very little reason to assume that Shechem had been a virgin. We, you know, uh, the odds are he had slept with others. He fell in love with this one, with, with this woman. And, and as I say, it's, it's a very interesting question. Did the guy have any sense of regret over what he had done? I don't know. I simply don't know. There are, there are arguments in both directions, as you'll see later on in the chapter.

Yes, I guess I find it interesting, the statement that, uh, saying it from a man's point of view, it's not necessarily violent.

Oh, it is violent from a man's point of view.

Natural.

Yes, natural, right, and that are evil.

That are evil.

Exactly, that's my point. You have summarized my entire outlook on life, that if we let our nature dictate how we act, we'll be evil. No, no, we will be. Well, let's put it this way: that is my view, and that is this book's view, that if people act according to their nature without very, very strong values to counteract their nature, they will act evilly.

That contradicts what you said last week when I asked a question about people and their environment, and you stated that people are born with conscience and therefore, uh, therefore They are.

I do believe they're, they're acts because they—

I mean, I think you were suggesting they're immoral because you are born of the night.

That is correct. They do indeed. We have, we have a nature, but our nature usually overwhelms our conscience. That is part of the reason we need much more than conscience to make good people. That is my argument for the, for why revelation is necessary. Are in conflict. But they're all part of you. They are part of you, but your human nature— you can see testosterone, you can see genitals, you can't see conscience. Conscience is the, if you will, the metaphysical part of us. Our physical human nature moves us in certain directions, and our conscience battles it. In fact, I wish I had the time. I would love you to read an essay I wrote, "Why Are There Jews?" where I asked the question, why are there Jews? Why didn't God, uh, you know, why did God need such a group? Why did— and the— and my answer, I can't give you the whole answer because of time, is that it is not enough to rely on conscience. Divine revelation of law was considered necessary. Now you may disagree totally, but that is the Jewish position. And it's the position of the book that I'm teaching. And I happen to agree with it, or I wouldn't be teaching it. This is not to me simply literature. I am convinced that we need— that is why I am so affirmative about religion, because we need as much as possible to combat our nature, or to, if better, if you will, to channel our nature. You don't want men to become milquetoasts. Women like the, the, an element of aggression in their men. That is what makes us masculine. But you want us to control it. Well, I say to you that men won't control it if they do not have something beyond conscience. Some men, on conscience alone, you know, somebody in ancient, uh, Canaan probably thought that what Shechem did was wrong. But so what? They would have thought he was a nut. What's wrong? She's not one of ours, and I wanted her. What's wrong? I, you know, this is— that's why I say to you, my question is always, how did we produce so many men who don't rape, given that this is the natural human or male tendency? How do we produce so many people who don't murder, so many people who don't steal? These are the law— these are the questions, and they're the opposite of what we ask today. Yes.

Well, maybe since there are more people that don't rape and don't murder, maybe our natural instincts are modified.

No, but in the beginning we did rape and murder. I believe that the— I believe in the Lord of the Flies. I believe that without, without very powerful forces of civilization, you will have Bosnia and you will have Rwanda as the norm. Rwanda is the norm. Okay? Long Beach, California is the exception. Oh, and, and because we have lost sight of that, we have forgotten how important it is to transmit very powerful moral incentives to our children. We are— we— Western society became so adept at civilizing its males that it forgot what it's dealing with. And then you had, you had anti-Western eruptions called communism and Nazism, which slaughtered vast, vast numbers of people. What did the Red Army do when it came into Germany? It raped the women. Yeah, what's the difference between your theory and original sin? It's— there's very little difference, but there is a difference. Difference between what I'm saying and Christianity's belief in original sin is that Judaism does not hold that we're born guilty. It believes that we are born innocent but not basically good. Christianity holds that we are born guilty. That's why you need the, the atoning sacrifice of Jesus. Someone must atone for your original guilt. Judaism does not believe in original guilt. It believes in original weakness, if I need to use the word original.

Okay, this episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this.

We live in a time where the moment you question the narrative, you're told to stop thinking and start complying. That's why what Angel is doing matters. With eye-opening documentaries like Thank You, Dr. Fauci and RFK: Legacy, Angel is willing to explore the issues others avoid. In a culture shaped by gatekeepers, Angel offers something rare: a platform for truth-seeking storytelling that isn't constrained by fear or conformity. Go to angel.com/prager, join the Angel Guild, and watch these films today.

Now back to more of Dennis Prager's timeless wisdom.

