Parashat Vayishlach tells the story of the abduction and rape of Yaakov's daughter, Dina, at the hands of Shekhem, the prince of the city bearing his name. The Torah describes Dina's brothers' response to the news as follows: "The men were distressed and very angry, because he had committed an outrage in Israel by lying with Yaakov's daughter – and this is not to be done" (34:7).
Rashi interprets this verse to mean that the brothers were incensed for two reasons. First, Shekhem "committed an outrage in Israel by lying with Yaakov's daughter." The mistreatment of someone from the family of a person of Yaakov's stature was in itself an unforgivable crime. But additionally, "this is not to be done." Even regardless of Dina's family background, Shekhem's act was reprehensible. Rashi comments, based on the Midrash, "This is not to be done – to rape single girls, for the nations forbade sexual immorality upon themselves as a result of the deluge." Knowing that the flood descended upon the earth (at least in part) due to sexual indulgence, the nations adopted sexual norms which mankind generally observed, until Shekhem violated these accepted guidelines of conduct.
Commenting on Rashi, the Beit Ha-levi writes that the brothers suspected that Shekhem would justify his crime with the claim that he was unaware of Dina's prestigious family background. Therefore, the basic reason for their anger – "for he had committed an outrage in Israel" – was not sufficient grounds for their vindictive attack on the city of Shekhem that they will later launch. The Torah therefore makes the second point, as well, that "this is not to be done" – regardless of the victim's identity.
The Ramban, however, disagrees with the entire premise of this Midrash, that the nations adopted respectable standards of sexual morality after the flood. To the contrary, the Ramban writes, after the Torah issues the various prohibitions against immorality in Sefer Vayikra, it adds, "for it is by such that the nations that I am casting out before you defiled themselves" (Vayikra 18:24). The Torah thus attributes to the Canaanite peoples all the sexual offenses listed in that chapter in Sefer Vayikra, including adultery, incest and bestiality, and it is in response to these offenses that "the land spewed out its inhabitants" (ibid., verse 25). How, then, can Rashi claim that the nations maintained proper moral standards? Secondly, the Ramban adds, earlier in Sefer Bereishit we read of the experiences of Avraham and Yitzchak in the Canaanite city of Gerar, where the people would have killed them to take their wives, compelling them to pose as their wives' brothers, rather than husbands. Is this, asks the Ramban, the policy of a society that had taken upon itself respectable guidelines concerning sexual conduct?
The Ramban therefore explains the verse differently, claiming that "this is not to be done" continues the previous clause – "for he had committed an outrage in Israel… " It is the infringement upon the honor of Yaakov that the brothers deemed "not to be done."
Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi, in his work on Rashi's commentary, raises a difficulty against the Ramban's second argument. To the contrary, Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi contends, the incidents of Sara and Rivka actually prove Rashi's theory. So compliant were the Canaanites with the prohibition against adultery that they would kill a man whose wife they desired rather than simply take her by force. Needless to say, this reflects a sorrowful lack of respect for human life, let alone human dignity, but it does demonstrate their strict adherence to proper guidelines of sexual conduct. How, then, did the Ramban point to these incidents as proofs to his contention, that the Canaanite peoples never adopted any rules governing sexual morality?
Perhaps the simplest explanation of the Ramban is that adultery – relations with a married woman – is not the issue at hand. Shekhem did not seize a married woman, and therefore when Rashi speaks of his having violated accepted norms, he undoubtedly refers to the accepted norms concerning relations with unmarried girls. Indeed, Rabbenu Ovadya Bartenura, in his commentary to this verse, notes that the Midrash employs the phrase, "gidru atzman," literally, "they fenced themselves off." Generally, the verb "g.d.r." refers to an additional measure of stringency enacted so as to avoid a given violation. Rabbenu Ovadya Bartenura thus explains that according to this Midrash, the nations took it upon themselves to refrain from all non-marital relations, including with unmarried women (which is technically permitted for gentiles), so as to avoid transgressing the violation of adultery. Accordingly, the Ramban's proof is indeed convincing. The experiences of Avraham and Yitzchak in Gerar indeed prove that the nations were hardly exemplary models of morality when it came to relations with unmarried women. Though they indeed refrained from seizing married women, they were prepared to kill a husband so that they could take his wife, who would then be unattached.
How would Rashi respond to this challenge, as well as to the evidence brought by the Ramban from Sefer Vayikra, that the Canaanites were, indeed, sexually corrupt?
Rav Chaim Hirschensohn, in his Nimukei Rashi(Hoboken, NJ, 1929), explains that Rashi refers only to accepted and legislated standards, not necessarily to universally practiced guidelines. After the deluge, societies understood the value of sexual morality and enacted appropriate measures to encourage the observance of these standards. In practice, however, the Canaanites remained corrupt and indulgent. In fact, he adds, this is precisely why, as the Torah tells in Sefer Vayikra, their corruption resulted in their banishment from the land. If they were unaware of the value of a sexually disciplined life, then God would not have punished them for their corrupt practices. Specifically becasocieties had established certain guidelines, God punished the Canaanites for their widespread violation of and disregard towards these standards.