Comentário sobre Gênesis 4:32

(1) והאדם ידע AND THE MAN KNEW already before the events related above took place — before he sinned and was driven out of the Garden of Eden. So, also, the conception and birth of Cain took place before this. Had it been written, וידע אדם it would imply that after he was driven out children were born to him (Genesis Rabbah 22:2).

AND SHE CONCEIVED AND BORE CAIN. The sense of it is that she gave birth to a son, and she called his name Cain [from the word kanah, acquisition], because she said, I have gotten a man with [the help of] the Eternal. In a similar sense is the verse, And she conceived and bore Enoch,⁴¹⁵Further, Verse 17. and many similar verses in this chapter and in other places.
“Eth Hashem (with the Eternal). When He created me and my husband He created us by Himself, but in the case of this one, we are co-partners with him.” Thus the words of Rashi.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that she said: “This son will be for me an acquisition for the Eternal, for when we shall die he will exist in our stead to worship his Creator.” This is also the opinion of Onkelos who translated eth hashem to mean “before the Eternal.” [The word eth in the following verses is translated] in a similar sense: And it shall be shown ‘eth hakohen’ (the priest),⁴¹⁶Leviticus 13:49. meaning to the priest; And David came near ‘eth ha’am’ (the people),⁴¹⁷I Samuel 30:21. meaning to the people. Or it may be that eth hashem has the same interpretation as in the verses: And Enoch walked ‘eth ha’elokim’ (with G-d);⁴¹⁸Genesis 5:22. See following note. Noah walked ‘eth ha’elokim’ (with G-d).⁴¹⁹Ibid., 6:9. The sense here in the verse before us would thus be: I have acquired a man to walk with G-d.
Now she [Eve] called one son by a name indicating “acquisition,” and the second one she called Abel, denoting “vanity” because man’s acquisition is likened to vanity. But she did not wish to say so explicitly. Therefore, no reason is written for the name of the second son. The secret received by tradition concerning Abel is very profound.⁴²⁰See my Hebrew commentary, p. 43.

ותלד את קין. She gave birth to Cain. According to our sages Cain represented the spirit of impurity and evil whereas Abel represented good. Abel's soul is supposed to have been reincarnated in the body of Moses (compare Zohar 1,54 on this passage). Abel suffered multiple injuries at the hands of Cain because Cain did not know where to inflict a lethal injury. The pains suffered by Abel in the process removed any vestige of evil that may have been in him so that when Moses was born he was totally good. This is what Eve hinted at when she said: קניתי איש את השם. She meant that the perfection of a man such as Moses who could commune freely with G'd, was due only to the sufferings undergone by his ancestor Abel.

והאדם ידע את אשתו, seeing that their libido had developed, they engaged in marital relations, Chavah became pregnant and gave birth after 7 or 9 months. The formulation of the words here does not prove that Chavah gave birth immediately after becoming pregnant, as stated by the Midrash (Sanhedrin 38, and Bereshit Rabbah 22,2) The words used here are the same as when Sarah’s pregnancy is reported (Genesis 21,2) and no claim has been made that Sarah’s pregnancy was so short-lived.

והאדם ידע את חוה אשתו, “in the interval Adam had been intimate with his wife Chavah, etc.” When the sages comment that two human beings went to bed and four got up out of that same bed, this refers to what is spelled out in the text. Seeing that the Torah does not specifically mention the female twins born with Kayin and Hevel, the Midrash (Pirkey de Rabbi Eliiezer quoted by Rabbeinu Bachya on Genesis 2,7) also does not mention this. Some commentators understand the words “four descended from that bed,” as referring to Kayin and his twin sister, believing that Hevel had not been born at that time, as the Torah hints when writing ותוסף ללדת את אחיו את הבל, “she again gave birth to Hevel his brother.” (4,2)

והאדם ידע את חוה אשתו, “and man had been intimate with his wife Chavah, etc.” After Adam had realized that he had been expelled from Gan Eden, that death had been decreed for him, and that he would not live indefinitely, it became necessary for him to have sexual relations with his wife in order to assure himself of children for posterity. You should remember that the Torah usually calls the act of marital union ידיעה, “(carnal) knowledge.” The reason for this is that the seminal fluid of man originates in the brain, the seat of his wisdom and knowledge. In addition to this, the desire to engage in sexual intercourse was the result of man having eaten from the tree of “knowledge.” Hence the use of the word ידיעה, “knowledge,” to describe such relations is most appropriate.

This... before he sinned. Rashi is answering the question: It should have been written וַיֵדַע [rather than יָדַע].

(1-2). קניתי איש את ד׳. Der ursprüngliche Begriff des Eigentums beruht auf Produktion. Das erste Kapital des Menschen ist seine Kraft. Daher heißt קנה in erster Bedeutung nicht Erwerb durch Geld, sondern durch Kraft. So ist Gott קונה שמים וארץ. Er ist der Eigner des Himmels und der Erde, weil er sie geschaffen. So heißt auch קָנֶה der die Blüten und Fruchtkrone produzierende Stengel, Halm. So auch hier: Mit Gott, d. h. unter Gottes Beistand und Mitwirkung habe ich ein männliches Menschenwesen mit Dahingebung meiner Kraft erworben. Das erste Hochgefühl der ersten Mutter war somit ein gesteigertes Selbstgefühl, und wohl dürfen wir zweifeln, ob nicht in diesem Gefühle schon eine Trübung des reinen MutterBewusstseins sich ausspricht. Eine auf der reinen Höhe des PflichtBewusstseins stehende Mutter hätte mehr an Gott und an die ihr mit diesem Gottesgeschenk erwachsene Pflicht und Aufgabe, als an das eigene Verdienst gedacht. Eine Trübung der Gesinnung und ein Hervorstacheln des Egoismus, die sehr leicht auch damit dem Charakter des Sohnes seine Richtung gegeben haben dürften, dessen Name in noch höherem Grade das Gepräge dieses Selbstgefühls trägt. קין ist nämlich von קון (vergleiche צוד und צרה), der Wurzel von קין. dem Lanzenschaft, der die Spitze trägt, משקל קינו (ähnlich wie קָנֶה), und insbesondere von קינה ,קונן, klagen. So wie aber און das Vermögen bedeutet und אונן das Gefühl des verlorenen Besitzes ausdrückt, so liegt auch in קון die Bedeutung: Eigen- tum und davon קונן: das Gefühl des verlorenen Eigentums, die Klage. Eben in dem Verlust tritt der Wert des Besessenen am lebhaftesten ins Bewusstsein. — Da das Präteritum ידע in einen früheren Zeitmoment versetzt, so kann קין noch vor der Entlassung aus dem Paradiese geboren worden sein, und im Hochgefühle ihres Glückes nannte die Mutter ihn קין, den Selbsterrungenen, Selbsterworbenen. Als der Zweite geboren ward, starrte aber die Welt die Eltern schon mit einer Fülle von Sorgen an, unter welchen ein Kind eine Bürde sein kann. Chawa׳s Herz war nicht froh, als sie ihren zweiten Sohn הבל, "Vergänglichkeit" nannte. Vergleiche Sanhedrin 38b. תוספי das. (Nach einer anderen Annahme waren Kain und Hebel Zwillinge und beide vor der Entlassung aus dem Paradiese geboren. Siehe ב"ר Kapitel 22.) — הבל, verwandt mit עפל ,אפל ,אבל, deren Grundbegriff hemmen ist. Was dem Lichte jeden Zutritt verwehrt ist אפל, das Dunkel, die den Zugang hemmende hohe Mauer ist עפֶל; das :אבל .Partikel des Gegensatzesאְבָל .sich stemmen, entgegensetzen :העפיל Gefühl des geknickten Daseins, die Trauer. Davon auch חבל: die Fessel, הֶבֶל: das im Fortbestehen gehemmte Dasein, die Vergänglichkeit.

קין — She called him so with reference to her use of the word.

ותלד את קין, she bore a son whom she called Kayin, to symbolise what she meant when she said קניתי איש את ה'. Even though the word קין is a composite of 2 different roots, such a construction is quite common.
'קניתי איש את ה, the meaning of these words is: “I have now produced a human being in this world who was not the result of a direct activity by His Creator, which makes me a partner to G’d the Creator.” G’d has given this human being His divine soul also, just as He had given it to the creation of His own, Adam, into whom He Himself literally blew this soul. The rest of this human being grew and developed within my body. The word קניתי as used by Chavah here is similar to G’d being described asקונה שמים וארץ by Avraham in Genesis 14,22 where it meant that G’d owns heaven and earth because He made it, produced it. The reason why Chavah attributed production of the child to herself was that she, rather than her husband, provided the home for the fetus during the whole period of its development. She credited the attribute of Hashem without mentioning the attribute elohim of G’d, seeing that she considered that with the birth of Kayin the universe had become complete, human offspring having been missing up until now. This was the last time, in the normal cause of events, that G’d’s creative talent elohim would need to be called for, as from now on all the pieces were in place for the earth to function on the basis of natural law. This was already intimated at the conclusion of the sixth day (2,3) when the Torah wrote אשר ברא אלוקים לעשות, “which G’d had inititated, now to continue to function normally.” We already explained this attribute in connection with the construction of the world; G’d’s attribute אלוקים refers to טבע, natural laws, as we explained on 2,4. From hereon the holy name of G’d appears sometimes as His attribute אלוקים, and sometimes as His attribute י-הוה, and only very rarely do we find a combination of both attributes. Every time such a variation occurs there is a good reason for it. The scholar Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra wrote in this vein in his commentary on our verse here, pointing out that Chavah reminded us that the attribute elohim is constantly present among the human species on earth, no less so than it is in the celestial regions. His words are well worth remembering.

קניתי איש את ה', “I have acquired a man, with G’d.” Rashi understands the word את to mean: “with,” Chavah saying that she had become a partner to G’d. Nachmanides comments that Chavah said that this son would be her posthumous possession, (estate) that she would leave behind on this earth when it came time for her to die. He would serve his Creator in lieu of his parents when these would be no longer alive. Alternatively, the meaning of the word את in our verse is similar to ויתהלך חנוך את האלוקים, or in את האלוקים התהלך נח (Genesis 6,9 and Genesis 5,22) “Noach walked with G’d.” She called the one son by a name meaning acquisition, and the second one הבל, as she did not want to spell out her fatalistic outlook of life on earth so that any acquisitions man makes on this earth while alive will prove to have been הבל, in vain, ultimately useless. In the whole of the portion known as בראשית prior to the conclusion of the seven days of creation, G’d is referred to only as אלוקים. The four-lettered name of G’d does not appear until verse 4 in chapter 2. From that point on, we also do not only find the four-lettered name of G’d unless accompanied by the name אלוקים. This reflects the statement of our sages that originally G’d had wanted to employ only the attribute of Justice, i.e. אלוקים, when He created His universe. When He realized that the universe would be very short-lived if He insisted on the attribute of Justice, He co-opted the attribute of Mercy, i.e. the four-lettered name of G’d, the tetragram, and He placed it at the beginning of His combined name. When the time came when Chavah described herself as G’d’s partner, He said that from that point on He would employ the attribute of Mercy as His chief attribute in dealing with mankind. This is why from this point on we find only the four-lettered name of G’d (until idolatry was practiced by man. Based on the רא'ש, the author’s father.)

Children were born to him. Rashi used the expression “children were born to him” rather than “he knew his wife” because otherwise Rashi would be implying that Adam knew her only after he was exiled, not before. [And this is not true,] for earlier, on the verse of “This at last is bone of my bones...” (2:23), Rashi says: “Adam attempted to find a mate amongst all the animals... until he discovered Chavah.” This implies that Adam had relations with Chavah at that point. This answers another question: How does Rashi know that Adam’s “knowing his wife” before he was exiled included conception and birth as well? Perhaps it was referring only to relations. The answer is: “This at last is bone of my bones...” already taught us that Adam had relations. Thus, the verse “The man knew his wife...” perforce [includes conception and birth].

רעה .ויהי הבל רעה צאן gleichzeitig Wurzel von Weiden, Gedanke und Nächster. Weiden, d. i. Umhergehen und Futter, d. h. dasjenige suchen, was geeignet ist uns zu ergänzen, von uns, in uns aufgenommen zu werden. Daher auch רעיון ,רֵעַ:geistiges Weiden, geistige Nahrung suchen, d. h. dasjenige suchen, was wir als wahr unserem Geiste einverleiben können: Nachdenken, Spekulation. Ferner רעה: Umgang mit jemandem pflegen, sein soziales Genüge an ihm finden. רעה רוח: sein Genüge an nichtigen Dingen finden. רֵעַַ heißt unser Nächster, insofern er an uns und wir an ihm unser Genüge finden, uns gegenseitig ergänzen sollen. Im Chaldäischen vertritt und geht ganz in den Begriff des Wollens, Suchens über. Es ,רצה vollständig רעה ist noch bemerkenswert, dass רעה weiden, sowohl vom Tiere als vom Hirten und auch von der Weide vorkommt. גרן ויקב לא ירעם Hoschea 9, 2. Scheuer und Kelter gewähren ihnen keine Weide, nähren sie nicht.

'קניתי איש את ה, “I have acquired a man with the Lord.” Chavah considered herself as having become a partner with the Creator. From the beginning of creation until Genesis 2,4, where the תולדות, derivatives of the creation have first been mentioned, the name used for G-d had always been elohim. This meant that the only attribute that G-d had employed was His attribute of Justice. During the period that He made various improvements, securing the continued viability of the universe He had created, the Creator has been referred to by both the name elohim, as well as the tetragram. This means that He was employing both His attribute of Justice as well as His attribute of mercy, רחמים. This suggests that possibly by G-d using these two attributes the universe would be able to survive all challenges. Do not use the argument that from the serpent’s referring to Him only as elohim, (3,1 and repeatedly afterwards) this disproves my argument; the serpent’s words are not the Torah’s words, even though they have been quoted in the Torah. The undeniable fact is that commencing with the verse relating that Adam had had marital relations with Chavah and that a human being fathered and mothered only by other human beings appeared on earth, G-d had decided that unless He no longer appeared as the attribute of Justice regularly, the world as we know it had no future.

ה‘ — ;את קניתי is like ‘עם ה “with the Lord”; she meant to say: when He created me and my husband He created us by Himself, but in the case of this one we are copartners with Him (cf. Niddah 31a).

With Hashem. This comment is out of sequence, because Rashi did not wish to state that the word את “implies additional facts or things” before he explained את ה', [which is understood differently]. Once he explained that את ה' means “with Hashem,” rather than “implying additional facts or things,” he can then state: “The word את is repeated thrice, to expound additional facts or things.” (Divrei Dovid)

Eigentümlich dürfte es erscheinen, dass hier zuerst vom Hebel gesprochen wird, obgleich Kain der Erstgeborene war, und auch im folgenden er zuerst besprochen wird. Allein die natürlichste Beschäftigung, die wir erwarten sollten, wäre ja Ackerbau gewesen. Der Mensch war ja ganz eigentlich darauf hingewiesen לעבוד את האדמה, um sich die notwendige Nahrung zu schaffen. Kain ergriff diese natürlichste Beschäftigung. Hebel ging zu einer anderen über, darum dürfte dessen Beschäftigung durch Voranstellung hervorgehoben sein. Kains Beschäftigung war die natürliche, selbstverständliche. — Indem uns aber von diesem ersten Brüderpaar, die wir sofort in so schroffem Gegensatz finden, kaum ein mehreres als diese gegensätzliche Berufsart mitgeteilt wird, so dürfte eben hierin ein Gegensatz an Charakter, Sinnesart und Geistesrichtung angedeutet liegen, der sich später in der Entwickelung der Völker mit tief einschneidender Schärfe herausgestellt hat. Wir meinen den Gegensatz der Ackerbau- und Hirtenvölker, der allerdings bereits in seinen Anfängen in diesem ersten Brüderpaar erschienen sein kann, die eben in diesen verschiedenen Berufsarten auseinandergingen. — Der Ackerbau ruft zunächst alle Leibeskräfte des Menschen in Tätigkeit. Das Wort: im Schweiße deines Angesichtes usw. geht ganz besonders an dem Ackerbauer in Erfüllung. Er geht zuletzt ganz in den "Beruf׳ der Fristung des leiblichen Daseins auf, und was wir in dem Begriffe ,קין קנה von hervorgehobenem Eigentumsdünkel und Selbstgefühl gefunden, das tritt am allermeisten im Ackerbauer hervor. Die mit seinem Schweiße gedüngte Scholle erhält Wert für ihn, sie enthält einen Teil von seinem eigenen Wesen, sie fesselt ihn, er wird sesshaft. Auf der einen Seite sind nun aber alle großen Seiten der Entwicklung der Kultur durch den Ackerbau angeregt. Einen großen Teil der Erfindungen und Künste ruft er hervor; durch das Nebeneinander bildet sich die Gesellschaft, der Staat, das Rechtsverhältnis, und mit der Bestimmung des Menschen nach seiner Vertreibung aus dem Paradiese לעבוד את האדמה war der bedeutendste Wurf für die künftige Menschenentwicklung gegeben. Auf der anderen Seite jedoch wird der Ackerbauer immer mehr und mehr zur Scholle herabgezogen, der er dient. Indem er seinen Nacken unter das Joch des Strebens nach Eigentum beugt, wird auch sein Geist gebeugt. Man kann ihn fassen an diesem Streben. Es erzeugt sich Unterwerfung, Knechtung des Einen durch den Andern. Gleichzeitig kommt er zur Verehrung der Naturgewalten, von deren Einfluß sichtbar das Gedeihen des Ackers bedingt ist, dem er dient. Bei den Ackerbau- völkern verlor sich zuerst das reine Gott- und MenschenBewusstsein, erzeugte sich zuerst Knechtschaft und Vielgötterei. — Dem gegenüber hat das Hirtenleben seine Vorzüge. Schon dass es nur mit lebenden Wesen zu tun hat, deren Wartung und Pflege alle menschlichen Gefühle der fürsorgenden Teilnahme in Anspruch nimmt und wach hält, ist ein entschiedener Vorzug. Die Wandelbarkeit des Besitzes, der auch dem Menschen nur Wartung, nicht Dasein verdankt, schützt vor Überschätzung des Eigentums und des Eigentümers. Die Beschäftigung nimmt nicht so die Kraft in Anspruch, spannt nicht so den Geist in den Dienst der Arbeit und giebt dem Geiste Raum zum Aufschwung zu dem Göttlichen und Reinmenschlichen. So finden wir auch unsere Väter als Hirten und einen Moses und David bei der Herde. Dem gegenüber finden wir die Feindschaft Ägyptens gegen Hirten und Hirtenvölker. Alle oben angedeuteten Folgen des Ackerbaues waren in Ägypten in höchster Entfaltung vorhanden. Dort war eine auf Ackerbau gegründete und ausgebildete Kultur, Vielgötterei und übereinander schachtelnde Knechtung des Menschen durch Menschen war ihr Gepräge. Der Mensch ging ganz auf in den Beruf. Der Mensch an sich, seine Würde, seine freie Selbstbestimmung war verloren. Als Berufsknecht ward er geboren. Gott und die Freiheit und die Ebenbildlichkeit des Menschen als solchen war nur bei einem Hirtenstamm — unseren Vätern — erhalten. Die ägyptischen Staatskünstler wußten sehr wohl was sie taten, als sie ihrem Volke den unüberwindlichen Abscheu gegen Hirtenvölker einflößten. — So hat es sich später herausgestellt. Dürfen wir hieraus vielleicht zurückschließen, dass vielleicht Hebel seiner Natur und seinem Charakter nach Hirte geworden? Im großen und ganzen ist allerdings der Mensch nicht zum Hirten, sondern zum Ackerbau bestimmt. Auch Israel in der תורה und durch dieselbe. Hier aber ist allen den aus dem Ackerbau hervor gehenden Verirrungen und der Vergötterung des Besitzes vorgebeugt und entgegengearbeitet. Da stehen die Sabbattage und Sabbatjahre als ewige Zeugen, dass nicht des Menschen, sondern Gottes der Boden sei und die Thatkraft des Menschen. Ackerbaugesetze wie כלאים ערלה und anderseits לקט שכחה ופאה erinnern ununterbrochen an Ihn und mahnen an Menschlichkeit und Bruderliebe. Durch diese und andere Gesetze verwirklicht die /תורה idas Problem eines Gott dienenden Ackerbanstaates, eines in Freiheit und Gleichheit brüderlich vereinigten Volkes. Außerhalb des Bereiches der תורה war aber das reine Gottesbewusstsein, die Freiheit und Gleichheit der Menschen gefährdet.

את קין… את אחיו את הבל —The threefold ‘את’ signify extension of the scope of the text, teaching that a twin sister was born with Cain, and that with Abel two were born; consequently the text states ותוסף “and she bore more’’ than the previous time (Genesis Rabbah 22:3).

We are co-partners with Him. For there are three partners in [the formation of] a person: Hashem, the person’s father, and the person’s mother. (Nidah 31a)

Hebel also ward Schafhirte, Kain aber, der "Eigentumssüchtige" war Ackerbauer.

Consequently, it says: “And she increased.” In other words, it means, that “she increased an את.” This is because two instances of את imply two additional children. This fully explains why the word ותוסף is written.

רעה צאן A FEEDER OF FLOCKS — Because the earth had been cursed he refrained from cultivating it.

ויהי הבל רועה צאן, Hevel chose this vocation as it required more intelligence and involved one’s mental activities more that farming.

ותוסף ללדת את אחיו, She continued to give birth to his brother. The reason the Torah adds the words "his brother," something quite unnecessary, as well as the repeated use of the word את, has been explained by our sages. They said that in the struggle between Cain and Abel, the latter was first victorious, Cain lying on the ground. Abel then pitied him and moved away. Cain exploited this pity of his brother Abel to attack him and kill him (Tanchuma Bereshit 9). The words את אחיו are a hint that Abel acted in a brotherly fashion towards Cain. By placing the word את in front of the word הבל, the Torah alluded to the lack of brotherliness with which Cain related to Abel. Another reason for the word את both times before the name Cain and the name Abel is to indicate that twin sisters were born together with these brothers (Yevamot 62).

ותוסף ללדת את אחיו את הבל, the construction of ותוסף ללדת instead of ותהר עוד ותלד, “she again became pregnant and gave birth,” supports the words of our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 22,2 that the two brothers Kayin and Hevel were born as twins. The birth was additional, not the pregnancy. Our sages added further that not only were these two brothers born as twins, but that a twin sister was born at the same time to each of them. This also is in line with a statement by Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah in the same Midrash that on that day three miracles occurred. 1) Adam and Chavah had been created on that day. 2) They had engaged in marital intercourse on that same day. 3) They produced twin children on that same day.
Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchoh phrased it as follows: “2 human beings united on the bed and eight descended from the bed.” He referred to Kayin and his twin sister and Hevel with two twin sisters. [in my count this makes only 7. Actually, in my version of Bereshit Rabbah, it says that “seven” descended from that bed. Ed.] The Torah fails to mention why Chavah called her second son Hevel. [In fact, the Torah does not say that it was Chavah who named Hevel. Ed.]
There is nothing unusual in the Torah not providing the reason for the name Hevel, as there are hundreds of names which have not been explained in the Torah. None of the names of the people in the generations between Sheth and Noach have been explained. Perhaps, the reason why Chavah called the second son Hevel is an allusion to Psalms 62,10 כי הבל בני אדם כזב בני איש, “men are mere breath; mortals illusion.” Perhaps Chavah expressed her realisation that even the good found in this material world may prove short-lived, illusory, as her brief sojourn in Gan Eden had taught her. Seeing that both her husband’s and her own life had become very difficult compared to what it had been like, she showed that she had assimilated this truth as being something she had to bequeath to her offspring now that she had children. It is immaterial in this connection if Hevel was named by her or by her husband.

ויהי הבל רועה צאן וקין היה עובד אדמה, “and Hevel became a tender of sheep, whereas Kayin became a tiller of the soil.” Ordinarily, we would have expected the Torah to mention Kayin’s vocation first, seeing that he was the first-born. However, seeing that Kayin did not really have a vocation but served the Lord by merely existing, as hinted at by Chavah, who had described him as an acquisition, Hevel’s vocation was mentioned first. When Kayin observed that his brother had chosen a vocation for himself, he too chose a vocation, and became a farmer. Seeing he chose his vocation last, the Torah mentions the vocations of the brothers in that order.

וקין היה “and Kayin had become, etc.” We would really have expected the Torah to write ויהי קין עובד אדמה, similar to the Torah’s describing Hevel’s vocation as ויהי הבל רעה צאן, “Hevel became a shepherd of sheep.” The reason the Torah changed its style in describing the respective vocations of the two brothers was that there was a cardinal difference between the vocation of the one and the vocation of the other. Hevel was a righteous person whereas his brother Kayin was a wicked person. The whole episode teaches that good and evil have the same root. The root by itself is totally good; after all when Adam was created he was totally good. Nonetheless we observe that from such a good “root,” two sons with totally different personalities emerged. Seeing that both wicked people and good people developed out of the same root is proof that there was only One Creator, that evil and good are not separate domains, that there are no two competing deities in this world, one promoting the source of all that is good and promoting it, and one which is the root of all that is bad and promoting same. In fact, if you look at Isaiah 45,7 עושה שלום ובורא רע, אני ה' עושה כל אלה, “Maker of peace, Creator of evil, I the Lord am doing all this,” G’d realised that unless He, personally, took responsibility for being the originator of anything good and evil, people would believe that there must be two totally separate domains, two totally diverse prime causes. An additional reason why the Torah had to write וקין היה עבד אדמה is because the potential of a personality such as Kayin had preceded his birth; he had not invented it. [Rabbi Chavell quotes an interesting numerical value of the combined words עבד היה is the same (96) as that of the planet מאדים, Mars, which stands for bloodshed, for war. This would be an additional reason for the Torah having written קין היה, instead of ויהי קין וגו'..]

Because the earth was cursed... Rashi is answering the question: Why was Hevel a shepherd? Since they were not allowed to slaughter any creature, what benefit could be derived from this? [This is not true,] for he could benefit from the butter, cheese, milk and wool, which were permitted to them.

וקין היה עובד אדמה, as a result of each having his own vocation, they each brought different offerings to G’d.

ויהי הבל רועה צאן, as the brothers grew up, they divided their occupation in accordance with their respective needs. The one who became the shepherd was interested in eating the dairy products obtainable from the sheep and goats. He was also in need of the wool of the sheep to make clothing. They restricted themselves to these vocations, seeing that G’d had not permitted the eating of meat but only grass, fruit of the trees, and bread after backbreaking labour, as we have explained. The generations until the deluge adapted themselves to this lifestyle. It was only in Genesis 9,3 that G’d permitted killing animals for the purpose of eating their meat.

