Did Dinah Marry Shimon or Iyov? Or Both?

After Dinah was raped, she married someone, according to Midrash. One explanation is that it was Shimon who married her. The evidence for this is that in Vayishlach, we have:

כו וְאֶת-חֲמוֹר וְאֶת-שְׁכֶם בְּנוֹ, הָרְגוּ לְפִי-חָרֶב; וַיִּקְחוּ אֶת-דִּינָה מִבֵּית שְׁכֶם, וַיֵּצֵאוּ.

26 And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went forth.

and Vayikchu can be interpreted to mean marry, such that only after the Vayikchu was there vayeitzeiu.

And which of the two brothers? Well, we have one of Shimon's children, named Shaul ben haKenaanit, and Dinah will be interpreted as HaKenaanite, for reasons they will elaborate upon.

Thus, midrash Rabba:

ויקחו את דינה
ר' יודן אמר: גוררין בה ויוצאין.

אמר רבי הונא: הנבעלת לערל קשה לפרוש.
אמר רבי הונא: אמרה: ואני אנה הוליך את חרפתי?
עד שנשבע לה שמעון, שהוא נוטלה, הה"ד (שם מז): ושאול בן הכנענית, בן דינה שנבעלה לכנעני.

ר' יהודה ור' נחמיה ורבנן, ר' יהודה אמר: שעשה כמעשה כנענים.
ר' נחמיה אמר: שנבעלה מחוי, שהוא בכלל כנענים.
ורבנן אמרין: נטלה שמעון וקברה בארץ כנען:

Such that the designation may go to the act defining the actor (Shechem), or to the actor (Shechem), or to where she was eventually buried.

There seem to be two themes at play here, each connected to Rabbi Huna. One is that Dinah was impacted by this rape, in such a way that she did not want to leave. As he states הנבעלת לערל קשה לפרוש, such that as Rabbi Yudan said, they had to גוררין בה ויוצאין. Thus, the vayikchu means against her will, that she did not want to leave. And Rabbi Huna partially endorses this interpretation will his explanation.

The other theme is Dinah as victim. She says "where will I carry my shame?" For she was shamed by the act, and did not know what to do. This is a further reason, perhaps, for her initial refusal to go, and is something entirely different from an emotional connection to her rapist. The quote is not found in the Biblical text of Bereishit, but is found in the Biblical text of Shmuel, where Tamar is raped. Tamar says, before the rape, to her brother Amnon:

יג וַאֲנִי, אָנָה אוֹלִיךְ אֶת-חֶרְפָּתִי, וְאַתָּה תִּהְיֶה כְּאַחַד הַנְּבָלִים, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל; וְעַתָּה דַּבֶּר-נָא אֶל-הַמֶּלֶךְ, כִּי לֹא יִמְנָעֵנִי מִמֶּךָּ.

13 And I, whither shall I carry my shame? and as for thee, thou wilt be as one of the base men in Israel. Now therefore, I pray thee, speak unto the king; for he will not withhold me from thee.'

Such that by saying this she is suggesting marriage. I would further note that Amnon was brother to Tamar (though only from the father's side), and Shimon was brother to Dinah.

(I hope that וַאֲנִי אָנָה אוֹלִיךְ אֶת-חֶרְפָּתִי attributed to Dinah was not a play on words associated with הנבעלת לערל קשה לפרוש. What gives me some pause is that they are by the same Amora, and that earlier in the parsha the shevatim said

יד וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֲלֵיהֶם, לֹא נוּכַל לַעֲשׂוֹת הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה--לָתֵת אֶת-אֲחֹתֵנוּ, לְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר-לוֹ עָרְלָה: כִּי-חֶרְפָּה הִוא, לָנוּ.

14 and said unto them: 'We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one that is uncircumcised; for that were a reproach unto us.

thus equating cherpa with arel.)

The text is ambiguous on whether Shimon married her. I would read it as that he fulfilled this promise, but more on this later.

This marriage then was done out of concern for the victim, and is part of the role of Shimon (and Levi) protecting a sister.

Meanwhile the gemara in Bava Batra, and R' Abba bar Kahana, gives a different presentation of the identity of Dinah's spouse.

ויש אומרים איוב בימי יעקב היה ודינה בת יעקב נשא כתיב הכא (איוב ב) כדבר אחת הנבלות תדברי וכתיב התם (בראשית לד) כי נבלה עשה בישראל וכולהו תנאי סבירא להו דאיוב מישראל הוה לבר מיש אומרים

and we also have:

א"ר אבא בר כהנא דינה אשתו של איוב היתה דכתיב כדבר אחת הנבלות תדברי

Thus, she married Iyov.

This midrash seems to have a more jaded view of Dinah, making her the wife who tells her husband Iyov to curse God, and having Iyov's ciriticism link to the action of disgracing her, perhaps saying that this made her into a nevalah -- כי נבלה עשה בישראל.

Need we harmonize these two midrashim? There is no evidence that Chazal of the Mishna and Talmud thought to harmonize them. There are multiple explanations of Shaul ben haKenaanit, of the designation Kenaanit, of whether Iyov married her or actually lived in a different generation, and so on, such that a harmonization of every midrash about this is surely impossible.

