Adolescent Risky Behavior—Biblical and Contemporary Challenges
Rabbi Yaakov Bieler
I have been intrigued for many years by the implications of a verse in Parshat VaYishlach that may be describing a state of human perfection that is unique and evocative. Beraishit 33:18, describing Yaakov’s return to Canaan following his confrontation with Eisav at the beginning of the Parsha, states, “And Yaakov came SHALEM, city of Shechem that was in the land of Canaan, during the course of his coming from Padan Aram, and he encamped in the area before the city precincts.” Although RaShBaM argues that “Shalem” is merely the name of the city to which Yaakov and his entourage comes—this would parallel the name of MalkiTzedek’s kingdom in 14:18—most commentators understand “Shalem” as a description of Yaakov’s state of being, physically as well as spiritually.
Targum Yonatan: “Whole” in all that was his.
Ibn Ezra: He came “whole”, since no tragedy has as yet befallen him (both Lavan and Eisav had the opportunity to harm Yaakov and his family, but this did not come to pass.)
RaDaK: He was “whole” because he had lost nothing during his confrontation with Eisav.
Shabbat 33b: Said Rav: “Whole” with respect to his body, “whole” with respect to his possessions, and “whole” with respect to his “Tora”. (1)
Beraishit Rabba 79:5 “Whole” with respect to his children, since it is written (32:9) “And he said, ‘If Eisav comes to one of the encampments and kills everyone…’” However, at this point he was “whole” with respect to all of his children.
When I once presented a Shiur based upon this verse and its various interpretations, one of my friends, Yehuda Wurtzel, commented that this all seemed to him to be very sad. When I asked him why, he explained that Yaakov had expended so much energy to reach this point in his life, had undergone so much hardship and stress, and yet, his state of “Shleimut” (wholeness), particularly with respect to his children, evaporates almost immediately, with the story recounted in the very next chapter, Beraishit 34. My friend’s comment is in fact anticipated by Ibn Ezra and RaDaK, among others, who note in the continuation of their commentaries, that Yaakov could only be considered “Shalem” at this point, in contrast to what is about to take place, i.e., the terrible events that involve his daughter Dina. Upon some reflection, it becomes clear that the observation that Yaakov suffers a tremendous let down soon after his reaching the heights of wholeness is inherent within the human condition of all people at all times. Great perfection and personal accomplishment and satisfaction, are all functions of innumerable variables, and while a confluence of positive and complementary manifestations of these variables could impart a wonderful sense of well-being, such a state is extremely unstable and usually short-lived. It is so difficult for everything to go right, and extremely easy, and even inevitable for at least one thing to go wrong to the extent that all else pails in comparison. Further reflection regarding man’s almost Sisyphus-ian (2) striving for personal perfection and total happiness calls to mind Tennyson’s famous line:
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all. (3)
Even if one has to settle for very temporary bursts of happiness and contentment, we should make the most of them when they present themselves to us.
Only three verses later, (34:1 ff.) the tale of Dina’s rape and the destruction of the city of Shechem by Yaakov’s sons is recorded, forever ending Yaakov’s sense of “Shleimut”. Commentators remark on the Tora’s description of Dina as “Bat Leah Asher Yaldah LeYaakov” (the daughter of Leah who was born to Yaakov) as opposed to more simply “Bat Yaakov” (the daughter of Yaakov). RaShI understands this particular appellation for Dina in the capacity of her “going out to see the daughters of the land” as a critique of Leah, who is deemed to have been similarly forward and immodest when negotiating for Yaakov’s spending an additional night with her in 30:16. Robert Alter (4) contrasts the implications of “Dina bat Leah” with (34:2) “Shechem ben Chamor HaChivi” (Shechem the son of Chamor the Hivite) in the sense that since Dina was an immigrant’s daughter, she was considered vulnerable for attack and exploitation by those who were native to the land, i.e., the prince, Shechem. But even more evocative is the interpretation offered by Leon Kass. (5)
She went to town, to the city, never—not even today—a safe place for an innocent, attractive, unprotected, and vulnerable young woman. And willy-nilly in going to see, she would necessarily look upon—and be initiated into—ways that were not her own, as happens to every young person who goes abroad (or even off to college) “to see for myself.” To go to town willingly to look at other people and other ways is to accept the possibility—perhaps even the likelihood—of being taken literally and being taken in by them...
