Parshas Vayechi
1. On the words "כי באפם הרגו איש" ("For in their anger they killed a man"),1 Rashi explains: "אלו חמור ואנשי שכם, ואינן חשובין כולם אלא כאיש אחד כו'" ("These are Chamor and the people of Shechem, and all of them are considered only as one man, etc.").
This is not understood:
a) Why does Rashi not mention Shechem? On the contrary, he is the one who brought about the entire affair.
b) From Rashi's wording, "These are Chamor and the people of Shechem,"2 it is implied that had he not given this explanation, one would not have known on one's own (or one would have learned a different explanation) whom "(they killed) a man" means — and that is why Rashi must spell out: these are "Chamor and the people of Shechem."
But seemingly, we do not find the Torah relating anywhere that3 Shimon and Levi ever killed anyone other than "the people of Shechem" — and so one would seemingly have understood on one's own, even without Rashi's explanation, that with "(For in their anger) they killed a man" the Torah means the people of Shechem.4 What, then, does Rashi accomplish by saying "These are Chamor and the people of Shechem"?
c) It is self-evident that the category of "the people of Shechem" already includes "Chamor" as well — so why does Rashi take him out of the category and mention him separately?
One cannot say that Rashi does so because the pasuk too, in relating how Shimon and Levi killed all the people of Shechem ("and they killed every male"),5 mentions him separately: "And Chamor and Shechem his son they killed by the sword"6 — for if that were the reason, the first question would become all the stronger: Rashi should also mention "Shechem"!
d) Already earlier,7 on the wording of the pasuk "ויהי לי שור וחמור" ("And I have an ox and a donkey"), Rashi says: "It is customary to say of many oxen 'ox.'" It is understood that with a similar explanation one could seemingly say in our pasuk too: that the word "man" indeed means the many men of Shechem, and they are stated in the singular because it is "on account of the species."8 Accordingly it is difficult: from where does Rashi derive this novelty — that "all of them are considered only as one man"?9
e) For his explanation, "These are Chamor and the people of Shechem, and they are not, etc., only as one man," it would have been enough for Rashi to quote from the pasuk only the word "man," or at most "they killed a man." Why does he also cite the words "For in their anger"?10
2. Rashi then continues his explanation: "And so it says regarding Gidon,11 'והכית את מדין כאיש אחד' ('And you shall strike Midian as one man'), and so regarding Mitzrayim,12 'סוס ורוכבו רמה בים' ('Horse and its rider He cast into the sea')."
What Rashi means to say with these two proofs, and why he puts the proof from a pasuk in Nevi'im ("And you shall strike, etc., as one man") before the pasuk in Chumash ("Horse and its rider He cast into the sea"), is understood simply:
With human beings — even great warriors — whose strength is limited, there must13 seemingly be a difference between the might they expend when fighting against many, and all the more against an entire city, and the might they use against only one person.14 Therefore, when Rashi introduces the novelty "and all of them are considered only as one man," meaning that for Shimon and Levi (the killing of) all of Shechem amounted to nothing more than (doing so to) one person15
(that is, the comparison of all of Shechem to "one man" means the same as the measure of (Shimon and Levi themselves) killing one person; and not that all of Shechem, relative to Shimon and Levi, amounted to what "one man" is relative to ordinary people, weaker than Shimon and Levi, while for Shimon and Levi "one man" was easier and different from all of Shechem — because16 the wording of the pasuk, "they killed a man," implies that they killed here [everyone as] one person),
he must first of all bring a proof that such might can exist at all among human beings:17 "And so it says regarding Gidon, 'And you shall strike Midian as one man,'" for with Gidon too18 we find that all of Midian amounted, for him, to one person.
And after Rashi brings a proof for the matter itself — that such a case of "all of them are considered only as one man" is found — only then is a proof needed for the wording of the verse: that many are called in the singular if they amount to this, from "Horse and its rider He cast into the sea," in the singular, because19 all the horses and riders of Mitzrayim "are considered" only as one horse and its rider.20
But one must understand:
a) Why does Rashi bring the second proof from "Horse and its rider He cast into the sea," and not from the earlier pasuk, "And all of Pharaoh's horse came after them,"21 where Rashi himself gives this same explanation: "Was it only one horse? Rather, it tells us that all of them are considered before the Omnipresent only as one horse"?22
b) Why does Rashi emphasize "and so regarding Mitzrayim, etc."? What difference does it make, for the proof Rashi brings from "Horse and its rider, etc.," whether the pasuk speaks about Mitzrayim23 or about anyone else?
c) This proof (that many who are considered as one are called in the singular) is seemingly only from the words "Horse and its rider." Why does Rashi also cite the words "He cast into the sea"?
