HHMI Newsgroup Archives
From:
"Yeshivat Har Etzion's Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit
Midrash"
To:
yhe-parsha@vbm-torah.org
Subject: PARSHA61 -01:
Parashat Bereishit
YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT
MIDRASH (VBM)
*********************************************************
PARASHAT BEREISHIT
By Rav Ezra Bick
A.
The story of Kayin and Hevel is
one that is easily
skipped over lightly when we think of the great themes of
the early parshiot of the Torah. It is obvious
to most
of us that we should be searching for the "moral
of the
story" when considering these parshiot. The
first part
of Bereishit is first
and foremost about God's
relationship to the natural world
as Creator, an
obviously important point for
the foundations of
religious belief. The story of Man in the Garden of Eden
is about obedience and sin, about the relationship of man
and woman, about innocence and knowledge,
and we are
naturally led to ponder its significance.
Next week's
parasha, describing two societies and
their sins and
punishments, is crucial to understanding human
society;
and the figure of Noach, in all its complexities, serves
as a launching point for understanding how the righteous
man relates to a sinful world. The story of
Kayin and
Hevel, though, poses what seems to
be no particular
lesson. I think that most of us quickly summarize it
in
our minds as about murder - with the moral
being that
murder is bad. Since this
does not appear to a
particularly "deep" moral, we quickly continue on
to the
next parasha.
But since this is basically the
third story in the
Torah, such a cursory treatment of
this parasha is
clearly unjustified. Our task, then, is to determine the
real significance of this story and why it is
here. To
do this, we first have to understand the character of the
"hero," Kayin.
B.
Our first inclination is to
catalogue Kayin as a
villain. After all, he is a murderer, and is
cursed by
God. A corollary conclusion is that Hevel
must be a
saint. The latter conclusion is basically based
on an
aesthetic desire for balance, especially in a story with
two brothers (remember Yitzchak and Yishmael, Yaacov and
Eisav), but is also supported by
the fact that God
accepts his sacrifice while refusing that of Kayin.
This position, at least the
first half of it, is
forwarded by Rashi (based on midrashim), who states that
Kayin's offering was inferior in quality, indicating his
irreligiosity (4,3), and that he deliberately set out to
kill Hevel (4,8). Furthermore, Rashi interprets 4,15
to
mean that God decreed that Kayin would be
killed after
seven generations as a PUNISHMENT (vengeance, nekama, in
the language of the verse) for
murder. By this, I
believe Rashi is answering the question how could a tale
of murder not end with the proper Divine
punishment -
death. Exile is not
the appropriate punishment,
especially if the main moral of the story is that murder
is a sin which will not go unpunished. Rashi's answer is
that Kayin indeed suffers the death penalty, even if
it
is delayed.
However, the simple order of
the verses indicates
that the actual punishment for Kayin's crime is exile and
wandering (4,11-12). Only after Kayin
complains that
this will leave him open to being killed does
God give
him a mark to protect him, adding that "kol
horeg Kayin
shivatayim yukam" (4,15). Even if this does predict
that
Kayin will be killed (which is NOT the simple reading of
the verse), it is not necessarily
projected as the
punishment for the crime.
But the real difficulty with the
position taken by
Rashi is in the hints that the Torah gives us concerning
the personality of Kayin and Hevel.
1. Adam was intimate with Chava his wife, and she conceived and gave birth to Kayin, and she said, "I have made
("kaniti") a man with God."
2. And she continued to give
birth to his brother, to Hevel; and Hevel
was a shepherd, while Kayin worked with the land.
3. After many days, Kayin brought an offering to God from the fruit of the land.
4. And Hevel, he also
brought from the first-born of his sheep and from
their fat - and God turned to Hevel and to his offering,
5. But did not turn to Kayin and to his offering; and Kayin was
very troubled and his face fell. (4,1-5).