Well, that's not the Eastern religion reading that I, that I know of. We are born with a tremendous tendency towards being self, at least in Buddhism, a tremendous tendency towards egoistic gratification. And it is the task of the human being to suppress the ego what they call in Sanskrit the Atman, which is how we got the word "Atavism," and ultimately transcend yourself and leave this world. But Buddhism would agree totally that the biggest battle in life is with yourself. In fact, that's the entire battle. That's how you reach enlightenment, is when you have escaped yourself, your own ego. Okay? Okay. Let's go on. What verse, please? Vor. Never thought that Buddhism came from verse 3, did you? You know, it's— so Shechem said to his father Chamor— by the way, there is no doubt that when Jews, ancient Jews, told this, this, uh, story, the absolute howling laughter accompanied part of it. A, because of the way in which, uh, their ancestors took care of the Shechemites, but B, there is an element of humor in the entire story. Hamor means ass. So Shechem's son of ass. Okay, that is what it is, you know. So you can imagine the Jews telling this story in ancient Israel. What did the ass's son say? I mean, so you may have lost that humor, and I wanted to give it to you. Uh, verse, uh, verse 5. Jacob heard that he had defiled his daughter Dinah, but since his sons were in the field with his cattle, Jacob kept silent until they came home. All right, now just as I have posed an earlier question about the Shechemites, did they consider, or specifically Shechem himself, did he consider what he did wrong? I have another question vis-à-vis Israel or Jacob. Now let's read the sentence again. Jacob heard that he had defiled his daughter Dinah. Now the defiling of Dinah was what? That a, that a woman who did not want to have intercourse with a man was forcibly made to do so? That's a modern reading. I tend to think that that is not the major part. I don't know. That's why I say it's an open question. Or was it that they took one of our girls, one of our women, without our permission? Please.

Uh, I ran upstairs. Uh, Bernie, David Dorf, you need to call your exchange. Okay, thank you.

GM went down 3. Just a bad joke. Oh boy. Let's hope that's what it was.

Right?

