Abarbanel on Torah

Abarbanel on Torah, Genesis 33:18:17

From " And Yaakov came complete to the town of Shechem etc." until "And Chamor, the father of Shechem came out" - Shechem is apparently the city that is close to Mamre Kiriat Arba, since behold when Yaakov was dwelling in Hevron that is Kiriat Arba his sons were sheparding the sheep in Shechem. And it is logical that there was between them a distance of a day maximum, and that is why Yaakov sends [Yosef] to see how the brothers are faring, and the sheep too, and this was when he is close to where his father was. Despite this, the place where Dina was subjugated was far away from Hevron, where Yitzchak was, and this is a question that remains, since Chazal said that Shechem was a place ready for punishment, since there they subjugated Dina and the tribes were damaged. And from this it appears to me that Shechem was the name of the entire place, and Chamor was the prince of all that land [Abarbanel goes to show where he thinks the connection between Shalem, Shechem and Hevron is]... and the issue with Dina happened in a town named Shalem at the beginning, and it is in a corner of the place called Shechem, and the sons of Yaakov were pasturing the sheep in a different corner, farther away from that area... And it is said that "Yaakov put his tent in front of the city" to explain that there were other reasons for this issue [of Dina] to happen: the first one is that Yaakov pitched [his encampment] close to the city, and because of this Dina went out to see the daughters of the land, and if he had pitched in a place farther away, closer to the place of pasturing and farther from the city, Dina would not have come out and what happened would not have happened. Second reason, Yaakov had bought the piece of land where her tent was pitched from Chamor the father of Shechem, and the scripture teaches this by saying that at first he set his tent on the field, and then after the owners complained, he bought that piece of the field, since he did not want to rent it. And since he purchased it from the hand of Chamor, the prince of the land, it makes sense that he paid good money for it, since a prince of the land will not sell parts of his estate to a stranger unless he gave a princely sum. And he did not buy it from the hand of the sons of Chamor, his advanced age prevented him himself to go, but his sons went to make the sale, and this is why they went to the tents of Yaakov, and saw Dina there, and there is no doubt that they spoke with her and the soul of Shechem desired her, and this too was the reason of the continuation [of what happened] when she went out to see the daughters of the land. And this answers the second question. And Ibn Ezra already explained that Yaakov stayed in this city for many years, since Dina was seven years old when she arrived there, and Shimon and Levi were lads. Since Yaakov had entered the holy land, it was for this reason that he bought a piece of the field and became property owner of holy land, and he acquired an altar to praise G-d, that in His great compassion and love brought him to His land and saved him from Lavan... [Abarbanel goes into a discussion on the nature of Judaism, the name E-l and more] And maybe even this altar was a reason for what happened, since once it was ready all his children came to eat from the sacrifices and Shechem and all the town came to see the inauguration of the altar, and saw Dina there, and desired her, and what happened happened once she went out to see the daughters of the land - and this explains the third question. The Torah does not bring the phrase "and Dina came out" to criticize Dina as a "self-exposing daughter of a self-exposer; like mother, like daughter" as Rashi z"l has. Leah was a modest woman, to the point that Yaakov did not see anything until the moment he came to her. And the "Leah went out" really means that she went out just to the door of her tent and she went out joyfully and with holy intent to greet her husband Yaakov and from that came the birth of Yissachar, the tribe of modest Torah teachers. Also, one cannot say that she is called "daughter of Leah" as a criticism of her nature being of "self-exposing", since Leah was taught to stay in the tents, and Rachel was the one out with the sheep. And from Yaakov himself was known to be a modest person, hiding in the tents of scholars, and if he was modest like this, all the more his daughter. The intent wasnot for anything bad, as the text says "daughters of the town" and not sons of the town. Dina had no sisters, being the only maiden in the house and so she went out to see how the girls of the town dressed and used jewelry, and this explains our fourth question. And there is no doubt that she did not went out by herself, without the company of a man or a woman, and this is implied, just as the scripture has regarding Moses, that he went out to meet his father-in-law, and obviously he did not go alone. The text describes that Shechem was "the son of Chamor the Hivite, the prince of the land" to make sure that we understand that being the prince of the land he used force, and had no fear of those who were with Dinah or of the sons of Yaakov. And the text goes on to say, like Rashi explains, that he lay with her in the usual fashion and afflicted her in the unusual fashion, and how can one describe his doing such a disgrace. And Ibn Ezra explains that her being a virgin, and he doing three things - seizing her by force while she was passing through the market, forcing her in the natural way and in the unnatural way.And even if you know about the second thing, why is the text bringing the first? Isn't it already included? This is to teach that even if he wanted to have relations with her due to his wanting her as a wife, one cannot do this by force. The second comes to teach that he destroyed her virginity. And why is it explaining that he afflicted her? To explain that she did not go by her own will, but he hoped that it would being by her being forced and end by her wanting it.[...]