Our first
point of interest is the Torah's description of the births of the two brothers. The birth
of Kayin is described as a momentous
occasion, giving
rise to Chava's exclamation, "I have made
a man with
God." While this is obviously due to the fact that he
is
the first-born, not only to his happy parents,
but to
human history, it stands in stark contrast to the
birth
of his brother, whose birth
is described as an
afterthought, and who does not even merit an explanation
of his name. Compare this with other cases of the births
of brothers in the Torah, such as
Eisav and Yaacov
(Bereishit 25,25-26), or the list of births of
Yaacov's
wife Leah (29,32-35), where each son
is accorded an
explanation for his name. It is safe
to say that a
character whose name is not explained
in the Torah,
especially when juxtaposed next to one
whose name is
explained, is a non-important character. If Hevel is the
first individual to bring a proper sacrifice to God - in
effect, the man who invented formal religion - we
would
expect more.
The comparison between the
births and the names
merely highlights the extremely problematic
nature of
Hevel's name. "Hevel" means
"nothing, vanity, wind,
vapor." Of the nearly sixty appearances of this
word in
Tanakh, not even one is in a positive context. The
word
is always used to describe something of no
consequence,
mere wind, vanity, or
foolishness. The well-known
repeated use of the word in Kohelet are typical of
Iyov
and Tehillim as well. Since names are
descriptive in
Tanakh, especially for a symbolic character, this
would
seem to indicate that we should not be viewing Hevel as a
paradigm of virtue or human
accomplishment. In fact,
Kayin's name
could well be
translated as
"accomplishment," while Hevel's name means the
opposite.
Now one could argue
that this does not indicate
anything about the Torah's attitude towards
Kayin and
Hevel, but only about the attitude of their parents, who
were excited about the birth of the first and
more or
less ignored the second. This "psychological"
reading of
the parasha would result in a picture of Kayin
as the
favored first son, and Hevel as the ignored,
belittled
brother. Perhaps Chava was surprised to
discover that
she was bearing a second child (assuming that they
were
twins, as would appear from the
fact that a second
pregnancy is not mentioned), and perhaps she assumed that
a second child was unnecessary, an insignificant addition
V in other words,
"hevel." This perception of the
psychological difficulties of Kayin and Hevel could then
be used to understand the strained relationship
between
them, and Hevel's "overachieving" would be
seen as an
attempt to gain his parent's - and
perhaps God's -
approval.
This would be an interesting
approach, but I have a
basic methodological problem with it. If it is
correct,
then the moral of the story will
revolve around the
problems of parenting, rather than the sin of murder.
I
have nothing against using psychological
insights to
understand a parasha in the Torah, but in this case, the
psychological insights, the central point of the
story,
is barely hinted at in the text. Now that I find
to be
objectionable. It does not appear to me to be logical to
assume that the central message of a given
parasha is
buried in hints and inferences.
Perhaps these insights can
help us understand how
these two individuals related to
themselves and each
other, but I do not think that they answer our
question
of the relative evaluation of Kayin and Hevel.
But there is also a furthtextual indication about
the personalities of Kayin and Hevel, and that is in the
actual bringing of the offerings (verses 3
& 4). The
initiative to bring an offering to God is
Kayin's. The
verse stresses that "Hevel, he too, brought an
offering."
Hevel is copying Kayin, following along in the initiative
of his older brother. Just as his
birth appears an
afterthought to that of Kayin, so too his offering to God
is apparently following the footsteps of Kayin. Kayin is
the originator of the idea of sacrifice; he was the first
to understand that if your work succeeds,
it is only
because God has blessed it and therefore one
must show
that one understands from where all blessing
comes by
giving a portion to the true owner and creator
of all.
Hevel merely imitates his brother. Kayin
is an "ish"
(verse 1), an individual, a unique personality; Hevel is
a "gam hu" (verse 4), an "also
he" person. He is a
"nochshlepper" - I wish I knew
how to say that in
english! But I hope those of you who are
not familiar
with the word can guess its meaning - an
"also-shlepper-
along."
C.
I think it is safe to say
that Kayin was the more
serious individual, more creative and more
substantive.
This immediately brings us to the
question why his
offering was not accepted by God, while
that of his
unoriginal brother was.
The answer to this question
is found in verse 7.