Okay. What exactly bothered Jacob? I don't think we have an answer. I'm just posing an open question. Was his first thought, "Oh my God, poor Dina"? 'What happened to her?' or 'Look at— they took one of our girls, one of our women, without our permission.' Because that is the general way in which a woman is regarded in much of history. She belonged to the men, and her defiling was really the group's defilement. My God, I read on the air, unfortunately it's not the most common thing, but it's not terribly uncommon, and I'm talking now in the 1990s in the Middle East, if a girl is suspected of sleeping with a guy, and especially if they know she did, like she got pregnant, her brothers are duty-bound to kill her. This happened in Lebanon. The story was widely reported. It happened on the West Bank. It happened in Missouri. The story was awesome. Where a— not exactly— and it wasn't even with regard to pregnancy or sleeping with a man. The FBI had wiretapped a Palestinian's home in Missouri. They had reason to believe that he was working with some terrorist group. So they heard everything that went on in his home. And to their horror, one night they heard him killing his daughter, yelling at her that she was becoming too Americanized, too free, too independent, and screaming at her that this is not what you do to the family and the family name, and stabbed her to death. It's on tape. And, uh, the, um, the defense was multiculturalism. Okay, that's why I'm always afraid when multiculturalism goes too far, it becomes multi-morality-ism, which is the antithesis of what Judaism stood for, was one morality for humanity. At any rate, women belonged to the clan, to the men Their honor, so to speak, was not did they suffer. I mean, maybe Jacob cared about Dinah's suffering. I'm not saying he didn't, but I don't want to romanticize his reaction. And you will see when things I read you in a few moments that I think that there's reason to suppose that's the issue— what, what, that the clan has been defiled. Uh, okay, verse 6, is that correct? Then Shechem's father, Chamor the donkey, came out to Jacob to speak to him. Meanwhile, Jacob's sons, having heard the news, came in from the field. Meanwhile, Jacob's sons, having heard the news, came in from the field. The men were distressed and very angry because he had committed an outrage in Israel. By lying with Jacob's daughter, a thing not to be done. Now you see, what is the outrage? You see, the outrage— this gives substance to my argument— the outrage is not a she was taken against her will. She is not the subject, it seems to me, of the outrage. Uh, it is, um, because he had committed outrage to Israel by lying with Jacob's daughter. The very terminology of it is, is, is she is not the issue. It's that Jacob's daughter is the issue. Are, are you with me? And I, and I say this, I, I'm not ashamed because I don't judge people by the standards of 4,000 years later. I mean, it is difficult to do it 40 years later, but, uh, but on the other hand, as I said, I don't want to romanticize the, the, uh, this, the, the text either. Now this thing, an abomination is done in Israel, uh, again, what, what is that? What is the abomination? That was the question that I had posed earlier. And, uh, it's— the abomination is a, a national ethnic one as well as, to any extent that it is, an individual one. By the way, the term is what is called an anachronism. It's not applicable here. There was no Israel at this time. This was written when there was an Israel, or when there was a community of Israel. Otherwise, it doesn't make any sense. It's an outrage in Israel. Do you understand what I'm saying? It means it had to be written a little later. It's not a problem to anybody. I just want to make— I want to make it clear to you what is going on here. Now, it could mean, though, another thing. We in Israel, we don't do that sort of thing. I think that that is also part of what it means. This is an outrage in Israel. And remember, outrage in Israel could mean two things. It's an outrage in Israel that they took an Israelite daughter and slept with her, or it could mean In Israel, in our culture, this sort of behavior is considered an outrage. You get the point? It could mean either. And I believe, I truly believe that, because you know I don't read into the text in order to make it sound more noble. But I do believe that there is a very clear implication by the Torah here. Our laws are better than their laws. We have more civilized laws than the surrounding nations. This is a very big thing in the Torah. Uh, that is why constantly in, in the later books, do not behave like the nations around you in Canaan. Do not behave like them, because if you do, the land will vomit you out as it vomited them out. Very powerful statements. Don't act like they do. So therefore, the obvious reading is this is an outrage in Israel. You would think means, "Oh, yeah, it's an outrage in Israel to take an Israelite daughter and rape her." But I read it very differently. In addition to that, that's the obvious, but equally true is the Torah statement, "This sort of behavior is an outrage in Israel." We consider this an outrage. You don't take women off the street and behave this way. Okay? That's being said here, too. Yes? Right. Yes. Oh, she was asking for it. Yes, she's saying maybe in Shechem's— this is back to Shechem's mindset— maybe his mindset is, hey, woman walking alone, she's asking for it. As some men will say, oh, woman dressed in X or Y manner, she's asking for it. It may very well be, and it probably— if not she's asking for it, although he might be able to rationalize it in that way, is, uh, she certainly is available without any consequence for me, which is why you say he's not feeling bad. But we don't know if he's not feeling bad. The fact that he spoke to her heart and so on, it seems that the most obvious reason to me that he spoke to her heart, to use the original Hebrew, or comforted her, is because he wanted to marry her. You know, he took her first for sex. Then he found out her name, somewhat like goes on a great deal in our society between men and women voluntarily. "Oh, and by the way, what's your name? It was really wonderful meeting you." That, I think, is what the text implies. He wanted to then win her