3. After Rashi finishes the explanation "and they are not considered, etc.," he adds: "זהו מדרשו ופשוטו כו'" ("This is its Midrash, and its plain meaning, etc.") — that the above explanation (that "man" is stated in the singular because "all of them are considered only as one man") is "its Midrash," but according to its plain meaning there is a different reason for this (as below, section 4).
This is not understood: why does Rashi here put "its Midrash" before "its plain meaning," when the main thrust of his commentary on the Torah is "פשוטו של מקרא" ("the plain meaning of Scripture")?24
4. The reason according to the plain meaning, why "man" is stated here in the singular, Rashi gives next: "אנשים הרבה קורא איש, כל אחד לעצמו באפם הרגו כל איש שכעסו עליו" ("Many men it calls 'man': each one by himself, in their anger they killed every man at whom they were angry"). "And so, 'וילמד לטרף טרף אדם אכל' ('And it learned to tear prey; it devoured man')."25
The meaning of this explanation ("its plain meaning") is that the "many men" are called "man" in the pasuk, in the singular, because this refers (not to all of them together, but) to "each one by himself," to every individual among them separately. And the reason the pasuk speaks of "each one by himself" and does not include everyone together (which is why it says "man" and not "men") is in order to convey that "in their anger they killed every man at whom they were angry": it was not, as is usual, that their wrath was vented on killing the main part, the majority, of the people of Shechem, while they killed the remaining people without any anger at them (it coming only as a continuation of the majority); rather, "in their anger" applies to each one separately: each one, even the last, "in their anger they killed."
And for this Rashi gives an example from "And it learned to tear prey; it devoured man," where the word "man" (singular) in that pasuk also comes because with each and every man that the lion devours there is a separate "act."
One must understand:
a) It is seemingly a simple matter that "in their anger" applies to every man of the people of Shechem — for otherwise they would not have killed just anyone at whom they were not angry. So why does the pasuk need to make this clear by saying "man" in the singular?
b) As a proof for Rashi's explanation ("Many men it calls 'man': each one by himself, etc."), the words "it devoured man" alone would seemingly have been enough. Why does he also quote the words "And it learned to tear prey"?
5. The explanation of all the above is:
On the pasuk26 "כי נבלה עשה בישראל גו' וכן לא יעשה" ("For he had committed a vile act in Israel, etc., and such is not done") (concerning the incident of Shechem), Rashi says: "That the nations had fenced themselves off from forbidden relations, etc." From this it is understood that the peoples ("the inhabitant of the land"27) could have no claim against Shimon and Levi for having killed Shechem, since he had transgressed what "the nations had fenced themselves off" from.28 And what Yaakov argued to Shimon and Levi, "You have troubled me, making me odious to the inhabitant of the land, etc.," was over "and they killed every male, and Chamor."
[And although they too were liable to death29 — for otherwise Shimon and Levi would surely not have killed them (especially since all were then commanded against bloodshed30) — nonetheless it is understood that regarding them, Chamor and the people of Shechem, there was still room for "the inhabitant of the land" to have a claim and demand.]
From this it will also be understood regarding our pasuk, "For in their anger they killed a man," that with it Yaakov our father did not reproach them for having killed Shechem, because (a) he could have no claim against them over this, as above; and (b) their killing Shechem was not a result of "their anger," but because of an absolute liability.
With this, what Rashi accomplishes by his explanation "These are Chamor and the people of Shechem" is understood: by mentioning Chamor separately, although he is one of the people of Shechem, and yet omitting Shechem, he makes it clear that "(in their anger they killed) a man" means only Chamor and the people of Shechem and not Shechem himself (which would not have been known had Rashi said nothing about this, or had he said simply "These are the people of Shechem").
