Friday, June 25, 2010

Abuse: Expressing outrage or supressing response

When Yaakov’s daughter Dinah was raped and abused by their neighbor Shechem – there were two reactions. Yaakov reacted with silence, “And Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter; and his sons were with his cattle in the field; and Jacob held his peace until they came.” (Bereishis 34:5). Her brothers, however, reacted with outrage, “And the sons of Yaakov came from the field when they heard it; and the men were grieved, and they were very angry, because Shechem had done an outrageous deed in Israel by raping Jacob’s daughter; something which should not to be done.” (Bereishis 34:7).

Furthermore we see that Yaakov’s sons not only expressed anger but they acted on their outrage and killed Shechem and his clan. Yaakov protested against this revenge by saying, “And Yaakov said to [his sons] Shimon and Levi, You have brought trouble on me to make me odious among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites; and I being few in number, they shall gather together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house” (Bereishis 34:30). His sons responded to their father’s protest by simply saying, “ And they said, Should he deal with our sister as with a harlot?” (Bereishis 34:31).

6 comments :

  1. R doniel...u saw the thsuva tzamik tzdik 247(347)on abuse...very strange...

    ReplyDelete
  2. R doniel...u saw the thsuva tzamik tzdik 247(347)on abuse...very strange...

    ReplyDelete
  3. It reminds me the story of Pilegesh bagivah where the Israelites were so outraged about a rape of a concubine by the Benjaminites so they started a war on the Benjaminites and killed 18,000 of them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gateway Pundit IIJune 28, 2010 at 5:07 PM

    How many years should a man get for committing bank fraud, destroying evidence, assisting fugitives flee the country, and committing purjury on the stand?

    Then take into account the obnoxiousness of Team Rubashkin and its supporters which does affect a Judge's decision as the Judge is human. Any decent lawyer knows to stay on the judge's good side. Shame on Team Rubashkin for not giving a damn about that. In fact, Lewin's response to the Judge's "threat" that if she has to re-sentence him she'll take things into account that she gave Rubashkin a pass on the first time, was "bring it on". That is such a stupid thing to say on the record (not to her directly) regarding a Judge. SMR's attorneys violated all of the unwritten laws in the book such as don't anger a judge....and they continue to do it! Fools!

    ReplyDelete
  5. pertubed writes
    i am not sure what your story of yaakob and dinah is trying to prove. The only reason Yaakob disproved of their action was because he considered it dangerous not wrong. Why they all deserved death see the ramban and others.
    About the rubashkin case which i am not sure how it comes in here is that since there is an appeals process why should the judge have it on her conscience.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The federal prosecutors didn’t pursue the immigration charges against Rubashkin because they didn’t want to waste government resources on a second trial once they’d already managed to convict him of 86 counts of fraud. Not because of some Obaman conspiracy to thwart immigration law (a majority of the illegal immigrants who were arrested in the raid were deported–they just dropped charges against Rubashkin for his role in the immigration violations).

    There are probably thousands of other crimes Rubashkin could be tried for as well: perjury, obstruction of justice, Social Security fraud, tax fraud, etc. But it’s not worth wasting taxpayer-funded resources to do so because it’s clear to everyone that the severity of his sentence stems in large part from the fact that he committed all kinds of bad acts above and beyond the 86 of which he was convicted, and that sends a strong message to business owners everywhere that they will be punished if they engage in massive corruption.

    As for whether Rubashkin is a good guy, he may very well be warm and fuzzy and outwardly pious in person. I’ve heard Madoff was pretty nice, too. But Rubashkin either perpetrated or chose to be willfully ignorant of extraordinary injustices committed against workers (including children), animals, banks, the principles of kashrut and the reputation of Jews in general, and there is nothing righteous about that.

    There also is nothing pious in constantly invoking your religion as a defense. As a Jew who grew up in Iowa, I find it deeply offensive that this man (who did more to perpetuate bad stereotypes of Jews than anyone in the history of the State of Iowa) asked to have his trial moved to another state because he didn’t think an Iowa jury could be impartial. The judge granted his request, and yet the Chabad PR machine continued to malign her as anti-semitic. So it shouldn’t be a shock or surprise that when he asked for a downward departure in his sentence from the federal guidelines because he stole not out of material self-interest, but out of “religious obligation” to his family and kosher-keeping Jewish carnivores in general, the judge (correctly, from my perspective) smacked down that argument and gave him a lengthy sentence instead.

    I admire the unabated optimism of those Lubavitchers and I understand the desire to stick up for one of their (our?) own. But I think it’s disgusting that so many of his supporters seem to think his case is an example of discrimination against Jews, or that it was somehow Judaism itself that was on trial rather than Mr. Rubashkin. If anything, this trial was about the utter contempt Mr. Rubashkin demonstrated for the non-Jewish world (including Guatemalans, animals and the entire American legal system). And that is why many of us find it very hard to have any sympathy for Mr. Rubashkin, no matter how harsh his sentence may seem.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.