According to Kass’ calculations, (6) Dina was 12, a nascent adolescent, when she “goes out” of her home. Her risky behavior, and unfortunately for her, the terrible result to which this behavior directly leads, could be recognized as typical for a member of her age cohort. The following appears in Allison Johnson’s “Adolescent Risk Taking, Or Keeping Your Teen Out of Harm’s Way Without Putting Them in a Bottle”: (7)
Strange clothing, moody self-absorption, and listening to that awful music serve a purpose? Absolutely. The purpose is founded in risk-taking, an essential step in the journey of child to adult. For the first time, adolescents are beginning to wonder about other value systems and other ways of doing things, and about experiences beyond what you can show them. Cognitively, they are now able to fully explore the question “who am I?”, and they begin playing a psychological and emotional game of “dress up”. They are able to poke holes in the grey area surrounding your exhortations to do something “because I said so.” Their bodies and feelings are changing. They turn away from the family in their search for hints and clues as to how to be. They are now boldly going where no adolescent (and certainly not you, of course) has gone before.
If we must assume that risk-taking behavior is part-and-parcel of human adolescent development, it behooves those who are responsible for the care and guidance of adolescents, their parents, their older siblings, their relatives, their teachers, their clergy, their neighbors, their counselors, and anyone else who may serve as role models for them, to be particularly vigilant that these children not come to grief during their period of experimentation and quest for personal identity. Kass understands that the different ways in which the Tora refers to Dina constitutes a criticism of Yaakov’s parenting:
Dina would be culpable only if these were her intentions or if she went against advice and with foreknowledge of the dangers. Yet precisely because her act is so obviously dangerous, it is culpably worse than dangerous to have ignored or neglected her. If blame for her going to town is to be meted out, it should go instead to Yaakov…
Shrewd and wise to the ways of the world, Yaakov certainly should have taken precautions to instruct and protect his daughter…unless he had not yet learned that and how one must care for daughters. The text perhaps meant to hint at Yaakov’s distance from his daughter: Dina is introduced as Leah’s daughter, whom Leah, the unloved, bore to Yaakov… (Only after Dina is raped (34:5) is she referred to as Yaakov’s daughter, thereby subtly criticizing her father for not properly fulfilling his parental responsibilities.—jb) …Jacob (and through him, we readers) must learn painfully the importance and meaning of “daughter”.
But Dina is not the only adolescent with which Yaakov has to cope. According to Rabbinical interpretation, (8) all of his children are born during a relatively short period of time, and therefore are close to one another in age. It is difficult enough to deal with a single teenager; Yaakov has 13 on his hands once he leaves Charan. The Rabbis posit that because of the use of the term “Ish” with regard to Shimon and Levi’s attack on Shechem (34:25 “…VaYikchu Shnai Bnai Yaakov Shimon VeLevi Achai Dina ISH Charbo, VaYavouh Al HaIhr Betach, VaYahargu Kol Zachar” [And they took, the two sons of Yaakov, Shimon and Levi, brothers of Dina, EACH MAN his sword, and they came to the city undetected, and they killed all of the men], Shimon and Levi had to be at least 13. While the calculation (9) that results in such a conclusion would therefore preclude assuming that Dina was 12 at the time of her rape, (10) nevertheless, such an assumption about Shimon and Levi’s age starkly exemplifies the truism that even 13-year-olds are capable of killing as well as making rash decisions, that while they may appear to be justified in the short term, could have regrettable and even fatal consequences in the future. I would argue that when R. Yehuda ben Teima states in Avot 5:21 that a 13-year-old (11) is someone who must engage in the fulfillment of Mitzvot, it is not because he is particularly philosophical or theologically oriented at this stage of his life; adhering to a life of Tora Commandments allows an individual to develop discipline, the ability to refuse to do that which is deemed wrong as well as the readiness to force oneself to pursue that which is good. Commitment to Halacha should serve to mitigate some of the tendencies that first come to the fore during adolescence, and therefore not only is it important that our children act appropriately in terms of the expectations of general society, but also that we insist that they adhere to all aspects of Jewish law as comprehensively as possible. (12)
The destructive example set by the oldest children in the family, Shimon and Levi, leads the others to follow suit, and while they are not accused of killing anyone, they do loot, pillage and imprison women and children (34:27-29). When Yaakov confronts his progeny and expresses his fears that their actions could lead to all of the peoples of the area coming together, declaring war on Yaakov’s family (13) and possibly destroying them in retaliation for what was done to Shechem (34:30), Shimon and Levi reply, (34:31) “Should our sister be treated like a prostitute?” The emotion of the moment, their revulsion at the situation as recorded in the Tora in 34:7, is obviously the exclusive motivation for their decision to kill the entire male population of Shechem. Completely oblivious to their adolescent impulsiveness and short-sightedness, Shimon and Levi are clearly never prepared to consult with Yaakov as to what to do once the Shechemites agree to circumcise themselves (34:24) in accord with the ploy that they had devised in order to recover their sister (34:14:17). But should Yaakov have been monitoring their actions, in order to be able to nip in the bud just such a plan? While the supervision and protection that Shimon and Levi require may be different from that needed by Dina, a daughter, with respect to both the boys AND the girls, it would appear that Yaakov’s children were pretty much allowed to do whatever they wanted, with regrettable results.