Unfortunately, verse 7 is among the most difficult in the
Torah. It appears to be deliberately
cryptic, and is
therefore impossible to translate neutrally; that is, the
translation depends on which among the
many available
interpretations is adopted.
For the time being, I propose to
skip this question
and move on to the murder itself. My attempt to
somehow
rehabilitate the character of Kayin will surely
founder
on the incontrovertible fact that he was a murderer, who
killed his only brother (as well as 25% of the
world's
population).
Kayin said to Hevel his brother; and
while they were in the field, Kayin rose up
on Hevel his brother, and killed him. (4,8)
The first half of the verse is obviously
incomplete.
It is not only that we would want to know
what Kayin
said, while the verse does not inform us. Grammatically,
the verb "amar" (said) requires a direct
object, unlike
the verb "dibeir" (spoke) which could
be used without
one. It is possible to describe someone as
"speaking,"
without specifying what he said; but it is
technically
incomplete to say of someone that he is "saying,"
without
adding an object. All commentators and
the midrashim
suggest different contents for what Kayin said,
but it
seems to me that the Torah's omission here indicates that
it is not important to know what specifically
what was
said, but only that speech preceded the act of violence.
What this means is that Kayin did not approach Hevel with
the intention of killing him. Apparently, words
led to
an argument, which eventually led to Hevel being killed.
This is what is known legally as manslaughter rather than
premeditated murder.
This impression
is reinforced by the repeated
reference to Hevel as "Hevel his brother."
If this had
appeared only in reference to the murder itself, I would
be inclined to interpret it ironically, as
emphasizing
the enormity of the crime. But as it appears not in
the
description of the murder itself, but in the previous two
phrases - "saying" and "rising up" - it
seems to me to
indicate the opposite; namely, that at every stage up to
the actual murder, Kayin still related to
Hevel as a
brother. Following this lead, I
remind you of the
midrash which describes how Kayin did not know
how to
kill. (The midrash does not claim that he did
not want
to kill Hevel, only that he did not know how). Expanding
this somewhat, perhaps Kayin did not even realize that he
was killing Hevel until it was too
late. One must
remember that no one had even died yet in human history.
Kayin "rose up against Hevel,"
and suddenly, he had
killed him.
This would explain his punishment -
which is akin to
"galut," exile, the
punishment in the Torah for
inadvertent manslaughter rather than for
murder. Of
course there is no city of refuge to which Kayin can
be
sent, but basically his lot is similar to the accidental
murderer of the Torah, who is uprooted from his home and
sent away.
So, what is the picture that
emerges? Kayin is the
more talented and religiously more
sophisticated elder
son, who is haunted by the
success of his younger
brother, and quarrels
with him, until, either
accidentally or at least without
premeditation, kills
him. Have I managed to rescue the reputation of
Kayin?
Is he to be considered a "tzaddik?" Of
course not! But
neither is he to be considered a symbol of a
"rasha," of
evil personified. He should not be added to the list
of
great villains in the Torah, such as Nimrod,
Eisav, or
Pharo. Rather, he is an example of a tragic figure.
D.
If this story is not about
murder and its deserved
punishment, then what is it about? I think the answer is
that it is about brotherhood, jealousy, competition, and
the roots of strife. The message may
appear extremely
pessimistic and depressing, but the Torah is telling
us
that strife, and even murder, are rooted deeply in human
nature. To put it
another way, human strife is
primordial, a direct result of the fact that there are at
least two human beings. The
very first two humans
quarreled, and the result was murder. They quarreled not
because they were somehow a danger to each
other, but
because they were in competition - one was a farmer
and
one a shepherd. Automatically, instead of
cooperating,
they entered different occupations
and competed -
economically and eventually
religiously. For this
message to be understood, for us to realize that the root
of great evils does not necessarily
lie in an evil
personality and is not the result
of some terrible
decadence from a naturally pure state, it is important to
realize that Kayin was a positive character, caught up in
natural human impulses and emotions. The root
of what
happened here is not the corrupt nature of Kayin, but the
human family and human society. Man, in his
desire to
succeed and progress, is led to compete, and
from this
the road to strife is very short. Had we
met the two
brothers before the terrible end,
we may well have
sympathized more with Kayin, rather
than with his
"worthless (hevel) brother. But in the end,
that makes
no difference, because fine qualities are no
guarantee
against an upsurge of emotions.