over emotionally. Now, of course, you know, it strikes me, but I may be a bit naïve, that that's not the best way to a woman's heart. Rape and then sweet talk. But you know, what do I know? Maybe, you know, maybe the, the ancients had their methods that we moderns don't know. But it does— it strikes this guy as not a good method. The quickest way to a woman's heart is not usually through rape. Uh, yet that is— that is— this is the mentality. So you may be very— I think— I don't think you're right necessarily on, you know, he thought she was asking for it as so much as She deserved it almost. Yes, I think that's right. Yeah, there may very well— there's— I'm sure there was that element. What verse are we up to? Oh, uh, hold on, I want to read to you. No, that's not up till 25. Okay, yes, we're on 7. Fine. So Jacob's sons, having heard the news, came in from the field. They were distressed and very angry because he had committed outrage in Israel by lying with Jacob's daughter. All right, thing not to be done. Okay, uh, 8. And Chamor spoke with them, that is, with the sons. Notice Jacob doesn't say a word here. Jacob, as it were, absents himself. So the them is the sons. Chamor, the father of the rapist, is speaking to the sons, the brothers. My son Shchem longs for your daughter. Please give her to him in marriage. Now, before I continue with what he says, you have to laugh here. It is— he talks like nothing awry has happened. It's almost as if, you know, my son met your daughter at a dance, uh, and, uh, really took a fancy to her, right? I mean, isn't that how— if you were to come in only at verse 8, you would have no clue that a rape had taken place, right? I mean, the matter-of-fact way He may not even know that they know what happened. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't. And by the way, we don't know how he knows, which is interesting— how the— excuse me, how the sons know. Be that as it may, uh, wait, you know what, I didn't— I— did I, did I skip a sentence? No. Yes, I did. I did indeed, and it kills me. Ah, I skipped 4. Mm-hmm. Yes, because you don't know what Shem said to his father. Get me this girl as a wife. Okay, otherwise it makes no sense. How does Hamor know what happened? He said to the father, get me this girl as a wife. So it's clear all of this stuff is clan-oriented, patriarchal, etc. Okay, also notice the, the, the, uh, the coarseness of his language. He speaks to her heart and then tells his father, get me her for a wife. You know what I'm saying? It's almost like one of these, uh, like they would show a mafiosi type, right? You know, who's sweet and everything, and get me this girl with the, you know, chomping on a cigar. And all right, so back to Chamor. Chamor speaks to the sons, my son Shchem longs for your daughter. Please give her to him in marriage. Intermarry with us. Give your daughters to us and take our daughters for yourselves. The daughters did not have much of a say, as you may have noted from this. You know, it's— it— they really were, in the ancient world, owned. I mean, I, I, you know, it's with pain that I say this, but it's, it's a fact. No, it's not quite matchmaking, because in matchmaking you could still say no. I mean, maybe they had an ability to say no, but it was pretty circumscribed. Uh, take our daughters for yourselves. You will dwell among us, and the land— listen to what he is offering, Hamor, to Jacob, to Jacob's sons. Okay, it's very interesting, and you'll see why in a moment. You'll dwell among us, and the land will be open before you. Settle, move about, and acquire holdings in it. Do you see how much he is offering? Let's look at that again, because you will see later what he tells his own people. Again, Hamor is president of his group. He's the leader of his group. His son wants this girl for a daughter, uh, for a wife. So he offers intermarriage, offers dwelling among us. In other words, we will give you open property rights. That is an enormous, enormous offer. Right? You with me? That the land will be open before you. Settle, move about, acquire holdings in it. Then Shechem said, then Shechem said to her father, that is Dina's father, then Shechem said to Dina's father and brothers, do me this favor. And I will pay whatever you tell me. Ask me of a bride price as high as you want, as well as gifts, and I will pay what you tell me. Just give me the maiden for a wife. Ah, you— she asks, is there guilt there? Uh, my notes that I wrote are Sun says what he'll give for Dina. Is his offer so generous because he knows he is guilty, which Sarna implies, or because he loves her so much? I believe it's because he loves her so much. Presumably they— but here is an interesting thing, uh, yeah, this is an interesting question too to me. Why didn't they just keep the daughter? Why even go out there and offer land and intermarriage and gifts, huge gifts? I don't know the answer. Maybe you do. You say guilt? I mean, I don't know. Maybe, maybe, the fact that they would behave in ways we consider wrong, doesn't mean they had no rules at all. And, uh, you can't just take somebody who, who has a father and clan and take her, kidnap her, and make her a wife. I assume that that probably is what is going on here, that by their own laws they couldn't do what, what they did. Because Chamor says to, Shechem says to his father, "Get me her for a wife," implying obviously, "I can't take her as a wife at this time." So, in fact, the more I talk, the more I'm convinced of it. It implies rules that had to be lived by, which then might imply, and then Sarna is not terribly off, apparently. He's very rarely off, in my opinion, the guy who wrote this commentary, that there is some guilt. See, maybe we did violate a law, not a moral law, but a societal law, in the way we went about it. So we're going to give you oodles of gifts to undo any bad feelings and, as well, to get rid of the show. Well, because, uh, He says, "We will trade." Yeah, but he's giving his land and Jacob doesn't have any land to give him. Land is very valuable. Yeah, well, that's true, but I don't think the implication is that he thinks that he's going to get the better of the deal. I think the implication is, "You, Jacob, will get the better of the deal monetarily. We'll give you gifts as well as a dowry." Yes?