6. But according to this, it may still be difficult why "man" is stated in the singular: had one learned that "in their anger they killed a man" means all the people they killed then (including Shechem son of Chamor), one could then have said that the wording "man" (singular) is said "on account of the species" — the entire species of "man" in Shechem "they killed in their anger." But since not the entire species of "man" there perished on account of "their anger," one can no longer accept that the wording "man" comes on account of the species.
From this Rashi derives the reason and novelty: "and all of them are considered only as one man" — that the singular "man" is stated here because all the people whom Shimon and Levi killed "in their anger" amounted, for them, to only "as one man."
7. But on this one can ask: Yaakov, with his words "For in their anger they killed a man," was not out to bring out the virtue of Shimon and Levi, but on the contrary, to rebuke them. How, then, does it fit that with the wording of words of rebuke he should mean the praise that "all of them are considered only as one man"?31
Rashi himself answers this by continuing, "And so regarding Mitzrayim, 'Horse and its rider He cast into the sea'": regarding "the L‑rd is fighting for them against Mitzrayim"32 (which was before "and the sea returned, etc., to its strength"33), since at that time G‑d conducted Himself, as it were, after the pattern of a (person's) battle (not like "and the L‑rd struck every firstborn"34 and the like), there is room for an initial thought that here there may be some difference between battle with many and battle with one — and so the pasuk12 "tells us that all of them are considered before the Omnipresent only as one horse."
It is different, however, in the case of "Horse and its rider He cast into the sea,"12 which came about through "and the L‑rd brought back upon them the waters of the sea"35 (when the Egyptians had already entered the sea). There, from the outset, there is no room at all to distinguish between many and one: it is obvious that through "and the sea returned to its strength" all of them, exactly as if it were one, were "cast in," swallowed up in the sea. It follows that in all the horses and riders amounting to only one horse and rider there is no novelty or special point36 — and nevertheless the pasuk puts them in the singular, solely because in actuality they are (considered as) one, and of "one" the singular must be used.
And since this is so, it is understood that in our pasuk too, "they killed a man" must be stated in the singular because in actuality all were considered only as one man — without meaning thereby any accomplishment (and virtue — of Shimon and Levi) in Yaakov's words of rebuke.
That is why Rashi also cites the words "He cast into the sea" and is not satisfied with only "Horse and its rider" — because from "He cast into the sea" comes, as above, the proof that many who are considered as one are called in the singular even when this has no bearing as an emphasis or special point within the content of the matter.
8. Another reason why Rashi cites the words "He cast into the sea":
Seemingly one could say that since the king is the main one, and the one who determines the course of the battle, the pasuk therefore says "Horse and its rider" in the singular, meaning thereby only Pharaoh, king of Mitzrayim.
That is why Rashi also quotes the words "He cast into the sea": there is no relevance here to singling out the king, since here the discussion is no longer about the course of the battle (as above, section 7), but about the detail of "He cast into the sea," which was: a) not in the manner of battle, but through "and the L‑rd brought back upon them the waters of the sea" — in which the king is equal to everyone; b) after the defeat of "the L‑rd is fighting for you."
Accordingly it is also understood why Rashi says "And so regarding Mitzrayim, 'Horse and its rider He cast into the sea'" — to emphasize that the pasuk "Horse and its rider" (singular) speaks about all of Mitzrayim and not only about Pharaoh.
9. As discussed earlier (section 2), by nature it is impossible to say that an entire city of people should be "considered" only as one man. So the "five-year-old (at Scripture)" argues: True, one can understand how the thing itself is possible, that Chamor and the people of Shechem were as one man for Shimon and Levi, because they did this not with their natural strength but "with the strength of the elder," and it was indeed in a manner beyond nature37 — but in order to read such an accomplishment into the plain meaning, a source is needed, an implication in the Torah, that this is how it was; and the fact alone that the pasuk has "man" in the singular is not sufficient basis for establishing this novelty.
Therefore Rashi says "This is its Midrash": this explanation is not entirely in the way of the plain meaning, but is taken from "Midrash Aggadah."38
But the "five-year-old at Scripture" again demands: the pasuk surely reads smoothly so that it has an explanation according to the way of the plain meaning as well? To this Rashi answers by continuing: "and its plain meaning, etc." — that according to the plain meaning too there is an explanation of why it says "man" in the singular: because the word "man" means "each one (of all the people of Shechem) by himself"; that each person separately "in their anger they killed," with the same wrath. That is, so intense was their indignation at "he had committed a vile act in Israel"26 that even after killing most of the people of Shechem their "anger" was not stilled at all, and the full wrath, with the same intensity, persisted until the last person of the people of Shechem.