In addition to reflecting upon whether Yaakov’s children were being properly guided and supervised as they were growing up, another curious aspect of the story is why once the murderous deeds were done, Yaakov does not immediately reprove his offspring, as opposed to merely voicing concern about what sort of impression may have been made on the “neighbors”. Unfortunately, it would appear that avoiding confrontation with children acting badly, as well as demonstrating clear favoritism for some children over others, was a repeated aspect of Yaakov’s parenting. In 33:1-2, Yaakov clearly indicates which parts of his family he deems expendable, and which parts he hopes would be spared should Eisav prove to be violent. Nothing is said to Reuven, despite the Tora text in 35:22 attributing to Leah’s firstborn some sort of sexual impropriety. Yaakov seems to be indifferent to the effects upon the rest of his children when he gives Yosef a special coat in 37:3. It is true that in 37:10 the text states that Yaakov tells Yosef that the public account of his dream is disrespectful, not so much in terms of his brothers, but rather how Yosef’s parents are depicted. Yet if Yaakov is truly interested in Yosef discontinuing the type of behavior that serves to alienate him from his siblings, the Tora records no record of it. And Yaakov’s sending Yosef in 37:14 to check up on his brothers and report back to him, demonstrating that Yosef’s tale bearing reported in 37:2 may have also been at Yaakov’s behest, further demonstrates that the father is painfully insensitive to the dynamics existing within his family.
As far as Shimon and Levi’s specific actions regarding the people of Shechem, while there is no immediate rebuke offered, Yaakov appears to save his comments for his deathbed, practically four decades later! (14) Most commentators understand that when he says to Shimon and Levi in (49:5-7) that they deal in violent weapons, that in their anger they killed people, that as a consequence their anger should be cursed and that their descendents will be scattered among Israel, these are all references to what they did in Shechem. Midrash Halacha Sifrei on Devarim 1:3, accounting for why Moshe gives sharp rebuke to the Jewish people just prior to his death, states that he learned to do this from Yaakov’s example with regard to Reuven, (15) Shimon and Levi.
And this teaches that he (Moshe) did not rebuke them until close to his death. From whom did he learn this? From Yaakov who did not rebuke his sons until just before his death. He said to him, “Reuven, you are my firstborn. Let me tell you why I did not rebuke you over the course of all of these years. This was in order that you would not forsake me and join my brother Eisav.” And due to four considerations, one does not rebuke another until just before death: a) one shouldn’t rebuke another, and then keep on doing so over and over; b) in order for his friend not to see him receiving rebuke and he will be embarrassed before him; c) that he should not bear a grudge towards him (the rebuk-er); and d) that he should not leave him and go elsewhere.