Maybe they really say, "Hafirtu lohman." That's a pun to me about How they treat the territorial rights of other men.

Uh-huh. Well, that's a modern feminist interpretation. Maybe it is. I don't think it's just territorial rights of other men. I think they had rules with how, in fact, you wedded somebody, especially from another clan, especially where you knew that there was a father and brothers. If she were an orphan, you could probably just take her and make her your wife. Well, but the virginity here is not raised as an issue. Here it's just, who do you own, basically, as your wife? Yeah? How do you acquire a wife? Yeah? If he loved her, how could he live with her if he bought her? If she didn't want to marry him, Dennis Prager. Well, no, he would be hell on earth. This is a very modern man speaking. One suspects that a lot of men were willing to pay the price of potential hell on earth and marry women who didn't want to originally marry them. I mean, with the status of women in those societies, what was she going to do exactly? Open up her own store? Yeah.

This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this.

We live in a time where the moment you question the narrative, you're told to stop thinking and start complying. That's why what Angel is doing matters. With eye-opening documentaries like Thank You, Dr. Fauci and RFK: Legacy, Angel is willing to explore the issues others avoid. In a culture shaped by gatekeepers, Angel offers something rare: a platform for truth-seeking storytelling that isn't constrained by fear or conformity. Go to angel.com/prager, join the Angel Guild, and watch these films today.

Now, back to more of Dennis Prager's Timeless Wisdom.