And for this Rashi brings an example from "And it learned to tear prey; it devoured man": when it is simply an isolated case of a hungry animal devouring a person and stilling its hunger, there is no necessity that the second time it tears a person it should have the same ferocity. But when "it learned to tear prey," when it is "trained," accustomed to devouring people, then it tears every person (separately) in the same way.
10. But this explanation too is very difficult, because:
a) It does not sit with reason to say that the sons of Yaakov — "who were all righteous"39 — should be ruled by such intense anger (even if the anger came from holiness, because "he had committed a vile act in Israel") that it did not let go of them until the killing of the last man of Shechem.
b) The word "man" also means Chamor, just like every other one of the people of Shechem (as above, section 5) — and since "in their anger they killed every man at whom they were angry" (everyone with the same anger), it would follow that the killing of Chamor was with no greater anger than that of all the other people of Shechem.
But simple reason compels us to accept that their anger at Chamor, the father of Shechem, because of his greater guilt in the affair, must have been much stronger than at the other people of Shechem. And from the fact that the pasuk in Parshas Vayishlach40 details separately "and Chamor, etc., they killed" (after saying "and they killed every male"), it is also proven that in the killing of Chamor, "they killed" had a different character.40
Because of these difficulties Rashi is not satisfied with the explanation of "its plain meaning" and must come to the explanation of "its Midrash": that "man" is stated in the singular because "they are considered, all of them, only as one man."
Moreover: since according to "its plain meaning" — "in their anger they killed every man at whom they were angry" — the difficulties are in the plain meaning itself, as above, whereas according to the explanation "they are considered, etc.," what remains difficult (mainly) is only that it is "its Midrash," that the plain meaning of the verses has no open implication that all the people of Shechem were as one man — Rashi therefore puts first, and as the main one, the explanation of "its Midrash."41
11. It has already been discussed several times42 that where Rashi brings two explanations and both have difficulties of the same type, he then also brings a third explanation, in which the questions on the two previous ones do not exist — even though, on the other hand, it is much more difficult than they are in another respect.
And regarding our matter: since the difficulty in the two explanations is of the same type — that the species of "they killed a man" (singular), both according to the explanation "and all of them are considered only as one man" and according to the explanation "each one by himself, in their anger they killed," does not accord with what reason and sense require —
there would seemingly have been room to read into "in their anger they killed a man" a third explanation:43 that there was a case in which Shimon and Levi killed an ordinary person, as in the craft of Esav44 — which "you have stolen from him" (as Rashi explains in the preceding pasuk) — although this is related nowhere, and for this Yaakov rebuked them.
And although it is not smooth to say that the Torah should relate that Yaakov rebuked them over a deed when the Torah nowhere mentions that it happened, this explanation nevertheless has the virtue that only according to it does the word "man" in the singular read smoothly.
Especially since we find something similar (and with the same wording) regarding Lemech, who said "כי איש הרגתי" ("For I have killed a man"),45 and the (Written) Torah does not mention the occurrence.
And the reason why Rashi rejects this explanation completely — to the point of not bringing it even as a third explanation — he indicates by quoting before his explanation also the word "For (in their anger they killed a man)," which seems superfluous:
The wording "For in their anger they killed a man" makes it clear that "in their anger they killed a man" (is not the beginning of a new matter, but) comes in continuity and with "For" — as a reason for "Into their counsel let my soul not come, in their assembly let my honor not be united."
And since this is so, one can no longer learn that "in their anger they killed a man" means a different matter (that they simply killed one person), because then the question would arise:46 how is it that as the reason for "Into their counsel let my soul not come, etc.," Yaakov mentioned (only) the case of their killing one person, without mentioning the far harsher case of their killing an entire city — Shechem?47
And from the fact that the Torah uses the wording "For in their anger they killed a man," Rashi establishes that "these are Chamor and the people of Shechem."48
12. From the fact that the wording of the verse leaves room for an initial thought49 — and even an initial thought in the Torah is Torah, a word related to "horaah" (instruction) — that Shimon and Levi once killed another person, one can derive from this an instruction for everyone:
When someone causes harm to another, G‑d forbid, even when this comes in him from feelings of holiness (that he was stirred up because of a reason like "Shall he treat our sister like a harlot?"), the trait of causing harm can thereby develop in him,50 until there can be a thought and a concern that he might do the same to more and more people.51
And the measure of good is greater, etc.: when someone does good to a person, even when at first he does so (outwardly52) with ulterior motives, the trait of goodness in his soul becomes thereby ever more deeply engraved and acquired in him, until he bestows only good upon everyone.