A shepherd. A profession that neither preoccupies the mind nor wearies the body, thus it is ideal for those who wish to engage in contemplation. In fact, some say that Hevel was punished for going too far in his metaphysical speculations.

מפרי האדמה OF THE FRUIT OF THE GROUND —of the worst fruits (Genesis Rabbah 22:5); there is an Agada which says that it was linseed (Midrash Tanchuma, Bereshit 9).

AND CAIN BROUGHT OF THE FRUIT OF THE GROUND AN OFFERING UNTO THE ETERNAL. 4. AND ABEL, HE ALSO BROUGHT. These men [Cain and Abel] understood the great secret of the sacrifices and the meal-offerings. So also did Noah, [who likewise offered sacrifices].⁴²¹Genesis 8:20. Our Rabbis have said that the first man also sacrificed a bullock.⁴²²Psalms 69:32. Chullin 60a. This should close the mouth of those who speak foolishness⁴²³Reference is made here to the Moreh Nebuchim, III, 46, where it is stated that the laws concerning the sacrifices were intended as a guard against idolatry. It is this theory that Ramban intends to refute when he says that in the days of Adam, Cain and Abel, there was no idolatry and yet they brought sacrifices. There is thus a positive aspect to the sacrifices which Rambam did not take into account. concerning the reason of the sacrifices. I will yet intimate a great principle concerning this matter with the will of the Holy One, blessed be He.⁴²⁴See Ramban on Leviticus 1:9.

מנחה, a gift of sorts, as in Exodus 32,34. The word is derived from the root נחה as in נחה את העם. [understanding the word נחה in the imperative mode as related to presenting a gift is certainly novel. Ed.]

ויהי מקץ ימים, it was some time after Kayin had become a farmer tilling the soil, that he offered a gift to G’d. The Torah is deliberately vague about how much time had elapsed, writing only מקץ ימים, at the end of a number of years. It is reasonable to assume that the word ימים refers to years rather than days, as it is clear from Leviticus 25,29 that in that verse the word ימים represents the number of days that make up a year. It would seem therefore, that after having worked the soil for a full year Kayin offered a gift to G’d, part of what he had harvested. He did this in the spot in which his father Adam had offered prayer and had offered a sacrifice of his own as an acknowledgement of his gratitude, his sons presumably having been in attendance. Although the Torah does not spell out the composition of Adam’s sacrifice, the Talmud in Shabbat 28 suggests that it included a one-horned ox, basing itself on Psalms 69,32 משור פר מקרן מפריס, “ox with horn and hooves,” His sons imitated him, each one bringing a gift from what his labour had produced. The offering was meant to be an expression of man’s gratitude to G’d for the success of his endeavours.
מפרי, the Torah is vague about precisely what the offering consisted of, other than saying that it was part of the fruit produced by the earth. We know nothing about the quality or quantity of this offering. Seeing that when describing Hevel’s offering the Torah adds the words: “from the firstborn of his sheep and from their best ones,” it is reasonable to assume that Kayin’s gift, by comparison, was stingy, in fact represented an insult to G’d rather than a grateful acknowledgment of G’d’s part in making the earth produce a crop for him. This is why his offering was not welcome, was rejected. Had Kayin at least brought of the best quality of the produce he had grown, the Torah would have mentioned this to his credit, just as it had done in the case of Hevel’s offering. As a result of the philosophical contrast expressed by these two offerings, i.e. Kayin’s flax and Hevel’s wool, mixing these two fibres in one garment has been outlawed by the Torah for the Jewish people. The lesson for us is that the gifts proffered by a Kayin and the gifts proffered by a Torah-observant Jew are not compatible with one another.

From the worstashi is answering the question: Why did the Torah not write, “From the first fruits of the soil,” as it writes for Hevel: “From the firstborn of his flock, from the best thereof.”

(3-6) מנחה ist unter den Opfern speziell ein Opfer von Mehl und Öl. Es werden aber auch, allerdings nur selten, Opfer im allgemeinen, auch Tieropfer, מנחה genannt; so Maleachi 1, 10, 13. 2, 13 und überhaupt in Maleachi. Außerhalb des Tempels heißt מנחה ein Geschenk, und zwar als Zeichen der Huldigung eines Untergebenen an einen Höheren. Die Ableitung ist schwierig. Nach dem üblichen Plural מנחות, der aber allerdings in תנ"ך nicht vorkommt, wäre die Wurzel מנח, wie שִפְחָה ,שִמְלָה, eine Wurzel, die jedoch sonst nicht vorkommt. Es scheint daher die Wurzel נחה zu sein, wie מצוה von נחה .צוה heißt führen und zwar im Verhältnis des Hirten zur Herde, des Heerführers zum Heere, kurz des führenden Gebieters. Vielleicht heißt מנחה deshalb so, weil der es Darbringende sich damit der Führung oder der Botmäßigkeit des Andern unterstellt, oder dessen Botmäßigkeit anerkennt; daher eine Huldigungsgabe.

מקץ ימים, “a year after Kayin and Hevel had been born;” this is not the only time that the word: ימים, meaning “year,” appears in the Torah. The reason why this makes sense is that in the course of a year, all its days, the long and the short ones, have appeared once.

That it was linseedHow does Rashi know this?] Because it is the answer to the question: Why does it say, “Fruit of the soil?” It should say either “From the soil,” [i.e., a vegetable], or “Fruit of the tree.” [The answer is:] Kayin brought a “fruit” that was like [a vegetable of] the soil. For it says in Berachos 40a that if a plant that does not produce fruit from its branch a second time, it is called [a vegetable of] the soil. And flax plants do not produce fruit from their stalks a second time. Yet flax is also called a tree, as it says (Yehoshua 2:6), “And she hid them with the stalks of flax trees.” Thus, “Fruit of the soil” must refer to linseed, which is of the soil, yet called a tree. (Maharshal) An Aggadah explains that “the worst” refers to linseed, as it says in Bava Basra 92a: “One who sells fruit to his friend and it did not sprout, even if it was linseed...” The Gemara did not mention any seed [other than linseed as the example], because it is the most inferior of foods. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Es ist hier an der ersten Stelle von Opfern die Rede. Bemerken wir ein Zwiefaches. Es war noch kein Götzentum vorhanden und stellt sich daher sofort die Ansicht, als ob die Opfer nur als Konzession an den Polttheismus zu erklären wären, als unwahr heraus. Die Opfer sind älter als der Polytheismus. Sie sind so alt wie die Menschheit, und müssen daher der natürliche Ausdruck reiner menschlicher Empfindungen und Gedanken sein. Ferner erscheint hier sogleich bei dem ersten Opfer ein verworfenes Opfer neben dem wohlgefälligen, (ganz so wie später, bei den ersten Einweihungsopfern der Stiftshütte, das verworfene Opfer der Priesterjünglinge in Mitte der Gott wohlgefälligen erschien). Es war also von vornherein dem Opfer nie ein absoluter Wert beigelegt, und ist daher die Ansicht, die erst den Propheten dies "Verdienst" vindiziert, die Lehre von dem nur relativen Wert der Opfer gebracht zu haben, eine von den Tatsachen Lügen gestrafte Entstellung. Freilich haben auch Götzendiener geopfert; allein Götzendiener haben auch gebetet, und es müßte gar viel wegfallen, wenn alles vermieden werden sollte, was in Händen geistig und sittlich gesunkener Kreise missbräuchlich entartet. Es kommt eben alles auf den Sinn an, in welchem geopfert und gebetet wird. Es können zwei dieselben Opfer bringen, dieselben Gebete beten, und doch in unendlicher Verschiedenheit vor Gott dastehen. Das ist eben hier bei dem ersten Opfer klar. Es heißt hier nicht: Gott wendete sich zu Hebels Opfer und wendete sich nicht zu Kains Opfer, sondern: Er wendete sich zu Hebel und seinem Opfer, aber zu Kain und seinem Opfer wendete er sich nicht. Die wesentliche Verschiedenheit lag in der Persönlichkeit der Opfernden, nicht im Opfer. Kain war missfällig und darum auch sein Opfer. Hebel war wohlgefällig und darum auch sein Opfer.

ויבא קין מפרי האדמה, “Kayin brought an offering to G-d from the fruit of the earth;” according to Rashi, he had chosen the most inferior of the fruit of the earth. He refers to a Midrash which says that it was flax seed. The reason why G-d rejected his offering was that he offered something which 1) was of no use to him as he had plenty of it; 2) that it was the product of the earth which G-d had cursed. His brother Hevel, as the Torah is at pains to point out, presented G-d with the choicest product he had raised, the best of his animals. Seeing that these two offerings became the cause of destruction on earth, G-d subsequently forbade the Jewish people to wear garments containing a mixture of linen and wool. (Tanchuma B’reshit, 9)

Vielleicht verraten auch einzelne Nuancen der Erzählung eine Verschiedenheit der Gesinnung. Es war מקץ ימים, nach Ablauf eines Zeitzyklus, also etwa eines solchen, in welchem Kains Acker und Hebels Herde unter Gottes Segen gediehen. Es war also Veranlassung zu einem Huldigungsopfer. Kain bringt Gott מפרי האדמה, von der Erdfrucht, ohne Wahl. Er muß doch auch Gott "etwas" darbringen. Es spricht sich darin die verwerfliche Anschauung aus, die auch später Maleachi geißelt, die die Beziehung zu Gott und dem Göttlichen, das "Religiöse" wie wir es nennen, als auch ein Zubehör zu den menschlichen Angelegenheiten betrachtet, das man doch nicht ganz außer Acht lassen will, und dem man daher vom Leben nur "die verlorenen Momente"; das "Kranke und Schwache und sonst nicht zu Brauchende" zuwendet. וניבו נבזה אכלו bezeichnet׳s Maleachi, "dem Altar blüht das zu, dessen Genuß sonst verschmäht ist." Es ist das die Huldigung, die nur die Furcht bringt, die Tempel und Kirchen stiftet, wie sie auch Spitäler und Gefängnisse baut. — Hebel aber nahm מבכרות צאנו ומחלבהן, nahm von den Erstlingen seiner Herde und von den Erstlingen die besten. Wer das Erste und das Beste darbringt, der stellt seine Beziehung zu Gott und dem Göttlichen in den Vordergrund, dem gilt diese Beziehung als das Erste und Angelegentlichste, dem das ganze übrige Leben nur als Zubehör angehört, ja, die Darbringung des "Ersten" erscheint überall als stellvertretende Weihe des Ganzen. So heißt es ausdrücklich 2. Raw Hirsch on Genesis 4: M. 34. 19. וכל מקנך תזכר פטר שור ושה, deine ganze Herde soll geweiht werden Gergl. אזכרה und מזכיר לבונה) in der Erstgeburt des Ochsen und des Schafes. — Es heißt ferner: והבל הביא גם הוא. Dieses גם הוא, auch er, deutet offenbar an, wir hätten erwarten sollen, Hebel würde nicht auch seinerseits noch ein Opfer bringen. Wenn wir berechtigt sind, von der späteren Bedeutung des בכור zurückzuschließen, so hat ja der Erstgeborne nicht allein für sich, sondern für das ganze Haus, für die Familie geopfert, und dürfte auch hier in Kains Opfer Hebel haben mitvertreten sein können und sollen. In eigentümlicher Weise sehen wir aber den בכור, der bestimmt war, die materielle und geistige Bedeutung des Hauses zu tragen, überall, und auch hier, verworfen. So ראובן ,עשו ,קין und alle בכורים in der Wüste. Und doch sollte es ursprünglich anders sein! Wohl dürfen wir uns daher sagen, wenn erst כל סיר בירושלים וביהודה קדש "jeder Topf in Jerusalem und Juda heilig (Secharja 14, 21), wenn erst das ganze Leben ein Gott geweihtes, heiliges sein wird, dann allerdings dürfen wir erwarten, dass gerade diejenigen, welche die Träger des Hauses sein werden, des Hauses, das gar keinen anderen Eigentümer als Gott haben wird, eo ipso auch die allerpriesterlichsten, in Gott aufgehendsten sein werden. So lange aber das Leben noch nicht ganz durchgeistigt, nicht ganz gottdurchdrungen ist, steht zu befürchten, und ist auch eingetreten, dass gerade die Träger des Materiellen, die berufen sind, die Wohlfahrt der Familie zu begründen, von denen die materielle Wohlfahrt erwartet wird, sich nicht gerade zugleich auch als die geeignetsten Träger des priesterlichen Berufes bewähren werden. Erst derjenige, der noch erst als "Gewächs" der Zeiten kommen soll, wird zugleich die Priester- und Fürstenkrone vereint auf seinem Haupte tragen, "wird Priester sein auf seinem Throne", erst dann werden beide Berufe harmonisch zusammenfallen. Bis dahin hängen "die beiden Kronen nur zum Andenken im Tempel des Herrn" (Secharja 6, 13, 14). So hätten wir auch hier erwarten dürfen, dass in Kains Opfer Hebel schon mit eingeschlossen und vertreten, und für ihn keine Veranlassung zu einem besonderen Opfer gewesen wäre. Wird nun aber dennoch hervorgehoben, dass Hebel auch ein Opfer gebracht, so muß entweder Hebel sich in Kains Opfer nicht mit vertreten gefühlt, oder auch Kain, in seiner Selbstsucht befangen, ihn gar nicht mit haben vertreten wollen. Das Folgende spricht für die erstere Annahme.

חֵלֶב, Fett, hat dieselbe rad. wie חלב, Milch. חֵלֶב ist der Überschuss des Nahrungsstoffes, den der tierische Organismus augenblicklich nicht verbraucht und ihn für künftigen Gebrauch ausscheidet, es ist gleichsam das zurückgelegte Kapital des Tieres. חלב ist der fertige Nahrungsstoff, den der Organismus für ein neues Tier ausscheidet, הָלָב ist חֵלֶב für das Junge, חֵלֶב ist הלב für das Alte. Sehr wesentlich ist׳s, dass חֵלֶב das abgelagerte, ausgeschiedene Fett ist, תותב קרום ונקלף. Was mit in dem Organismus verwachsen ist, ist nicht חֵלֶב, das gehört noch mit zu dem lebendigen Organismus.

שעה kommt nicht wieder in dieser Zusammenstellung vor. Wohl aber פנה אל und der von Gott בכור wo wiederum der ,אל תפן אל מנחתם ,So bei Korach .מנחה erwählte כהן im Gegensatz vor Gott stehen. Nur ist פנה viel stärker, die ganze Wendung, die Richtung der ganzen Aufmerksamkeit, während שעה nur ein augenblick- liches Hinwenden ist. So heißt auch die kürzeste Zeitwendung שָעָה.

ויחר, wörtlich: es brannte dies den Kain sehr. חרה ist das Gefühl der Ent- rüstung, den ein Vorgang, welchen wir für Unrecht halten, in uns hervorruft. נפל .welk und nichtswürdig, d. i ,נבל lautverwandt mit נפל .kommt nicht wieder vor פנים Zusammenfallen der physischen oder sittlichen Kraft. נול Trümmer, Daniel 2, 5. נפל und drückt wohl weniger ein Gefühl נשא פנים ist wohl jedenfalls Gegensatz zu פנים über erlittenes Unrecht, als Niedergeschlagenheit, Mutlosigkeit aus. Es sind daher zwei verschiedene Gefühle, die darum auch in der Frage Gottes getrennt erscheinen: warum verdrießt dich das Vergangene und warum bist du so hoffnungslos für die Zukunft?

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.

ואל קין ואל מנחתו לא שעה, He did not turn to Kayin the donor, as he was not pleasing in the eyes of G’d; He also did not turn with favour to his offering seeing the nature of the offering was not designed to make it welcome;

ויחר לקין מאד, Cain was very angry. The emotion חרון אף indicates that a person feels superior, whereas the expression נפילת אפים indicates that one feels inferior. Cain felt angry at the superiority achieved by his younger brother. He felt inferior towards his brother thinking that the superior quality of his brother's offering was the cause that his own offering had not been accepted. He believed that this was the reason he had suffered a loss of image in the eyes of G'd.

ואל קין ואל מנחתו לא שעה, but to Kayin and to his offering G’d did not turn benevolently. His intention had not been good and pure; G’d does not need to accept gifts proffered reluctantly, as He is not in need of them. How did Kayin find out that G’d had not looked with favour on his offering? He found out that Hevel’s offering had been accepted, fire descending on it from heaven and consuming it. Nothing of that kind happened to Kayin’s offering. This caused Kayin dismay and anger and his face became downcast. The expression נפלו פניו, describes that someone feels insulted, depressed..

לא שעה, “He had not responded.” Rashi understands the word שעה as meaning “He turned toward,” as in אל ישעו, (Exodus 8,9) “let them not turn toward.” However, in Exodus 5,9 he does not explain it in the same manner. We need to understand the word here as similar to another verse in which it means: “do not turn to other altars.” (Isaiah 17,8)

ויחר לקין מאד ויפלו פניו, “This annoyed Kayin very much and his face fell.” Kayin and Hevel were both familiar with the mysticism underlying the ritual of offerings to G’d. They both offered their respective sacrifices in honour of the Lord G’d and Him only. Up until this point in the Book of Genesis we have only encountered two names for G’d; either He was called אלוקים, or ה' אלוקים. Now, in connection with the offering, we encounter the Ineffable four-lettered Name by itself for the first time. The Torah refers to the destination of the offering as מנחה לה'. When each the brothers had offered his respective sacrifice, it turned out that Hevel’s offering had been accepted by G’d whereas Kayin’s offering had not. At that point, Kayin began to develop doubts about the whole system of reward and punishment. This is why G’d saw fit to explain the system to him, i.e. that the entire universe is run and judged by this system of reward and punishment. This is why G’d saw fit to explain the system to Kayin by addressing him personally as we see in the next verse.

ויחר, due to his jealousy of his brother,

Alternatively, when Cain saw that G'd did not accept his own offering he felt angry at the Creator's disdain for His creatures, His not taking any interest in them. This is a very negative character trait. We find an example of such emotions in Isaiah 8,21 where anger is described as leading to blasphemy when someone feels that G'd does not look after him. After Cain found that he had been wrong, that G'd did accept his brother's offering, his anger against G'd turned to anger against G'd's favourite, against his brother Abel.

ויפלו פניו, he was downcast, being ashamed, feeling that G’d had publicly shamed him.

The author quotes a saying by our sages that when someone allows his anger to possess him his soul withdraws. He interprets this statement as referring to the divine image, צלם, that is reflected on man's face. [I have not been able to find such a statement. Ed.] Although Cain's specific acts of wickedness prior to his murdering his brother have not been spelled out by the Torah it is clear from his subsequent actions that he was evil.

Why are you angry. Why are you jealous that I accepted your brother’s offering? I did not do so arbitrarily nor was it unjust.

'ויאמר ה, the reason that G’d addressed him was in order to discipline him and to bring him back to a lifestyle that would endear him to G’d. He wanted to teach him how to repent, something of the utmost importance for subsequent generations. He taught him that there is atonement for sinners if their repentance is 100% sincere.

Why are you depressed. It is pointless to brood over the past when the matter can be rectified

הלא אם תטיב IF THOU MENDEST — Its meaning is as the Targum gives it: “if thou wilt improve thy doings, thou shalt be forgiven”.

IS IT NOT THUS, IF THOU MENDEST ‘SE’EITH’. In the opinion of the commentators,⁴²⁵Reference is here to R’dak. So also in Onkelos. this means there is a “lifting” or forgiveness of your sin. And in the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra it means a “lifting” of your face in contrast to [the question G-d asked of Cain]: Why is thy face fallen?⁴²⁶Verse 6. For he who is ashamed presses his face downward. Similarly, it is said, And the light of my countenance they cast not down,⁴²⁷Job 29:24. whereas one who honors him is as if he raises his face upward. This is the sense of the verses: Perhaps he will lift my face;⁴²⁸Genesis 32:21. Meaning, perhaps he will accept me. Do not lift the face of the poor.⁴²⁹Leviticus 19:15. Meaning, do not respect the person of the poor in judgment, but judge in righteousness.
In my opinion the verse means: “If you will mend your ways you will have your rightful superiority in se’eith (dignity) over your brother since you are the firstborn.” And this is the meaning of [G-d’s question to him]: Why art thou wroth?⁴²⁶Verse 6. For by virtue of his feeling ashamed before his brother, his face fell, and because of his jealousy of him he killed him, and now the Eternal told him: Why art thou wroth regarding your brother, and why is thy face fallen on account of him? Is it not thus! If thou mendest, you will have superiority in dignity over your brother, and if thou dost not mend, evil will come upon you not only because of him [your brother], for at the door of your house your sin lurks causing you to stumble in all your endeavors.

הלא אם תיטיב, if only you improve yourself you will also be welcome in My eyes.

הלא אם תיטיב שאת, when your heart will be good and your deeds will be of benefit for you. The meaning of such terms as כפרה, סליחה, is like נושא עון in Exodus 34,7. The scholar Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra explains the concept שאת mentioned in our verse as derived from נשיאה the lifting of something, the opposite of ויפלו פניו, Kayin’s face having “fallen.” G’d told Kayin that if he were to become good, mend his ways, then his face would be “lifted,” he could hold his head high. G’d Himself would raise his face for him. In Bereshit Rabbah 22,6 the words אם תיטיב שאת are understood as a blessing, whereas the words ואם לא תיטיב are understood as a curse, quoting Leviticus 20,19את עונם ישאו. Another approach, also taken from the Midrash: “if you will improve your ways I will forgive all your previous sins, if not the very sin you were guilty of will weigh even more heavily in the scale.” (seeing you have spurned My offer of forgiveness). Rabbi Berechyah, quoting Rabbi Shimon bar Ami, explained Psalms 32,1 אשרי נשוי פשע כסוי חטאה to mean: “hail the man who towers above (is higher than) sin,” as opposed to the sin which towers above man.”

הלא אם תיטיב שאת, “indeed when you will be good there will be a reward (forgiveness).” According to Rashi the meaning of the word שאת is similar to נושא עוון ופשע, “Who forgives sin and deliberate affronts.” (Exodus 34,7) According to Ibn Ezra the meaning of the word is “raising,” such as the lifting or raising the face of someone who feels ashamed because he has been rejected and buries his face in his hands so as not to display his shame. According to Nachmanides G’d tells Kayin that if he will be good he will even outrank his brother Hevel in G’d’s esteem, seeing that he is the first-born, after all. If, on the other hand, (remainder of our verse) Kayin were not to improve his ways, he would not only experience this humiliation but others would follow and dog him all his life. The reason is that he provided an entrance for the evil urge through his misguided conduct.

.הלא אם תיטיב (מעשיך) שאת, “surely if you improve (your deeds) you will be forgiven.” The word שאת is similar in meaning to Numbers 6,26 ישא ה' פניך, “may the Lord lift His countenance toward you.” G’d chose this expression as it is the reverse of ויפלו פניו, “his face fell.”

Your grave. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say, “At the opening?” [The judgment of] being sentenced to Gehinom has no “opening”! Thus Rashi explains, [it refers to] “The opening of your grave,” i.e., the pain of being put in the grave.

Nach der Akzentuation schließt mit רובץ ein Satz und mit ואליך beginnt ein zweiter Satz, der allerdings in einem Zusammenhang mit dem ersten stehen kann. Es steht ferner den Akzenten zufolge das לפתח הטאת רובץ in keiner näheren Beziehung zu יאם לא תיטיב als zu אם תיטיב und bezeichnet der Akzent auf תיטיב das folgende שאת mehr als Objekt, denn als Nachsatz zu תיטיב. Da nun נשא מנחה ein sehr gewöhnlicher Ausdruck ist, so könnte es daher sehr wohl heißen: Du magst ein gutes Opfer oder nicht ein gutes Opfer bringen, die Sünde ruhet vor der Tür. Allein da, wie wir sehen werden, in dem לפתח הטאת רובץ nicht sowohl die aus der Sünde drohende Gefahr, als vielmehr das Gegenteil ausgesprochen ist, so dürfte sich eine andere Auffassung empfehlen, die außerdem über den ganzen Vorgang ein helleres Licht verbreiten dürfte und in engem Zusammenhang zu dem Vorhergehenden steht.

הלא אם תיטיב שאת, the word שאת is to be understood as: “gift.” In other words, G-d promises Kayin a reward if he would change his attitude. The word appears in this sense in Genesis 43,34, where Joseph offers his brothers gifts. G-d is telling Kayin that when he will offer Him another offering, based on his changed attitude, it will be gratefully received by Him. On the other hand, if he will not change his attitude, he will find that Satan will constantly try to lead him into committing further sins. The whole sentence is a condensed version of G-d’s message to Kayin. Basically, G-d warns Kayin that words are not enough to rehabilitate himself, but that actions must reflect such words. Such verses, i.e. condensed versions, occur again, for instance in Genesis 4,15, כל הורג קין, “anyone daring to kill Kayin,” etc. The second half of the verse has been intentionally omitted as the first half makes its meaning clear. Compare also Samuel II 5,8, where David implies a reward for soldiers defeating the Jebusites in possession of the city of Jerusalem. [It was a most dangerous mission, considered as “mission impossible.” Ed.]) A different exegesis: G-d warned Kayin that if he were able to suppress his plan to kill his brother due to his jealousy, He could find it in His heart to reward him for his sin (of offering a sacrifice consisting of inferior produce). The word שאת being interpreted in the same manner as נושא עון, “downgrading a sin,” (Exodus 34,7). G-d added that if Kayin would not restrain his evil urge he would be punished for this. חטאת, “a punishable sin.” We find an example of this in Samuel I 28,10. (King Shaul who wished to speak to the spirit of Samuel, reassuring the witch that she would not commit a punishable sin by calling him from beyond the grave). If you (Kayin) were to say that Hevel is at liberty to flee and thus escape (Kayin’s) wrath, G-d explains to him that seeing that Hevel is his brother and has brotherly feelings for him, he would never dream, of having to escape to save his life from a murderous brother. [Very novel interpretation of ואליך תשוקתו. Ed.] If, on the other hand, you were to argue that Hevel being physically stronger than he, he would not have to fear you, G-d says that he, Kayin, would find means of neutralising Hevel’s physical strength, i.e. ואתה תמשול בו. In the ensuing conversation between the two brothers, Kayin told him that he would play the role of the senior brother, something that Hevel was not willing to accept. As a result of this, Kayin determined to kill him, losing no time to carry out his desire.

