Why did Cain kill his brother Abel?

​

A conventional explanation might be that he was jealous that Abel’s offering was accepted by God while his was not. So he let his passions rein and killed him.1

​

And the message of this part of the story? Control your passions!

   

Yet one can question this explanation. Do we really need this biblical story to tell us that passions running amok can have dangerous consequences?

​

Moreover, jealousy is usually based on something beyond a person’s reach. But God informs Cain that acceptance of an offering can easily be achieved. He just needs to work on his attitude. This is certainly within reach. 

​

Motives of jealousy and uncontrolled passion just do not fit well into this narrative.

 

Another possibility. Two things were uppermost in Cain’s mind — himself and his privileges. Possibly inadvertently, Abel had stepped on both. 

​

As discussed in the previous chapter, Cain regarded himself as the spiritual head of the family. Abel had encroached on what he regarded as his exclusive domain. Not only had he done so, but he had also earned God’s favor in the process.  

​

The situation could not be so easily rectified. Cain could demand that his brother not butt in again, although Abel could insist that he already had a relationship with God while Cain did not. Alternatively, he could get rid of his brother. 

 

Following the rejection of Cain’s offering, God provides a warning to Cain. Does this warning accord with the explanation I have given regarding Cain’s position and privileges? I suggest that it does. Not only does it do so, but an analysis of this passage reveals many profound theological ideas that the Torah is about to introduce.

 

What type of warning is this?

 

God knows the innermost thoughts of man. He could discern, knowing Cain’s character, that following the rejection of Cain’s offering there was a real possibility of violence. Therefore, it was appropriate that He provide a warning to Cain.

 

Nevertheless, God’s warning constitutes one of the most enigmatic passages in the Torah. I am not the only one to say this. The Talmud ranks this sentence among the five most puzzling in the Torah.2 Its language is poetic and obscure. Not surprisingly, it has generated a wide range of translations and interpretations.

 

An acceptable translation could be as follows:

 

And YHWH said to Cain: “Why are you upset and why has your countenance fallen? Surely, if you improve yourself, you will be lifted up (se’et) (שְׂאֵ֔ת). But if you do not improve, sin crouches (rovetz) at the door. Its desire (teshukatzo) is towards you, yet you can conquer it (Genesis 4:6). 

​

ו) וַיֹּ֥אמֶר הָֹ֖׳ אֶל־קָ֑יִן לָ֚מָּה חָ֣רָה לָ֔ךְ וְלָ֖מָּה נָפְל֥וּ פָנֶֽיךָ׃

ז) הֲל֤וֹא אִם־תֵּיטִיב֙ שְׂאֵ֔ת וְאִם֙ לֹ֣א תֵיטִ֔יב לַפֶּ֖תַח חַטָּ֣את רֹבֵ֑ץ וְאֵלֶ֙יךָ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָת֔וֹ וְאַתָּ֖ה תִּמְשׇׁל־בּֽוֹ׃

 

What does the Torah mean when it says “….  if you improve yourself, you will be lifted up”?  Who or what is being lifted up?  

​

Rashi, based on Targum Onkelos, translates the phrase as “you will be forgiven,” since in other contexts the Hebrew phrase “nose avon” (נשא עון) “lifting up a sin” means forgiving a sin. Thus, this sentence becomes — if you improve yourself, your sin of bringing an imperfect offering will be forgiven. 

 

However, it could be asked of Rashi and Onkelos — what type of sin had Cain committed? Of his own accord, Cain had made an offering. Disappointingly, it did not meet the grade. Nevertheless, it is difficult to regard Cain’s actions as sinful.

​

Nachmanides proposes that the lifting up relates to Cain’s status, and suggests the translation: “If you improve yourself you will have [added] lifting [beyond that of your brother, for you are after all the firstborn].”3

​

Ibn Ezra suggests that it is “your countenance” that will be lifted up since the beginning of the sentence refers to Cain’s countenance falling. Doing a better job would be the means of improving his self-esteem.4 God is recognizing Cain’s disappointment and saying to him something like: “don’t feel dejected, put all this behind you, do a better job, and you will have good reason to feel more satisfied.”

 

However, there is another interpretation that places a somewhat different perspective on the matter. The verb “se’et” can mean either “you will be lifted up” in the masculine or “it will be lifted up” with a feminine construct. The word “mincha” or offering mentioned in the previous verse is a feminine noun.5 Hence the verse could be saying – “if you do a better job, it (namely your offering) will be lifted up (i.e., your offering will become acceptable to God), but “if you do not improve, sin crouches at the door”.