Yet it is difficult for me to agree with the Sifre’s position on this matter. What possible good can rebuke do, and how likely is there for any constructive changes to take place when adolescents have long ago become adults and very possibly continued to repeat the same behaviors over the course of many, many years? While these advantages of being reticent with one’s rebuke may apply to disagreements that one has with other adults, how can a parent think that it is appropriate for him/her to withhold guidance and constructive criticism from his/her pre-adult children? Is a child responsible to learn “the hard way” by making mistakes without the benefit of advice and guidance on the part of those who are responsible for his care, basic needs and upbringing? Particularly when a child may have made a mistake, what sort of hope for correction and improvement are there if nothing is conveyed by those whom the child usually holds in the highest esteem? Paradoxically, if a parent withholds timely instruction and correction, this can serve to ultimately drive the child away in the sense that the parent will be embarrassed by the child and will feel alienated from him/her, should s/he continue to engage in anti-social or even criminal behavior. This certainly is the lesson that Shemot Rabba 1:1 derives from Avraham’s relationship with Yishmael:
…We find concerning Yishmael that his father had a particular fondness for him, and he therefore did not rebuke him, and he became involved in evil society, which led to Avraham’s hating him, and turning him out of their home penniless. What did he do? When Yishmael was 15, he began to bring home idols from the market and he would play with and worship them, as he saw others doing. Immediately (21:9) “And Sara saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian that she bore to Avraham ‘Mitzachek’ (PLAYING).” And the term “Mitzachek” is associated with idolatry as in Shemot 32:1 (concerning the Golden Calf), “…And they rose up ‘LeTzachek’”. (Beraishit 21:10) “And she said to Avraham, ‘Banish this handmaiden along with her son…’” lest my son (Yitzchak) learn from his (Yishmael’s) ways. (21:11) “And the matter was very bad in Avraham’s eyes concerning his son” that he had become involved in evil society. (16) …Immediately (21:14) “Avraham rose up early in the morning and he took bread and a skin filled with water…” to teach you that Avraham had come to hate Yishmael as a result of his becoming involved in evil society, and therefore sent him and his mother away with practically nothing (17) Could you imagine that Avraham, about whom the Tora states (13:2) “And Avraham was extremely wealthy in terms of herds, silver and gold” would have sent out from his home his wife and child without food and clothing? But this is to teach you that once he (Yishmael) became associated with evil society, Avraham no longer cared about him. And once he was banished, what became of him? He frequented crossroads and robbed travelers.
The clear message of the Midrash is that early rather than late or non-intervention is needed to prevent the adolescent child from sliding down the slippery slope into potential ever-more reprehensible behavior and situations.
The importance of parental input and guidance to adolescents in a more contemporary context was reflected in a
A particular manifestation of the trend towards less than ideal parental involvement in their adolescents’ lives, have unfortunately commanded our attention in recent days. An article appeared in The New York Times on the same day as the discussion of the Driver’s Ed, entitled, “The Gang’s All Here, and All Under Arrest at Party in New Jersey”. (19) It described the arrest of 42 day school students who were partying with drugs and alcohol in a home where the parents were away. One has to wonder what if anything has been said in these childrens’ homes about such behavior. Even if the owners of the home in which the party took place were away, were the parents of the other participants also not around? With regard to those that were home, did any of these parents bother to inquire where their children were going? When one’s child comes home inebriated or evidencing marijuana use, is anything said, is anything done? And lest we think that we ourselves are immune from such happenings, a party took place in Kemp Mill last Friday night which involved similar and worse behaviors on the parts of several juniors and seniors who are part of our community. While some, in light of happenings in other communities, may maintain that why should we expect to be any different from anyone else, I do not believe that we can let ourselves off the hook that easily. The shortcomings and problems experienced by other communities should not be reassuring. If we are not in a position to offer assistance to others struggling with these issues, we nevertheless have to strive to do our best to help our own. (Bava Metzia 71a)—“Aniyai Ircha Kodmin” (the poor of your own community take priority over the needs of others outside of it.) Once again, adolescents taking risks is to be expected. However, to assure that these risks do not prove destructive to the children themselves, to others with whom they come into contact, to their families to the institutions such as shuls, schools and camps with which they are associated, and the community in general, we must all take seriously our responsibility to these children to offer guidance, counsel, assistance, and even rebuke where necessary. We cannot assume the attitude that this is someone else’s problem—these are not someone else’s children or someone else’s institution’s responsibility. These are our children and we all have to care about their welfare and appropriate behavior. We all have to do what is necessary in order to assure that our children will reach adulthood as responsible, ethical, observant Jews who are a credit to themselves, their heritage, their families and their community. I urgently recommend that we begin a serious conversation regarding how we can jointly create contexts that will address this most important of challenges facing our community.
(1) See this year’s essay on Parshat Toldot http://www.kmsynagogue.org/Toldot1.html
for a discussion of the scope of Mitzvot that may have been fulfilled by the Avot (forefathers) beginning with Avraham.
