Who was in the right, Yaakov, or Shimon and Levi?

 An interesting question can be asked about the interchange between Yaakov, and his sons, Shimon and Levi, after they smote the people of Shechem.

Who was right? Was Yaakov right that the brothers had acted in an impetuous way, or were Shimon and Levi right for having ignored the practical ramifications of their deeds?

Yaakov, when he first responds to the episode strikes a very pragmatic, and even utilitarian note. "You have besmirched me, belittling me in the people of the land, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, and the peoples will gather against me, and eradicate me, and my entire household."

Shimon and Levi do not flinch, responding in kind: "Shall our sister be made into a harlot?!"

Yaakov's consideration, here at least, was strictly pragmatic, Shimon and Levi, seeking – what they viewed, at least now – as the higher moral ground. "Whatever the cost may be," they argued, "if we are in the right, then it is Hashem's job to protect us."

And in fact, He did.

The question is "Why?"

Was Yaakov bested by his sons, Hashem taking their side over his?

That, after all, would certainly seem to be the case. What then, would happen to the family fabric if Yaakov's word was no longer beyond reproof? If his 11 sons – Binyamin was not yet born – had the ability to not only speak back, but be vindicated, would they have carte blanche in other situations as well, like the sale of Joseph, for example? Were the implications of Shimon and Levi's deeds felt thereafter in many different ways – and perhaps lastly, why did Yaakov wait for the sons to return from the field? Lavan is faulted for having spoken up in the presence of his father, Betuel; why, here, are the sons so quick to respond, even suggesting that another nation become assimilated in their own without Yaakov's explicit consent? Something has already happened, it is clear, in the rebalancing of powers in the family, but were the consequences already apparent at this point?

It would seem that Yaakov does get the last word. Prior to his death, he separates Shimon and Levi, as Joseph did after having accused them as spies, and also curses their anger, and its boldness.

It would seem here, that Yaakov was indeed not making a pragmatic judgment, but rather, a moral one. A whole city, Yaakov was arguing, does not have to be wiped out, to amend for the reprehensible deeds of father and son. Yaakov was saying that mercy would have been the higher road, not vicious, and vile anger.

It could very well be that Shimon and Levi's failure to regulate their anger percolated later, when the brothers, as a whole, saw Joseph's distress, and failed to have mercy on him, anger blinding one to not only rational considerations, but also ethical ones as well.