We now have heard the modern feminist interpretation, the modern male interpretation, and the modern romantic interpretation. His statement, "Love is not blind, it is love which enables you to see." Is that right? Or more or less? And so now that he loved her, he realized the pain he had caused her and certainly would not wish to multiply the pain by not having a legitimate marriage with her. Imagine, it's too bad he didn't say that to his father. Wouldn't that be nice if he said, "Listen, Dad, love is not blind. Love enables one to see." And now that I see what I have caused Dina Batiakov. We could really do a great scenario, couldn't we, here? A really great new scene. Maybe you're right. I'm, I'm dead— I am, I am fooling around with what you said, but you may very well be right because he did love her. Who knows? You have a new interpretation. I see he has the answer. Fair enough. Yes. They want to avoid a war, conflict? No, it's not— that's the thing. It is not likely that they wanted to avoid a war. They utterly outnumbered Jacob's crowd. They could have destroyed them. And that is made clear. That's Jacob's answer, uh, later when he, in his reaction, that is exactly what he raises. They're dangerous to us. They outnumber us. Yep. Head of the each clan was wanting to make the decision. And basically the head of one clan had to go to the head of another clan if they wanted one of their daughters. That's right. That's what he's doing. The head of the clan is going to the head of the other clan for the daughter. Exactly right. Okay, we are up to what? I don't want— I never, never skipped a verse before. Uh, you will dwell among us. Then Shchem said to our father and brothers, that's— do me this favor, I'll pay what? Oh yes. And so on. Anything you want, I'll give. That's what the son says. Okay, uh, by the way, in all of this there's an interesting tacit assumption being made by Chamor and Shechem, and that is that Jacob was buyable. Remember that, that with enough, enough monetary offers, the rape of his daughter won't seem so terrible. That's very important here, that there is that element. We'll give you anything you want, much more than you ever could have had in any other way, if you just let my son marry a daughter who he loves anyway. Uh, 13. Jacob's sons answered Shem and his father Chamor, speaking with guile, trickery, chicanery, because he had defiled their sister Dinah. So in a certain sense, you can argue, now that you know that they're not going to take up the offer, uh, you— and I'm not, I'm not stating this categorically, but it is possible to offer that with the despicable behavior we're now about to see, there was some element of nobility, that certain values were higher than all the money and all the land that they could never have had otherwise. Are you with me? Those values though are, are themselves up to, you know, up for, uh, question in some, in some ways. At any rate, so in, uh, guile, uh, which now tells you that the whole thing is going to be a ruse, said to them, that is to Hamor and Shechem, We can't do this thing to give our sister to a man who's uncircumcised, for that is a disgrace among us. Okay, the— it's every nation has a description of other nations which is negative. This is human history. Uh, that's how you get the word barbarian from the Romans, who used to speak of barbar because that's the sounds that they thought that the non-Romans would make. And so they called them barbarians. If you weren't a Roman, you were a barbarian. If you weren't a Chinese, you were also something, uh, there was a negative term for what you were. China, in any event, meaning Middle Kingdom, center of the world. Uh, and ancient Jews had it. They would refer to non-Jews as the uncircumcised. That was their way of saying we're superior, uh, our ethnic group is superior. So in other words, uh, we won't give our sister to a man who is not circumcised. That's a disgrace among us. Only on this condition will we agree with you, that you will become like us in that every male among you is circumcised. Then we will give our daughters to you and take your daughters to ourselves, and we will dwell among you and become as one kindred. I mean, they're really eloquent in answering just the desires that Hamor and Shechem wanted. But if you will not listen to us and become circumcised, we'll take our daughter and go. Their words pleased Hamor and Hamor's son Shchem. You can only imagine how much they did please them. And the youth lost no time in doing the thing, for he wanted Jacob's daughter. Now he was the most respected in his father's house. He had to be to make the following request in his society. He had to be highly respected. So Chamor and his sonschem went to the public place of their town and spoke to their fellow townsmen saying, these people are our friends. Let them settle in the land and move about in it, for the land is large enough for them. We will take their daughters to ourselves as wives and give our daughters to them. Now, before he tells them the slight condition, uh, he has made it sound fantastic. Look at this, they want to be with us, we can take their daughters, they can move about because the land is large enough. Do you notice, however, my friends, what he doesn't say? 3 things. All right, number 1, Uh, hold on. Oh, I have to tell you before 22. Oh yes, let me— you know what, let me read it in order and then tell you what he omitted, because the order is brilliant. He, he tells them first— it's, it's really so, so human— he tells them that they look at this, we'll have their daughters, they'll have our daughters, they come in our land and rove around, and we can do things with them, right? Now he tells them the only condition. But only on this condition will the men agree with us to dwell among us and be as one kindred, that all our males become circumcised as they are circumcised. At that moment, can you imagine the townsmen? I suspect that the reaction was, he's got to be kidding. Hamor, right, exactly. Hamor is truly an ass. That is probably basically the way the people reacted. These guys, "I am going to have my foreskin cut off so that we could have their daughters and their daughters have a—" What are you, nuts? Then he looks around Hamor and he goes, "This is not working." So he goes, he ups the ante with total bull. Absolute fraud. Made up the whole thing. Look at this. Their cattle and substance and all their beasts will be ours if only they agree to their terms that they'll settle among us. The thing was never said. There's no mention of getting their— of the getting, uh, Jacob's property. He made it all up. A big lie to his own people to get them to lie down and chop off their foreskins, right? Isn't that funny? Do you see how it works here? The thing is an absolute fraud. He— they— Jacob's clan never agreed to give all their substance and animals to them. They omit the promises that he made up a lie and he omitted through lie. He— look at how much he promised to Jacob for Dinah. He promised, right, property rights. Remember I accented that for you? Did he mention it to his people? Nah. So to Jacob's people for Dinah, he says, you'll have everything. To his people, to get them circumcised, he says, we'll have everything. So who— we don't know if he lied to Jacob or he lied to his own people. We only know he wants— he's really out to get his son. This girl, poor thing, all the way around. Uh, then also, number 3, Chamor and Shchem never mention the real reason for this whole thing. Because, one second, you can imagine why. Can you imagine, "Hey guys, guys, I'd like you to do my son a favor here." Do you understand what I'm saying? I mean, who, I mean, even close friends won't do that sort of thing. I mean, that is asking for a lot. That is really, that's almost your pound of flesh. And it's not any pound of flesh. It's a very sensitive area's pound of flesh. I mean, this is not like, you know, the modern day, you know, you go in, you know, local anesthetic, clip it off, and hey, I'll be at work at 3. This is with, you know, get me the local guy with stones and see what, how we can chop it off. I mean, this is pain. Yes, it's hurting her and it's a her. You guys are all sitting with crossed legs. No Bobbitt jokes here. Anyway, this is a remarkable piece of— you know who I feel for, believe it or not? I feel for Chamor. I do. Obviously I feel for Dino, let's get that clear. But I do feel for Chamor. The guy didn't do anything wrong. His son falls in love. So what is he going to do? The son he most loves, it says there, falls in love with this girl. He's stuck with this problem. And, you know, who doesn't do it? Have you never done that? You make promises to A to get something, and then you make promises to B which you can never match because you already promised it to A. I mean, it is so human the way he did it. And that's why I love the order of the sentences. First, you know, hey, they'll circulate them on our land. Get out of— give me a break— for circumcision. Oh, but that's not all. That's the order of the verses here. Yes, it sounds like the origin of the original bait and switch. This is the original bait and switch. That is one way definitely of looking at it. Number, uh, what verse? 