There is
a recurring theme in some western
philosophies that the natural state of
man is simple
morality, and evil results from some decadent process of
progress and social complexity. The Torah is warning
us
of the opposite. There is nothing particularly
pure in
the noble savage, in primitive social
structures. The
seeds of evil are found in the simplest social structure
of all, a simple family.
Morality is not natural,
instincts should not be
trusted, and "just being
yourself" is a recipe for trouble.
On the contrary,
morality is the product of a
highly structured and
difficult course of training and restraint - namely, the
Torah. Human history begins in competition
leading to
strife and murder; it takes a great effort on the part of
an individual, and all of history on the part of mankind,
to reach a state of cooperation, with true
moral peace
and genuine brotherhood.
E.
Now to take a stab at
God's response to Kayin's
despair at not being favored when bringing his offering.
First, it is crucial to notice that God
precedes his
response with an exclamation of surprise - "Why
are you
disturbed and why has your face
fallen?" This would
appear to be a strange question - after all,
Kayin has
just had his offering to God rejected! Is that not a good
enough reason to be disturbed? The answer is that
Kayin
is not disturbed by the nature of his relationship
with
God, but by his relative standing in the competition with
Hevel. Indeed, we do not know
that Kayin has been
rejected. All the verse says is that some
special sign
of favor (the midrash suggests that fire came down
from
heaven to devour the offering) which was accorded to was
absent in Kayin's case. This does not mean that
God is
angry at Kayin, only that, for some reason which
we do
not know, He chose to give a special sign to Hevel. As a
wild piece of speculation, perhaps Hevel is depressed by
the fact that he is engaged in a relatively less valuable
field of occupation - remember
that Adam's family,
according to the Sages, is not permitted to eat meat, and
has only a limited need for wool. (See the
Netziv who
considers Hevel's occupation with things that
are only
luxuries rather than staples to be the source of his name
as Hevel - vanity). But the
reason is not really
important - which is why the Torah does not even hint at
it. What is important is Kayin's response, a response of
jealousy derived from his choosing to measure
his own
value as a function of his success in competition.
God's answer is - "If you do
well, you succeed, but
if you do not do well, IT will lurk on the door of
sin."
I would like to suggest that this means that Kayin should
be concerned only with one thing - is he
doing well,
doing good, intrinsically, and be unconcerned
with the
competition with Hevel. If you are doing well, then that
is what matters. If you are not doing good things,
then
your desire to succeed will be the seed
of sin. The
desire to produce, even to produce religious expression,
such as bringing the first offering in history (surely an
accomplishment), is on the one hand the secret of
Man's
greatness, but if expressed for the sake of
competition
is on the other hand the source of sin - in
this case,
the second sin of history.
Rebellion against God is the first
source of sin.
Not realizing that one's worth is intrinsic and trying to
find value by surpassing others, our brothers,
is the
second source. In some ways it is the
more invidious,
and definitely is the more common.
Kayin, of
course, fails this test, and
his
competitiveness and lack of self-worth
leads him to
fratricide. Having failed to find his value in the
land
he toils, he is removed from it and condemned to a
life
of wandering. Feeling that his life is worthless now
(a
life of hevel), he fears that any who meet him will kill
him, as one would squash a worthless creature.
But the
message of God still holds - if he produces, if he
does
good, then his life has value. God gives him a
sign to
protect him. Kayin's potential still holds true.
YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH
ALON SHEVUT, GUSH ETZION 90433
Copyright (c) 1999 Yeshivat Har Etzion
All Rights Reserved
*************************************************************
Return to
Newsgroup Archives Main Page
Return to our Main Webpage
©2011
Hebraic Heritage Ministries International. Designed by
Web Design by JB.