לפתח חטאת רובץ SIN CROUCHETH AT THE ENTRANCE — Right up to the door of your grave (until your death) your sin will be preserved.

AND UNTO THEE IS ITS LONGING, for your sin longs to cleave to you at all times. Nevertheless thou mayest rule over it if you so desire, for you may mend your ways and remove it from upon you. Thus He taught him [Cain] concerning repentance, that it lies within his power to return anytime he desires and He will forgive him.

שאת, every lofty level of greatness is lying in wait for you, ready to become yours,

ואם לא תיטיב לפתח חטאת רובץ, as if the Torah had written not in general terms לפתח, “at the entrance,” but לפתחך, “at your entrance.” The word רובץ, crouches, lies in wait, is in the infinitive to underline that the temptation to commit a sin is ever present for such people. Sin is a constant peril, an obstacle waiting to trip you up. It awaits you both coming and going. The apparent contradiction between the masculine mode רובץ, and the feminine mode for sin, חטאת instead of חטא, is a reminder of the evil urge, the נחש, the serpent, masculine, the force causing sin, being very powerful.

Wir finden שאת in der Bedeutung einer bevorzugten Stellung, einer Würde, in Jakobs letztem Ausspruch über Reuben, und zwar spricht auch diese Stelle יתר שאת von dem Vorzuge der Erstgeburt und auch gerade in demselben Augenblicke, in welchem Reuben, der בכור, dieser Würde unwürdig erklärt wurde. Ganz ebenso hier. Kain hatte als Erstgeborner das Jahresopfer (מקץ ימים) gebracht. Darin wäre Hebel mitvertreten gewesen. Allein Hebel הביא גם הוא, Hebel sah in Kains Opfer nicht den Ausdruck seiner Gesinnung, er brachte daher auch ein Opfer und zwar ein anders gewähltes, einer anderen Gesinnung entsprechendes. Dieses Opfer war ein stillschweigender Protest gegen Kains Würdigkeit zur Erstgeburt-Würde — und Gott, indem er zu Hebel und nicht zu Kain sich wendete, hatte eben damit Hebels Würdigkeit und Kains Unwürdigkeit bestätigt; ganz so wie später zwischen Ahrons Erwählung und den erhobenen Ansprüchen der von Korah Aufgewiegelten die Entscheidung getroffen wurde. Dies verdrießt Kain und es schlägt ihn nieder. Gott aber spricht zu ihm: Warum verdrießt es dich, und warum schlägt dies dich so hoffnungslos nieder? (Ich habe mich ja nur לפי שעה, nur momentan zu Hebel und nicht zu dir gewendet. Es heißt, wie schon bemerkt, וישע und nicht ויפן). Es liegt noch in deiner Hand. Es kommt nur darauf an, ob du die dir durch Geburt und Stand — (denn allerdings, wie bemerkt, ist der Ackerbau der vorzüglichere, der Bestimmung des Menschen an sich voller entsprechende) — zukommende bevorzugte Stellung zum Guten verwenden werdest oder nicht.

ואליך תשוקתו, “according to Rashi the word is from the root שקק, “sin, Satan, who is constantly yearning for you.” (in the negative sense of trying to trip you up.) You might argue that if this is the case, how could G-d punish a person for falling into this trap, G-d answers that He has given man the power to withstand such temptation to commit sins, i.e. ואתה תמשול בו, “but you are able to overrule him. (Satan).”Yet another exegesis, about the phrase: ואתה תמשול בך: “you, Kayin will outrank your brother in terms of your share in your parents’ inheritance and other privileges accruing to the firstborn.” (Compare Zohar B’reshit, 36) There is a story in B’reshit Rabbah about what Kayin and Hevel were at odds about. They were discussing how to divide up the earth between them, Hevel wanting all the movable property, and Kayin claiming the soil, as is written in Genesis 4,2 that “Kayin became a farmer whereas Hevel became a shepherd.” Kayin objected to Hevel’s flocks grazing on “his” earth. Hevel claimed that all the clothes Kayin was wearing had been “stolen” from the backs of his sheep. He told Kayin to disrobe, while Kayin told Hevel to vacate his land. This led to an altercation during the course of which Hevel was killed.

ואליך תשוקתו AND UNTO THEE IS ITS LONGING — The longing of sin; it refers to the evil inclination. This is continually longing and desiring to make you sin.

ואם לא תיטיב לפתח חטאת רובץ, however, sin is also lying in wait for you if you will add further intentional sin to the already performed unintentional sin. This is the way of the evil urge, that once you give into it, it will forever be ready to tempt you again.

ואליך תשוקתו, its desire is centered on you; it is constantly engaged in trying to seduce you by making you stumble.

לפתח חטאת רובץ. Man möge sich aber für welche Auffassung des הלא אם וגו ביטית׳ sad tniehcs sllafnedej ,nediehcstne remmi hcua ךילאו ץבור תאטח חתפל תשוקתו וגו׳ ieine höchst beklagenswerte Mißdeutung gefunden zu haben, gegen welche man sich nicht laut genug erheben kann. Wie hat man nicht in gewissen Kreisen diese Stelle zum Stützpunkte der Theorie von einem "bösen Prinzip" gemacht, das "nach der Bibel" wie ein Raubtier auf den Menschen lauern soll, voller Gier, ihn zu be- wälligen und "zum Falle zu bringen!" Und doch enthält die Stelle vor dem Forum einer besonnenen, gründlichen Erwägung das gerade Gegenteil!

ואתה תמשול בו NEVERTHELESS THOU MAYEST RULE OVER IT — If you desire to, you can gain the victory over it (Kiddushin 30b).

כי אליך תשוקתו, “for it longs for you due to its very nature. It too is anxious to satisfy its desires, its aspirations every day.”

תשוקתו, a word meaning desire, greed, lust. The word also occurs in this context (more or less) in Song of Songs 7,11 ועלי תשוקתו, “His longing is for me.”

Man vergleiche sämtliche Stellen, in welchen רבץ von Tieren vorkommt. Nicht eine einzige findet sich, in welcher es eine lauernde Stellung bedeutete. Ausnahmslos bezeichnen sie vielmehr gerade das friedlichste, ungestörte, und zu keiner Störung angeregte Ruhen. Ebenso ist תשוקה nicht nur nirgends der Ausdruck einer feind- lichen Gier, sondern es ist vielmehr die Sehnsucht nach einem höchsten Gut, die hingebendste Sehnsucht der Liebe! אני לדודי ועלי תשוקתו "ich bin meines Geliebten und seine Sehnsucht ist nach mir," singt das hohe Lied der Lieder. Zum Glück steht ohnehin wenige Verse zuvor ganz derselbe Satz mit denselben Ausdrücken: ואל אישך von dem Verhältnis des Weibes zum Manne, mit welchem doch תשוקתך והוא ימשל בך gewiß nicht ein ewiger Kriegszustand bezeichnet sein soll, dass etwa das Weib immer darauf lauere, den Mann zu bewältigen, der Mann aber, als der Stärkere, den Sieg davontrage; vielmehr ist ja damit die Sehnsucht eines liebenden Weibes gezeichnet, das eben in der sich unterordnenden Hingebung an die Bestrebungen und die Leitung des Mannes die Vollendung des eigensten Daseins findet. Und zehn Verse weiter sollten dieselben Worte in derselben Zusammenstellung das gerade Gegenteil aussprechen? Sicherlich nicht!

ואתה תמשול בו, he will have control over you only if you do not actively remove him (it) from your presence. If you want to, you can control it, govern it, resulting in your humbling it before you. By saying these words G’d demonstrated to Kayin the immense power inherent in his possessing free choice. Moses repeated this thought at the end of his life when in his parting speech he said to the Jewish people (Deut. 30,15) ראה נתתי לפניך היום את החיים ואת הטוב ואת המות ואת הרע. “See here, I have placed before you this day life, and the good, or death and the evil.” Moses added the admonition: ”choose the life!”

ואתה תמשול בו, it is within your power to overcome the power of the evil urge thanks to the צלם אלוקים, the divine image with which you have been provided at birth. This conforms to our sages in Sukkah 52 who have taught that were it not for this צלם אלוקים, which represents G’d’s assistance against the evil urge, there would be no way man could cope with temptation. This is what David meant in Psalms 37,33 ה' לא יעזבנו בידו ולא ירשיענו בהשפטו, “the Lord will not abandon him to his power; He will not let him be condemned in judgment.”

Wohl ist hier חטאת, die Sinnlichkeit, רובץ, männlich gezeichnet. Du darfst ihre Kraft nicht unterschätzen. Sie hat die Kraft, dich zu beherrschen, allein sie bleibt ruhig vor deiner Türe. Sie kommt nicht von selbst zu dir herein. Wenn sie bei dir heimisch werden, ja zuletzt dein Hausherr werden sollte, so mußt du sie zuvor zu dir hereingeladen, ihr den Stuhl an deinen Tisch gestellt haben. Von selbst bleibt sie ruhig vor deiner Tür. Ja, ihr ganzes Verlangen geht dahin, dass du sie beherrschst und leitest! Gott hat der Sinnlichkeit Reiz für dich verliehen, nicht damit sie dich, sondern damit du sie beherrschest und leitest; nicht unterdrückest und ertötest, sondern תמשל, regierest, über sie waltest und sie leitest. Das ist ihr ganzes Ziel und ihre Be- stimmung. Indem du sie beherrschst und leitest, erreicht sie ihre Bestimmung, darum sehnt sie sich danach. Hat ja der Mensch nicht eine einzige Anlage, die an sich gut oder bös wäre. Es kommt ja alles nur auf die sittliche Verwendung an. Und wahrlich der Reiz, den das Sinnliche für den Menschen hat, ist nicht das am wenigsten Heilvolle, ja Notwendige für seine hohe Bestimmung. Wäre alles Gute süß und alles Schlechte bitter, unsere ganze Tugend wäre nichts als die unfreie Befolgung sinnlicher Reize, wir wären unserer ganzen Menschen-Hoheit verlustig. Und gerade auf richtige, d. h. gute Leitung und Verwendung unserer sinnlichsten Anlagen sind die höchsten Zwecke unseres hieniedigen Daseins gegründet. Es soll daher in Wahrheit zwischen dem Menschen und seiner Sinnlichkeit ein solches Verhältnis stattfinden, das demjenigen zwischen Mann und Weib nicht unwesentlich ähnlich ist. Der Mensch soll sich mit der Sinnlichkeit frei vermählen, um mit ihr, unter seiner Leitung, die höchsten Zwecke zu vollbringen. Nicht umsonst hat das göttliche Wort über beide Verhältnisse dasselbe mit den gleichen Ausdrücken ausgesprochen. Ja, es wäre nach allem diesem möglich, dass der ganze Satz nichts anders heiße, als: Siehe, ob du sie zum Guten oder nicht zum Guten aufnehmen werdest, dazu wartet die Sinnlichkeit vor deiner Tür, und ihre Sehnsucht nach dir ist dahin gerichtet, dass du sie beherrschest. Denn in der Tat hat נשא ja auch die Bedeutung von "zu sich nehmen" wie לא המור אחד מהם נשאתי, ja, es bezeichnet ganz eigentlich auch das zu sich ins Hausnehmen der Frau in die Ehe: וישאו להם נשים מואביות (Ruth 1, 4) und sonst.

Diese Sehnsucht der Sinnlichkeit nach Erreichung ihrer Bestimmung durch Unterordnung unter die Herrschaft des Menschen drücken die Weisen durch das schöne Wort aus: יורד ומסית עולה ומשטין, "die Sinnlichkeit kommt von Gott und reizt den Menschen, und wenn der Mensch ihren Reizen erlegen, steigt sie hinauf und klagt ihn dessen vor Gott an"; denn sie hat ihn nicht gereizt, damit er ihr erliege, sondern damit er sie frei überwinde und unter seine Herrschaft nehme. Ganz diese Ansicht spricht aber ר׳ סימון in ב"ר zur Stelle aus: ׳אם בא יצרך להשחיקך שמחהו בדברי תורה שנא יצר סמוך תצור שלום ואם עשית כן מעלה אני עליך כאלו בראת את ב עולמות תצור שלום אין כתיב כאן אלא שלום שלום א״ת שאינו ברשותך כבר הכתבתי בתורה ואליך תשוקתו וגו׳. "Wenn die Sinnlichkeit kommt, dich zur Sünde zu reizen, so erfreue du sie mit Worten des Gesetzes; denn es heißt: mit der durch dich getragenen Sinnlichkeit wahrst du Frieden, und dann hast du das Verdienst, Schöpfer beider Welten zu sein, denn es heißt nicht einfach Frieden, sondern zwiefach Frieden. Und glaubst du, sie sei nicht in deiner Gewalt, so hat Gott schon in seinem Gesetze es ausgesprochen: ihr Verlangen geht nach dir, dass du sie beherrschest."

משל Grundbedeutung: aussprechen was etwas ist und soll, Charakter und Bestimmung aussprechen. Daher: gebieten. Der מושל weist jedem an, was er sein und tun soll. Es ist also keineswegs gleichbedeutend mit כבש, bezwingen, unterjochen, es ist vielmehr leiten und walten. Daher auch משלי שלמה: Sprüche, die uns sagen, was die Menschen und Dinge sind und sollen. So im allgemeinen. Ganz besonders heißt aber משל daher auch ein solcher Ausdruck oder Satz, der nicht in eigentlicher Bedeutung steht, sich nicht auf die darin genannten Dinge selbst bezieht, sondern sie nur zur Veranschaulichung allgemeiner Beziehungen gebraucht, um dadurch den Charakter oder die Bestimmung anderer Dinge zu bezeichnen, d. i. Gleichnis.

ויאמר קין אל הבל AND CAIN SPAKE TO ABEL — He began an argument, striving and contending with him, to seek a pretext to kill him. There are Midrashic explanations of these words, but this is the plain sense of the text.

AND CAIN SPOKE TO ABEL HIS BROTHER. He began a conversation of argument and contention with him in order to seek a pretext against him and so kill him. This is the language of Rashi. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the interpretation that appears most likely to him is that Cain related to Abel all the chastisements with which G-d had reprimanded him [and Cain accused Abel of having brought them upon him].
But in my opinion it is connected with the following words of Scripture: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, meaning that Cain said to Abel, “Let us go forth into the field,” and there he secretly killed him.
It is possible that his intention in killing Abel was that the world be built up from himself for he thought that his father would not have any more children. He also feared that the main building up of the world might be from his brother, [which seemed likely since it was he] whose offering had been favorably accepted.

ויאמר קין אל הבל אחיו, how upset he was, and how he had become downcast on account of his brother.

-14. ויאמר קין אל הבל אחיו. Cain spoke softly to his brother Abel. The addition of the word "his brother" indicates that Cain spoke in a friendly manner. Cain had made it plain previously that he was jealous of Abel. He did not want Abel to think that he also hated him on account of that. Therefore he stressed the brotherhood they had in common so as not to put Abel on guard against him. He deceived his brother into thinking that he did not harbour hatred in his heart. Verse 8 should really have been two verses, the first half concluding after the word אחיו. The Torah wrote it as one in order to make us understand why Abel was not on his guard.

ויאמר קין אל הבל אחיו, apparently, Kayin had no remorse, did not try to respond to G’d’s promise and warning. Proof is that he proceeded to do something far worse than what he had been guilty of thus far, by killing his brother.

ויאמר קין, “Kayin said, etc.” according to Rashi Kayin began to quarrel with Hevel. According to Ibn Ezra Kayin told Hevel all the admonitions G’d had subjected him to. This is why the Torah did not have to repeat what he said to Hevel. Nachmanides explains that the words ויאמר קין אל הבל אחיו, are to be understood as part of the words ויהי בהיותם בשדה, “it was when they were both in the field, etc,” i.e. the second half of our verse. We need to understand the whole sequence as Kayin saying to Hevel: “let’s go out into the field, etc.” His intention was to kill him there in a spot that was not within view of his parents or twin sister. He was under the impression that his parents would not beget any more children. He was also afraid that the human species would be built up by the descendants of Hevel seeing that only his gift had been accepted by G’d. Some commentators believe that the subject of their conversation was to divide up the earth between them, Kayin claiming agriculture as his domain, claiming all arable land as belonging to him, whereas Hevel, being a shepherd, claimed all that was above the ground. Eventually, Kayin used this as a pretext to deny his brother setting foot on his soil, whereas Hevel denied Kayin the right to breathe the air. This led to a fight between them.

ויאמר קין אל הבל אחיו, "Kayin said to Hevel his brother" The Torah did not spell out what Kayin told his brother. According to the Targum Yerushalmi on this verse he told him that he did not believe in the system of reward and punishment and that there was no judgment in the hereafter.
The second sin Kayin committed was that he slew his brother as reported in the Torah ויקם קין אל הבל אחיו ויהרגהו, “Kayin arose against his brother Hevel and killed him (4,8)”.
Kayin’s third sin was when he responded to G-d’s question —

He engaged him in argument and dispute. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse not explain what Kayin said? It must be that “he engaged him in argument...” (Devek Tov) In Bereishis Rabbah (22:7) it explains that Kayin the soilworker would argue that the soil belongs to him, thus Hevel the shepherd had no place in the world. Kayin would not allow him to graze his flocks. This caused a dispute.

Es wird nicht angegeben, was Kain dem Hebel gesagt habe. Sehr wahrscheinlich das Vorangehende, das, was Gott zu ihm gesprochen hatte, um so mehr, da Hebel ja mit darin beteiligt war, und Gott Hebels Bevorzugung und Kains Zurücksetzung als etwas möglicherweise Vorübergehendes, keineswegs als für immer entschieden erklärt hatte.

ויאמר קין אל הבל אחיו, “Kayin said to his brother Hevel;” seeing that the Torah does not elaborate on the content of Kayin’s words, we must assume that he told his brother about what G–d had said to him. (verse 6-7) He made it plain to his brother that he was very upset that G–d had not seen fit to accept his offering as He had done with Hevel’s offering. Hevel reacted to G–d having criticised Kayin with joy. When Kayin saw that his brother had been glad that he had been criticised by G–d, he arose with the intent of killing him. (second half of this verse). His motive was plain jealousy. Our author cites an additional or different interpretation of the incomplete sentence: “Kayin said to his brother Hevel,” which he had heard in the name of Rabbi Joseph Kara (turn of 11th century, not to be confused with Joseph Karo author of Shulchan Aruch, of Safed who lived during the most of the 16th century). that initially Hevel, having heard from Kayin what G–d had said to him, was afraid of him seeing that his brother was so angry, and remained on guard against him. When Kayin told him that G–d had held out hope for him by promising that He would relate to him with fondness if he changed his ways, Hevel dropped his guard feeling certain that Kayin would indeed change his ways. When Kayin spoke to him in a friendly mien, i.e. ויאמר, he thought that this was proof that Kayin had changed. He therefore dropped his guard with fatal consequences for himself.

ויהי בהיותם בשדה, away from the presence of their parents.

ויאמר קין, Kayin accused his brother of being the cause that G’d had rebuked him. As a result his anger had intensified. He did not attack Hevel physically at that time as he was afraid of the reaction of his father. He kept his fury under control until the two of them were alone together in the field. This is when he killed him out of jealousy.

ויקם קין, “Kayin arose, etc.” According to the Midrash (Bereshit Rabbah 22,7-8) Hevel succeeded in wrestling Kayin to the ground, whereupon Kayin asked him if he planned to kill him, pleading that they were the only two human beings in the world, and would it not be terrible to kill half the human race? Thereupon Hevel had pity on him and released him. At that point Kayin exploited Hevel’s weakness and killed him. Seeing that he did not know where to administer a lethal blow he had to strike him in numerous places until he found the most vulnerable spot in his body. (according to the Midrash, he observed two ravens fighting , one of them standing over the other and killing it and then burying it in the earth. Kayin simply copied the raven)

ויהי בהיותם בשדה. It was when they were both in the field. We need to know why the Torah wanted us to know that what follows occurred in the field. Besides, why did the Torah have to mention that "Cain arose?" It would have sufficed to simply state that Cain killed Abel! Furthermore, why did G'd have to ask Cain where his brother Abel was? Why was Cain foolish enough to tell the One who knows everything that he did not know where his brother was? After all, who would be aware of G'd's supervising everything that occurs on earth if not the people with whom G'd had communicated directly such as Adam, Eve, Cain, etc.? Why did Cain add the gratuitous and provocative remark: "Am I my brother's keeper?" Why did G'd have to mention (verse 10) that Abel's blood cried out to Him "from the earth?" Besides, what was the nature of that outcry? Why did G'd curse the earth in addition to the murderer? What harm did it do for the earth to have swallowed Abel's blood? The alternative would have been for the dogs to lick it up. Did earth not act very properly by covering up the blood of the dead? G'd's words almost defy our understanding.

ויהי בהיותם בשדה. Es wird durchaus nicht gesagt, dass Streit zwischen ihnen gewesen. Das ויקם אל spricht vielmehr das Gegenteil aus. Es kommt noch einmal beim Saul in der Höhle vor, ולא נתנם לקום אל שאול, und dort heißt es auch ein un- erwartetes Überfallen. קום אל, nicht על, heißt ja wörtlich: sich aufmachen, um erst zu dem Andern hinzugehen, setzt also voraus, dass sie nicht nebeneinander und miteinander waren. Demgemäß heißt denn auch das בהיותם בשדה nichts anders als: sie waren ruhig im Felde bei der Arbeit, der auf seinem Acker, jener bei seiner Heerde, da kam dem Kain plötzlich der schreckliche Gedanke, er ging zu Hebel hin und erschlug ihn.

ויקם קין, Kayin arose without any previous quarrel, similar to Deuteronomy 19,11 וארב לו וקם עליו, “he ambushed him and attacked him.”

The word אל in our verse is to be understood as equivalent to על, upon. We have a similar use of the word אל in Ezekiel 18,6 אל ההרים לא אכל, “he did not eat upon the mountains.” There are numerous examples in Scriptures of such a use of the word אל. In Bereshit Rabbah 22,7 the subject of the conversation between the two brothers is described as follows: They were discussing how to carve up the earth between them. They agreed that one of them would lay claim to the real estate, whereas the other would own all the movable objects on earth. Thereupon one of them claimed that the ground the other stood on belonged to him, whereas the second one claimed that the clothing his brother wore actually belonged to him. Kayin, who had laid claim to the earth, told Hevel to fly off as he did not want him to set foot on his earth. Hevel countered by telling Kayin to strip off his clothing. The resulting feud led to Kayin killing Hevel.
Rabbi Yehudah bar Ami said that they quarreled about whether the original woman had died immediately after having eaten from the tree of knowledge, and that G’d had given Adam a substitute for her, [so that they had both not been the children of a sinful mother and therefore not inherited a tendency to sin, Ed.] or if they had been born of Chavah, Adam’s original wife.
Yet another opinion (Rav Hunna) quoted in the Midrash describes the subject of their quarrel as being the extra twin sister born with Hevel. Hevel claimed her as his wife, seeing she had been born with him, whereas Kayin claimed her as his wife, seeing he was the eldest. We need to understand why these scholars in the Midrash offer so many divergent views as to what Kayin and Hevel quarreled about. Not only this, but in the commentaries dealing with the mystical dimension of the Torah, the kabbalah, we find yet more opinions on this subject. Moreover, in the Jerusalem Targum the version of our verse is equivalent to: ”Kayin said to his brother: ‘lets go outside and have a talk.” When they had gone outside, Kayin said to his brother that there is no justice and no judge in the universe, that there is no afterlife, neither is there a reward or punishment. If there were, why would G’d have rejected his offering and accepted that of Hevel? Hevel disagreed, saying that there was a judge (G’d) that there was justice, and that there was a judge, There was reward and punishment and there was an afterlife beyond the material physical world they lived in. The world had been created as an act of love, not as Kayin had said that there was no love. Proof was the very fact that his offering had been accepted, seeing that he had served his Creator faithfully. Seeing that their argument had become not merely philosophical but personal, Kayin attacked his brother Hevel and killed him.

Cain was jealous of Abel because he thought that Abel's existence was the cause that he himself had been degraded. He thought that his own shortcomings had come to light only by comparing him to his brother. Once his brother would be out of the way G'd would have to turn to him seeing there was no one else to turn to. This is why he planned to kill Abel. He realised that the stench of Abel's decaying body would rise heavenwards. Inasmuch as man had been forbidden to murder, Cain sought a way of killing Abel without laying a hand on him. We have heard that Cain was a man of the earth; he was familiar with how the earth functioned. Our sages (compare Nedarim 39) say that earth has limbs just like a human being, i.e. the equivalent of hands, feet, etc. Cain knew which part of the earth served as its mouth, its eyes, etc. As a result of this familiarity with the earth he found a way to kill Abel with guile without actually laying a hand on him. The Torah describes that while Cain and Abel walked in the field Cain found a suitable spot to carry out his evil plan. The word ויקם is not part of the act of murder. It means he simply stood over him in a spot where the earth would swallow him. The earth actually did the killing. While the Torah does not spell out the exact nature of Abel's death in our verse, it does so in verse 11.

When G'd asked Cain where his brother was, He did so to find out if Cain was aware of his sin. When Cain answered that he did not know Abel's whereabouts, G'd told him that he should have made it his business to know. To this Cain replied: "Have You made me his keeper?" He did not confess his evil deed. He either thought that G'd would not punish him for an indirect act, a cause, or he thought that G'd did not exercise this kind of supervision over man. When G'd persisted by asking: "What did you do?" He informed Cain that his wicked deed was the cause that the earth had swallowed Abel. The words: "the voice of your brother Abel's blood cries out to me from the earth," mean that Abel thought it was the earth that killed him, not Cain. This is why he complained to G'd. G'd cursed Cain even more severely than the earth because he was the cause of what the earth had done. Henceforth the earth was no longer permitted to open its mouth (Sanhedrin 37). Isaiah 24,16 describes the songs of the earth as originating in its "wings," i.e. its periphery. Had the earth not been forbidden to open its mouth, no doubt its songs would have originated from its mouth. When the earth was to swallow all the Egyptians who had drowned, it was worried about opening its mouth until G'd gave it special permission as alluded to in Exodus 15,12: "You inclined Your right hand and the earth swallowed them." Perhaps this is the problem the sages referred to when they claimed that Cain killed Abel with a stone. As a result Abel suffered many injuries which would account for the Torah writing דמי אחיך צועקים instead of דם אחיך צועק, i.e. the plural for the word blood. Death would not have been due to any single injury as in the case of someone who is slain by the sword. We already explained that the fact that Abel suffered multiple injuries cleansed him of any sins he might have committed prior to his death.