22. No, I did 22. On this condition, 23 is the— all their things will be ours. 24 is right. All who went out of the gate of his town heeded Hamor and his son Shchem. See, when they said, oh hey, 3 days of miserable pain for all of their cattle, it's worth it. I mean, it's funny, isn't it? It is, even in that, it's so human. "Hey, I'm not going to chop off my foreskin so that they could, you know, intermarry with us. But if we could have all their animals, alright, it's worth it." Well, I mean, think about it. We should never laugh at them. What do most of us do for money? We go through terrible pain for money. The time we devote to it, that is painful. I mean, that, I really do not laugh at them at all. I mean, their pain is simply more direct. And wouldn't you? Hey, if I said to you, hey, you know what, for a million dollars, will you give up a pinky? I mean, you know, it's almost silly, but in a sense that's— and believe me, pinkies are more useful than foreskin. So, you know, I don't blame the townsmen for saying yes after that thing. That's all I'm trying to say. Okay? Yeah. It seems to me that Omar had enough power over those people to tell them, you know, you circumcise. He didn't. He didn't. That's one— it's an interesting point that you— it's a very valid point you raise. It says he was the head of the Klan, but he did not have enough power to say, "Get circumcised." That's right. I mean, you know, there's just so much power even an autocrat can have. Right? Yes. Who sounds incredibly— Jacob sounds incredibly— oh, I see. In their eyes, Jacob probably— Jacob was not powerful, Jacob was wealthy. Well, yes, that's correct. Relative to his time and place, he was extremely wealthy. That's right. Yes, but not powerful. That's a very important distinction. No, in the today's— not even in today's— listen, Japan is economically the superpower of the world in many ways, but it is not powerful because it has no weapons. Numbers of people, numbers of men in particular, and weapons make you powerful. Soviet Union was, was one of the poorest countries in the world, yet it was the second most powerful in the world because of its nuclear weapons. What verse? Okay, so all those— okay, all the males, all those who went out of the gate of his town were circumcised. All right, 25. On the third day, when they were in pain, Shimon and Levi, two of Jacob's sons, brothers of Dinah— they're re-emphasizing that— each took his sword, came upon the city. Uh, the Hebrew is betach, with security. Uh, here it says unmolested. Unaware. You have unaware. Yeah, unsuspected is much clearer. Unaware doesn't make sense. Unmolested is fine. In other words, how do these guys go into a city, foreigners with swords? Because they were trusted. This makes what they did all the more reprehensible. The people thought they had a deal with Jacob's sons. That's why they're unmolested. Foreigners didn't walk into your town in those days with swords unmolested. Okay, is that clear? It's a very, very important little term in there, this betach. They didn't recognize there's a danger. Why would they think there would be one? Oh, I see that. Oh, the city was unaware. Oh, oh, I see. I'm sorry, I thought you meant they were unaware. Okay, the city was unaware, but that's not— but betach comes from the word secure, okay, trusting. Bitachon is trust. So that's really more correct. They got in untouched, trusted. And what did they do? They killed every male, okay? I didn't quite see the link. Maybe in gematria, you know. Oh, no, no, no, but that's the wrong tea. The donkey got hurt. Now, my dear friends, let me start off with a question, lest I presuppose anything in advance. Does anybody here wish to defend Shimon and Levi's behavior? Okay, I don't, I don't. I mean, this is not a trick question, okay? I don't either. Okay, all right. Nor at the end of Genesis does, uh, does Jacob— Jacob renounces what they did. Not then, not then, as you'll see. And I never like jumping ahead, but, but it is clear that it is reprehensible. Nevertheless, With pain, I read to you a 20th century rabbi's, Orthodox rabbi's, defense of Shimon and Levi. I, I don't even want to say who it is because I'm not quoting him to his credit. Uh, he was Polish, a Polish rabbi. Uh, they killed every male. The commentaries labored to demonstrate why killing all the men of Shechem was permissible. I myself would hesitantly venture to suggest— at least it's hesitantly— that Shechem's crime was not that of an individual against another individual or against God, but a crime of an entire nation against another nation. Jacob's sons seem to be emphasizing this by saying he committed an outrage in Israel, meaning in the nation, by lying with the daughter of Jacob. Shechem's lying with Jacob's daughter was not just a sin against an individual but against the entire Jewish people. In matters concerning individuals, a based in a, a Jewish law court, is the only proper address. But in international relations, an outrage of this sort committed by the ruler of one nation against citizens of another brings war in its wake. And in fact, Jacob's sons went to war against Shechem, striving first, however, to weaken the enemy, as is customary in war. Okay, it's enough for me to read that. What he is— this rabbi's take is the dividing line, one of the key dividing lines between traditional and modern thought. I read to you again the key line: Shechem's crime was not that of an individual against another individual, or even against God. but a crime of an entire nation against another nation. That is not how we in America think. It is how the bulk of humanity thinks today, and all humanity thought in the past. The individual was far, far secondary to the nation, to the ethnic group. You hurt one of us, than we hurt one of you. It almost doesn't matter who. In the Code of Hammurabi, for example, which was an elevated code in its time, if I murdered your son, the state killed my son. Do you get it? It's not— I am— it's not me, though. The Jewish law says a child will never die for the sin of a parent. It came to obliterate that. Nevertheless, in some ways, later Jewish thought reverted to things that the Torah itself did not want people to think in terms of. That, you know, that you therefore— the Torah totally looks down, totally, about what Shimon and Levi did. It has no desire to justify it. Jacob, at his deathbed, condemns it out and out. Says, "I wasn't part of it. It was terrible. You can't control your anger, etc. You're men of war, etc., etc." The Torah is not ambivalent about the wrongness of what Shimon and Levi did. And yet we have here a 20th century Orthodox Polish rabbi who defends them on the grounds that it was an act of war, you did something to one of our daughters, then we can wage war against all of you. And I read it with sadness, but I wanted to read that to you because there are many different ways of approaching this, obviously. But he— but no, but he believes it too. But hesitant. Yes, hesitantly. Yes. He hesitantly believes that. You're right. That's fair. Yes?