 

Thus, this sentence now reads as a condemnation of people like Cain who bring offerings as a means of bribing God to improve their situation, and not as a gesture of thanks. 

​

We now need to examine the second part of the verse:

 

But if you do not improve, sin crouches (rovetz) at the door. Its desire (teshukatzo) is towards you, yet you can conquer it (Genesis 4:6). 

 

Rashi and Nachmanides view these words as indicating that the yetzer hara, the evil inclination, or one’s passions to do evil, are lurking behind the door ready to pounce whenever provided the opportunity.  

 

However, although the word “rovetz” is often translated as “crouch,” this is not an accurate translation. When describing a lion, the verb “rovetz” is not so much crouching and waiting for an opportunity to pounce, but lying down in a leisurely way.  As in the following verse when Jacob describes the future of the tribes of Israel:

 

Judah is a lion’s whelp, from prey my son you ascended; he stooped down, he crouched, laid down (rovetz) like a lion, and like an awesome lion who dares rouse him up? (Genesis 49:9)

 

Similarly, in this sentence from the Book of Exodus:

​

Perhaps you will see the donkey of someone you hate lying (rovetz) under its burden, will you refrain from helping him? You shall surely help along with him (Exodus 23:5).

 

Again, this is a donkey lying down and struggling with its load.  

 

Two other words in God’s warning to Cain will also be familiar to us – “to desire” and “to rule” — since both were met in the previous chapter in relation to Eve’s desire for her husband:

 

To the woman he said, I will greatly multiply the pain of your child bearing; in sorrow you shall bring forth children; and your desire (teshukatzcha) shall be to your husband, and he shall rule (yimshol) over you (Genesis 3:16).

 

There is no malevolent intent here. The “desire” of a woman is not to trip up her husband but to partner with him in a joint mission. 

 

This is no doubt why R’ Hirsch interprets this part of the verse as follows: 

 

Sin, the appeal of the senses. . . .  It has the power to master you, but it remains quietly behind our door. . . .  If it is at home with you, yea, finally to become the master of your house, you must in the first instance have invited it in. . . . 

​

God has given sensuality an appeal to your senses, not that it should master and direct it, but that you should master and direct it. . .  but “timshal”, regulate it, rule over it and . . . direct it. That is its whole purpose and calling.6

 

In other words, he is interpreting the words: “Its longing is towards you/ and you shall rule over it” not as “Its longing is towards you yet you shall rule over it,” but rather “Its longing is towards you that you should rule over it.”

 

R’ Hirsch has textual support and even a Midrashic saying to support this interpretation:7

​

In sum, God is saying that desires and passions should be a positive factor in the development of one’s character. Admittedly, they do have the potential for being used for evil. Your role, Cain, is to use them as they were intended, namely for the betterment of yourself. 

​

Cain has a choice. He can admit that Abel’s offering was a more appropriate way of thanking God. If he does this, he will be acknowledging Abel’s right to have a relationship with God that includes formalistic ritual. In so doing, he will have diminished his own role as the religious functionary of the family although this would move the family forward in its spirituality. Alternatively, he can get rid of Abel.  

 

Before closing this section, there is a question that could be asked about this verse, and also other verses in the Torah like this — namely why did the Torah put its warning in abstruse language such that multiple interpretations are possible? 

 

One answer could be that the Torah employs different literary formats. In this passage it is inviting the reader to penetrate the subtleties of its language and formulate suggestions as to their meaning. The Torah appears deliberately to invite multiple legitimate interpretations, each illuminating a different aspect of the text.

 

There is another obvious example of this in this story. Prior to his killing of Abel, the Torah describes Cain meeting Abel in the field, and then he “said” to his brother. But the Bible makes no mention as to what Cain said! The verb “said” in Hebrew always requires a subject, just as it does in English: 

​

And Cain said to his brother when they were in the field. And Cain rose up against his brother and killed him (Genesis 4:8).

 

Here, too, the text is inviting the reader to complete Cain’s speech. 

 

So let us do so.

 

Cain could well have told his brother that he, Cain, was the rightful head of the family and that Abel as a nobody had no right to infringe on his privileges. Perhaps an argument ensued. Nevertheless, what Cain said to Abel really made no difference since he had already decided to kill him. This was less a sin of passion than premeditated murder.  

  

Does the punishment fit the crime?