איה הבל אחיך WHERE IS ABEL THY BROTHER — thus entering into a friendly conversation with him: perhaps he might repent and say, “I have killed him, and sinned against You” (Genesis Rabbah 19:11).

אי הבל אחיך, “in which place did you bury him?” G’d phrased this as a question only in order to give Kayin a chance to begin the process of repentance, not because He was not perfectly aware where Kayin had buried Hevel. G’d did not want to be forced to kill someone already guilty of the death penalty.

'ויאמר ה, the reason G’d spoke to him now was only in order to show him that he could not hide his deed from G’d, and that whatever man does, or even plans to do is fully known to Him. Kayin had thought that by burying Hevel he could hide his deed from G’d, just as he had been able to hide it from his father. This is why he had killed Hevel in the field where there had not been any witnesses. The additional reason why G’d addressed him was to inform him of his impending punishment. The reason that G’d phrased His remarks as if He questioned him, saying: אי הבל אחיך, was only an opening line, just as He had asked Adam in 3,9 איכה, “where are you?,” knowing full well where Adam was hiding. He also had asked Moses in Exodus 4,2 מזה בידך, “what is this in your hand?,” knowing full well that Moses held a staff in his hand. There are more such examples of a question by G’d being for purposes other than to obtain information not at His disposal. Seeing, however, that He had not said to Kayin: “why did you kill your brother?” Kayin thought that G’d was not yet aware of Hevel being dead. He denied all knowledge, saying: לא ידעתי, השומר אחי אנכי, claiming that Hevel had gone about his work just as he, Kayin, had gone about his work.. He added, gratuitously, that he could not be expected to know the whereabouts of his brother all the time, seeing he had not been hired to be his keeper. He acted far worse than his father at the time, as Adam had never denied that he had done wrong. He had only made excuses for himself. Adam was well aware that G’d was well informed about all such matters, and that even though He had commenced the conversation with a question, it was not because He had not known the answer.

השמר אחי אנכי? “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Kayin remonstrated with G’d that it had been G’d’s duty to protect Hevel, not his.

— אי הבל אחיך “where is your brother Hevel?” by saying: “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” He spoke as if it were possible to fool G-d. Because of these three sins Kayin was cursed with three curses.

So that he may repent... Why did Rashi not say the same regarding Adam? The answer is: By hiding himself, Adam admitted that he had sinned. Thus Rashi could not say, “He may repent and say: ‘I sinned.’” Another answer: Adam was a great tzaddik, as he was created by Hashem Himself. Surely he will admit his sin! Not so concerning Kayin. Therefore, Hashem had to “engage him in conversation so that he may repent...” (Maharshal)

אִי ,אֵי, ein abgegrenzter, abgeschiedener Ort. Daher אֵי: die Frage nach dem Orte eines Abwesenden. — Die ganze Tiefe der verbrecherischen Gesunken- heit zur entschiedensten Warnung vor jeder Entzweiung ist in der Frage: "Wo ist dein Bruder Hebel?" und in der Antwort ausgesprochen. Es sollte Jeder wissen, wo der Andere ist. Die Frage ist eine ganz berechtigte, auch wenn nichts vorgefallen wäre. Und nun die Antwort! Ich weiß nicht usw. Kain findet die vollständigste Entschuldigung darin, dass es ja nicht seine Aufgabe sei, seinen Bruder zu schützen, er habe genug mit sich zu tun! Wenn sich in dieser Antwort die kaltblütigste Selbstsucht ausspricht, so liegt darin zugleich die ernsteste Warnung, dass jenes lieblose: "Jeder fege vor seiner Tür" nicht fern von dem feindseligsten Hass ist, der auch den Nächsten kaltblütig dahinschlachtet, wenn er dem eigenen Vorteil im Wege steht.

לא ידעתי I KNOW NOT — He became a deceiver of the Most High (i. e. he persuaded himself that he could deceive Him) (Numbers Rabbah 20:6).

לא ידעתי, “I do not know.” He thought that the question concerned Hevel’s whereabouts. Seeing that Kayin had not been interested previously in G’d’s ability to know the future, or to become close to Him; such knowledge about G’d was reserved to those who are cleaving to Him.

He became a deceiver... Kayin thought that Hashem is not All-Knowing; otherwise he would not have tried to deny [that he had sinned].

השומר אחי אנכי AM I MY BROTHER’S KEEPER — This is a question. Similarly, wherever ‘ה has a חטף פתח it introduces a question.

דמי אחיך THY BROTHERS BLOOD — דמי is plural — bloods” — his blood and the blood of his possible descendants (Genesis Rabbah 22:9). Another explanation of why the plural is used: he inflicted upon him many wounds, because he knew not whence his soul would depart (i. e. which blow would prove fatal) (Sanhedrin 37b).

ויאמר...דמי אחיך, He said: “the blood of your brother whom you have slain cries out to Me from the very earth, and the sound of its cry is what I have heard and what caused Me to confront you.” This was, of course, a figure of speech. מן האדמה, upon which you spilled his blood. The fact that the Torah uses the plural mode when referring to blood, writing דמי instead of דם, is not especially significant, as the word דם occurs frequently in the singular mode and also in the plural mode. (Compare Leviticus 20,9 and Leviticus 20,11 to mention just as few examples.) Actually, the justification for treating the word דם as both singular and plural is the fact that on the one hand it is an entity, but at the same time it contains 4 different categories of moisture. Onkelos explains that the reason why here in particular the use of the plural mode is appropriate is the fact that by killing Hevel who had not yet been married and sired children, spilling his blood also meant spilling the blood of the children he would now never have. He may not even have had marital relations with his wife as yet, just as his brother Kayin had also not yet had marital relations with his wife until after he had murdered Hevel (comparer 4,17).

קול דמי אחיך, “the sound of your brother’s blood, etc.” Our sages (Sanhedrin 37) understand the reason the word דמי, “blood of” is in the plural as reminding us that not only Hevel’s blood was spilled when he was murdered but also that of the offspring which he never had on account of being murdered so early in his life. This Midrash is actually to be viewed as an allusion to the time of the resurrection. After all, seeing that his offspring at the time of his death had only been something potential, how could the Torah speak of actual blood of his unborn children and grandchildren? The answer therefore must be that it refers to human beings that should have been brought back to life at the time of resurrection. Kabbalists, on the other hand, see in the plural of the word דמי here an allusion to the reincarnation of souls in other bodies. In the case of Hevel, he was “reborn” in the body of Sheth as the Torah adds the words תחת הבל “in place of Hevel,” when Sheth’s birth is reported for the first time in 4,25. Kayin’s punishment was another example of מדה כנגד מדה, the punishment fitting the crime, as all his descendants perished at the time of the deluge. He who had tried to deny his brother Hevel a place on earth forfeited his own place on earth. [according to the view that Naamah the wife of Noach was descended from Kayin, this latter statement is hard to reconcile with that view. Ed.]

What have you done. Hashem informed him: 1) that he had free will and that his deeds were therefore attributable to him, and 2) that while crimes against Divine law are punished by special acts of Providence, crimes against natural law, such as murder, are punished by nature itself.

For he did not know... This is from Sanhedrin 37b, which goes on to say: “Until he reached his neck.”

Auf קול steht ein trennender Akzent. Es ist so viel als: Horch! (הרכסי לבקעה v3n דם .דמי אחיך - (ר׳ ליב פ"פ ז"ל von דמה, ähnlich sein, gleichen, ist der dem organischen Leibe assimilierte Stoff; es ist der menschliche Leib im Fluß, der zerstreut diesen von der Persönlichkeit des lebendigen Organismus erfassten Stoff, daher: רמים, .plur

ארור אתה מן האדמה CURSED BE THOU FROM THE GROUND or, MORE THAN THE GROUND — More than the ground has already been cursed on account of its sin (cf. Rashi on Genesis 1:11): in this, too, it has again sinned

CURSED ART THOU FROM THE GROUND — more than it has already been cursed on account of its sin. In this, too, it has further sinned in that it hath opened its mouth to take thy brother’s blood. Therefore, I impose upon it an additional curse: it shall not continue to give unto thee her strength.⁴³⁰Verse 12. Thus the words of Rashi.
But this is not correct since here He did not curse the ground because of him as He did in the case of his father, rather He said that he be cursed through the ground. The explanation of the curse is that the earth shall not continue to give him its strength, and that he be a fugitive and a wanderer in it,⁴³⁰Verse 12. and He further stated, “When thou tillest the ground⁴³⁰Verse 12. with all your efforts to cultivate it properly by plowing and hoeing, and in all manner of service in the field⁴³¹Exodus 1:14. and by properly sowing it, it shall not continue to give unto thee her strength.⁴³⁰Verse 12. Instead, you will sow much and harvest little.” This then was the curse, in the same sense as in the verse: And I will curse your blessings.⁴³²Malachi 2:2. Thus He uttered the curse in connection with his occupation for he was a tiller of the ground,⁴³³Verse 2. and so He cursed his work. This then is the sense of the expression, it shall not continue to give unto thee her strength,⁴³⁰Verse 12. meaning, “It will no longer yield to you its full produce as it had done till now when you cultivated it.” And so did Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explain it.
It is possible that He also cursed him though the ground in that it should no longer yield its strength to him of its own accord; the fig-tree and the vine would not yield their strength⁴³⁴See Joel 2:22. in his estate, and the trees of the field would not yield him their fruit.⁴³⁵See Leviticus 26:4. Then He added, “Even when you work the ground by plowing and sowing, it will not continue to give you its strength as before.” Thus there were two curses relating to his occupation, and a third one — that he be a fugitive and a wanderer in the world. This means that his heart will not be at rest, and he will lack the tranquility to remain in one place on the earth; he will wander forever for the punishment of murderers is exile.
The expression in that it hath opened its mouth to take thy brother’s blood means: “You have killed your brother and covered his blood with the earth, and I will decree upon it that it uncover its blood, and she shall no more cover her slain⁴³⁶Isaiah 26:21. for it will be punished together with all that is covered up in it, such as seed and plant.” This is the punishment for all blood-letting on the earth, even as it is written, For blood, it polluteth the land.⁴³⁷Numbers 35:33. The pollution of the land consists of a curse upon its produce, as it is written: When one came to a heap of twenty measures, there were but ten; when one came to the wine vat to draw out fifty press-measures, there were but twenty.⁴³⁸Haggai 2:16.

ארור אתה מן האדמה, cursed and deprived of the good the earth has to offer.

ועתה ארור אתה מן האדמה, the curse will be spelled out in the verse following, where G’d explains that Kayin will experience that the source of his curse is the very earth he had used to hide his crime. This earth would not continue to provide its strength for Kayin.

ארור אתה מן האדמה אשר פצתה את פיה, “you are cursed from the earth which opened its mouth, etc.” It is difficult to understand how the earth could be faulted. After all, the earth acts as receptacle for everything which is poured out upon it. The answer given is that in this instance the earth deliberately tried to conceal the deed by swallowing all of Hevel’s blood (and body) so that not a trace of what happened there remained visible. Rashi explains the words ארור אתה מן האדמה, as meaning “you are cursed now even more than the first curse which had been decreed against the earth as a result of your father’s sin when he ate from the tree of knowledge.” [that curse had also been described as ארורה, although Rashi substituted the term קללה. Ed.] Nachmanides disagrees with Rashi, saying that this time the earth itself was not cursed as when Kayin’s father had sinned, but in this instance Kayin’s vocation as a farmer was the subject of the curse. Whereas previously he had been a very successful farmer, he would find now that even his best efforts would not be rewarded with the expected success.

ארור אתה אשר פצתה את פיה, ”you are cursed more than the ground which opened its mouth, etc.” The meaning may be “you are cursed (separated) from the ground (which was your source of sustenance) which has opened its mouth, etc. From now on the earth would not yield its produce to you voluntarily.
The second curse was that even if Kayin would labour mightily to make the earth yield its produce the way it had done previously. This is why the Torah said in verse 12 —

Even more... This refers to the ground’s sin of bringing forth [inedible] trees bearing fruit; when Adam was cursed, so too was the ground. It does not refer to the ground’s sin of opening its mouth. For about that sin it cannot be said, “You are cursed more than the curse of the ground,” as the ground had not yet been cursed for it.

Und nun, ארור אתה, Gott braucht dich gar nicht weiter zu richten, du bist schon gerichtet, indem sich die ganze Erdwelt gegen dich erhebt. In diesem Schrei liegt dein Urteil. Bemerken wir, dass erst hier über einen Menschen, den Verbrecher, der Fluch ausgesprochen worden. Oben traf der Fluch die Erde zur Erziehung des Menschen. — ארר, ja verwandt mit ערר, wovon ערער, vereinsamt. Während dem ברוך alles harmonisch zuströmt, ihm sein Heil und sein Gedeihen zu fördern, steht der ארור vereinsamt, außer Zusammenhang mit allem, aus welchem des Menschen Gedeihen und Blühen kommt. מן האדמה, getrennt von ארור אתה, entweder: hinweg von dem Boden usw. oder wie wir es übersetzt haben: von dem Boden usw. Du hast schon den Fluch und zwar von dem Boden usw. — פצה, verwandt mit פצח ,פצע, ist immer ein gewaltsames Öffnen, entweder mit Widerwillen, oder durch zwingende Verhältnisse. So bei Gelübden, die in der Not getan werden, bei Jephta, ואנכי פציתי פי, so auch: .(selbst in der Angst wagte keiner den Mund zu öffnen (Jes. 10 ,ופוצה פה ומצפצף So auch hier: die ihren Mund öffnen musste, du hast sie gezwungen, das Blut deines Bruders von deiner Hand aufzunehmen. מידך, der Mensch kehrt allerdings zurück, allein von der Hand des Bruders erwartet die Erde den Bruder nicht.

מן האדמה, according to Rashi: “more than the previous curse decreed on earth as a result of Adam’s having eaten from the tree of knowledge when it was punished for failing to have produced trees with edible trunks.”An alternate exegesis: the verse is to be understood as “you, Kayin, the farmer, are to have to work an earth cursed additionally when you work it, during this year, as it will not continue to yield its fruit for you in the year to follow; seeing that this is so, from now on you will be wandering on earth without permanent homestead, noting that you are cursed,”

אשר פצתה את פיה לקחת את דמי אחיך IN THAT IT HATH OPENED ITS MOUTH TO TAKE THY BROTHER’S BLOOD: therefore do I impose upon it an additional curse regarding you—“it shall not henceforth yield unto thee its strength”.

אשר פצתה את פיה, because it allowed itself to be used to cover up the killing of your brother. As a result, earth will no longer be free to provide the needs of your livelihood in the degree it did up until now. There was no need to spell out the penalty for the murderer. His punishment is part of the principle applying to the penalty for anyone causing willful damage, i.e. he will experience tit for tat as spelled out in Leviticus 24,19.

אשר פצתה את פיה, a reference to soaking up Hevel’s blood, [not as in the case of Korach being actively involved in swallowing Hevel. Ed.] We have a similar incident in Job 16,18 ארץ אל תכסי דמי, “Earth, do not cover my blood!” Also Ezekiel 24, 7-8 uses similar language, i.e. כי דמה היה על צחיח סלע שמתהו לא שפכתהו על הארץ לכסות עליו עפר, “For her blood remained within her, she placed it on a smooth rock. She did not pour it upon the ground to cover it with dust.”

It continued to sin. Rashi apparently holds that the term פצתה means to open extra wide, which was the [ground’s] sin, as Tosafos says (Sanhedrin 37b ד"ה מיום): “It left no trace [of Hevel’s blood] at all.” (Nachalas Yaakov) Re’m asks: Here, it was considered bad for the ground to open its mouth. So why does it say in Sanhedrin 37b: “From the day the ground opened to accept Hevel’s blood it has not opened [again] for the good”? This implies that opening its mouth was good! However, I do not understand what the question is. Surely it was good for Kayin that Hevel’s blood be covered, but for Hevel it was bad [that the ground opened and covered his blood] because as long as Hevel’s blood remains visible, his death would be avenged — as was the case with the blood of Zechariah the prophet (see Gittin 57b). (Divrei Dovid)

אשר פצתה את פיה לקחת את דמי אחיך, “because it opened its mouth, to accept, (hide) the blood of your brother, cooperating with you in hiding your foul deed.” As long as you and your descendants are living on earth; you will therefore have to find new earth to till, earth whose productivity has not been exhausted from the previous year’s harvest. [Kayin’s male descendants came to an end at the time of the deluge. If Noach’s wife was descended from Kayin, this does not contradict this interpretation, as women did not till the soil. Ed.] We have a verse in Job 15,23, which describes the wicked man as wandering in search of bread without succeeding.”

נע ונד A VAGABOND AND A WANDERER — You shall not be permitted to dwell in one place.

כי תעבד, G’d cursed the earth because Kayin’s occupation involved getting his sustenance from the earth. לא תסף תת כוחה לך, even though the earth had already been cursed ever since Adam had eaten from the tree of knowledge, now G;d added another curse on account of Kayin. He said that even the amount of yield that the earth had been in the habit of providing since being cursed previously, it would not be capable of producing for Kayin the murderer. It is entirely possible that this new curse was restricted to the results Kayin’s efforts would have, and does not mean that all other human beings, farmers, were made to suffer for Kayin’s act of fratricide. Possibly, it applied only to Kayin and his direct descendants until the time of Noach. Maybe it even applied also to the descendants of Sheth until Noach. It seems that with Noach’s birth, Lemech his father, had knowledge that the curse had run its course. We read in Bereshit Rabbah 22,10 that in the view of Rabbi Eleazar the word לך in our verse means that whereas the earth would not yield up its strength for Kayin, it would do so for others. On the other hand, Rabbi Yossi bar Chanina is on record that the curse applied both to Kayin and to others. It appears more likely that the word לך in our verse is indeed restrictive and means that other people farming the earth would experience better success than Kayin. [Kayin’s failure as a farmer would demonstrate to the others that he, and not they, had indeed been punished on an ongoing basis for his having committed murder, hoping to benefit by it at the expense of his brother. Ed.] There is no question, however, that the first curse earth experienced after Adam had eaten from the tree of knowledge was a permanent curse still in effect nowadays. The word בעבורך in 3,14 has a different connotation entirely from the word לך, meaning “on your account,” not “for you personally.”

Indem Gott die Erde dem Menschen unterordnete, soll sie durch die Verwendung ihrer Kräfte in den Dienst der sittlichen Menschen-Zwecke gehoben werden. Das Verbrechen aber löst das Band zwischen Erde und Mensch. Gott spricht: sie wird dir ihre Kraft nicht mehr geben. Nur wenn הדום שכינה :אדם ist, dann ist auch die הדום אדם :אדמה. Wenn aber der Mensch das Band zwischen sich und Gott zerreißt, so zerreißt Gott das Band zwischen dem Menschen und der Erde. Der Mensch lebt dann wohl noch auf der Erdkugel, aber sie ist ihm nicht mehr הדום, nicht אדמה mehr. — גע, Gegenteil von נח: ikeine Ruhestätte haben, also im Verhältnis zum Boden, los- getrennt von ihm, kein Fleckchen Erde "sein" nennend. נד in Beziehung zum Menschen: von allen Menschen geschieden. נוד Grundbedeutung: Trennung des Verwandten von Verwandtem, desjenigen, was eigentlich naturgemäß zusammengehört. Daher vom Wasser, dessen Teile am innigsten verbunden sind, heißt נֵד ein geschiedener Wasser- haufe, und das, was ein Wasserquantum heraushebt und zusammenhält heißt נאד Schlauch (analog wie סיר, Topf, bon סור Weichen. Getrennt sein von Andern und in sich zusammenhalten, sind im Hebräischen verwandte Begriffe. Ebenso heißt נֵדֶה und נְדָן die Mitgabe an die aus dem Vaterhause scheidende Tochter, und נְדָן die Scheide). נוד לְ־: das von Andern sich ab und Einem sich zuwenden im Gemüte: das Mit- gefühl, Mitleid, ähnlich wie סור מ־ und סור ל־. — Also Kain, dem Ackersmann, dessen Stolz es ist, den Boden zu bebauen und ihm mit seiner Kraft den Ertrag zu entlocken, wird der Boden nicht mehr seine Kräfte leihen, ja, er wird keinen Fleck auf Erden als Ruhestätte sein nennen können, und, während sonst auch der bodenlose Fremdling, גר, in der Bruderliebe anderer Menschen den Boden der Existenz gewinnt, wird Kain auch dieser versagt, er wird נע und נד sein, stättelos und gemieden, von der Erde und den Menschen verlassen.

נע ונד תהיה בארץ, this is yet another curse, one that most certainly applied only to Kayin personally, a curse which resulted in his not being able to feel at home permanently in any one place on earth. This was something psychological, forcing Kayin to adopt a nomadic lifestyle, trying his luck at growing things by moving to a new location every time he experienced crop failure. G’d did not kill him outright, something that every murderer deserves. The reason was that killing him now would be counterproductive as it would leave the earth without males other than Adam, and Adam could not be expected to sire more children after he had lost the two sons he had helped produce. We know, that even with Kayin surviving, the trauma of what happened prevented Adam from maintaining marital relations with his wife for 130 years. (5,3)
Although G’d had not killed Kayin, he was under sentence of exile in addition to the earth having been cursed as an instrument of providing his livelihood. The words נע ונד are as if the word נע had been repeated, stressing the seriousness of the curse. Our sages, in commenting on the line כל הורג קין שבעתים יוקם, “that anyone killing Kayin, he (Kayin) will be avenged sevenfold,” explain that seeing that Kayin personally had not been executed for his murder, people would reason that murder goes relatively unpunished. In order for people not to draw such a conclusion from what had not happened to Kayin, the curse of murdering even someone already as guilty as Kayin, had to be highlighted in such terms. (Bereshit Rabbah 22,12)
Another reason explaining why Kayin was not subjected to immediate execution is that Kayin, being the first murderer, had not known that the penalty for murder is execution. Subsequent generations knowing the penalty for murder, could not expect to be treated so leniently. It is even possible to consider Kayin’s killing Hevel as having been an inadvertent killing, seeing that he did not know what injury would prove fatal. He had never seen a person who had been killed, and when hitting Hevel he had not thought that he had injured him fatally. If that is so, the penalty of exile, i.e. נע ונד תהיה בארץ, “you will not be at home anywhere on earth,” is exactly the penalty devised by the Torah for people who killed inadvertently In Torah Shleymah on our chapter item #96 the word נע is understood to mean that Kayin will be forever on the move, whereas the word נד is understood to mean that he will not be able to sit down and relax but that his body will remain in constant motion, much like that of a drunken person. Once he had repented, one of these curses was removed from him, as we know from Genesis 4,15 וישב בארץ נוד. The Torah did not say, however, בארץ נוע, because he was not able to settle in one location for long.

[The following comment refers to v.10] קול דמי אחיך, “the sound of your brother’s blood, etc.” Our sages (Sanhedrin 37) understand the reason the word דמי, “blood of” is in the plural as reminding us that not only Hevel’s blood was spilled when he was murdered but also that of the offspring which he never had on account of being murdered so early in his life. This Midrash is actually to be viewed as an allusion to the time of the resurrection. After all, seeing that his offspring at the time of his death had only been something potential, how could the Torah speak of actual blood of his unborn children and grandchildren? The answer therefore must be that it refers to human beings that should have been brought back to life at the time of resurrection. Kabbalists, on the other hand, see in the plural of the word דמי here an allusion to the reincarnation of souls in other bodies. In the case of Hevel, he was “reborn” in the body of Sheth as the Torah adds the words תחת הבל “in place of Hevel,” when Sheth’s birth is reported for the first time in 4,25. Kayin’s punishment was another example of מדה כנגד מדה, the punishment fitting the crime, as all his descendants perished at the time of the deluge. He who had tried to deny his brother Hevel a place on earth forfeited his own place on earth.

גדול עוני מנשוא MY PUNISHMENT IS GREATER THAN I CAN BEAR (literally, my sin is greater than what can be borne) — This is a question: You bear the worlds above and below. and is it impossible for You to bear my sin? (Genesis Rabbah 22:11).

MY SIN IS GREATER THAN I CAN BEAR. This is in the form of a question: “You bear the worlds above and below, and is it impossible for You to bear my sin?” Thus the words of Rashi quoting Bereshith Rabbah.⁴³⁹22:25.
The correct plain interpretation is that it is a confession. Cain said: “It is true that my sin is too great to be forgiven, and Thou art righteous, O Eternal, and upright are Thy judgments⁴⁴⁰Psalms 119:137. even though You have punished me exceedingly. And now behold, Thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the land⁴⁴¹Verse 14. for in being a fugitive and a wanderer unable to stay in one place, behold, I am driven from the land and there is no place where I can find rest. And from Thy face shall I be hid⁴⁴¹Verse 14. whereas I will not be able to stand before You to pray or bring a sacrifice and meal-offering for I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth.⁴⁴²Jeremiah 31:19. But what shall I do? Whosoever findeth me shall slay me,⁴⁴¹Verse 14. and You in Your manifold loving-kindness did not decree death upon me.” The sense of this is that Cain said before G-d: “Behold, my sin is great, and You have punished me exceedingly, but guard me that I should not be punished more than You have decreed upon me for by being a fugitive and wanderer and unable to build myself a house and fences at any place, the beasts will kill me for your shadow has departed from me.”⁴⁴³See Numbers 14:9 and Ramban there. Thus Cain confessed that man is impotent to save himself by his own strength but only by the watchfulness of the Supreme One upon him.

גדול עוני מנשוא, after Kayin finally realised how G’d in Heaven supervises every detail which goes on down on earth, he was convinced that G’d must know that his sole motivation in doing repentance was to escape punishment. Even this type of repentance was wrung from him only after G’d had pressured him to display penitence. He was embittered, and this is what prompted him to exclaim that the severity of his sin was such there was no hope to obtain forgiveness which would protect him against retribution in kind. The matter is similar to Saul’s failure in killing Agag, King of Amalek. Saul had said to Samuel: “I have sinned,” only after Samuel had insisted that he make a confession of having failed to carry out G’d’s instructions. (Samuel I 15,24) Samuel had had to tell Saul that G’d had despised him as a future leader of the Jewish people before he could prevail on Saul to acknowledge his wrongdoing. (Samuel I 15,24)

גדול עוני מנשא, “my sin is too great to be forgiven.” According to Nachmanides this was Kayin’s true and sincere confession. He acknowledged the righteousness of the Creator, admitting that he had deserved the severe punishment decreed upon him. He felt unable to pray, as he did not think that prayers from a sinner such as himself had a chance to evoke G’d’s sympathy. He felt that if he had not qualified for a favourable response to his sacrificial offering before he murdered his brother, he most certainly could not expect that G’d would accept any gift from him now. He was at his wits’ end, seeing that anyone on earth who would find him would be justified in killing him.