(2) See http://www.mythweb.com/encyc/entries/sisyphus.html
(3) Alfred Lord Tennyson, “In Memoriam, 1850”, line 27, stanza 4. Samuel Butler (The Way of All Flesh, Chapter 77) puts a different emphasis upon the sentiment when he changes a key word: “It is better to have loved and lost than never to have LOST at all.”
(4) The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary, W.W. Norton, New York, 2004, p. 188, fn. 1.
(5) The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis, Free Press, New York, 2003, p. 479.
(6) Ibid., pp. 477-8, fn. 8.
(7) See http://www.kaiserfoundation.ca/uploads/ab021021art.pdf
(8) e.g., Machzor Vitri, #428 posits that Reuven, Shimon and Levi were conceived during the course of a two year period, each being born after only 7 month pregnancies. The time frame for the birth of almost all of Yaakov’s children—Binyamin was born during the return journey to Canaan (35:16-18)—is 7 years. This was the additional period that Yaakov had agreed to work for Lavan in order to be allowed to marry not only Leah, but also Rachel (29:27). Since it is after the birth of Yosef that Yaakov requests to leave (30:25), this marks the end of childbearing under the aegis of Lavan. Although Yaakov agrees to stay another 6 years in order to increase his herds—he tells Lavan that in toto he had worked for him for 20 years in 31:41—no additional children are born.
(9) See e.g., Midrash Sechel Tov Beraishit 34:35.
(10) If the oldest of the brothers were 13 at the time of the attack on Shechem, Dina would have had to be that much younger when she went out and was raped.
(11) This is obviously only for boys; the age for girls is 12.
(12) In order to encourage our adolescents to engage in serious and consistent Mitzva observance, it is incumbent that the adults in their lives lead the way and exemplify what such a lifestyle entails. Adolescents are highly sensitive to what they perceive as inconsistency and hypocrisy, and we must be vigilant that we do not supply them with reasons to adhere to less than the highest standards of Jewish traditional practice.
(13) In order to explain Yaakov’s claim to Yosef that he wishes to give him Shechem as a special inheritance because (48:22) “Lakachti MiYad HaEmori BeCharbi U’BeKashti” (I took it from the Emorites with my sword and my bow), the Rabbis assert—see e.g., RaShI—that there was a counterattack on the part of the neighboring nations following the destruction of Shechem, and that Yaakov held the attackers off all by himself. (Such a claim of miraculous fighting abilities on the part of a single well-known Biblical figure, is reminiscent of the Rabbinic contention that when Avraham fought against the kings in order to free Lot who had been kidnapped, his entire force consisted of himself, Eliezer and his three allies, Aner, Eshkol and Mamre. See RaShI on 14:14.)
(14) Yosef was 17 at the time of his abduction (37:2). He is 30 when he becomes second-in-command of Egypt (41:46). Yaakov and the rest of the family do not come to Egypt until 7 years of plenty and 2 years of famine have elapsed (41:53; 45:6). Yaakov lives in Egypt for 17 years (47:28). Therefore, if we assume that the destruction of Shechem took place relatively close to the selling of Yosef, approximately 39 years pass between the time that Shimon and Levi killed the males in Shechem and Yaakov’s deathbed rebuke to them.
(15) Reuven’s particular sin involved his interfering with his father’s intimate relations, once Rachel had died—see 35:22.
(16) The Midrash appears to be digressing from the simple meaning of the verses, i.e., Avraham loved Yishmael and was bothered by the prospects of having to send him away. The Midrash is claiming that Avraham himself was prepared to send Yishmael away once he observed him having become corrupted by the very idolatrous practices that Avraham had spent his entire life trying to battle against. While the point is well-taken, it is difficult to explain 21:12 wherein HaShem tells Avraham that he must listen to Sara’s suggestion. If Avraham himself wanted to banish Yishmael for his idolatry, why does God have to Ratify Sara’s instructions? The verse makes much more sense if Avraham really doesn’t wish to send Yishmael away and HaShem is insisting that Sara’s plan is the correct one to be followed in this situation.
(17) 21:15 illustrates that these meager supplies were used up very soon after Hagar and Yishmael’s departure, and had it not been for the intervention of HaShem, they would have perished in the desert.
(18) See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2825-2004Nov21.html
(19) See http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/22/nyregion/22pot.html