​

The Cain and Abel story introduces for the first time the concept that YHWH is not only concerned with the relationship between Himself and mankind, but that He also created the world with a moral code relating to interpersonal relationships. This seems obvious to us; but this is only because we have been shaped by the Torah. In the ancient world, this would have been a revolutionary concept. The gods whom people worshipped were not concerned with human behavior. This story also introduces another radical idea — that the earth itself, the foundation of the Agricultural Revolution, is a participant in this moral code.

 

Well before Gilbert and Sullivan popularized the idea, the Torah had already formulated the concept that a punishment should fit the crime. Punishment is dispensed measure for measure according to the offense. This principle is also illustrated in this story. The relevant verses are as follows:

​

YHWH said to Cain: “Where is Abel your brother?” And he said: “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” Then He said: “What have you done? Behold, your brother’s bloods cry out to me from the ground. Therefore, you are cursed from the ground which opened wide its mouth to receive your brother’s bloods from your hand. When you work the ground, it shall not continue to yield its strength to you. You shall become a wanderer and exile on the land. Cain said to YHWH: “My iniquity is too great to bear. You have banished me this day from the face of the ground and I will be hidden from your presence. I will be a vagrant and wanderer on earth: whoever meets me will kill me!” . . .  Cain left the presence of YHWH and settled in the land of Nod, east of Eden (Genesis 4:9-16).

 

Nothing is hidden from God, even the innermost thoughts of man. God asks Cain about the whereabouts of his brother and then tells Cain that He knows full well where he is.8

 

And the measure for measure? 

 

Rashi looks at the next sentence about Abel’s life blood crying out from the ground. The ground had already been cursed since Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad and were driven from the Garden of Eden. This was a general curse applicable to all mankind. Now, Cain himself will be cursed even more severely from the ground.9  

​

R’ Hirsch suggests that previously the “ground” had provided Cain the opportunity to use his position as firstborn to further his material acquisitions and maintain his position. Now that he has committed murder, measure for measure, he is cut off from the earth.10 

​

In sum, the Torah is telling us something new about the “ground” and its use and abuse by humanity. Cain’s banishment is not just punishment but part of a metaphysical construct. As R’ Hirsch points out:

 

When God placed the earth under man’s sway, it was to be elevated in the service of moral human purposes by the use of its powers. But crime severs the bond between earth and man.10

 

The earth, like the heavens, is a moral entity. It is unable to yield its bounty to a murderer because it is soaked with the blood of his victim. Cain is an agriculturalist. There is, therefore, no option for him but to abandon farming and become a wanderer upon the earth.

 

Cain also recognizes, and God agrees with him, that because of this murder “I will be hidden from your face.” When God turns His face towards an individual, that person is exposed to Divine providence.11 When one is hidden from God’s face, one loses Divine providence and becomes subject to the vissitudes of chance. Or almost. God assures Cain that, nevertheless, no avenger will be able to kill him.

 

Following his banishment by God, Cain is exiled to the east of the Garden of Eden. Going to the east is synonymous with leaving the presence of God.12 The exit from the Garden of Eden was at its easternmost point, and Adam was sent eastwards. Cain is now farther from the exit of the Garden, and therefore, even farther from the presence of God.

​

It is noteworthy that the Torah repeatedly teaches that persistent covenantal disobedience by the Jewish people will result in their being expelled from the land, with the land being considered as almost an autonomous agent. At the very least, this principle is built into the created order. This theme reaches its fullest expression in Deuteronomy, but is already anticipated in Leviticus. The progression is striking: first, the warning is applied to the Canaanites, then it is applied to Israel itself:

​

Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, for by all these the nations I am casting out before you have become defiled... the land became defiled; so I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants (Lev. 18:24–25).

 

The warning is then applied directly to Israel:

​

Keep My statutes. . . lest the land vomit you out when you defile it, as it vomited out the nation that was before you (Lev. 18:26–28).

​

This warning is repeated almost verbatim:

​

You shall therefore keep all My statutes and all My ordinances. . . that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out” (Leviticus 20:22).

 

Another application of this principal is God’s destruction of the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

Where is this story heading?

 

When confronted by God and asked: “Where is Abel your brother?” (ibid 4:9), Cain avoids all responsibility — “Am I my brother’s keeper?” He displays no hint of remorse. He sees his punishment only in terms of himself — “my iniquity is too great to bear. . . ” —  and not in terms of the evil he has committed.

 

The connection between Cain and the earth has been severed. He is now a wanderer and a vagrant with no fixed abode. Nevertheless, there is no turning back the course of civilization. Either he or his son (the text is not explicit as to which), builds a city (ibid 4:17). From a literal perspective, it makes most sense that it is Cain’s son who builds it, since Cain was a wanderer, with Cain subsequently naming the city after his son.