An incredulous question. This is a question, although it lacks the ה which would indicate this. It cannot be a statement, with Kayin saying that his sin is unforgivable and more than he can bear, for Kayin would then be magnifying his sin. How could he then [contest his punishment and] say, “Behold, today You have banished me...” if he already admitted that his sin is deserving of it? (Re’m) Question: What does Hashem’s bearing of the worlds have to do with His bearing of Kayin’s sin? It seems the answer is: Kayin is saying that earthly creatures surely sin, as it says (8:21), “For the inclination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Why did You, Hashem, create them? It must be that repentance can rectify their sins. If so, “You cannot manage to bear my sin?” (Divrei Dovid)

גדול עוני מנשוא. Es kann dies nicht heißen: meine Sünde ist zu groß, als dass du sie verzeihen könntest; denn Kain motiviert diesen Satz durch: הן גרשת usw. worin doch durchaus nicht von dem Verbrechen, sondern lediglich von der Strafe die Rede ist. Man hat daher עון als Strafe genommen. Allein diese Bedeutung ist noch keineswegs eine sichere. Jedenfalls heißt עון in der Regel Sünde und nicht Strafe. Nehmen wir es einmal als Sünde und hieße es dann: "Meine Sünde ist größer als dass ich sie ertragen könnte, siehe du hast mich heute vertrieben usw.", so dürfte dies einen tiefen Einblick in das dunkle Gemüt eines Verbrechers und ebenso in die göttliche Gerechtigkeit gewähren. "Meine Sünde ist größer, als dass ich sie ertragen könnte"; du hast mir gezeigt, wie groß sie ist; denn "du hast mich heute vertrieben, hast das Band gelöst, das mir die Erde als Menschenboden angetraut hatte, und auch von deinem Angesichte soll ich nicht geschützt und überwacht sein, und so, vom Boden, von Gott und Menschen verlassen, muß ich fürchten, dass jedes Geschöpf, das mich trifft, mich töte!" Denken wir uns den קין, gezeugt in der Gesinnung קניתי, gestempelt durch den Charakter קין, zum Verbrechen geführt durch קנאה, die aufgestachete Selbstsucht; diesem Kain kommt das Bewusstsein, dass er dies alles verloren, alles dies durch sein Verbrechen eingebüßt! Er kommt zum Bewusstsein der Schuld nicht durch den Gedanken dessen, was er seinem Bruder getan, sondern dessen, was er sich getan! Er war noch derselbe Kain, hätte noch jetzt gesprochen: השמר אחי אנכי! Meine Sünde ist zu groß, spricht Kain; hätte ich nur meinen Bruder gemordet, wäre sie erträglich; ich habe aber nicht gewusst, dass ich damit mich selber gemordet, mich selber damit zum ארור, zum נע ונד gemacht, und jeden Anspruch an die Welt und die Menschen eingebüßt!

גדול עוני מנשוא, “my sin is too great to bear.” Kayin refers to the punishment decreed as a result of his sin. It is more than he thinks he can bear. Having been expelled from having a permanent home on earth is already enough, in his opinion. We find a similar reaction in Lamentations 4,6 where Jeremiah describes the punishment of the Jewish people in similar terms, i.e. ויגדל עון בת עמי מחטאת סדום, “the guilt (and punishment) of my people exceeded that of the people of Sodom;” according to Ibn Ezra, Samuel I 28,10 is also to be understood in that sense. According to another exegesis, Kayin’s exclamation is to be understood as a query? “Is my sin really too great to be forgiven? You have already expelled me from my home etc., and made it impossible for me to plant roots, as the soil will not respond to my labour; my father has been expelled from Gan Eden for his sin, but You have seen fit to let him atone for it. Why do You not give me chance also to atone for my sin?” [Adam is not even on record as admitting having sinned. Ed.]

“And you cannot manage to bear my sin?” This may be understood according to (Tehillim 130:4): “Forgiveness is with You, in order that You be feared.” “Forgiveness is with You” — nothing stops You [from forgiving sin]. “In order that You be feared” — [this forgiveness increases fear of Hashem]. But a human king cannot grant pardon beyond the rules of protocol. Thus a transgressor [against him] thinks, “I am surely lost!” and therefore he will continue to sin more. [However, Hashem’s forgiveness holds man back from further sin.] Accordingly, Kayin said: “You bear the worlds. Everything is Yours and no one holds You back [from forgiving]. Why can You not bear my sin? People will say that You are unable to forgive beyond the rules of protocol, Heaven forbid!” (Tzeidah L’Derech, citing Maharshal)

Ganz dieselbe Folge lässt die תורה für die fahrlässige Tötung eines Menschen eintreten. Er wird נע im גלות, wenn auch nicht נד. Auch das כל מוצאי יהרגני tritt in der steten Furcht vor dem גואל הדם ein. Auch in עגלה ערופה dürften Beziehungen hervortreten. Wenn ein Mord von unbekannter Hand geschehen, und der Mörder hat den Leichnam, gleichsam zur Verhöhnung des Gerichtes, unverscharrt aufs Freie hingeworfen, so muss das Gericht sich reinigen, dass sie nicht durch Sedom-gleiche Behandlungsweise fremder Wanderer Anteil an dem Morde haben, zuvor aber durch Tötung einer עגלה אשר לא עבד בה ולא משכה בעול in einem steinigen harten Grunde אשר לא יעבר ולא יזרע aussprechen: im jüdischen Kreise wird die ungezügelte rohe Kraft, die sich nicht unter das Joch des Gesetzes beugt, nicht geduldet, und der Boden unter ihr wird hart und steinern: !לא תוסף תת כחה לך

Es erkannte also Kain nicht das Verbrechen, das er an seinem Bruder, sondern das er an sich geübt, deshalb nennt er es auch עון, das Verkehrte, Krumme. Das am nächsten zum Ziele und zum Heile Führende ist das ישר. Jedes עון ist nicht bloß Abweichen von unserer Pflicht, sondern auch von unserem Heile. So hat Gott es geordnet.

והיה כל מוצאי יהרגני, the fact that anyone who finds me is legally entitled to kill me makes my punishment much more severe than You, G’d, have told me.

הן גרשת אותי...מעל פני האדמה, a reference to the soil of Eden, near the garden, where his father and mother had taken up residence. This is what the Torah had meant with the words לעבוד את האדמה אשר לקח משם, “to work the soil from which he had originally been taken.” (3,23)

ומפניך אסתר, “and I have to hide from Your countenance.” It is possible to understand the meaning of the word ומפניך, as “from Your presence” i.e. from the place where Your presence is manifest, from Mount Moriah This would prove that Adam lived near Mount Moriah and that his children lived there also. In that event, we would have to understand the words of our verse as follows: הן גרשת אותי היום מעל פני האדמה הקדושה כדי שאסתר מפני“ here You have expelled me this day from the holy site on earth in order that I have to hide from Your presence.” Anyone who has been expelled from the presence of G’d is considered as נסתר, “in hiding,” as he is under the domain of other forces (horoscopes, etc.). David mentioned this in Samuel 26,19 כי גרשוני היום מהסתפח בנחלת ה' לאמר לך עבוד אלוהים אחרים, “for they have driven me out today, so that I cannot have a share in the Lord’s possession but am told: ‘go and worship other gods.’”

'והיה כל מוצאי, וגו, “and anyone who will encounter me (in my exile will feel free to kill me;”) I will not even be able to atone while in exile.

ומפנך אסתר, “and I have to hide from You, seeing that You are angry at me and have hidden Your face from me. I am in a position where everybody will be entitled to kill me, seeing You have withdrawn Your protection from me. Even the wild beasts will be entitled to kill me as I am forced to roam around a fugitive on earth.” In Bereshit Rabbah 22,11 Kayin’s complaint is “yesterday You expelled my father, and now You expel me. Am I supposed to hide from You, how could I?”

Another way of explaining the above words by Kayin is this: “seeing You have decreed upon me that You hide Your face from me when You told me “be a vagrant and a wanderer on earth,” this mean that exile of either an individual or a nation is an indication that G‘d has turned His countenance away from such an individual or such a nation. It means that such an individual or nation is no longer under the supervision of the Creator. Kayin’s anguished outcry was: “if this is so, what hope is there left for me? I am now at the mercy of every single creature!”

והיה כל מוצאי יהרגני, “and anyone who will find me will feel free to kill me.” Kayin was terrified of G’d’s curse and he was aware that those who praise the Lord would inherit the earth whereas those that curse Him would be cut off. This is why he was afraid for his own life both regarding any obstacles that he might encounter or regarding a plague that might strike him. He was also afraid that even animals would kill him.

לכן כל הרג קין VERILY, WHOSOEVER SLAYETH CAIN — This is one of the verses where the construction is elliptical (literally, which abbreviate their statements), which give only a suggestion and do not fully explain. “Verily, whosoever slayeth Cain” express a threat, suggesting the consequence — “thus shall be done to him”, “thus and thus shall be his punishment”, without explicitly explaining what the punishment would be.

Now because Scripture says, And the Eternal appointed a sign for Cain,⁴⁴⁴Verse 15. and it does not say, “and G-d gave him a sign,” or “made him a sign,” it indicates that He appointed for him a steady sign which would always be with him. Perhaps it indicates that as he wandered from place to place he had a sign from G-d indicating the way in which he should walk, and by that he knew that no misfortune would overtake him on that road.
In Bereshith Rabbah⁴⁴⁵22:27. the Rabbis similarly stated, “Rabbi Aba said: ‘He gave him a dog.’” Since he feared the beasts, He gave him one of them to walk before him, and wherever the dog turned to go, Cain knew that G-d commanded him to go there and that he would not be killed by any living creature. Now the Sages singled out a contemptible sign [a dog] as was befitting him, but the intent is that there was with him a perpetual sign showing him the way to go for such is indicated in the word vayasem (and He appointed).

כל הורג קין שבעתים יוקם, I, G’d, announce that anyone who dares to kill Kayin, [i.e. who takes the law into his own hands, Ed.] would be punished seven more times than what the crime he committed appears to warrant. Anyone who is prepared to kill someone is called הורג, as for instance, in Hoseah 9,13 ואפרים להוציא אל הורג בניו, “Ephrayim too must bring out his children to his slayers.” The word שבעתים means “twice seven times,” as in Proverbs 6,31 ונמצא ישלם שבעתים, “when he is found out he must pay twice sevenfold.” G’d decreed therefore that when someone killed half the human race, or at least a third of the human race, the appropriate vengeance would involve a twice sevenfold penalty. This would manifest itself in such a slayer being a restless wanderer on earth for seven generations. Such a life is considered worse than death. When David prays in Psalms 59,12אל תהרגם פן ישכחו עמי הניעמו בחילך, “do not kill them lest my people will forget them; make them wanderers seeing it is in Your power,” he meant that they be killed only at the end of seven generations. David wanted the punishment of his enemies to last. If they would all die and disappear at once their absence would soon be forgotten. Kayin got his deserts at the end of seven generations as we know from traditional sources in Tanchuma 10.

לכן כל הורג קין שבעתים יוקם. This is why he who murders Cain will be avenged sevenfold (or after seven generations). The reason the Torah wrote לכן, therefore, is to show that Cain knew full well that if G'd would not protect him, anyone who encountered him (Cain the murderer) would kill him. G'd placed a sign on Cain's forehead as a sign of pity because Cain had finally shown awareness of G'd's השגחה, supervision of the fate of every individual. This "sign" was the same as the tradition that by merely looking at a צדיק one can tell that he is a G'd-fearing person (compare Exodus 12,13: "this blood will be a sign for you." This means that the מצוה you have performed in preparing the paschal lamb will be accounted as a sign.) Such "signs" act as protection for the righteous against a variety of dangers.

ויאמר לו ה' לכן כל הורג קין שבעתים יוקם, I have decreed that anyone killing Kayin will be punished twice sevenfold for that deed, irrespective of whether the killer is man or beast. The number “seven” mentioned here is not to be understood literally, but is a figure of speech for multiples of one. The number is used in a similar sense in Leviticus 26,21 where it also does not mean that G’d will punish the Jewish people sevenfold for each of their sins, but He warns them that their punishment will be very severe. In Proverbs 24,16 שבע יפול הצדיק וקם, the meaning is also not that the righteous will fall down seven times and rise again, but that even if a righteous person falls on bad times repeatedly, being righteous, he will recover. These many ways in which a killer of Kayin would be avenged could be that his killer will be afflicted with numerous sicknesses, diseases, not with just one. They would afflict him successively, until he will succumb to the last such disease.
According to Torah Shleymah on our chapter item #114 G’d told Kayin that in consideration of the fact that he now displayed fear of and reverence for G’d, he would have his lifespan extended for seven generations. Onkelos explains the expression שבעתים as receiving punishment spread over seven generations. Just as Kayin’s eventual death was suspended for 7 generations, so he who killed him would experience a similar fate. Eventually, Lemech killed Kayin. He was the sixth generation after Kayin, but the seventh counting from Adam.

הרג קין שבעתים יוקם. “whoever kills Kayin will be avenged sevenfold.” According to Nachmanides this means that whoever will kill Kayin will be avenged seven times over, i.e. .he will be punished for his deed as if he had killed seven people. This threat was designed to restrain anyone who would feel like killing Kayin.

ויאמר לו ד׳, nicht אליו, sondern לו, in Bezug auf ihn, antwortete ihm nicht, sprach in betreff seiner: !נקם - .לכן כל הרג קין! שבעתים יוקם — zusammenhängend mit קום — ist die Aufrichtung des zu Boden liegenden, mit Füßen getretenen Rechts, resp. auch der Persönlichkeit. Nicht der Erschlagene, der nicht wieder lebendig wird, sondern das verletzte Recht ist zu sühnen, wiederherzustellen. Wer sich eines solchen verletzten Rechtes annimmt, ist נוקם. Das göttliche Wort spricht: לא תקום, du sollst des in dir gekränkten Rechtes nicht, wohl aber des in jedem andern gekränkten dich annehmen. — Also לכן, darum, weil der Zustand, in den sich Kain selbst versetzt, so unerträglich ist, darum "höre es jeder, der den Kain, um Hebels Blut zu rächen, töten wollte!" Lebend wird Kain siebenfach schwerer gestraft, siebenfach stärker das Verbrechen gebüßt, Hebel siebenmal stärker gerächt, als durch einen augenblicklichen Tod. Subjekt zu wäre dann Hebel, oder, da dieser nicht genannt ist, es, der Mord: darum wird es יוקם so siebenfach gesühnt! Wir finden allerdings einmal עד יקום גוי אויביו (Josua 10. 13), wo das Objekt von נקם nicht, wie gewöhnlich, der Misshandelte, sondern der Verbrecher ist. Und könnte so auch hier Kain das Subjekt von יוקם sein.

לכן כל הורג קין שבעתים יוקם, “therefore whosoever slays Kayin, vengeance will be taken on him sevenfold.” The plain meaning of this verse is that seeing that Kayin was worried about being murdered, G–d assured him that anyone murdering Kayin even after he had lived seven generations would be held accountable by Him. This is why Lemech who held himself as guilty of killing Kayin, even though he did so unintentionally, told his wives what would happen to anyone killing him on that account (Compare verse 25 in this chapter.) Lemech’s children were the seventh generation, after Adam. (Adam-Kayin-Chanoch-Irod-M’chuyael-M’tushael-Lemech-(Yaval,Yuval Tuval Kayin) He told his wives that the whole generation of such a killer fathered by himself would be held responsible for his murder by G–d, seeing that what he had done was due to his being blind and therefore totally innocent of any intent to harm a human being.

לכן כל הורג קין, “therefore, because Kayin has already been so humbled,”

שבעתים יקם VENGEANCE SHALL BE TAKEN SEVENFOLD — God says, I do not wish to take vengeance on Cain now, but at the end of seven generations I will execute my vengeance upon him, that Lamech, one of his descendants, will arise and slay him. The end of this verse which states, “vengeance shall be taken in the seventh generation” — which is the vengeance taken on Cain for Abel — teaches us that the first part of the verse is a threat made in order that no creature might injure him. A similar elliptical expression is the following: (2 Samuel 5:8) “And David said, whosoever smiteth the Jebusites and getteth up to the gutter” — but it does not explicitly state what would be done to that person. Scripture, however, here speaks by a suggestion only, meaning, whosoever smiteth the Jebusites and getteth up to the gutter and approacheth the gate and conquereth it and the blind etc. … slaying also them (the blind and the lame) because they said, “there are the blind and the lame: David cannot come into the house” — he who smiteth these, I shall make him chief and captain. Here (in the Book of Samuel) it abridges the narrative, but in Chronicles (1 Chronicles 11:6) it explicitly states, “he shall become chief and captain.”

וישם ה' לקין אות, He gave him a sign in his heart, i.e. He fortified his self-confidence which had been shattered. G’d made the various beasts and men who would be born after him be in awe of him so that they would not attack him. We will come back to allegorical material pertaining to this verse when we explain verse 23.

וישם ה' לקין אות, “G’d placed a mark on Kayin;” the Torah did not write ויתן לו ה' אות, “G’d gave Kayin a mark,” but וישם, a word which describes something permanent. The mark with which G’d provided Kayin would remain visible for an indefinite period of time. Perhaps the meaning is that whenever Kayin, in his many journeys, would face a route unknown to him, the fact that he received no guidance would serve as a warning to him that that route was potentially dangerous for him.

“I do not wish... I will take my vengeance. The sevenfold vengeance is not referring to the killer of Kayin. For Lemech killed Kayin — and revenge was not taken on him to be killed after seven generations! Rather, “Whoever kills Kayin...” serves as a threat [that no creature injure Kayin], while “Revenge will be taken on him sevenfold” refers to Kayin’s own punishment. Thus, Hevel’s revenge from Kayin will come only after seven generations. This is seen from the end of the verse, “Revenge will be taken on him sevenfold,” that it pertains to Kayin and not to Kayin’s killer. (Re’m) Another reason why this verse cannot mean that sevenfold revenge will be taken on Kayin’s killer: why should Kayin’s killer be different from other killers, to have his punishment delayed seven generations? Perforce, “Revenge will be taken on him sevenfold” is a separate point — that Hashem will take revenge from Kayin after seven generations, [due to Kayin’s claim, “You cannot manage to bear my sin?”] Consequently, “This is one of those verses in which words are brief...”

וישם ד׳ לקין אות. Die Weisen sprechen sich verschiedentlich darüber aus, worin dieses Zeichen bestanden, je nachdem Kain als reuig Büßender, oder als dessen Gegenteil gefasst wird. Eine andere Auffassung im Midrasch, רב, erklärt es aber עשאו אות לרצחנים oder עשאו אות לבעלי תשובה :ר׳ חנן, Gott habe den Kain selbst zum Warn- oder Wahrzeichen für Mörder oder Büßende gemacht. Wir finden einmal שום in dieser Weise mit לְ־ konstruiert: לכלכם ישים שרי אלפים (I. Sam. 22,7). Demgemäß könnte es auch hier soviel wie וישם קין לאות, Gott machte den Kain zum Wahrzeichen, bedeuten. Aber auch ohne diese Anomalie dürfte es in gleicher Bedeutung gefasst werden. "Darum" — weil Kains Zustand ein so drückender ist — "höre es jeder, der ihn töten wollte: siebenfach wird also an ihm Rache genommen. Somit verhängte Gott über Kain einen augenfällig warnenden Zustand (אות), so dass keiner, der ihn trifft, ihn erschlage"; denn jeder erkennt in diesem Zustande ein warnenderes Wahrzeichen für Verbrecher, als in seinem Tode.

שבעתים יוקם, according to the plain meaning of the text, the meaning is that anyone who will kill Kayin will be avenged sevenfold for having killed him.

וישם ה' לקין אות AND THE LORD SET A SIGN FOR CAIN — He inscribed on his forehead a letter of His Divine Name (Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 21). Other editions of Rashi add the following: another interpretation of “Whoever will find me will slay me”: this refers to cattle and beasts, since there were then no human beings in the world of whom he might be afraid except his father and mother, and, of course, he did not fear that they would slay him. He, therefore, said, “Until now the fear of me was upon all animals — as it is written”, (Genesis 9:2) “And the fear of you shall be upon all beasts of the field” etc. — now, however, because of my sin the animals will no longer fear me and will kill me. God immediately set a sign for Cain, viz., he again made the animals be in fear of him.

The verse speaks by hinting. It means that here, the verse speaks by hinting, but in another place it is spelled out: He who kills these, “He shall be a leader and general.”

שבעתים, an alternate word for שבעה, seven, just as ,ארבעתים in Samuel II 12,6, is an alternate word for ארבע, four. There is no point in reading anything special into this formulation as it is commonplace in Holy Scriptures. Our author proceeds to quote at least a half a dozen additional examples; [anyone interested can look this up in any concordance on the Bible. Ed.]

And the blind. The “blind” and the “lame” were idolatrous images. The “lame” corresponded to Yaakov [who limped on his thigh], and the “blind” corresponded to Yitzchak [whose eyes dimmed]. Upon these idols was written the oath Avraham swore to Avimelech that they would not wage war against one another. However, in David’s time the oath had been voided.

וישם ה' לקין אות, “G-d provided Kayin with a visible sign of identification to warn people not to kill him;” the Torah does not give details of the nature of this sign.

He inscribed a letter from His Name. It means a letter from Kayin’s name, the letter ת, which hints: “With this, תחיה (you shall live).” I.e., none shall kill him. [ת is a letter from Kayin’s name because his mother named him (4:1): “I have obtained (קניתי) a man with Adonoy”]. Alternatively, it means a letter from Hashem’s Name, the letter ה, which hints: “Therefore, whoever kills (הורג) Kayin...” (Maharshal)

לבלתי הכות אותו, “not to slay him;” the need for this was because mankind had not yet been warned about the sin of murder; at any rate, the penalty of Kayin remaining an exile was not lifted, ever.

כל מוצאו, this cannot be translated as “everyone” who would come across him,” but means “anyone” who would come across him. The use of the word כל in this sense also occurs in Exodus 22,21, כל אלמנה ויתום, where it does not mean “every widow and orphan,” but “any widow or orphan.” The law legislated there is not restricted to a widow who is also an orphan, but to any widow or orphan.

ויצא קין AND CAIN WENT AWAY — He went away in pretended humility as though he would deceive the Most High (Genesis Rabbah 22:13).

AND CAIN WENT OUT FROM THE PRESENCE OF THE ETERNAL. The sense thereof is that he never stood before Him any more, as he meant when he said, and from Thy face shall I be hid,⁴⁴¹Verse 14. [as explained above].
And he dwelt in the land of Nod. The sense thereof is that Cain did not traverse the entire world, but he dwelt in that land, perpetually wandering therein and not resting at all in any one place thereof, and so it was forever called “the land of Nod (wandering)” after him.

'ויצא קין מלפני ה, He went forth away from the presence of the Lord, from one place to another, away from the proximity of Gan Eden, the area where G’d’s presence was most in evidence, until וישב בארץ נוד, a play on words, i.e. he moved from place to place, נד. Eventually, he settled down in an area east of the Garden of Eden, a good distance away from where his father and mother lived. Even there he remained restless due to the curse he had been smitten with. The Torah merely informs us that if and when he did settle down for short spaces of time, it was in that vicinity, east of Eden. His wife and children lived there permanently, whereas he was always on the go, doomed to roam on the surface of the globe. Of course, at intervals he would return to his wife and children, even building towns for them.

וישב בארץ נוד, “he settled in the land of Nod.” Seeing that Kayin had become a true penitent, G’d remitted half of his sentence, the half dealing with his being a constant wanderer on earth, not calling any place “home.” Whereas he had been condemned to be נע ונד, he had now been allowed to establish a permanent residence. Nachmanides explains the word נוד in terms of it being a variant of נע ונד, meaning that the region in which Kayin was a wanderer was one called נוד, so that his wanderings did not involve roaming the surface of the globe.

He exited with humility... a deceiver... Rashi knows this because the Torah uses the term ויצא (exited), which means leaving an enclosed area, instead of וילך (went). But Kayin ‘exited’ from the Presence of Hashem, for Whom there is no enclosed area, as the whole earth is filled with His Glory! [Thus it hints, “He exited with humility.”]

מלפני ד׳, nach der Auffassung der Weisen, nicht räumlich, sondern aus dem ganzen Verhältnis zu Gott: warf Gottes Worte hinter den Rücken und wollte versuchen, von Erde und Menschen gebannt, ein selbständiges Leben zu gründen. Obgleich aus dem Paradiese verwiesen, standen die Menschen doch noch ׳לפני ד. Kain jedoch, durch sein Verbrechen und sein Verhalten nach demselben, trat hinaus aus diesem Verhältnis.

'ויצא קין מלפני ה, “Kayin left the Presence of Hashem;” this formula also appears in Esther 8,15, where Mordechai is described as leaving the Presence of the King. The verse informs us that on account of his exile, Kayin was given a new lease on life, and he accepted G-d’s judgment. He was eventually killed inadvertently after seven generations.

בארץ נוד IN THE LAND OF NOD — In the land where all exiles wander about.

קדמת עדן, “to the east of Eden.” Wherever an easterly direction is mentioned in connection with man, it is related to the location of גן עדן in some manner. When the direction is mentioned with Moses, however, the Torah writes אז יבדיל משה שלש ערים מזרחה שמש, in order to describe an easterly direction (Deuteronomy 4,41, i.e. the word מזרחה describes an easterly direction)

Which indicates that Adam was there... For if not, why were the angels in the east and not elsewhere?

Wir sahen die Gottesherrlichkeit dem Menschen im Westen entschwinden. Wir sehen hier eine Entfernung nach Osten קדמת עדן, also eine immer größere Entfernung von Gott, und damit den Versuch eingeleitet, auf die eigene Menschenkraft, ohne Gott, ein selbständiges Leben zu begründen.

וישב בארץ נוד, “he settled in a land known thereafter as Nod”. Originally, he had been condemned to be נע ונד תהיה בארץ; our sages derive from this line that if one is condemned to be in exile, this diminishes the original sin one qualifies for by half.