And with the measure with which a person measures, he is measured:53 upon him too is bestowed from Above only goodness and kindness, in all that he needs, in children, life and sustenance, and in all of them — in abundance.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Vayechi and Va'eira 5727)
Notes
1) Our parsha, 49:6.
2) Especially since in his comment on "and by their will they uprooted an ox" (in this very pasuk) he does not write "this is Yosef." Note also that in his comment on "into their counsel let my soul not come" he writes "this is the incident of Zimri, etc.," unlike his comment on "in their assembly." This is not the place to elaborate.
3) See below, section 11 and note 47.
4) One cannot say that since the people of Shechem are many, Rashi must therefore introduce that "(they killed) a man" (singular) refers to the people of Shechem — for [besides the fact that Rashi already explained before this, "It is customary to say of many oxen 'ox'"* — see below, question 4]: (a) Since we find nowhere that Shimon and Levi killed anyone besides the people of Shechem, it is seemingly obvious (even without Rashi's explanation) that "they killed a man" refers to the people of Shechem. If so, what Rashi needs to explain is only the reason "man" is stated in the singular. (b) Even if we were to say (with difficulty) that also because of the above question — why it says "(they killed) a man" (singular) — we would still not know (were it not for Rashi's explanation) that it refers to the people of Shechem, it is obvious that Rashi's later explanation that "ox" refers to Yosef** is a greater novelty than the explanation that "they killed a man" means "Chamor and the people of Shechem"*** [especially since the verse "the firstborn of his ox, glory is his" (Berachah 33:17), said about Yosef, has not yet been learned by the student], and nevertheless Rashi writes simply "They wanted to uproot Yosef, etc." — without prefacing it with "This is Yosef, etc."
*) See the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Vayishlach 5731 (Likkutei Sichos vol. 25, p. 179), that for this reason Rashi does not explain "and he built himself a house" (Vayishlach 33:17); "and he pitched his tent there" (ibid., 19) — although it is obvious that he built several houses and pitched several tents — because he relies on his earlier comment (32:6).
**) Also: according to this explanation, Rashi must (strain to) explain "and by their will they uprooted" as "they wanted to uproot," and not that they actually uprooted. (In the Rosh and Sifsei Chachamim here: because their thought was to uproot him, they are called uprooters. And although it is only regarding the nations of the world that "the Holy One, blessed be He, counts a thought for them as a deed" (Rashi, Savo 26:5) — see Sifsei Chachamim and Maskil LeDovid (in his second explanation) for how they resolved this. But (besides the fact that their answers are not mentioned in Rashi at all, even by hint) from the plain wording of Rashi, "they wanted to uproot," it is proven as above (and as the first answer in Maskil LeDovid).)
***) Note that similarly the commentators on the Torah (of the plain-meaning school), and likewise Targum Onkelos, explain "and by their will they uprooted an ox" differently from Rashi (and only Targum Yonasan — which is not close to the plain meaning — explains as Rashi does), unlike "they killed a man."
5) Vayishlach 34:25.
6) Ibid., 26.
7) Ibid., 32:6.
8) As Ibn Ezra explains. And he brings a proof: like "ox and donkey." See also Radak here.
9) See below, section 2.
10) That he quotes "in their anger" can be explained as relevant to his second explanation, "each one by himself, in their anger they killed." But it is still difficult why he also quotes the word "For."
11) Shoftim 6:16.
12) Beshalach 15:1.
13) Compare Tanya, ch. 48 (67b); Likkutei Torah, Shir HaShirim 38c; and elsewhere.
14) And so too in our case (the people of Shechem). For although they were in pain, nevertheless the strength of one (person in pain) cannot be compared to the strength of many people in pain.
