בראשית, פרק ל״ד, פסוק כ״ז

Following the massacre of the men of Shechem by Simeon and Levi, the aftermath of the tragedy unfolds as the rest of Jacob's sons enter the scene. These remaining brothers, who did not participate in the actual killing, arrive at the city after the deed is done [מלבי״ם, ביאור יש״ר, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. Their arrival triggers a wave of plundering, raising profound moral and legal questions about the justification for seizing the city's wealth and holding the entire populace accountable for the crime of one individual.

The differing actions of the brothers stem from distinct legal perspectives. Simeon and Levi executed the men of the city for violating fundamental moral laws, and therefore, they did not touch the victims' property, as it legally belonged to their heirs. The other brothers, however, operated under a different assumption. They viewed the newly circumcised residents of Shechem as true converts to the faith. Because a convert who dies without Jewish heirs leaves behind ownerless property, the remaining brothers saw clear legal permission to claim the city's wealth [חתם סופר].

The primary approach among commentators is that the brothers approached the corpses specifically to strip them of their garments and personal belongings. However, others challenge this view, arguing that it defies logic for the brothers to bother stripping simple, blood-soaked clothes when vast, untouched treasures awaited them throughout the city. According to this perspective, the brothers did not stop at the bodies but expanded their efforts, plundering the entirety of the city in addition to the slain [הכתב והקבלה].

This widespread confiscation of property was not driven by mere greed. Instead, it was fueled by a deep sense of moral justification and a desire to exact justice upon a wicked populace [ביאור שטיינזלץ, הכתב והקבלה]. Furthermore, the seized wealth served as compensation for the overwhelming shame inflicted upon Jacob's family. By law, a perpetrator of such an assault is required to pay a penalty to the victim's family, and the brothers felt that even the entire wealth of the city was insufficient to cover their profound humiliation [אור החיים, מלבי״ם]. Although the men of Shechem had already paid with their lives, the legal principle that exempts a person from financial penalties when facing execution does not apply to non-Jews in this context, making it entirely permissible to collect the financial debt [אור החיים, פרדס יוסף]. The confiscation also functioned as exact retribution. The people of Shechem had originally plotted to assimilate with Jacob's family specifically to absorb their wealth. In response, the brothers simply turned the tables, doing to the townspeople exactly what they had conspired to do to them [ביאור יש״ר].

The justification for targeting the entire city rests on the collective guilt of its residents. Although only one man committed the physical assault, the townspeople were considered full accomplices. They were entirely aware of the kidnapping, witnessed the prince take the young woman by force, and chose to remain silent. In legal and moral terms, anyone who has the power to protest an injustice but fails to do so is held equally responsible for the sin [רד״ק, הכתב והקבלה, חתם סופר, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. Moreover, the abduction of women was an accepted social norm in their culture. The citizens viewed the act favorably, hoped to eventually take the rest of Jacob's daughters for themselves, and actively collaborated in the scheme by undergoing circumcision to legitimize the crime [ספורנו, הכתב והקבלה, ביאור יש״ר]. An additional perspective places the blame on the city's residents indirectly, noting that it was the public gathering of the local women that initially drew the young woman out of her home, ultimately leading to her capture [העמק דבר].