קדמת עדן ON THE EAST OF EDEN — Thereto his father went into exile when he was driven out from the Garden of Eden. as it is said, (3:24) “And He placed in the east of the Garden of Eden” a watch on the road that leads to the entrance of the Garden, from which one may infer that Adam was there (in the East) (Genesis Rabbah 21:9). Indeed, we find, also, that the Eastern quarter always forms a place of refuge for murderers, as it is said, (Deuteronomy 4:41) “Then Moses set aside three cities of refuge towards the place of sun-rise [that a murderer might flee thither].” Another explanation of בארץ נוד IN THE LAND OF NOD — (taking נוד in the sense of “movement”) — wherever he went the earth quaked beneath him, and people said, “Turn away from him: this is the man who killed his brother” (Midrash Tanchuma, Bereshit 9).

An alternative explanation of בארץ נוד. But the verse cannot mean only this explanation, for otherwise, why does it say: “East of Eden”? Thus we need the first explanation, “That is where his father was exiled.” And the verse cannot mean only that explanation, for otherwise, why does it say: “In the land of Nod,” instead of, “In the territory”? [Thus Rashi offered both explanations.] (Maharshal)

ויהי AND HE WAS— Cain was, not Enoch — בונה עיר BUILDING A CITY ויקרא שם העיר AND HE CALLED THE NAME OF THE CITY (named the city) as a memorial of his son — חנוך.

AND HE BUILDED A CITY, AND CALLED THE NAME OF THE CITY AFTER THE NAME OF HIS SON ENOCH. For at first Cain thought that he would be childless on account of his sin, but after a child was born to him he began to build a city for his son to dwell therein. But because he himself was cursed and his works would not prosper, he called the city “Enoch,” thus proclaiming that he did not build it for himself since he has no city or dwelling place in the land because he was a fugitive and wanderer; rather, the building would be for Enoch, and it is as if Enoch had built it for himself.
Now since it does not say vayiven ir (and he built a city) — [but rather, vayehi boneh ir, which literally means “and he was building a city,”] as it says elsewhere, vayiven (and he builded) Nineveh;⁴⁴⁶Genesis 10:11. And the children of Gad built Dibon⁴⁴⁷Numbers 32:34. — it indicates that he was building the city all his days because his works were cursed. Thus he would build a little with effort and toil, and then move and wander off from that place and return there and build a little more, but he would not prosper in his ways.
The descendants of Cain and his works were recorded in Scripture in order to make known that G-d is long-suffering and that He prolonged the time of his punishment,⁴⁴⁸See Exodus 34:6. This constitutes one of the Thirteen Attributes of G-d. for he begot children and children’s children, and then it relates how He visited the iniquity of the fathers upon the children,⁴⁴⁹Ibid., Verse 7. and his descendants perished. Our Rabbis say⁴⁵⁰Koheleth Rabbah 6:3. that Cain lived many years and that he died in the flood. Thus his hoary head did not go down to the grave in peace,⁴⁵¹See I Kings 2:6. rather he saw his destruction and all his seed with him.⁴⁵²Genesis 46:6.
It would appear that Cain’s descendants consisted of only six generations⁴⁵³Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methusael, Lamech, Jabal and Jubal and Tubal-Cain (three brothers). Scripture does not relate any history beyond the children of Lamech for they all perished in the flood. until the flood, while among the descendants of Seth [the third son of Adam] there were an additional two generations before the flood.⁴⁵⁴Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech and Noah. [It may be that Cain’s descendants consisted of more than six generations before the flood, but Scripture] had no need to relate anything concerning them. It recorded only the names of those who began the building of cities, the grazing of sheep, the art of music, and the skill of working with metals. Scripture also recorded Lamech’s chastisement of his wives in order to tell us that he did beget children but his sons perished before they begot offspring.

[Kayin] was building a city. The verb is in the present tense to indicate that he continued building it his entire life, in the way of the avaricious who are never satisfied with what they possess.

וידע קין...ויהי בונה עיר, at the time when a son was born for him he was engaged in building a town to serve as residence for himself and his children in subsequent generations. All of this was east of Eden. This is why he named the town the same as he named his son, i.e. Chanoch.

ויהי בונה עיר, “he became a builder of a city.” Nachmanides explains that originally Kayin had not entertained the idea of building anything permanent as he was afraid he would both remain childless and a wanderer. After a son had been born for him, he built the city and named it after his son. Seeing that he himself was cursed and his efforts were doomed to failure, he did not name the city after himself but after his son. This would create the impression that his son had built it, and it would have a chance to endure. Seeing that the Torah writes the words ויהי בונה עיר, in the present, ongoing tense, instead of writing the words ויבן עיר, “he built a city,” we learn that henceforth Kayin continuously engaged in building cities, habitations for human beings, the backbone of any civilization. He had to keep doing this as whatever he accomplished was short-lived. The reason why the Torah bothers to list the descendants of Kayin and their accomplishments although all of them perished in the deluge, is to show for how long G’d’s patience lasts and for how long He gives successive generations a chance to repair the spiritual damage inflicted by their forbears. It is likely that only six generations of Kayin existed before the deluge, although it is possible that the Torah saw no point in mentioning any additional generations as none of its members distinguished themselves in any manner. The reason why the Torah details Lemech’s admonitions to his wives may be because Kayin and his sons already had died before Lemech fathered any children. [whereas the Torah mentions the death of each of the founders of the generations born to Sheth, it does not do so with the descendants of Kayin, indicating that none of these people were missed when they died. Ed.]

ויהי בונה עיר, “he became a city-builder.” He did not build the city for himself but for his son, seeing that he himself did not have a fixed abode on earth. Seeing that he was cursed and whatever he undertook did not succeed, the Torah uses the expression ויהי בונה עיר in the present tense instead of saying “he built a city,” to show that he kept on building the same city, never completing it successfully.
Kayin’s descendants and their occupations are recorded to show that G’d is very patient and allowed Kayin to live a long time during which he became a father, a grandfather and a great-grandfather many times over. This is Nachmanides’ view of this paragraph

Kayin was building. Rashi is explaining that Kayin is the one who “was building a city,” not Chanoch although his name is mentioned immediately before. Otherwise, why would it say: “He named the city after his son Chanoch”?

Es heißt nicht ויבן עיר, er erbaute eine Stadt, sondern: er ward ein Stadterbauer. Mit ihm beginnt eine neue Bestrebung: die Stadt. — Kain war losgelöst vom Boden, der Acker trug ihn nicht mehr, losgelöst von Gott und seinen Nebenmenschen, was blieb ihm? Er selbst bleibt sich, der Fonds von geistigen Kräften und Fähigkeiten, den der Mensch in seiner Persönlichkeit trägt, und daraus ging ganz natürlich das Städtebauen hervor. Die Stadt, im Gegensatz zum Lande, ist durch völliges Loslösen vom Acker, vom Landbau bedingt. Sie ist ein KompleO von Menschen, die nur aus Menschenkräften ihre Existenz schaffen. Die von dem Lande produzierten Stoffe werden in der Stadt zu Menschenzwecken umgewandelt und erhalten aus der Hand der Kunst und Industrie den Stempel der Menschenintelligenz. Des Städters Acker sind seine Kräfte, sein Geist und seine Fähigkeiten. Daher werden diese entwickelt, wie dies sogleich weiter erzählt wird. Auf dem Lande wird der Acker, in der Stadt der Mensch "kultiviert". In der Stadt werden alle im Menschen schlummernden Kräfte geweckt, der Mensch wird wach; vielleicht heißt darum die Stadt עיר von עור, wachwerden, und ist es eine buchstäbliche Wahrheit, ויציצו מעיר כעשב הארץ, die Menschenblüte entfaltet sich in der Stadt, wie die Blüte der Pflanzen auf dem Felde (Ps. 72, 16). Dieser Gegensatz von Stadt zu Land tritt auch in späteren Gesetzen hervor. Der Stamm Levi, der keinen Anteil am Boden haben sollte, bekam Städte; der Mörder, der vom heiligen Boden verscheucht werden sollte, wie Kain von dem Gesamtboden, wurde in Städte verwiesen. Ebenso werden בתי ערי הומה als vom Boden abgelöst betrachtet und wandern bleibend von Hand zu Hand wie mobiles Gut. Es ist somit tief charakteristisch, dass das erste Städteleben mit Kain, dem vom Boden Gelösten und auf sich Verwiesenen, beginnt. Sein erster Sohn gab ihm das Bedürfnis, eine Zukunft zu gründen, und es gab für ihn kein anderes Mittel, als der Anfang einer Städtegründung.

...and he built a city: As Cain now understood the will of God: That it is good to deal much with his needs, and not to live like an animal or beast by way of only working the ground - but rather to pursue a particularly human life. Therefore he built himself a city.

.חנוך AND IRAD BEGET — There are passages where it says of the male הוליד, and there are places where it says ילד, because this root ילד is used in two senses: in reference to a woman giving birth to a child through the agency of a male old French naitre; English to give birth to and the act of begetting by a man old French engendrer; English engender, beget. When it says הוליד, [in the Hiphil form] it speaks of the man in his relation to the act of giving birth by the woman — this or that man caused his wife to give birth to a son or daughter; when it says ילד it refers to the act of begetting by the man himself.

ויולד, he called the first one מחויאל with the letters ו and י, whereas the second one he called מחייאל with two letters י. The first one has dagesh in the letter ו and is read with the vowel kametz, whereas the second letter י in מחייאל is not heard. We have a similar example in Jeremiah 37,13. All the names mentioned here are a reminder of certain events in the lives of the fathers naming the sons. This was a very common method of people remembering important occurrences in their lives in former times. Sometimes, the Torah recorded the event in question, other times it did not. In Bereshit Rabbah 23,2 an attempt is made by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to see in these names proof of the father’s rebellious attitude. [Basically, according to this line of approach, the names reflected the fact that Chanoch, or the respective father naming his son, wished for the name of G’d to be uprooted from the earth. Ed.]

(18-22) Eine ganze Reihe von Geschlechtern sehen wir hier gezeichnet. Während die ersten die veranlassenden Keime zur Städtegründung gaben, sehen wir in den spätern hier angeführten Geschlechtern das Städtewesen in seinen Haupt- richtungen hervortreten. Deutlich ist in Jubal- und Thubal-Kain Kunst und In- dustrie bezeichnet. — ר׳ יהושע בן לוי äußert in ב"ר, dass alle diese Namen die immer fortgesetzte Empörung des Geschlechtes gegen Gott bezeichnen. Nach diesem Vorgang dürfen wir einen Versuch wagen, der allerdings vielleicht leerer Traum sein kann. Allein die Tatsache, dass in der später aufgeführten Geschlechtsreihe der Sethiten fast übereinstimmend gleiche Namen, nur teilweise modifiziert, vorkommen, scheint es nicht fern zu legen, dass diese Namen bedeutsam seien. Sind doch auch Chawa, Kain, so wie später Enosch, Noach zweifellos bedeutungsvoll. Dieser Versuch dürfte aber um so weniger zurückzuweisen sein, da uns von diesen Geschlechtern fast nichts als der Name übermittelt ist. חנוך. Kain war also auf den Fonds von Kräften, die Gott einem jeden Menschen mitgegeben, angewiesen. Dieser Fonds war da, allein er mußte erst entwickelt werden. Er nannte seinen Sohn חנוך: Rüsten, Üben.

עירד. Die Erziehung zur Kultur findet Widerstand an dem Ungebundenheit liebenden jüngeren Geschlecht. Auf חנוך folgt ein עירד-Geschlecht, das dem ערוד, dem Waldtier gleich, der Kultur sich ungefügig zeigt. Möglich, dass in dem ausnahmsweise hier stehenden וַיִוָלֵד, "es ward ihm der Irad geboren", das aus der Art schlagende Geschlecht angedeutet ist, es ward עירד wider חנוך^ Willen.

מחיאל - מחויאל. Jrad erzeugte Mechujael, מחוי אל: in welchem das Göttliche verlöscht war, מחי אל: der das Göttliche verlöschte. Als das der Kultur sich entwindende Geschlecht jung war, war es מהויאל, passiv, in ihm war das Göttliche verlöscht, später im Alter, מחייאל, aktiv, strebte es in andern das Göttliche zu zerstören. Ihm folgt מתו) :מתושאל rad. von מתים) Volksmasse suchend.

dessen Etymologie durchaus dunkel ,למך :Als die Volksmasse dastand, folgte .למך ist. Er hatte aber drei Söhne:

יובל יבל und תובל קין, deren Namen, alle drei von einer Radix: יבל gebildet sind. Was die beiden letzteren Söhne für die städtische Entwickelung geleistet, ist klar. Aller Industrie liegt Thubal-Kain׳s Erfindung der metallschneidenden Instrumente zu Grunde. Die Gemüter veredelnde Kunst begrüßt in Jubal ihren Vater. Zweifelhafter ist das von Jabal ausgesprochene יושב אהל ומקנה. Man denkt nach רשי hier gewöhnlich an das Nomadenleben. יושב אהל finden wir jedoch bei Jakob gerade im Gegensatz zu dem im Freien lebenden מקנֶה ,איש שדה kommt auch in seiner ursprünglichen Bedeutung als Kauf, Erwerb vor. Es wäre daher möglich, wenn man מקנה als Kauf, Erwerb, fasst, dass in Jabal der erste Kaufmann dastände. Aber auch ohnehin, steht wohl איש מקנה als die sesshafte, mit der städlischen Kultur sehr wohl in Einklang stehende, den Besitz repräsentierende, industrielle Viehzucht, dem רועה צאן, dem mehr nomadisierenden Schafhirten gegenüber. So sagt Joseph, die Ägypter verachten jeden ךאצ העור, nettah retpygÄ ella dnu ,nedreH tsbles oarahP tah hcod dnu ןאצה הנקמ ומקנה הבקר die sie Joseph in den Hungerjahren für Brot brachten. Also nicht die Schafzucht als solche, sondern die Nomadenvölker waren Gegenstand des Abscheues. Es war ganz der ägyptischen Politik angemessen, dem Volke Abscheu gegen jeden bodenlosen Menschen einzuflößen. Ebenso will Joseph, 1. B. M. 46, 32 höchst bezeichnend dem Pharao über seine Brüder sagen: והאנשים רעי צאן כי אנשי מקנה היו וצאנם ובקרם sie sind jetzt bodenlose Schafhirten, denn bisher waren sie sesshafte ,וכל אשר להם הביאו Herdenbesitzer; und ebenso sollten sie Pharao sagen, dass sie und ihre Voreltern bis jetzt אנשי מקנה waren, jetzt freilich ist ihr Besitz mobil, sind sie רעי צאן, weil sie mit ihren Herden ausgewandert. Jedenfalls bezeichnend, dass der Viehstand מקנה genannt wird, und haben wir somit in Jabal den ersten Mann des Erwerbes zu begrüßen. Alle drei Namen sind von der Rad. יבל gebildet. יבל heißt: bringen, heimbringen, ein- bringen, daher יבול: der Ertrag.

a) יָבָל ist aktive Personalform, also: derjenige, der etwas einbringt, Werte schafft.

b) יובָל passiv, also das Gegenteil, der hinsichtlich des יובל abhängig ist; er produziert nichts, ihm wird gebracht.

c) תובָל, die mit ת gebildeten Substantive bezeichnen in der Regel nicht die Person, sondern den abstrakten Begriff einer Tätigkeit oder eines Zustandes, hier also: die Produktion, das Produzieren an sich.

In unserer Stelle dürften damit alle Bestrebungen der Menschen gezeichnet sein: a. יבָל: Der wertschaffende, wertbringende Stand der Gewerbs- und Kaufleute, die verdienende Klasse. Es sind das die notwendigsten, die Grundlage bildenden.

Sobald sich aber die Kultur über das unmittelbar natürliche Bedürfnis erhebt, wird sich ein Bestreben entwickeln, das nichts einbringt, das die Besitzwerte, das מקנה des Menschen nicht vermehrt, das hier als

b ובָל mit der Zither und der Flöte, der Musik eingeführt wird, also die Kunst. Sie ist in der von Gott abgelösten kainitischen Welt ebenso notwendig wie das Gewerbe. Sie sucht derselben die mit Gott aus dem Innern entflohene Harmonie durch äußere Anregung wieder zu bringen. Insbesondere die Musik, die nicht Gestalten und nicht Begriffe, sondern nur Stimmungen und Gefühle ausdrückt, wirkt eben dadurch veredelnd auf das Gemüt, indem sie ihm seine Gefühle entgegenträgt und weckt, und steht wie alle Kunst des Schönen, als Vorstufe, in dem Dienst der Wiedererziehung des Menschen zum Guten und Wahren. Schon indem sie keine wirklichen Werte schafft, יובָל, somit hinsichtlich der Existenz auf die Mitteilung der אנשי מקנה angewiesen ist, vertritt die Kunst in der kainitischen Welt die Wahrheit, dass der Mensch noch höhere Bedürfnisse hat als materiellen Wertbesitz.

Die Bedingung aber zu allem diesem, zu a. und zu b., zum Gewerbe und zur Kunst ist

c. תובָל. Er schafft nichts, was man unmittelbar genießen und gebrauchen kann; er schafft die Mittel zu jeglichem Fortschritt in Gewerbe und Kunst, er schafft das Schaffen, er schafft die Werkzeuge für Industrie und Kunst. Er ist der eigentliche Thubal-Kain, die eigentliche Produktion Kains, der Stolz des kainitischen Geschlechtes. Gott hatte dem Kain die Erde genommen. Sie gibt ihm kein יבול mehr. Er bedarf ihrer aber nun nicht mehr. Sein Geist ist sein Acker. Und indem dieser die mechanische Kunst produzierte, diesen mächtigen Hebel der Industrie, gewinnt der bodenlose Kain den Acker wieder und es bringt nun das Land den Reichtum seiner Acker der Stadt, um dagegen des Segens ihrer Industrie teilhaftig zu werden.

Thubal-Kains Schwester war aber נעים .נעמה: zunächst das sinnlich Schöne, die Sinne Ansprechende. Der erste Zweck der Industrie ist die Nützlichkeit. Fortschritt ist׳s aber, wenn mit den Zwecken des Nützlichen die Zwecke des Schönen, mit der Industrie der "Geschmack" sich verbindet, diese Verbindung selber ist ein Schritt zur Zurück erziehung des Menschen zum Höheren. Ob für diese Zwecke der sinnlichen Anmuth Naama, wie ihr Name sagt, dem Bruder hülfreich zur Seite gestanden? Vielleicht.

ויקח לו למך AND LAMECH TOOK UNTO HIMSELF — It would not have been necessary to state all this in detail except to inform us by the conclusion of the narrative that the Holy One, blessed be He, kept the promise He made when He said, שבעתים יקם קין “vengeance shall be taken of Cain after seven generations״; for Lamech arose after he had begotten children and had raised the seventh generation and killed Cain. It is to this that the statement refers: כי איש הרגתי לפצעי וגו “for I have slain a man to my wounding etc.” (v. 23).

Lemech married two women. Adah, whom he married to bear children, gave birth to two righteous men, one a shepherd like many of the righteous, and one the inventor of instruments for praising Hashem. But Tzillah, whom he married for pleasure, gave birth to a weapon maker in the spirit of Kayin.

ויקח לו למך, it appears that the generations prior to Lemech and even subsequent to him did not marry more than one wife. Lemech, who was the first one to marry two wives, was also the first one of whom disagreements between him and his wives have been recorded. The two wives were jealous one of the other so that Lemech had to scare them that he would kill them if they would disturb his domestic peace.

It would not be necessary to detail... It could have just said: “Mesushael had a son Lemech, and Lemech had a son Yuval.” Why is it written, “Lemech married two women”?

ושם השנית צלה, “and the name of his (Lemech’s) second wife was Tzilah.” According to Rashi, it had become a custom for men to marry two wives, one for child-bearing and one for co-habitation, (indulging one’s libido). The second type of wife would drink a potion which would prevent her from becoming pregnant as a result of having sexual relations. The Torah telling us about Tzilah giving birth to a son, is to inform us that something went awry, [perhaps she only pretended to drink that potion, Ed.] Our author questions this as the Torah reported simply that Tzilah also gave birth, without hinting that this was unusual. We must assume therefore that the explanation of Rashi is based on the unnecessary word גם, “also,” in our verse, as having born children would have been something completely normal.

שתי נשים TWO WIVES — This was the custom of the generation that lived before the time of the Flood; they had two wives, one for child-bearing, the other for frivolous companionship and charm; the latter was given a cup of some drug to drink in order that she might become barren, and was dressed up like a bride and fed with the best food, whilst her fellow-wife was left without her husband’s companionship and ever mourned like a widow. Job expressly mentions this (Job 24:21). “He is a companion to (or, he feedeth) the barren that beareth not, and does not good to the widow”, as it is explained in the Agada of Pereq Chelek (see also Genesis Rabbah 23:2).

The one intended for conjugal relations. She was given a potion that would make her barren so she would not lose her beauty. You might ask: If so, why does it say, “Tzillah also gave birth”? The answer is: She gave birth before she drank the potion. Another answer: It says, “Tzillah also gave birth,” to teach that even though she took the potion she gave birth anyway, as the potion did not affect her at all. (Re’m)

עדה ADAH — She was the wife intended for propagation, and she was so named because she was repulsive to him and was kept aloof from him [other versions read “from his table “] for עדה is the Aramaic word for סורה kept aloof.”

צלה ZILLAH — She was the one for companionship alone, and she was so named because she always abided in his shadow (צל means “shadow”). Thus is the statement of the Agada in Genesis Rabbah 23:2).

אבי יושב אהל ומקנה THE FATHER OF SUCH AS ABIDE IN TENTS AND OF SUCH THAT HAVE CATTLE — He was the first of those who pastured cattle, and he dwelt in tents, a month here and a month there, on account of the pasture necessary for his sheep; for when the grass was finished in one place he went away and pitched his tent in another place. There is a Midrashic statement (Genesis Rabbah 23:3) that he built temples for idol worship, (for ומקנה may be read ומקנה –– provoking jealousy), just as you say, (Ezekiel 8:3) "the image of jealousy which provoketh God to jealousy" (המקנה); similarly his brother handled the harp and guitar to make music for idol worship.

ישב אהל וקנה, this is another way of saying that he was a shepherd.

ותלד..אבי ישב אהל ומקנה. The word אבי, is the same as “the first of,” The meaning of יושב אהל ומקנה is that he dwelled in a tent to supervise what was happening to his herds and to tend them. Apparently, the need for a tent, i.e. temporary shelter, was due to his leading his herds to pastures far away from his home. People prior to him were content to graze their flocks within walking distance of their homes. The letter ו at the beginning of the word ומקנה is to save having to write the word רועה. We find similar constructions in Proverbs 20,1 לץ היין, where it refers to someone drinking wine, the author saving himself the word שותה by writing the letter ה in front of the word יין. It is also possible that the meaning of the letter ו in front of the word מקנה means “with.” A similar construction occurs in Exodus 1,5 in the line ויוסף היה במצרים, where it means that when one combines Joseph (and his family) who were already in Egypt with the number of Israelites descending to Egypt now the total comes to 70.

He was the first one. I.e., “father” means that he was the “first” to dwell in tents and to breed cattle. Rashi says “in the wilderness” since Yaval was different from Hevel who shepherded in a settled area. [In the wilderness] it requires great mastery of the craft.

אבי יושב אהל ומקנה, “the original nomad living in tents” (instead of caves) as the owner followed his herds to where grazing was available. According to a Midrash quoted by Rashi, Yovol built houses to worship idols in. [This Midrash understands the word: מקנה, not as cattle, but as mekaneh, doing something to arouse jealousy, i.e. G-d’s jealousy. Ed.] His brother would then have been the first one to use musical instruments for the purpose of worshipping idols.

ושם אחיו...אבי כל תפש כנור ועוגב, he was the first man to invent music and musical instruments. The reason why the Torah uses the term תפש, “holding in one’s hand,” is probably because the instruments such as guitars and violins have elongated parts which are held by hand.

ושם אחיו יובל, “his brother’s name was Yuval.” From the manner in which the Torah reports their births it is clear that they were twins. If not, his birth would have been introduced with: ותלד עוד, “she gave birth also, etc.” It is customary for shepherds to entertain themselves by playing the flute or a similar musical instrument. Most likely Naamah, Tuval Kayin’s sister, (verse 22) born by Tzilah, was also a twin, as Tzilah is not credited with having given birth twice.

תובל קין TUBAL-CAIN — He refined Cain’s handicraft. The word תובל is connected in meaning with תבלין (spices which give a refined and improved taste to food); he refined and improved the work of Cain by providing weapons for murderers (Genesis Rabbah 23:3).

FORGER OF EVERY CUTTING INSTRUMENT OF BRASS AND IRON. He was a forger and cutter of all brass and iron.⁴⁵⁵The translation preserving the order of the Hebrew words is: “the forger of all cutters in copper and iron.” Ramban transposes the words to read: “the forger and cutter in all copper and iron.” Scripture thus states that he was a forger and cutter in all works of brass and iron. A similar [usage in transposing a word is found in the verse]: Forgive all iniquity, and accept that which is good.⁴⁵⁶Hosea 14:3. The order preserving translation of the Hebrew would be: “All forgive iniquity….” Here too a transposition of words is necessary as above. In the opinion of Onkelos, however, this is connected with the first verses, meaning he was the father of every forger and cutter in brass and iron.

וצלה גם היא, the word גם relates to the sons of Adah, both of whom had acquired special skills. Tzilah, contrary to her function, to be decorative, also acquired another skill, giving birth to a son or sons. The son mentioned here is mentioned by name because he too excelled in a new skill, becoming a coppersmith. The reason why he was given a dual name, Tuval Kayin, might be that when born he was simply called Tuval. When Kayin died, this name was added to his original name to provide a memorial of sorts to his ancestor Kayin.

וצלה גם היא ילדה, “and even Tzilah too gave birth.” The strange formula about Tzilah giving birth is to indicate that she was actually not meant to bear children as her husband preferred to bask in her “shadow” (as her name indicates) all the time. Nonetheless she contrived to bear a child against her husband’s wishes. This was because G’d wanted her to have offspring and that is why Lemech did not have success with the contraceptive devices he employed. Tzilah became the mother of Tubal Kayin, the first human being who knew how to sharpen metal instruments made of copper or iron.

