Comentario sobre Génesis 4:4

וישע AND HE HAD REGARD— and He turned to; similarly in the next verse “He had no respect for his offering” means, “He did not turn to it.” Similarly, (Isaiah 17:8) ולא ישעה אל המזבחות which means “And he shall not turn towards the altars”; so also (Job 14:6) שעה מעליו “turn away from him” — disregard him.

וישע ה׳ אל הבל, G'd turned to Abel. The reason the Torah does not first report that G'd did not turn to Cain and his offering, seeing he is reported as having been the first one to bring an offering, is to underline the gulf that existed already between G'd and Cain. Abel's offering caused G'd pleasure and still G'd did not turn to Cain's offering as a result of being in a favourable frame of mind.

והבל הביא גם הוא, this could have been before Kayin brought his offering, or it could have been after Kayin had brought his offering. In the event that Hevel had brought his offering first, we must understand the words גם הוא, “also he,” as referring to the story as such, not to the specific incident.

To Hevel and to his offering. Hashem was pleased with both Hevel himself as well as with his offering.

והבל הביא גם הוא מבכורות צאנו. “and Hevel had also brought of the choicest of his flocks.” Rabbi Joseph Kimchi, in drawing our attention to the absence of any mention here of first building an altar and presenting the gift to G’d on such an altar, sees this as proof that until Noach after the deluge, the slaughtering of animals even as burnt offerings was not permitted to man.

וישע ה', “G-d turned, etc.” He turned His personal attention to Hevel and his sacrifice with the result that heavenly fire descended and consumed it. This reminds us of Psalms 20, 4 יזכור ה' כל מנחותיך ועולתך ידשנה סלה, “May the Lord receive the tokens of all your meal-offerings, and approve of your burnt-offerings, Selah.” He did no such thing for Kayin’s offering.

And he turned... Do not turn (אל ישעו). Many are puzzled by this, as Rashi himself says in Parshas Shemos 5:9 that the אל ישעו written there does not mean “Do not turn,” [rather, “Do not talk”], and is unlike לא שעה written here! It seems the answer is: לא שעה, [whose basic meaning is “to disregard”], is an expression [that can connote disregard] in a broad sense and in a limited sense. There are two ways of [disregarding a] matter: 1. To not even to speak of it. 2. To speak as one wishes but refrain from action. This answers the question. For in Shemos, אל ישעו also means “to disregard.” But Pharaoh did not mean in the narrow sense, refraining only from action, as לא שעה means here. That is why the Torah writes there בדברי שקר, rather than אל דברי שקר, as Rashi points out there — to indicate that אל ישעו בדברי שקר means even in speech. Therefore it is fine that Rashi here explains the אל ישעו of Shemos as disregarding, for that indeed is what it means, [but in the broad sense]. Rashi in Shemos is saying that אל ישעו cannot mean the same as the וישע אל הבל of Bereishis — which was in action alone. That is why there, Rashi was careful to say that אל ישעו means, “Let them not... even talk,” to convey that even talking is included. (Divrei Dovid)

וישע ה' אל הבל ואל מנחתו, “the Lord turned favorably to Hevel and to his offering;” this verse is the best answer to the heretics who deny the existence of an afterlife, as seeing that Hevel was murdered shortly after G–d is on record as having gratefully accepted his offering, what use would that have been to him seeing that the same G–d did not even protect him against being murdered by his own brother. We must therefore view this verse as telling us that by dint of his offering Hevel acquired a share in afterlife. [The concept of afterlife was new, as his father having introduced mortality of human beings through his sin had not yet done anything to at least acquire an afterlife. Ed.]

וישע, according to Rashi, this word here means the same as: ויפן, “He turned (benignly);” it appears in this sense also in Exodus 5,9, where Pharaoh warns the Jewish people not to place their hopes in false prophets (Moses). This is difficult, as in our versions of Rashi he states there that the meaning is not the same as here, as the Torah uses the prefix ב there instead of the prefix אל.

וישע AND HE HAD REGARD — Fire descended from heaven and consumed his offering.

מבכרות צאנו ומחלביהם, this brother brought a gift which was honourable, generous. Mention of the word מבכורות emphasises that the reason he brought from the “first,” is that before enjoying the fruits of his labour himself, he wished to express his gratitude to G’d. Only after that would he use the milk and the wool for his personal consumption. He also included in the gift the best quality, seeing that not all were of the same uniform quality. The word חלב is used in that sense on the author’s book ספר השרשים.
ומחלבהן, there is a letter י missing before the letter ה as would be customary in a plural mode. The Torah did not mention that Hevel built an altar on which he presented his gift, as it did when describing Noach offering animal sacrifices in Genesis 8,20. It seems to me that Hevel did not slaughter the sacrifice (sheep) but left it bound but alive, expecting heavenly fire to descend on it and to consume it. The same had happened when his father had presented the ox which we described earlier as Adam’s offering. There was no point in slaughtering these animals since there was no one who was allowed to eat the meat thereof.
In Bereshit Rabbah 22,5 there is an opinion that Hevel offered the animal without stripping it of its skin, and without cutting it up into pieces, whereas in the future all animal sacrifices would have their skin stripped and their bodies cut up into pieces. There are still more differences of opinion concerning the nature of these offerings, some scholars saying even that they were meat-offerings, i.e. that the owners consumed some if not most of the sacrificial meat. According to the view of the scholars who hold that Hevel brought a meat-offering, the word מחלבהן would describe the fat parts burned up on the altar, similar to the fat pars burned up on the altar in any other meat-offering the Israelites would offer in the future. The text permits us to draw conclusions in both directions, seeing it appears to be deliberately inconclusive. It is possible that the words היא העולה, best translated as “this is the type of burnt-offering” in Leviticus 6,2 tips the scale in favour of those who believe that it must have been a burnt-offering, also considering the fact that we have no record that they were allowed meat when the part of a sacrificial offering.

וישע ה' אל הבל, “the Lord responded to Hevel, (and his gift). Rabbi Joseph Kimchi explains the reason why G’d did not respond to Kayin’s gift as due to the fact that he first ate his fill before giving G’d the share we call bikkurim, the first ripe fruit we produce. Hevel, on the other hand, offered to G’d the very first of the wool his sheep had produced.

A fire descended and consumed his gift-offering. Rashi is answering the question: How did Hevel know that Hashem paid regard to him? The answer is: “A fire descended...”

The reason the Torah repeats the word אל twice in the sequence אל הבל ואל מנחתו is, to make it clear that G'd displayed favour to the person bringing the offering and to the offering itself. The reverse was true of Cain and his offering.

וישע ה' אל הבל ואל מנחתו, the reason why G’d turned with goodwill towards Hevel’s offering was that He observed that Hevel’s attitude throughout had been honourable, pure, not make believe, as if he only did what he perceived to be his duty. The nature of his offering testified to his good intentions.