15) Accordingly, Rashi's wording is all the more appropriate: "and all of them are not considered, etc." — and not "and all of them are not considered in their eyes, etc.," as is his wording in Parshas Mikeitz (44:13) — for "like a medium-sized city, etc.," in Mikeitz there concerns other people, and so he notes that the importance of a metropolis in their eyes is like a medium-sized city for other people. Whereas in this pasuk, "as one man" too is in their eyes.
16) Also: since they were "in pain," it is no great novelty that many people in pain (and especially the pain of the third day after circumcision — see Rashi at the beginning of Parshas Vayeira) are as one man even relative to other people, and especially relative to the tribes — see Rashi, Mikeitz there.
17) And although "they were confident in the strength of the elder" (Rashi, Vayishlach 34:25)* — this is only an empowerment, but the actual battle was carried out by Shimon and Levi [especially since, although they were confident, they nevertheless came upon the city specifically when they were in pain (see above, p. 152, note 21)].
*) See the next note, that the explanation "and they are not considered, etc., as one man" accords with the explanation "they were confident, etc.," in Rashi, Vayishlach there.
18) Accordingly, one can understand Rashi's wording "(And so it says) regarding Gidon, etc.," which is seemingly superfluous: it emphasizes that although "and you shall strike, etc., as one man" is because "I will be with you," nevertheless Gidon struck Midian, and even so struck them all as one man — and so one can say it was likewise with Shimon and Levi.
And although, in the end, Gidon's striking Midian as one man is because of "I will be with you" during the battle, one can say (as below, section 9) that this explanation in Rashi here, which is "its Midrash," accords with the explanation of "Midrash Aggadah" that "they were confident in the strength of the elder" (in Rashi, Vayishlach there); but according to the first explanation in Rashi there, one must explain according to the second explanation in Rashi here.*
*) And the reason he puts first here the explanation "and they are not considered, etc." — although it accords with the second explanation in Parshas Vayishlach there — is that regarding this pasuk with which we are dealing, the explanation "and they are not considered, etc.," is closer to the plain meaning of Scripture, as below, section 10.
19) It is a strain to say that this is on account of the species — for "rider" (unlike "chariot") is not a "species." Note what is written (Beshalach 14:23, 15:19), "his horsemen," in the plural — although "horse" and also "his chariot" are stated in these very verses in the singular.
One can say that this too is the reason of Onkelos, who renders "horse and its rider" as "susya verichvei" — although in several places (for example, Beshalach 14:9; ibid., 23; 15:19) where "horse" (singular) is stated he renders "susvasa," and elsewhere "suson" (Shoftim 5:22). This is not the place to elaborate.
20) Accordingly, it is all the more appropriate that Rashi repeats "And so (it says), etc.," and the like (unlike above, 49:3, and elsewhere — but see Rashi, Beshalach 14:17, and elsewhere) — for the two proofs are for two different matters.
21) Beshalach 14:23.
22) The commentators on Rashi there asked why Rashi does not explain that "horse" (singular) is on account of the species. But one cannot say that since it is possible to explain it there as they do, Rashi therefore does not bring it as a proof here — for from Rashi asking there simply, "Was it only one horse?" one must say that it is obvious (even to a "five-year-old") that it cannot be explained there as being on account of the species. See Sifsei Chachamim and Maskil LeDovid there. This is not the place to elaborate.
23) With difficulty one can say that since before this he must specify "regarding Gidon" (as above in the text and in note 18), he specifies here too. See also Rashi above, 48:2.
24) Especially according to what is explained in note 18, that the explanation "and they are not considered, etc.," accords with the second explanation in Rashi, Vayishlach.
25) Yechezkel 19:3.
26) Vayishlach 34:7.
27) Ibid., 30.
28) See Rashi, Vayishlach 34:7. Above, p. 90.
29) See above, ibid., note 41. See also above, p. 150, and the sources noted there.
30) Noach 9:6. Sanhedrin 57b.
31) See above, p. 152, note 20. But that explanation is not in the way of the plain meaning.
32) Beshalach 14:25.
33) Ibid., 27.
34) Bo 12:29.
35) Ibid., 15:19.
36) The novelty there in "Horse and its rider, etc.," is that both were "tied to each other, etc.," as Rashi explains there.