Sharpens the tools [used for working]. I.e., the verse should be understood by rearranging its order, as if it said: לוטש וחורש כל כלי נחושת וברזל. Rashi adds the phrase “all tools of crafts,” to imply “tools of crafts” such as those for plowing, cutting and the like, which are sharpened and polished (לטישה).

וצלה גם היא ילדה, “and Tzilah, she too had given birth.” The reason why the Torah introduces this statement with the word גם “also,” is that Lemech had married her only for her physical attributes. She was not intended by him to bear children. All the birth control devices she used had proved ineffective. There are bodies that are immune to such devices (as ancient man used to delay or prevent pregnancy). [The reader can find more on the subject in the Talmud Niddah folio 30. Ed.] The reason why the Torah even mentions the vocations chosen by these people is that due to the earth having been cursed, they needed to find ways other than farming to make a living.

"And the sister of Tuval-Cain was Naamah." She was known in the days of Moshe our teacher and the Israelites, and thus it says (Genesis 36:22) "And the sister of Lotan was Timna," because she was famous. Know that all of these were wiped out and turned into demons, and were well-known, and it is not my desire to discuss this at length, therefore I am writing here.

לטש כל חרש נחשת וברזל THE FORGER OF EVERY CUTTING INSTRUMENT OF BRASS AND IRON — He sharpened tools used in brass and iron work; לוטש has the some meaning as (Job 16:9) ילטוש “He sharpeneth his eye upon me.” The word חרש is not of the form פעל (a noun like אֹכֶל, אֹהֶל etc.), but of the form פועל (a participle), for it has the vowel קמץ קטן (what we term צירה) and its accent is on the last syllabic (whereas the noun form has the accent on the first syllable, and the second has a Segol, like קדש), and the meaning is that he sharpened and polished all cutting implements (כל חרש) used in work of brass and iron.

לוטש כל חרש נחשת וברזל, sharpener of copper and ironcraft; this description by the Torah, as opposed to the previous introduction of artisans as אבי, “father of, i.e. inventor of or discoverer of, maybe that his predecessors had already worked with these metals and had fashioned tools and vessels out of them. Tuval Kayin’s contribution may have been that he learned how to sharpen these tools so that they did not have to be replaced by new ones all the time. The word לטישה in this sense occurs in Samuel I 13,20. During the period described in Samuel, the Israelites had to travel to the land of the Philistines to have their agricultural tools sharpened, as they were not allowed to have weapons made of metal. The word חרש אבן is found in Exodus 31,6 where it describes the parallel art of working with stone. (compare Samuel I 15,15 and Joshua 8,7 where the word תפש appears in a related manner)

לוטש כל חורש נחשת וברזל "who knew how to sharpen metal instruments made of copper or iron." He was a true craftsman. At this point in time the word נחושת means steel (acero in Spanish) which combines very well with iron. Proper copper is called alambre in Spanish and does not make a good alloy when combined with iron. In Jeremiah 6,28 the prophet speaks about the incompatibility of iron and copper when he writes כלם סרי סוררים הולכי רכיל נחשת וברזל כלם משחיתים המה “They are copper and iron; they are all stubbornly defiant, they deal basely all of them act corruptly.” The prophet was chastising the people for committing slander and character-assassination. He compared their conduct to the relationship of copper to iron. Even when you combine them such a combination will not stand the test of time. The end of the verse in Jeremiah emphasizes that true cooperation between people who practice slander is no more possible than alloying copper and iron. In the end, both metals will become useless. Another anomaly that you will find after you have combined iron and copper is that you can never separate these two metals again. This is the reverse of what we find with alloys containing silver and gold, for instance. The verse in Jeremiah therefore uses the example of these two metals to demonstrate the totally negative fallout of anything involving slanderous statements. The very name of the word נחשת which is derived from נחש, a word suggesting experimentation, putting something to a test, is already an allusion to its meaning. Lavan told Yaakov in Genesis 30,27 נחשתי ויברכני ה' בגללך, “I have learned by means of experimentation [in an idolatrous fashion. Ed.] that G’d has blessed me on your account.” No craftsman in the world can tell if a certain alloy contains steel or iron unless he has made an attempt to separate the component parts of the alloy. If the metal breaks, he knows it must contain steel. If it hardens and does not break this is proof that it is iron. [I have translated the text using a Spanish dictionary to describe the word אציי'ר found in the text, though it seems obvious to me that the “steel” the author speaks of is not the steel we know today. Ed.]

She was Noah’s wife. You might ask: How did Rashi know this? The answer is: She is called Naamah (נעמה) because her deeds were pleasant (נעימה) and she behaved modestly. If so, why would she perish in the Flood and not be saved like Noah was? Perforce she was Noah’s wife, and was thus saved from the Flood. Another answer: Rashi’s proof is the fact that this woman is mentioned where other women are not. And why is this? Because Naamah [was Noah’s wife and she] had three brothers: Yaval, Yuval and Tuval Kayin. And Tuval Kayin was wicked; as Rashi previously explained that he produced weapons for murderers. But Yaval was righteous, dwelling in tents, according to Rashi’s first explanation. Also Yuval was righteous [according to this explanation]. Thus two brothers were righteous, and one was wicked. Noah also had three sons: Shem, Cham and Yefes. Shem and Yefes were righteous, as Rashi explains in Parshas Noah (9:23). And one son was wicked, as is seen there. Accordingly, one should not ask why two [of Noah’s sons] were righteous and one wicked. For Rashi already explained that Naamah was Noah’s wife — and children are usually like the mother’s brothers.

AND THE SISTER OF TUBAL-CAIN WAS NAAMAH. This is as if Scripture would say: “and a sister was born to him and her name was Naamah.” A similar sense is found in the verses: And Lotan’s sister was Timnah;⁴⁵⁷Genesis 36:22. And Miriam their sister;⁴⁵⁸Numbers 26:59. His sister’s name was Maacah.⁴⁵⁹I Chronicles 7:15.
In Bereshith Rabbah⁴⁶⁰23:4. there are some Rabbis who say that Naamah was Noah’s wife. “And why did they call her Naamah [which means lovely]? Because her deeds were lovely and pleasant.” By this the Rabbis meant to say that she was famous in those generations because she was a righteous woman and she gave birth to righteous children. This was why Scripture mentioned her. If so, a small remembrance of Cain was left in the world. However, if we say that she was not the woman from whom Noah begot his three sons, there is no reason for Scripture mentioning her. However, our Rabbis have another Midrash⁴⁶¹Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 22. concerning her which states that she was the very beautiful woman in whom the bnei ha’elohim⁴⁶²See further 6:2, 4. erred. This is hinted in the verse, And the ‘bnei ha’elohim’ saw the daughters of men,⁴⁶³Ibid., Verse 2. as mentioned in Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer.⁴⁶¹Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, Chapter 22. But other sources⁴⁶⁴Mentioned in Midrash Hane’elam. (See my Hebrew commentary, p. 46, Note 3.) have it that Naamah was the wife of Shamdon, the mother of Ashmedai,⁴⁶⁵Chief of demons. and it is from her that the demons were born for her name is indeed found in the writings of “the use of the demons.” Scripture hints and deals briefly with such hidden matters.

נעמה NAAMAH — She was Noah’s wife (Genesis Rabbah 23:3).

ואחות תובל קין נעמה. The reason the Torah mentions this is to inform us that Tuval Kayin did not have a brother, as opposed to his half-brother יבל, but that the sibling he did have, i.e. a sister, was called נעמה According to Bereshit Rabbah 23,3 this Naamah became the wife of Noach, being the only surviving individual of the offspring of Kayin. She was called נעמה in recognition of her good character. Other scholars in the same Midrash do not agree that the Naamah who became Noach’s wife was the one mentioned here. They attribute the name Naamah here to this woman’s ability to play music on these instruments.

ואחות תובל קין נעמה, “and the sister of Tubal-Kayin was Naamah.” Bereshit Rabbah 23,4 claims that Naamah became the wife of Noach. It is claimed that the Torah calls her Naamah to reflect her lovely disposition, her good deeds.
There is a different tradition (compare Zohar Chadash Midrash Ha-neelam 19,2) which claims that Naamah was the wife of the demon Ashmadon if the demons Ashmadai and others were born by her. We have a tradition that four women (compare Nachmanides) became the mothers of demons. They were Lilith, Naamah, Igrat, and Machalat. Each one of them disposes of whole camps of followers and a spiritually negative aura emanates from them all. It is said that each one of these is dominant during one of the four seasons of the year and that they gather at the mountain Nishpeh (a simile for a high mountain mentioned in Isaiah 13,2.) This mountain is located near mountains called חשך, and each one holds sway during one of the four seasons of the year from sundown until midnight, they and all the members of their respective camps (entourage).
Solomon alluded to all these עבדים ושפחות servants and servant maids. What he referred to was that he had made these demons subservient to him. The four women we enumerated were the four wives of the שרו של עשו the spiritual counterpart of Esau in the celestial regions. Esau on earth also married four wives corresponding to the number of wives of his celestial counterpart. These four wives are mentioned in Genesis 26,34 and 36,2 respectively; their names are יהודית, בשמת, עדה, אהליבמה
Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 24,6 elaborated on the subject when they said that during the 130 years after the death of Hevel when Adam did not cohabit with his wife he produced all kinds of demons and destructive agents as a result of seminal emissions. It is one of the “advantages” of the superior being called man that he could “beget” intangible offspring, forces which inhabit the atmosphere. He also produced abstract intellectual beings which inhabit the celestial spheres. [The author refers to the “angels” created by good deeds performed by man which have been mentioned repeatedly. Ed]

שמען קולי HEAR MY VOICE — For his wives separated from him because he had killed Cain and Tubal-Cain, his own son. Lamech was blind and Tubal-Cain used to lead him. The latter saw Cain and thought him to be an animal. He therefore told his father to draw the bow, and thus Lamech killed him. As soon as he learned that it was his forefather Cain, he smote his hands together, struck his son between them and so killed him too. His wives thereupon separated from him, and he endeavoured to appease them,

AND LAMECH SAID UNTO HIS WIVES. For the sense of this verse, the commentators have depended on the opinion of Onkelos who explained therefore whosoever slayeth Cain vengeance shall be taken on him ‘shivatha’im’⁴⁶⁶Above, Verse 15. as meaning that at the end of seven generations, vengeance shall be taken on him [Cain], but not now⁴⁶⁷The sense of the verse, according to Onkelos, would thus be: “Therefore, all ye who would slay Cain, know that seven generations later vengeance will be taken on him (Cain), but not now.” because G-d would be long-suffering with him. Now Lamech’s wives feared to bear children because they would be the seventh generation to Cain, but he comforted his wives by saying that G-d would be forbearing with him for yet seventy-seven generations because he would pray before Him, for He is long-suffering and would have mercy upon him. Or it may be that Lamech’s words were an absurd a fortiori argument, in accordance with the Midrash that Rashi mentioned, [namely: “For if so, the Holy One, blessed be He, could never exact His debt nor fulfill His word.”] If so, Scripture is stating: “Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken of the seventh generation” and not in his days. And this is the translation of Onkelos: “All who would slay Cain! In seven generations, punishment will be exacted of him [Cain].” But if so, it would have been proper that the verse, And Lamech said unto his wives, appear before [Verse 20: And Adah — Lamech’s wife — bore Jabal].
In my opinion, the word shivatha’im does not mean “seven generations” because this word is not used for seven separate units but rather for the multiplying of one thing seven times, such as: refined ‘shivatha’im’ (sevenfold);⁴⁶⁸Psalms 12:7. restore ‘shivatha’im’ (sevenfold);⁴⁶⁹Proverbs 6:31. and the light of the sun shall be ‘shivatha’im’,⁴⁷⁰Isaiah 30:26. meaning doubled and redoubled seven times. But the meaning of therefore, whosoever slayeth Cain⁴⁶⁶Above, Verse 15. is, according to its real sense, that G-d said: “Therefore, whosoever slayeth Cain will have vengeance taken on him sevenfold, for I will punish his slayer seven times for his sin, since I have promised Cain that he will not be slain in view of his fear of Me and his confession before Me.” However, the matter of Lamech and his wives is not mentioned clearly in Scripture. We could also say that they feared lest Lamech be killed as a punishment for his ancestor’s sin since G-d did not tell Cain, “I have forgiven you.” Instead, He promised him only that he will not be slain, but He would collect His debt from his children, and they did not know when. And so indeed the matter happened. Lamech, however, comforted them by saying that G-d would have mercy on him even as He had mercy on Cain, for he had cleaner hands than Cain, and he also would pray before Him and He would hear his prayer.
However, it appears to me that Lamech was a very wise man in every craft, and he taught his eldest son [Jabal] the business of pasturing according to the nature of the cattle. To the second son [Jubal] he taught the art of music, and he taught the third one [Tubal-Cain] to forge metals and to make swords, spears, javelins, and all instruments of war. His wives were then afraid that he might be punished because he brought the sword and murder into the world, and he thus retained in his hand the evil deed of his ancestor [Cain] since he was a descendant of the first murderer and he created the waster to destroy.⁴⁷¹Ibid., 54:16. But he [Lamech] told them: “I did not slay a man by wounds, nor a child by bruises,⁴⁷²See Verse 23 in this chapter. as did Cain, and G-d will not punish me. Instead, He will guard me from being killed moreso than Cain” He [Lamech] mentioned this in order to say that man cannot kill only with the sword and javelin; death caused by wounds and bruises is a worse death than by the sword. Therefore, the sword is not the cause of murder, and there is no sin upon him who made it.

שמען קולי נשי למך, Lemech called out in grief

ויאמר למך לנשיו, our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 23,4 state that when Lemech wanted to sleep with his wives they refused him. They used several arguments, one being that they were afraid of the deluge and they did not want to give birth to children already doomed. Lemech countered that if Kayin whose deed of foul murder had resulted in suspension of his death sentence for 7 generations, then he, Lemech, who had killed inadvertently, accidentally, would not be punished for far longer than that, and his wives had no reason to worry. Even if a deluge would come tomorrow, he was free from the taint of sin and would not become its victim. He went further, saying that even assuming he had deliberately killed a man or a child, G’d would forgive him, seeing he had many merits which would offset one such sin. Kayin had not had such merits even before he killed his brother but had sinned so that G’d had rejected his offering, and still his sentence had not been carried out for seven generations. This is how he arrived at the expression שבעה ושבעים as opposed to שבעתים the period during which G’d had suspended the carrying out of the sentence of death on Kayin. He appealed to G’d’s patience to extend this patience to him. It is also possible that Lemech’s logic was totally foolish, as hinted at by Rashi, as the wives of Lemech did not worry about retribution for Lemech’s sin but the long overdue retribution for Kayin’s sin, something that would include all of Kayin’s offspring. We have to assume that Lemech’s speech to his wives took place before his wife Adah had given birth to Yaval.
Some of our sages (Tanchuma 11), claim that Lemech was blind and that when whenever he went out hunting a child (Tuval Kayin) would serve as his guide. When the child spotted the animal he would tell Lemech to draw his bow and aim his arrow in a certain direction. In this fashion Kayin, while being mistaken for an animal, was killed. Other sages (Bereshit Rabbah 22,12) claim that the “sign” provided by G’d for Kayin to warn people and beasts not to kill him, was a horn which grew out of his forehead. Kayin, being constantly on the move in the field due to G’d’s curse, was mistaken by the boy accompanying Lemech for a wild beast seeing that it had a horn on its forehead. Once the boy and Lemech came close to inspect the “beast” they thought they had killed, the boy told Lemech that they had killed a human being. Lemech then suddenly realised that he had killed his ancestor Kayin and this gave rise to his words איש הרגתי לפצעי וילד לחבורתי, he told his wives not to worry because whereas Kayin had murdered intentionally, he had reason to believe that G’d would delay punishing him for longer even than He had delayed Kayin’s punishment.
Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi asked Rabbi Yochanan why our verse mentioned both איש and ילד, would not either have been enough? Rabbi Yochanan replied that the word איש refers to the slain’s physical size, i.e. he was an adult, whereas the word ילד refers to the age of the slain person. [in which case the slain person was not Kayin at all, seeing that if he was still alive during Lemech’s time he must have been at least 500 years plus at the time he was killed by Lemech who was already married. Ed.] It is also possible to understand the passage as hinting at the jealousies between Lemech’s two wives, especially, since it appears that no one prior to Lemech had taken two wives. This is also why in Talmudic parlance such wives are known as צרות. This expression occurs first in connection with Chanah and Peninah the two wives of Elkanah (Samuel I 1,6). Lemech threatened to kill both his wives if they would continue to feud with one another. He made it plain that he had no reason to be afraid of the punishment for killing them, since G’d would be even more lenient with him than He had been with Kayin who had not had any good reason to kill his brother. Seeing that the number שבעה had already been used in connection with Kayin and his punishment, Lemech used an amended version of the number seven in describing how long it would take for him to be punished.
According to our commentary earlier on verse 15, Lemech intended here to make plain to his wives that whoever would kill him if he were forced to kill his wives, would experience far greater retribution than the one who killed Kayin, concerning whose killing G’d had warned the killer of especially severe (not sevenfold) retribution. The justification for such drastic retribution was that G’d Himself had assured Kayin of protection against being killed arbitrarily, hence the crime would be both against G’d and against Kayin. In practice this meant that the penalty could be paid only by the offspring of the killer. In addition to the killer himself. G’d’s retribution would include those who are close to the killer, for instance. His reasoning was that whereas he would have killed with provocation, Kayin had killed without provocation, ergo anyone killing him would be far more guilty than Kayin had been at the time. Seeing that G’d had not bothered to warn anyone who would kill Lemech of such draconian punishment, he had to go on record himself. The reference to פצע, which seems unrelated to killing, is to a wound which results in the victim bleeding, whereas חבורה is an injury that does not result in blood flowing from the victim. He associated the word חבורה with children, as these, being frail, are more likely to die from injuries that did not result in loss of blood. The word הרגתי is to be understood as the same as אהרג, i.e. a future mode, seeing he is warning of what may yet occur. Alternatively, the references to injuries refer to he himself being injured, and he is warning those who might injure him that he would retaliate by killing them. According to the first explanation the letters י at the end of the word לפצעי and לחבורתי would refer to the people causing such injuries, whereas according to the second explanation these letters would refer to the ones sustaining such injuries. We have numerous examples of such constructions, for instance Psalms 2,6 ואני נסכתי מלכי, “but I have installed my king, etc.” or Psalms 74,12 ואלוקים מלכי מקדם, “O G’d my King from old;” in the former the letter י refers to the passive subject, in the letter to the active party.

ויאמר למך לנשיו, “Lemech said to his wives, etc.” Nachmanides concludes from the plain text of our verses that Lemech was a wise and astute individual, well versed in all the vocations requiring not only brawn but also brain. He taught his oldest son how to be a proficient shepherd, allowing for the different nature of different animals, as well as the different kind of feed which they would thrive on. He taught his second son the rudiments of musical composition and how to play certain musical instruments. He taught his third son the art of working with different kinds of metal, including the making of weapons such as swords, spears, daggers, etc. His wives became afraid that he would be punished for introducing warfare into a peaceful society. Seeing that his paternal great-great-grandfather had been a murderer, perpetuating the art of killing would surely be frowned upon by heaven. Thus thought his wives. He told them that he himself had not been guilty of killing as had Kayin, so that G’d would protect him against murder even more so than He had been protecting Kayin for hundreds of years. He made the point that it is not the weapons which kill but the men who abuse the weapons. Man is capable of inflicting death on his fellow man with his bare hands and therefore manufacturing swords was not something that by itself was sinful. Rabbi Joseph Kimchi interprets the speech by Lemech to his wives as provoked by the discord in his household, seeing he had married two wives. Lemech is asking why he should be blamed, מה פשעי, when it was his wives who could not live in harmony with one another. If people like Kayin who had murdered, could live in peace and undisturbed, why should he who had not been guilty of murder have to be the victim of such discord? He warned his wives with sevenfold retribution by G’d Who had promised Kayin that He would personally avenge his life if anyone were to kill him. G’d would bring down great unhappiness on the people making Lemech’s life miserable. Other commentators consider Lemech as boasting that he had killed both adults and children merely in order to put the fear of him into the hearts of his wives. In fact, he had not killed. They would become afraid of him and live together peacefully under his roof.

כי איש הרגתי לפצעי, “for I have slain by my wound, etc.” Lemech introduced the sword and murder into the world. It is a case of the deeds of the fathers being re-enacted by the children After all, Lemech was the son (descendant) of the first murderer, Kayin. Lemech sired three sons. His oldest son taught him the art of grazing, i.e. to understand the nature and needs of the animals. His second son taught him all about music and musical instruments. His third son taught him how to use metal implements to make war both aggressively, i.e. by the sword and defensively by means of the shield. His wives were afraid that he should not die as a penalty for having brought instruments of murder and killing into the world. This is why he said to them: ”for have I killed a man by inflicting many wounds upon him (as Kayin did to Hevel) or a child (Hevel had only been 50 days old) and nonetheless G’d did not kill Kayin?” He meant to say that the sword is not what murders. Murder is the result of other considerations. The fact that I have perfected the art of war by making swords is not by itself punishable. [It is the use to which people put such instruments that may or may not be punishable. Ed.]

Die verschiedenen Auffassungen dieses Verses sind bekannt. Sie lassen alle mehr oder minder Schwierigkeiten ungelöst. Wir haben bereits an die Parallele der kainitischen Geschlechtsreihe mit derjenigen der sethitischen Geschlechter erinnert. Auch dort erscheint am Ende derselben ein "Lemech" und spricht einen bedeutsamen Satz über die Zukunft des Geschlechtes: "זה ינחמנו וגו׳" aus. Hier spricht schon die gehobene Form der Rede dafür, dass wir hier ein שיר, einen von höherem Geist diktierten Ausspruch vor uns haben. Erwägen wir diese Form, nehmen wir die Sprachformen in ihrer ungezwungensten Bedeutung, erinnern wir uns, dass schon ein Midrasch — allerdings auf ein konkretes Ereignis beziehend — in dem getöteten Manne den Ahn und in dem getöteten Kinde den eigenen Sohn erblickte, und fassen wir das Ganze im Zusammenhange mit dem Vorhergehenden auf: so dürften wir hier das letzte Vermächtnis eines kainitischen Sehers vor uns haben. Lemech hatte drei Söhne und mit ihnen die menschliche Kultur begründet. Welches stolze Selbstgefühl hätte die Brust dieses Mannes erfüllen, wie hätte er jubeln müssen!! Allein das Ergebnis seiner Lebenserfahrungen hat seinen Geist mit dem bitteren Gegenteil erfüllt. Er spricht: Hört auf mich, Ada und Zilla, auch wenn ihr nicht Lemechs Frauen wäret; denn was ich zu sagen habe, betrifft alle Menschen. Aber als Frauen Lemech׳s, als Mütter dieser Söhne, höret mir doppelt zu, geht euch meine Rede doppelt an. Ihr meint, mit dem, was wir getan, hätten wir Kain aufgerichtet, uns eine glückliche Gegenwart und unseren Kindern eine noch glücklichere Zukunft bereitet? "Nicht gesühnt, getötet habe ich den Ahn, gemordet die Jugend und mir selbst mit allem die tiefste Wunde geschlagen!" Alle Bestrebungen der Kultur, im Dienste Gottes stehend, sind heilig und beglückend. Sie bauen fort auf dem ererbten Gottesschatz der Ahnen, überliefern ihn bereichert ihren Kindern, leben selbst ein beglücktes Leben der Gegenwart. Allein aus "Mechujael und Mechijael", aus einem Geschlechte hervorgehend, in welchem das Göttliche erloschen, und das nur bestrebt ist, es immer mehr in dem werdenden Geschlechte zu verlöschen, nur im Dienste der Selbstsucht stehend, nichts als תובל קין, nichts als Produkt des mit aller Kraft gegen Gott ankämpfenden Menschen, tötet ein solches Geschlecht die Ahnen, tötet das heranwachsende Geschlecht und schafft sich selbst nur tiefe Wunden und Leiden. Es opfert Vergangenheit und Zukunft und gewinnt die Gegenwart nicht.

And Lemech said to his wives - the explanation of Rav Yosef Karo of blessed memory: since Lemech married two wives first, they would fight and envy one another and each would anger her rival, and they would make a cacophony. He said to them, "What is my sin above all men that there is no peace in my house?! No [peace] in eating, nor in drinking, nor in lying down, nor in arising - have I killed people, or strangled babies, that this thing should happen to me which never happened to any person?! And now, look, I'm dying at your hands! I can't bear all of this! But the Holy Blessed One will exacted payment for this! For Kayin who sinned, God said God would take revenge seventy times -- all the more so God should take revenge for me seventy-seven!" And this comes to teach us that man shouldn't have many wives, because that's trouble and strife. And it seems to me that in those days they were far-seeing and wise, and they knew a flood would come in the days of Lemech, for you don't find genealogies for the children of Lemech because they would drown in the flood. The wives of Lemech heard this and wanted to separate from Lemech. They said, "Why should we birth for vanity, and suffer the pain of pregnancy and birth and child-rearing?" And he said to them and comforted them, "Don't believe that the Holy Blessed One would do this, for have I killed a man or strangled youths, that this should happen to me and my children should be drowned? The Holy Blessed One took pity on Kayin - should They not do this all the more so for me?" And he seduced them with words until he had offspring from them, and it seems to me that this is why these children of Lemech learnt these crafts, since they weren't blessed in agriculture because of the curse of Kayin in their youth, and regarding this matter it was explained by Targum Onkelos.

ויאמר למך לנשיו, “Lemech said to his wives:” from the pleading manner in which the Torah describes his address to his wives, i.e. שמען קולי,....האזנה אמרתי, “hear my voice...give ear to my speech,” it is evident that his wives were quite angry and rebellious at him at that time. Lemech exclaims (seeing that he had been blind) “did I deliberately kill someone?” [In other words, how can you blame me? Ed.]

"Adah and Zillah, hear my voice; wives of Lamech listen to my statement." His wives did not listen to him, as in Isaiah (32) "Carefree women, come, listen to my voice; confident daughters, listen to my statement." And therefore it says "Because I killed a man for my anger and a lad for my bruising." There is cause for his wives to fear him, because he has killed several people. According to another interpretation, he warned them that they are not stronger than the "man" that "I killed" and if they think that he would not hurt them because they are women, behold, he has also killed a child, so he would not hesitate to harm them as well.

saying שמען קולי “Hear my voice”— obey me and return to me: for the man I slew — was he slain by my wounding? i. e. did I wound him with premeditation, that the wound should be called by my name (i. e. attributed to me); and the child that I slew — was it slain by my blow? (i. e. by a blow directed intentionally by me?) [Rashi here inserts the word בתמיה which he uses frequently to direct that the preceding words should be read as a question.] Did I not act inadvertently and not with premeditation? This was not my wound, nor was this my blow!