But as Anonymous pointed out on a previous post, there is actually a midrash which attempts this harmonization. In Bereshit Rabbati, by Rav Moshe haDarshan (a contemporary of Rashi), on parshat Vayigash, about Shaul ben HaKenaanit, we read:

בראשית רבתי פרשת ויגש
[מו, י] ושאול בן הכנענית. מהו ושאול בן הכנענית, על דעתיה דמאן דאמר לאחיותיהם נשאו השבטים לכך פרט בזה, שזה לבדו היה בן כנענית ולא האחרים.
על דעתיה דמאן דאמר מבנות הארץ לקחו השבטים מה עביד ליה ושאול בן הכנענית. אמרו זו דינה בת לאה,
דא"ר הונא בשעה שהביאו שמעון ולוי את דינה אחותם מבית שכם לא רצתה לצאת אמרה ואני אנה אוליך את חרפתי (ש"ב י"ג י"ג) עד שנשבע לה שמעון אחיה שהוא יקחנה לאשה ואח"כ יצאה, הה"ד ושאול בן הכנענית.
ור' יהודה אומר שעשתה כמעשה הכנענים,
ר' נחמיה אמר שנבעלה [מחוי] שהוא בכלל כנענים,
ואחר שנתעברה גרשה שמעון לאחר שנפטר מן השבועה, וכשירדו ישראל למצרים נתנה יעקב לאיוב וכו'. ורבנין אמרו נטלה שמעון וקברה בארץ כנען. ד"א ושאול בן הכנענית אמרו זה היה זמרי בן סלוא, וששה שמות נקראו לו, שאול בן הכנענית, זמרי בן סלוא, שלומיאל בן צורישדי, ומה שמו שלומיאל וכו'.

Thus, he cites the different midrashim about it, and while noting various disputes (e.g about whether shevatim in general married their sisters), he harmonizes the two, saying that he promised to marry her and did, and then after she became pregnant, divorced her, for he was now exempt from his oath, having fulfilled it. Then, in Egypt, Yaakov gave Dinah off in marriage to Iyov. After all, I would note, from other midrashim we know that Iyov was in Egypt as one of Pharaoh's three advisors, so that would be where they met.

This harmonization seems motivated by an Elu veElu trend. Such as we find in Gittin 6b about the Pilegesh beGiveah:

R. Abiathar said that the Levite found a fly with her, and R. Jonathan said that he found a hair on her. R. Abiathar soon afterwards came across Elijah and said to him: 'What is the Holy One, blessed be He, doing?' and he answered, 'He is discussing the question of the concubine in Gibea.' 'What does He say?' said Elijah: '[He says], My son Abiathar says So-and-so, and my son Jonathan says So-and-so,' Said R. Abiathar: 'Can there possibly be uncertainty in the mind of the Heavenly One?' He replied: Both [answers] are the word of the living God. He [the Levite] found a fly and excused it, he found a hair and did not excuse it. Rab Judah explained: He found a fly in his food and a hair in loco concubitus; the fly was merely disgusting, but the hair was dangerous. Some say, he found both in his food; the fly was not her fault, the hair was.

How can there be Elu veElu on a dispute about metziut? The answer is that first one happened, and then the other. (Though there is special praise for R' Aviatar about this, so it may well not apply in the general case.) So too here, she either married one or the other. So Rav Moshe haDarshan has Shimon divorce her.

I would think that this is a pretty mean thing for Shimon to do -- to fulfill the oath at a surface level -- for he married her -- but violate its spirit. The point was that her shame would be taken care of, because she was married. Do you think she was saying, "I will not leave unless my brother marries me, impregnates me, and then divorces me, leaving me as a single unwed mother??" And it seems to go against the theme of the midrash, which is that Shimon is taking this protective role of his sister.

(The gemara in Bava Batra speaks of Iyov as one who associates with widows no one will marry, such that others would marry them, so perhaps one can argue a thematic connection there to the midrash of him marrying this women no one would associate with.)

I would therefore say that harmonization does not reflect the intent of either author of midrash, and indeed corrupts it somewhat.

While researching this, I encountered what Jewish Encyclopedia says about it. By juxtaposition, they also seem to attempt a harmonization:

Her brother Simeon promised to marry her; but she did not wish to leave, [comma sic] Shechem, fearing that after her disgrace no one would take her to wife (Gen. R. l.c.); she was later married to Job however (B. B. 16b; Gen. R. l.c.). When she died, Simeon buried her in the land of Canann. [sic] She is therefore referred to as "the Canaanitish woman" (Gen. xlvi. 10). Shaul (ib.) was her son by Shechem (Gen. R. l.c.).

By saying "promised" without mentioning fulfilling that promise, they seem to suggest that Shimon never carried out the promise, such that there was no need for divorce. And they similarly suggest that Shaul was her son by Shechem, but the text in Bereishit Rabba is at the very least ambiguous. The question is why she was labelled Kenaanit, not that his father was Shechem, as far as I can see. And they suggest that it is the same people discussing her marriage to Iyov as her marriage (or promised marriage) to Shimon, which does not seem to be the case.

Update: The is also an interesting parallel in which Tamar says to Amnon וְאַתָּה תִּהְיֶה כְּאַחַד הַנְּבָלִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, and Iyov says to his wife כדבר אחת הנבלות תדברי, which in turn parallels what was done to Dinah. Though at this level of separation it is just free association, IMHO.