37) In Bereishis Rabbah 99:7: that all of them were before the Holy One, blessed be He, only as one man. Seemingly, from Rashi's omitting the words "before the Holy One, blessed be He," it is implied that he means that all of them were considered as one man relative to Shimon and Levi themselves, because of their own might [And although Rashi's source according to this is a "Midrash," one can say: (a) By "Midrash" Rashi means Midrash Tanchuma on our parsha, section 10, and he understands "before the Holy One, blessed be He" and "before them" (in the Tanchuma) as two different matters (and the explanation above, there (p. 151), note 14, is not according to Rashi). (b) Rashi's source is another Midrash].
But since by nature it is impossible for all the people of Shechem to be considered as one man (as above, section 2), one must say as in the text.
Nevertheless, Rashi omits the words "before the Holy One, blessed be He," because in its plain sense this wording applies only when the one fighting is the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself* (as in Rashi, Beshalach (14:23) — where (v. 25) it says "for the L‑rd is fighting for them"), unlike our case, in which they were only confident in [the Holy One, blessed be He, who came in his merit —] the strength of the elder.
*) Or at least by the command and mission of the Holy One, blessed be He (see Rashi, Shoftim 20:1, and above, p. 151, note 15), unlike Shimon and Levi, who, although they did this out of zealotry for G‑d, did it on their own.
38) Which settles the words of Scripture, each word in its proper setting (Rashi, Bereishis 3:8).
39) Rashi, Vayishlach 35:22.
40) One can say that for this reason too the verse counts the killing of Chamor together with the killing of Shechem his son.
41) See similarly above, p. 43, note 39.
42) See above, p. 41.
43) Moreover: as to what the word "man" means, Rashi's two explanations are one (for they are two reasons why Chamor and the people of Shechem are called here "man," in the singular), and the explanation given below in the text is a second explanation. This is not the place to elaborate. Since the first explanation (by both reasons) is not smooth, Rashi should have brought a second explanation (the one given below).
44) Toldos 27:40. (Ibid., 25:25.)
45) Bereishis 4:23 and Rashi there.
46) But one cannot say that Rashi's proof (which he hints at with the word "For") is from what is stated before this, "Shimon and Levi are brothers" (and Rashi there), "with one counsel regarding Shechem, etc." — for "brothers — with one counsel" can also be explained as referring to the killing of another man. And Rashi's explaining there "regarding Shechem, etc.," is based on his explanation of "For in their anger they killed a man."
47) Above, p. 152, note 22: that after they answered him "Shall he treat our sister like a harlot?" Yaakov conceded to them. According to this, one could seemingly say that this is why he did not rebuke them for it. But:
a) According to this, even if we say that "they killed a man" refers to the killing of another man, it is obvious that if they killed someone, this too was out of a matter of zealotry for G‑d and the like — so why would Yaakov rebuke them for this more than for killing the people of Shechem?
b) Since Yaakov knew from the outset that Shimon and Levi's killing every male among the people of Shechem was because of the incident of Dinah, and nevertheless said to them "You have troubled me, etc.," it is difficult to say, by way of the plain meaning, that after hearing the response "Shall he, etc.," he conceded to them that they had done something desirable.
48) Seemingly one could say that this is also the reason for the precise wording of Rashi, "These are Chamor and the people of Shechem" — as a novelty. But this is a strain, for in "and by their will they uprooted an ox" too — since the student has not yet learned the verse "the firstborn of his ox, glory is his," he could err and explain that Shimon and Levi once uprooted an ox (or as the other commentators explain), and nevertheless he does not write "This is Yosef." Therefore it is reasonable that the novelty of "These are Chamor, etc.," is as above, section 5.
49) Especially according to the explanation of the Ohr HaChaim, who explains "man" as referring to Yosef.
50) See similarly in the "Haggadah shel Pesach with Likkutei Taamim uMinhagim" (p. 11), that one can say that this is why it is not the custom to snatch the afikoman. See there.
51) See Ohr HaChaim, Parshas Re'eh 13:18.
52) Unlike the inner core of his soul — as understood from the ruling of the Rambam, Hilchos Gerushin, end of ch. 2.
53) Mishnah, Sotah 8b.
Key Lesson
A trait grows with use: even harm done out of holy zeal can develop into a habit of harming others, while good done at first with ulterior motives becomes engraved in a person until he bestows only good on everyone. And since a person is measured with the measure he uses, one who cultivates goodness receives from Above only goodness and kindness, in children, life and sustenance, in abundance.