​

In archeological terms, we have now entered the Early Bronze Age, a period marked by the building of organized cities. Cain’s future generations become involved in furthering the technology by which civilization advances. Jabal becomes a herdsman, Jubal develops musical instruments, and Tubal Cain works copper and iron, presumably to manufacture weapons. By the seventh generation, Lamech boasts to his wives about the murders he has committed (ibid 4:23). In effect, Cain’s line is heading toward the moral collapse of society. Eventually, the land itself will reject the entire population of the world and destroy all humanity and living creatures in a flood, except for a single family. 

 

Nevertheless, the trajectory is not entirely downward. After 130 years, Adam and Eve have another child, whom Eve calls Seth:

​

And Adam knew his wife again, and she bore a son, and she named him Seth (Shes) (שֵׁ֑ת), because “Elohim has provided (shos) (שָֽׁת) me another child in place of Abel, for Cain had killed him.” And a son was also born to Seth, and he named him Enosh; then it was begun to call in the name (likro beshem) of YHWH (ibid 4:25-26).

 

Eve’s approach to this pregnancy is very different from that of her previous ones. No longer is she sharing this achievement with God. She now recognizes that this son came entirely from God: “For God has provided me another child in place of Abel” (ibid 4:25).

​

Seth’s son also recognizes the role of God, and in the next verse, which concludes the chapter, Enosh “began to call out by the name of God“ (ibid 4:26). He is proclaiming the existence and attributes of God, just as Abraham will do generations later.13

​

In later generations, an individual from the line of Seth called Enoch (Chanoch in Hebrew), who is the seventh generation from Adam, “walked (vayithalech) with God” (ibid 5:22). Within ten generations from Adam, Noah is born – “And Noah found grace in the eyes of YHWH” (ibid 6:8). 

​

All of Cain’s extended family are wiped out in the flood, but Noah, a righteous descendant of Seth, preserves the knowledge of God and repopulates the world.

​

It is noteworthy that the Torah goes out of its way to emphasize the word “brother” in this chapter. Hence, early in the story when discussing the birth of Abel, the Torah states: “And again she gave birth to his brother Abel” (ibid 4:2).14 But what else would Abel be other than Cain’s brother since they shared the same mother? Cassuto points out that the word “brother” appears seven times in this chapter (from verses 4:1 to 4:26).14 When a word occurs seven times, this is unlikely to be coincidental; rather it is functioning as a key word for emphasis.

​

The Torah could well be telling us that, despite Cain’s actions, there remains such a thing as the brotherhood of man. This ideal is preserved through the line of Seth. In the future, an individual of extraordinary stature named Abraham will establish a unique relationship with YHWH and will begin the process of restoring the broken pieces of humanity.

​

In summary, at first glance the story of Cain and Abel seems to be a simple tale of jealousy and unbridled passion. But the Torah does not tell simple tales. Rather, the twenty-six verses of this chapter constitute a study of many profound philosophical ideas, all of which are introduced into the Torah for the very first time. These ideas are either stated explicitly or strongly intimated and may be summarized as follows:

​

• Motherhood and agriculture share a common moral hazard — forgetting that God is the ultimate creator of life and agricultural produce.

 

• The firstborn is not necessarily the most appropriate person to pass on a spiritual heritage.

 

• The firstborn of a living creature and the first fruits of agriculture produce represent the entirety of what is to come.

 

• God does not value a sacrifice that functions as a bribe for future beneficence. The only “bribe” he will accept is moral behavior.

 

• Human life is sacred.

 

• The crime of murder is so terrible that it cannot be forgiven.

 

• Divine providence operates in this world for those who merit it.

 

• Murder severs the connection between humanity and God and between humanity and the earth.

 

• Nothing is hidden from God.

 

• The earth itself participates in God’s moral order.

 

• To be banished to the east is to lose God’s favor.

 

And finally, this allegorical tale can be fruitfully linked with the archeology of civilization and with the history of the Jewish people’s attempt to restore the brotherhood of humanity by promoting a God-given moral code.

 

References

1.   A motive is not elaborated on in midrashic sources. That the Torah does not tell us what Cain “said” in Genesis 4:8 suggests to Rashi that Cain initiated a meaningless quarrel with Abel as an excuse for killing him, although Rashi does not elaborate on the reason for this quarrel. R’ D Fohrman in “Of Roses and Triangles” in “The Beast that Crouches at the Door”, p 181, Aleph Beta Press 2011 places the blame on unpremeditated passion. Nahmanides suggests that Cain was jealous and concerned that the world would be built up through Abel’s descendants rather than his own, since God had shown Abel favor.