אמרתי, I have to express my mental anguish’

נשי למך, constructions in which one refers to people close to oneself in the third person, as Lemech did to his wives in this verse, also occur in Exodus 24,1 as well as in Genesis 2,20 and in Samuel I 12.11.

האזנה, this word, meaning: “listen please,” has the vowel tzeyreh under the letter zayin.

פצע wound, is the stroke inflicted by a sword or arrow (old French macheure).

הרגתי לפצעי, I have caused myself real injury, for the one who has killed my father (ancestor Kayin) has inflicted upon me the child a deep wound, seeing that the killer was my son.

כי שבעתים יקם קין IF CAIN SHALL BE AVENGED SEVENFOLD — (according to Rashi, as previously explained, it signifies “If vengeance shall be taken on Cain after seven generations”). If in the case of Cain who killed with premeditation the punishment was suspended for him until the seventh generation, in the case of myself who slew inadvertently does it not necessarily follow that it should be suspended for me until many seven generations?

ולמך שבעים ושבעה. My anguish over what I have done will be many times greater than the anguish of Kayin who had been condemned to be a constant fugitive on the earth. 'כי שבעתים יוקם קין וגו, for if Kayin’s punishment was indeed great, my punishment for having killed my son will be many times greater. [he referred to the anguish he suffered over what he had done, not to the punishment imposed upon him externally, as retribution. Ed.]

כי שבעתים, this has already been explained in the previous verse. The purpose of the Torah recording all this for all posterity is to demonstrate that in former times, even during the era of idolatry which began with Enosh, people were convinced that G’d supervises the personal fates of His creatures here on earth, meting out punishment to the wicked and reward to the deserving.

His wives separated from him once they fulfilled... because it had been decreed. This phrase [“once they fulfilled...”] is not found in our text of Bereishis Rabbah. It seems that Rashi added this phrase on his own, to explain why they gave birth until now: they wished to fulfill the mitzvah of “Be fruitful and multiply.” See Re’m. (Nachalas Yaakov)

כי שבעתים יוקם קין, “if even Kayin, who had deliberately murdered his brother will be avenged sevenfold if someone took the law into his own hands and killed him, after G-d had been content to merely exile him, how much more so will anyone killing me be avenged, seeing that I had not done any harm to anyone deliberately, ever!? He is threatening his wives of what would happen to them if they felt they had to avenge Kayin’s death by harming him or killing him.

שבעים ושבעה SEVENTY AND SEVEN — He uses a term that denotes many periods of seven generations. Thus did R. Tanchuma 1:1:11 explain this passage; but the Midrash Rabbah (Genesis Rabbah 23:4) does not mention that Lamech slew anyone at all, and only states that his wives had lived apart from him after they had born children, because God’s decree had been issued that Cain’s descendants should be exterminated after seven generations. They said, “Why should we bear children only to be destroyed? Soon the Flood will come and will sweep everyone away!” Lamech then said unto them, “Did ‘I’ slay a man ‘לפצע for my wounding” (i.e. that I should be wounded — punished)? Did “I” slay Abel who was a man in height but a child in years, that my descendants should be exterminated on account of this sin (the sin of Cain who killed Abel)? If Cain who did kill had his punishment suspended until the seventh generation, I who have not killed — does it not necessarily follow that my punishment) should be suspended for many seven generations? This, however, is an absurd argument a fortiori, for if so, the Holy One, blessed be He, could never exact his debt nor fulfil his word.

And sweep everything away. I.e., everyone will die. You might ask: At first Rashi said they separated from Lemech because of the decree on the descendents of Kayin. Why does he say here that it was because of the Flood? The answer is: His wives knew the Flood would come in the days of Lemech. They mistakenly thought it would be in the days of [their husband] Lemech son of Mesushael, a descendent of Kayin. But it was [later,] in the days of [a different] Lemech, the son of Mesushelach [a descendent of Sheis].

שבעים ושבעה, “seventy seven times.” According to Rashi, Lemech’s wives had separated from him after he had fulfilled the commandment of being fruitful, as they knew that the descendants of the killer of Kayin had been cursed by G-d for the following seven generations, so why would they have to bring children into the word in order for them to have to endure that curse? They would all be killed by the deluge. There appears to be a contradiction here in Rashi’s commentary. If these wives refused to bear more children because by that time, more than 120years prior to the deluge, that threat had already been known, then their refusals to bear children on account of a curse resting on the seven generations following Kayin’s killer are quite irrelevant.[Seeing that the Torah does not provide us with details of the ages at which Kayin’s descendants were born relative to Adam’s expulsion from Gan Eden, the only clue we have is the tradition that Naamah, Lemech’s daughter, became the wife of Noach, who started having children about 100 years before the deluge (1656). Seeing that the people mentioned in the Torah, with the exception of Chanoch, had all lived for more than 800 years the fact that Lemech (the descendant of Kayin), not to be confused with the Lemech who was a descendant of Sheth, and Noach’s father, had every reason to expect to be still alive when the deluge would occur. After all, 777 years of the 1656 years prior to the deluge had already elapsed at the time Kayin was killed. The tradition concerning’ Naamah’s ancestry is plausible unless we were to believe that none of Kayin’s descendants survived the deluge. Ed.] Our author prefers to believe that the daughters of Lemech erred in their calculations about during which Lemech’s lifetime the deluge would commence. Their father was the sixth generation from Adam, but seeing that Kayin married presumably at a much younger age than his brother Sheth who was 130 years younger than he, this is not plausible either, as Noach’s father died before his own father Metushelach who lived to 969, until the week before the commencement of the deluge. [Noach was the tenth generation, counting from Adam. Ed.] Our author believes that Rashi believes that Lemech and his daughters must have been great fools if they believed that G-d will allow 7 generations to pass before avenging someone’s wrongful death. If that were G-d’s way, who would ever associate the penalty with the wrongdoer, seeing that seven generations had elapsed since the crime had been committed? It is clear that what Rashi wrote was not his own interpretation, but he quoted the foolish notions entertained by Lemech’s daughters. [How could G-d then have punished the generation born less than a generation before the deluge started?]

This is an absurd kal vachomer. But according to [Rashi’s first explanation,] Midrash R. Tanchuma, the kal vachomer is not absurd since it does not contradict Kayin’s punishment; it applies only to Lemech’s [unintentional] sin. (Re’m) You might ask: What was Lemech’s reasoning [when he put forth his absurd argument]? The answer is that he thought as follows: Kayin killed intentionally and should have been killed immediately, as it says (9:6), “Whoever sheds the blood of man, through man shall his blood be shed.” Yet with his prayer, he held back the decree for seven generations. I, who killed unintentionally, can surely hold back the decree with prayer. (Maharshal)

וידע אדם AND ADAM KNEW — Lamech came to Adam Harishon, complaining about his wives. He (Adam) said to them: “Is it for you to be overparticular regarding God’s decrees? You do your duty, and He will do His!” They replied to him: “First correct yourself: have you not lived apart from your wife these 130 years, ever since, through you, death was decreed as a punishment?” At once ‘וידע אדם עוד וגו “Adam knew his wife עוד ” — What signifies the word עוד? It is used here to teach that his love for her was now greater than before (Genesis Rabbah 23:4-5).

וידע אדם עוד את אשתו, this occurred 130 years later than the last time, as is evident from 5,3. During the intervening years Adam had not sired any children because Chavah had been the cause of his being punished. He had kept his distance from her during all these years.

כי שת לי אלוקים זרע אחר תחת הבל, “for G’d has provided me with another seed to take the place of Hevel.” She said to Adam: “Look! Another seed in replacement of Hevel.” Chavah meant that if Hevel had not been slain, Sheth would not now have been born. This is the true meaning of the words תחת הבל, “a substitute for Hevel.” The Torah was careful not to say נפש תחת נפש, i.e. “another soul in replacement of the soul of Hevel.” Had the Torah written words to that effect, Sheth would not have been a true replacement of Hevel. You are aware already that all matters connected with the מעשה בראשית, the report of the creation, are in the realm of special “wisdoms.” This is why the Kabbalists saw themselves forced to look for all these allusions that we have mentioned thus far. Especially did they see allusions concerning משה רבנו, our great leader Moses, when they interpreted the word בשגם as a reference to Moses seeing that the numerical value of the letters in that word (345) is equal to the numerical value of the letters in the name משה. Moreover, the life span of 120 years accorded to man prior to the deluge which was introduced by the word בשגם (Genesis 6,3) is viewed as a reference to the life span of Moses. The word משה itself comprises all three, i.e. שת, הבל, משה (by re-arranging the letters) The fact that this “seed” is attributed by Chavah to G’d (instead of to Adam), was due to the fact that Sheth resembled Hevel extraordinarily. In fact the whole description of his birth indicates that he did not only appear to be a duplicate of Hevel but a duplicate of Adam himself who had been created in the image of G’d. For all these reasons Chavah credited G’d directly with giving her this third son. When she said: “whom Kayin had slain,” she meant that but for this murder she would not have merited to bear Sheth.

Lemech came... You do what you have been commanded... A difficulty arises: According to the first explanation [brought by Rashi above], that Lemech’s wives separated from him because he killed someone, what did Adam answer them? The answer is: Adam said to them, “Just because Lemech transgressed once, by killing, should he transgress further, and refrain from ‘Be fruitful and multiply’? [By way of metaphor,] if someone ate garlic [and has unpleasant breath, should he therefore eat more garlic]?” (Maharshal)

Chawa, die bei der Geburt ihres ersten Sohnes zunächst an sich, an ihren Anteil an dem Kinde dachte, hatte inzwischen tiefe Erfahrungen gemacht. Sie sprach nicht mehr קניתי, sondern שת לי אלדים, und erblickte darin nicht einen איש, sondern זרע, Saat, Boden einer neuen Zukunft; denn indem Kain den Hebel erschlug, hatte er nicht nur Hebel, sondern sich selber und seinem Geschlechte die Zukunft vernichtet, wie dies im vorangehenden Vers sein Urenkel prophetisch ausgesprochen. Im Scheth, שת, Grund, Stütze, (כי השתות יהרסון) erhielt die Hoffnung der Menschheit einen neuen Boden.

ותקרא את שמו שת, “she named him Sheth. Later on we get the impression that Adam had called this son Sheth. (5,3). The reason that there Adam, the father is credited with having named this son is only because when writing history, the Torah always traces the ancestry first and foremost to the father, it was quite in order to do so in that context.

כי שת לי אלוקים זרע אחר, seeing that this time she had given the credit to G’d, saying שת לי אלקים, “G’d gave me,” she named the son שת.

His desire for her was greater. Originally he had desire only when he saw Chavah, but now his desire was greater and he had a burning desire even when he did not see her. How does Rashi know this? Because the Torah should have instead said: “His wife conceived again.” That way, “again” would refer to her curse, the pain of pregnancy. Why does the Torah write “again” regarding “Adam knew his wife”? Obviously [he knew her, for] she could not conceive without relations. Perforce, it teaches “that his desire for her was greater...” Another answer: [Rashi knows this because] עוד is written only when the second action is close to the first. It implies actions in close succession, such as with Leah it is written (29:33): “And she conceived עוד,” meaning right after the first birth. But here, since Adam separated from his wife for 130 years, it should not say עוד, but simply, “Adam knew his wife.” Or, it should be called a second marriage, as with Amram who separated from his wife, and it is written (Shemos 2:1) that he “went and married.” So it seems to me.

שת, a reminder that the entire human race is descended from this man. The word is used in a similar context in the Bible in Samuel I 2,8: וישת עליהם תבל, “He has set the world upon them.” [Compare Chanah’s prayer, saying that G-d set the rocks as the foundation of the earth. Ed.] She hinted that the descendants of the senior brother all perished during the deluge.

כי הרגו קין, seeing that Kayin had killed Hevel she had not had any other seed from him. She perceived the birth of Sheth as G’d’s gift to her, compensating her for the loss of Hevel, who had not even left behind any offspring. This is why the Torah immediately continues telling us that Sheth, as opposed to Hevel, had offspring born to him whom he called Enosh. The meaning of the word גם, “also,” here is that “just as Chavah bore a son, so her son also sired a son, not only that but such offspring endured.” The Torah, significantly, does not tell us about Kayin’s offspring other than what we know about Lemech. The reason is that all of Kayin’s offspring was wiped out during the deluge. Noach was descended through Sheth.

אז הוחל THEN IT WAS BEGUN [TO CALL etc.] — The word הוחל must be connected in meaning with חולין “profane matters “) viz, calling the names of men and the names of idols after the name of the Holy One, blessed be He — making them the objects of idolatrous worship and calling them Deities (Genesis Rabbah 23:7).

אז הוחל לקרא בשם ה, at that time the righteous people of the earth began to preach monotheism to the public. The meaning is similar to Genesis 21,33 ויקרא שם בשם ה' א-ל עולם, “Avraham proclaimed there the name of the Lord, the Lord of the universe.” The time had come to publicly confront and refute the arguments of the idolaters in that period.

ולשת גם הוא, just as Adam had sired a good son, one in his image, so Sheth sired a good son, one in his image.

אז הוחל לקרא בשם ה', “then some people began to desecrate the Holy Name of the Lord.” Rash’bam interprets this line as people beginning to pray to G’d as their situation on earth had deteriorated so drastically. Other commentators, take the opposite view, saying that our verse describes the beginning of idolatry.

Then men began to call upon the name. This cannot mean that at that time they began calling upon Hashem, because earlier generations had done so as well. For this reason the Sages interpret this statement negatively.

Die Entwicklung geht aber nicht aufsteigend vorwärts; sie geht auch abwärts. Dem Scheth ward auch ein Sohn geboren, er nannte ihn Enosch, אנש .אנוש bezeichnet eine getrübte Menschheitstufe im Gegensatz zum reinen Menschen: אדם. Es ist mit dem rabbinischen אנס und dem hebräischen ענש verwandt; ersteres bezeichnet eine zwingende einem Andern angetane Gewalt; letzteres, ענש, später allgemein Strafe, heißt ursprünglich zunächst: Geldstrafe. Als Verbum kommt אנש nur passiv vor, und bedeutet dann ein hoffnungsloses Stadium eines Leidens, einer Krankheit, den Zustand völliger Entkräftung. Indem es aber eigentümlicher Weise nicht als Attribut des Kranken, sondern der Krankheit, des schmerzes, der Wunde vorkommt, אנוש חצי (Job 34), כאב אנוש (Jos. 17). אנושה מכתיה (Micha 1), so scheint es, passiv, nicht die Wirkung der Krankheit, sondern die Ursache zu bezeichnen. Die Krankheit, der Schmerz, die Wunde, ist dann kein örtliches Leiden, sondern ist Folge der Erkrankung des ganzen Organismus. אנש im Kal würde also heißen: Gewalt üben, krank machen, Kräfte entziehen und heißt auch ענש wohl daher zunächst Geldstrafe, weil im Gelde nicht ein wirkliches, gegenwärtiges Gut, sondern nur eine Wertkraft, ein Mittel für die Zukunft genommen wird. אֱנש ist nun, wie סְגר֗,שׁאל֗ ,שׂא֗ר keine passive, sondern eine aktibe Form und bezeichnet den Menschen, der sich nicht mehr als אדם, als im Dienste Gottes stehenden Statthalter begreift und als solcher die Welt einer gesunden Heilesentwickelung entgegengeführt, sondern seine ihm von Gott eingeräumte Stellung nur zu selbstherrlicher, gewalttätiger, die Welt siech und krank machender Willkür missbraucht. אדם ist das Heil der Welt, אנוש ihre Krankheit. (Vergl. Jeschurun VIII. 531 u. 532). Woher aber diese Gesunkenheit in dem sethitischen Geschlechte kam, lehrt uns die folgende Vershälfte:

'אז הוחל לקרא בשם ה, “then men began to abuse the name of the Lord, (by applying it to idols).” According to our author the meaning is that men began to swear false oaths using the name of the Lord to appear believable. The word הוחל is seen as analogous to Numbers 30,3: לא יחל דברו, “he must not desecrate his word” (when swearing an oath).

ויקרא את שמו אנוש, “he called him Enosh.” There were four major upheavals on earth during the lifetime of Enosh. 1) Mountains and hills became bare rocks, unfit for grazing or any form of agriculture; 2) bodies of dead people began to emit foul smell as they started to decompose; 3) man’s facial features gradually became more like that of apes; 4) as a result of their losing the “image of G-d,” in which original man had been created, demons lost their fear of attacking human beings. (Compare Yalkut Shimoni, Chronicles I 1072.)

'אז הוחל לקרא בשם ה, some commentators understand the word הוחל in the sense of חלול, desecrating, profaning. Others, including Rashi understand it in the sense of התחלה, beginning. In Onkelos we find two versions. According to one version, people became lax in worshipping G’d in the days of Enosh; according to the other version of Onkelos, in Enosh’s days people began to proclaim the name of G’d, [i.e. what had been something natural up until then had to be reintroduced as it had become practically extinct. Ed.] If the second interpretation is correct, the decline of religious observance was arrested for the first time in the days of Enosh when people found it necessary to pray to G’d when they found themselves in trouble. Up until that time they had not even thought that prayer could be helpful in affecting their fate on earth. They considered G’d’s decree as irreversible under any circumstances. According to what we have seen in the writings of our sages, (Shabbat 118) and according to the understanding of most people, that idolatry was widespread in the days of Enosh, the meaning of the verse before must be that that in Enosh’s time many people began to look upon the celestial phenomena as deities and address them and worship them as gods. They did so because they considered these phenomena as intermediaries between them and the invisible G’d. Seeing that these phenomena had been appointed by G’d to run the terrestrial part of the universe on His behalf, they considered these forces as capable of bestowing favours on those worshipping them. Gradually, such initial errors spread until most forms of idolatry nowadays are totally devoid of any rationale. In people’s minds natural forces are perceived as competing with each other and possessing overlapping domains, so that unless one worships at least several of them one would arouse the jealousy of the one ignored. The matter has become so grotesque that man made statues that neither see, hear, etc., are credited with being able to influence the lives of intelligent human beings.
According to the Targum Yerushalmi [not found in the regular editions. Ed.] only Sheth had a son born to him whom he called Enosh, and in his time people began to worship other forces as deities, i.e. applying G’d’s name to them. When the Targum wrote לחוד, “only,” the meaning is that Enosh was the only one of Sheth’s sons who survived, and all of mankind is descended from Enosh, neither offspring of Kayin or Hevel surviving. It is difficult to understand how an expression such as גם הוא, which suggests something additional, can be interpreted by the Targum as the opposite, i.e. as a restrictive clause.

׳אז הוחל לקרא בשם ד. Die Etymologie von חלל siehe Jeschurun VIII. 169, 170. Die Möglichkeit, dass הוחל ebensowohl: es wurde entweiht, als: es wurde an- gefangen, heißen kann, hat die verschiedensten Auffassungen dieses Satzes veranlaßt. Es kann entweder heißen: damals fing man an, den Namen Gottes anzurufen, oder zu verkünden; oder: damals wurde die Anrufung oder Verkündigung des göttlichen Namens entweiht. Man hat die erste Auffassung aufgegeben, weil man darin ja nur ein Verdienstliches und keineswegs eine Entartung der Zeit zu erkennen vermochte. Allein der letzteren steht einmal die Konstruktion — לְ entgegen, und dann würde es auch eine bereits zu tiefe Stufe der Entartung bezeichnen. Raschis Erklärung, man habe damals angefangen, Menschen und andere Dinge götzentümlich mit dem Namen ד׳ zu benennen, dürfte entgegenstehen, dass, wo der Name ד׳ vorkommt, das Götzentum aufhört. Nirgends wurde vom Götzentum Dingen der Name ד׳ beigelegt. Vielmehr bleibt nichts übrig, als die einfache, ungezwungene Auffassung: damals fing man an den Namen Gottes zu verkünden. Es ist aber die Erklärung, die ich einmal von meinem unvergesslichen Lehrer, dem seligen Bernays, gehört, gewiß die richtige. קרא בשם ד׳, was in Abrahams Zeit ein Verdienst war und den Wiederanfang einer zurückkehrenden besseren Zeit bezeichnete, nachdem der Name Gottes völlig vergessen war, das war in Enoschs Zeit das Zeichen des beginnenden Abfalls. Es ward in seiner Zeit zuerst Bedürfnis, den Namen Gottes zu verkünden. Bis dahin war es — wie es einst einmal wieder sein wird ולא ילמדו עוד איש את רעהו ואיש את אחיו לאמר דעו את ד׳ כי כלם ידעו אותי מקטנם ועד גדולם (Jirmij. 31, 34), es wird Einer den Andern nicht mehr lehren: erkennet Gott, denn alle werden sie mich kennen, von klein bis groß — überflüssig.

אז הוחל, “then began desecration;” the word is similar to Numbers 30,3, where it describes dishonouring one’s vow, desecrating something sacred.

Damals fing man an den Namen ד׳ zu verkünden. Der Mensch war אנוש, war die Ursache des Siechtums der Welt geworden, weil der Name ׳ד, und damit die besondere Beziehung Gottes zum Menschen und des Menschen zu Gott (siehe oben) anfing in Vergessenheit und Nichtbeachtung zu geraten. Das kainitische Geschlecht ging zu Grunde, weil in ihnen — מהויאל מחייאל — das Göttliche überhaupt immer mehr verlöscht wurde; das sethitische entartete, weil es die göttliche Bestimmung des Menschen, deren Bewusstsein der Name ׳ד wach hält, mit diesem Namen aus den Augen verlor, und dadurch von אדם zu אנוש hinabsank. Der Name ׳אלדי, das Bewusstsein, dass es einen Gott, eine hohe Allmacht gebe, welcher die Welt ihren Ursprung und ihre Ordnung verdankt, ist nie ganz aus den Gemütern der Völker geschwunden, und wäre es auch nur, wie die Weisen es bezeichnen, als אלהא דאלהא. Allein dieses Bewusstsein macht noch den Menschen nicht zum Menschen, und den Juden nicht zum Juden. Wir könnten das volle Bewusstsein haben, dass alles, was uns umgibt, von einem Schöpfer in ewiger Ordnung geschaffen sei, und glauben, dass von denselben Gesetzen auch das Geschick des Menschen abhänge, wir brauchten eben nur alle diese Gesetze zu erforschen, und damit wäre unser Glück gesichert. Allein, nicht die Welt im eigenen Interesse auszubeuten, sondern ihre Kräfte sich untertänig zu machen, um mit ihnen den göttlichen Willen auf Erden zu erfüllen, diese Unterordnung nicht der Welt, sondern des Menschenherzens, des Menschenwillens und der Menschengesellschaft unter Gott, und mit dieser Unterordnung die innige, den Menschen von allen andern Gewalten frei machende Verbindung mit Gott, das ists, was der Name ד׳ die Juden und die Menschheit lehrt, die besondere Gegenwart Gottes im Menschen- und Völkerleben; weshalb es nichts Zufälliges, sondern tief innerlich begründet ist, dass wir den Namen ד׳ als אדנ׳ aussprechen. Die Anerkennung Gottes als unseres Herrn, die Hingebung als עבר ד׳, dieser höchste den Menschen adelnde Beruf, ist das unmittelbarste Korrelat des Namens ד׳. Wir erkennen Gott als ד׳ an, indem wir ihn "unsern Herrn" nennen. ה׳ findet man nicht in der Natur, sondern in der Entwicklung der Menschengeschichte. Er, der Name, gibt somit dem Menschen das Gefühl seiner Würde, das Bewusstsein seiner Kleinheit und Größe, das Bewusstsein, in seiner Gott gegenüber zu nichts verschwindenden Größe, doch von ihm an die Spitze der Schöpfung berufen, הדום רגליו zu sein; er schützt den Menschen vor Überhebung und zugleich vor Vertiefung, Entartung und Verkümmerung. Sobald mit der Vergessenheit oder Nichtbeachtung dieses Namens der Adam zum Enosch hinabsank, sank auch physisch seine Welt mit ihm nach der Lehre der Weisen. Die Erde büßte immer mehr an Fruchtbarkeit ein; der Menschenleib, der ursprünglich unverweslich sein und nach dem Tode als abgestreifte Hülle der Rückkehr des Menschengeistes harren sollte, verweste; das Tierische trat in der Gesichtsbildung des Menschen hervor; und sie verfielen der Macht physisch schädlicher Einflüsse. Der Name Gottes macht frei, der Name Gottes macht lebendig, der Name Gottes hebt den Menschen schützend über alles empor. Wie er dem Menschen entschwindet, verfällt seine physische Natur immer mehr und mehr den physischen Gesetzen der physischen Welt. — Es kam also in Enoschs Zeit der Name ד׳ in Vergessenheit und Nichtachtung, und es ward zuerst Bedürfnis .לקרא בשם ד׳ קרא בשם ד׳, wörtlich: rufen im Namen Gottes, d. h. Menschen im Namen Gottes aufrufen, herbeirufen, sie im Namen Gottes auffordern. Es ist somit mehr als bloße "Predigt" "Gottverkündigung", es bezweckt nicht bloß Lehre, Erkenntnis Gottes, sondern Anerkenntnis, d. i. die Hingebung und Unterwerfung unter den göttlichen Willen: die Aufforderung, zu Gott zu kommen und ihm zu huldigen. Es schließt somit wesentlich ein Klarmachen der Beziehungen des Menschen zu Gott und der Ansprüche Gottes an den Menschen in sich. In diesem Sinne hier und bei Abraham und sonst. Auch wo es als ein Got-Anrufen vorkommt, wie וקרא בשם הי אלקיו (Kön. II. 5, 11) und sonst, dürfte es auch ein Rufen, Aufrufen, Herbeirufen, d. i. der Hilfe, des Erfolges, im Namen Gottes bedeuten.

Mit diesem Bedürfnis ׳לקרא בשם ד ist die Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes eingeleitet. Denn mit ihm beginnt die Notwendigkeit einer Veranstaltung, durch Menschen in Mitte der Menschheit das Bewusstsein von dem wahren Menschenberufe und von der wahren Beziehung des Menschen zu Gott zu wahren und zu wecken. Aus diesem Bedürfnis ging das Volk Israel hervor, dessen Sendung keine andere ist, als: לקרא בשם ד׳