But really, you can't find one that says that women are property. That is how they treated women. The wife is property. The female—

Oh, yes. No, I didn't laugh at that. I said that women were property. I was laughing at the idea that the only issue here was land property, and that— Oh, okay, fine. No, no, absolutely women are property. Yes, the circumcision itself. Yeah, but of course, once they had them circumcised, they had to go through with their plan. Can you imagine, after all of these guys get circumcised, then the sons of Jacob go, eh, that's okay. Forget it, we were only kidding. They'd have been dead once they started the circumcision. The plan had to go through. Okay, when, when men do that to themselves, they want what they were promised. Because we don't know what— well, of course they died. It's true, there's not much to know about what happened later. Uh, 26, they put Hamor and his son Shem to the sword. Took Dina out of Shchem's house and went away. The only, only argument that I have ever heard that could possibly be made on behalf of what they did was that they didn't believe that they would have given Dina up and that they went to rescue her. Okay, I just, I need to state that. It's the one argument I ever heard, uh, that might argue in their favor. Yes. Is Jacob's sons aware of the speech that the father made, that they were going to give away all their property? I don't know, but why do you ask? That would have upset them also. Would have shown that these are people you can't trust, right? That we couldn't trust the Shechem people. Yeah, it's a very good point. If they were aware of the, of the phony speech that Hamor gave Yeah, well, hey, wait a minute. Exactly. And then how do we even know we'll ever get Dina? That is the one argument on behalf of what they did. But you— you mean the very fact of the rape? Yeah, well, I don't know. I really don't know one way or the other. Probably it certainly seemed to have implied something about their their standards of trustworthiness. The answer, though, is very simple. You first try peacefully to undo what was done. War— it's a funny thing. Often you hear war should be a last resort. The people who say that usually mean we should never go to war. I literally believe war should be a last resort. It should always be the last thing you do, but it must be a resort. You must resort to it at certain times. This was a first resort. That's wrong. War should never be the first thing you resort to. It should be the last thing. They immediately planned, hearing all of the love story and everything else, they immediately planned this, this, uh, butchery. Now, mind you as well, there is one other element here that is important. That the difference between revenge and punishment— a, a revenge is unjust punishment. All punishment is revenge. It is a very funny thing. This happens all the time when people say capital punishment is revenge. I always say, you're right, all punishment is revenge. Okay. I mean, what else is it? I am getting back at you for doing what you did. You can't argue it is only to protect society from people that we have prison. You're not afraid of white-collar criminals, you're not afraid of certain old people from murdering again. It's punishment. The difference between revenge and punishment is that revenge is unjust punishment, overly punishing. Just— and just revenge is called punishment. That's, that's the way I think the language should be used. This guy Shchem deserved punishment. What the— what, uh, Shimon and Levi did was revenge, massive revenge, and it was against people who were totally innocent. Okay, that's, that's what happened here. They will— That's correct. Gangs— No, the other guy will do something to another person. Right, that's correct. Let's just get a Hispanic. Maybe the— that's right, the other racial gang will say, "Let's just get any Hispanic." The gang warfare in Los Angeles is the world. That's what we were talking about earlier when I was saying Rwanda is normative, America is— That gang warfare is a reversion to pre— pre-Rules Mankind. That's exactly right. If the individual means nothing, what gang are you in, or even what race are you in, is all that matters. That is why I am so scared of dividing America by race and ethnicity. This is a reversion to the worst possible parts of human history. You don't matter. Your identity is all that matters. Okay, let's finish it here. They put Hamor and Shechem— okay, took Dinah out of Shechem's house and went away. The other sons of Jacob came upon the slain and plundered the town because their sister had been defiled. They seized the flocks and herds and asses and all that was inside the town and outside. All their wealth, all their children and their wives, all that was in the houses they took as captives and booty. Pretty tough, huh? You don't mess around with a Jewish girl. Jacob said to Shimon and Levi, you have brought trouble on me, making me odious among the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites and the— in English it's Perizzites, Perizzim in Hebrew— my men are few in number, so if they unite against me and attack me, I and my house will be destroyed. His entire response to what they did was a pragmatic censure, not moral censure. You with me? Uh, Sarna writes— no, it's not necessary. That's his reaction. It seems disappointing, and it is until you get to the end of Genesis. It is a disappointing reaction. Okay, I'll be hurt if they find out what you did. But they answered, should our sister be treated like a whore? And that ends the chapter. Now their answer is interesting. The answer of the sons is actually a good one in light of the poor answer of Jacob. Jacob did not give them a moral response. So they gave him a moral response. You get it? If he'd have said, come over here, boys, and let me tell you something. This is not the way we behave. God did not appear to my grandfather Abraham, my father Isaac, and me so that you can go and butcher people who are innocent of a crime simply because they belong to a clan that did a wrong. That would have been the nicest, right? Right. He didn't say anything about morality, so they one-upped him in their answer. That's why he has no answer to what they said. They gave, well, wait a minute, you talk about whether you'll be affected, so what you're saying, Dad, is for the sake of our, uh, security, we should let our daughter be treated, our sister be treated like a whore. You see how they one-up their father? And, and he has no answer. It's— or at least it's not recorded. And that ends the, uh, the chapter. A disturbing chapter, but to me a very important one, because this is the way it was. This— and this is our battle, as I began in the very beginning of the session. The battle is against our nature. The battle is against clannish thinking in human life. If we don't rise above that, we will return to this type of living with one very large difference. Then it was swords, today it's nuclear weapons. And, uh, God did in fact send a rainbow saying he will never destroy the world again. But as I pointed out at the time, he never guaranteed that we would not destroy the world, only that he wouldn't. Thank you very much.

On tomorrow's Sunday Fireside Chat, the Marxist view of morality—

it's not a division between right and wrong, but between rich and poor. So the poor have a different moral value system than the rich. And, and that makes sense to a lot of people. Oh, poor people stealing is not the same as rich people stealing. And there you go. It's okay if the poor steal. It's very hard to imagine how a society can survive when it renders morality relative, when there are no longer moral absolutes. And I do believe the Western world is in danger. Precisely because of that.

Join us tomorrow to hear more on Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. This has been Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Visit DennisPrager.com for thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs, and to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles.

We live in a time where the moment you question the narrative, you're told to stop thinking and start complying. That's why what Angel is doing matters. Matters. With eye-opening documentaries like Thank You, Dr. Fauci and RFK: Legacy, Angel is willing to explore the issues others avoid. In a culture shaped by gatekeepers, Angel offers something rare: a platform for truth-seeking storytelling that isn't constrained by fear or conformity. Go to angel.com/prager, join the Angel Guild, and watch these films today.