2. TB Yoma 52b

3.  Translation by ArtScroll Series, The Torah: With Ramban’s Commentary Translated, Annotated, and Elucidated. Bereishis/Genesis, verse 3:7, p137, Mesorah Publications Ltd, 2004

4.  As in “perhaps he will lift up my face” in Job 32:21

5.   This grammatical analysis is pointed out in the chapter “Fratricide and Founding” in “The Beginning of Wisdom. Reading Genesis” by Leon R Kass, p141, The University of Chicago Press 2003.

6.  The Pentateuch, Translation and Commentary by Samson Raphael Hirsch on Genesis 4:7, p102. Judaica Press, United Kingdom, 1989.

7.   R’ Hirsch To Genesis 4:7 quotes one Rabbinic saying from among several about this verse: “R” Simone said: If your evil inclination comes to mock you [and cause you to sin], make him glad with words of Torah, for it says (Is 26:3) “with your controlled sensuality you keep peace” and then it will be reckoned to you as if you were the creator of both worlds, for it does not say you have created peace, but dual peace shalom shalom. And if you say this is beyond your powers, has not God already pronounced in His Torah: “his longing is towards you” (Midrash Rabba 22:6) 

8.  According to Rashi, Radak and Sforno this was a rhetorical question. God was providing Cain with the opportunity to repent. The explanation we have presented is that once Cain had committed murder, he could never be forgiven.

9. Rashi to Genesis 4:11.

10.   The Pentateuch, Translation and Commentary by Samson Raphael Hirsch on Genesis 4:12, p106. Judaica Press, United Kingdom, 1989.

11. This phrase is also found in the priestly blessing – “May God lift His countenance to you …” (Numbers 6:26)

12. The prime direction in the ancient world until the discovery of magnetic north was the east. In the pagan world, east was the direction from which the gods appeared. They slept during the night but awoke at dawn and then appeared in the east. This was why Pagan temples faced towards the east. By contrast, the Holy of Holies in the Tabernacle and later the Temple faced towards the west, thereby distinguishing it from pagan places of worship. The Garden of Eden was in the east (ibid 2:8). However, when Adam and Eve were exiled from paradise, the cherubim stood guard from the east of the Garden. (ibid 3:24). In Jewish thought, the prime direction towards God is facing west. Hence, when Cain moved to the land of Nod east of Eden, he was moving even further from the presence of God. Rabbi Solveitchik states: “When he (Cain) looked upon Eden, his promised land, he faced westwards, towards the horizon in the direction of the setting sun, Similarly, when Moses climbed the mountain to look upon the Land of Israel, he faced westward. … Historically, Israel was exiled to the east, a movement in a direction which represents failure. Repentance represents a return to one’s source, a retracing of one’s steps. On man’s trek westward towards Eden, he stumbled by violating the moral law. He had to go back where he started. The Kabbalistic idea of shechina bma’arav, the Divine Presence being in the west, is a reflection of man’s desire, whether conscious or unconscious, to come closer to God” from “In Chumash with commentary based on the teachings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik”, The Neuwirth Edition. Bereishis, Complied and edited by Dr. Arnold Lustiger, p41, OUPress, First edition 2013. 

13. The Midrashic interpretation of this phrase in Bereishis Rabba 23:7, Tanchuma, Noach 18, and Targum Yonasana is far different from the one I present here. The Hebrew verb “huchal” can also be interpreted not only as “began” but also as “profaned.” Hence Rashi will explain this verse as “to call me names of men and the names of the icons by the name of the Holy One, Blessed is He, to make of them idols and to call them deities.” This also led Maimonides to write “as time passed, the honored and revered name of God was forgotten by mankind and vanished from their lips and minds and they were unable even to recognize Him” (Hilchos Avodas Kochavim 1:2). My essay suggests the very opposite that the knowledge of God was lost by the generations of Cain but retained by the generations of Seth. This in turn was passed on to Noah. The forefathers “calling on the name of God” is mentioned several times in the Torah (Genesis 12:8, 13:4, 21:33, 26:25). Other commentators who favor this interpretation rather than the midrashic one are Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, Ibn Caspi, Sforno, and R’ Hirsch.

14. The Story of Cain and Abel, Introduction in “A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part One. From Adam to Noah” by U Cassuto, p192, First English Edition, The Magnes Press, P.O. Box 7695, Jerusalem 91076, Israel.