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

*************************************************************