Genesis · Chapter 4

And Adam knew Chavah his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain; and she said, "I have acquired a man from before Hashem."

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

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, 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), meaning to the priest; And David came near ‘eth ha’am’ (the people), 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); See following note. Noah walked ‘eth ha’elokim’ (with G-d). 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. 43.

"And the man" — when he saw that he would not live forever in his own body, he needed to perpetuate the species. Therefore she said: "I have acquired a man with Hashem" — and there is no mention here of the word 'God.' For behold, the species is found on earth, just as it exists above among the [heavenly] beings. The word "good" is a general category, as it is written: "And God saw all that He had made, and behold it was very good" (Gen. 1:31). And "evil" is a particular [subdivision of it].

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.

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.

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.

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) 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.)

And she continued to bear his brother, Abel. And Abel was a shepherd of flocks, and Cain was one who worked the ground.

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

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).

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'.]

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.

And it was at the end of days that Cain brought of the produce of the ground as an offering before Hashem.

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]. Our Rabbis have said that the first man also sacrificed a bullock. Chullin 60a. This should close the mouth of those who speak foolishness 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.

"And it came to pass at the end of days" — after Cain had worked the ground, he brought the offering to the place he had designated for his prayer. The words of those who say that he brought the offering to his father do not seem right to me. And since it is written regarding Abel "from the firstborn of his flock," this supports [the reading] that Cain did not bring from the firstfruits. "Days" — see the commentary of our teacher on verse 4.

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. 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 Bereshit, 9)

מפרי האדמה, “from the fruit of the earth.” He should have brought of the first ripe fruit of the trees (of one or all of the seven species for which the land of Israel is famous instead of fruit grown in the earth). The Torah reveals Kayin’s avarice, his stinginess. This is why the Torah refrains from mentioning that the fruit he brought were from the first ripe fruit of the earth. The manner in which the Torah describes his offering is meant to convey that he selected the poorest type of produce, flax, rather than the best. Our sages in Tanchuma claim that he brought flax-seed. They derive this from the text seeing that the Torah mentions Kayin’s offering only briefly while devoting more space to describing the offering of Hevel. The Torah also stresses that Hevel brought from the firstlings of his sheep and their most perfect ones. Hevel brought firstlings from a category of product which was fit to serve as an offering for G-d. Kayin, on the other hand, offered produce which is not even fit to serve as an offering. Moreover, even the fruit which he did bring were the poorest quality of that category he could find. Bereshit Rabbah 22,8 compares Kayin to a bad land tenant who consumes the best produce of the owner’s land himself, giving the owner only the inferior part. מנחה לה'., “as a gift for G-d.” This offering was presented on the fiftieth day after the world had been created. Both Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer who had disagreed as to the date on which the world was created, agree on this. They agree that Hevel lived for no more than fifty days. Seeing these two scholars agree on the number fifty on which the first “gift-offering” was presented to G-d, we can understand why the Torah legislated that the Jewish people offer a similar public gift offering on the fiftieth day after the Passover and why it is called מנחה חדשה “a new gift-offering.” We are to commemorate the date on which Kayin and Hevel offered a gift to G-d. This offering which we offer on Shavuot is like an acknowledgment of the truth of the Torah’s report of what happened to early man. G-d’s prediction and promise to Kayin that he (or any human being) could regain good standing in the eyes of G-d if they complied with G-d’s rules for proper conduct was borne out by the history of the Jewish people. The entire episode teaches that G-d directs and supervises the world and that there is a system of reward and punishment. The Jewish people received the Torah on the fiftieth day after the Exodus at which time they became G-d’s most favoured nation. Kayin, who murdered on the fiftieth day was cursed whereas Hevel received his reward for good conduct in that his soul was reincarnated in Moses’ body and he was even instrumental in bringing the Torah to the Jewish people. In due course, the power of the evil urge will be broken on the fiftieth day (in terms of G-d’s calendar, after 7 times 7.000 years in terms of our years.) [The author elaborates on this in his commentary on Parshat Behaalotcha and in his commentary on Parshat Behar.] Everything G-d does is based on the principle of מדה כנגד מדה, that “the punishment (or the reward) is appropriate to the nature of the sin.” Everything G-d does is based on justice as we also know from Proverbs 16,11 פלס ומאזני משפט לה', “Honest scales and weights are the Lord’s.” This is also the reason that the Torah prohibits the presence of leavened dough as part of the gift-offering as leavening is an allusion to the evil urge. Leviticus 6,10 states specifically that gift-offerings must not be baked in such a manner that their dough has time to rise. The only time the Torah specifically commands such a gift-offering to consist of dough which has been leavened, has been allowed to rise is in Leviticus 23,17 where this offering of the שני הלחם “the two breads” of the Shavuot festival is legislated. The reason is that this offering looks forward to the יובל הגדול, “the great Jubilee year,” when the evil urge will no longer be part of this universe.

And it came to pass at the end of days, that Cain brought from the fruit of the ground an offering to God. The scripture does not specify what “the end of days” means, nor when these days that came to an end began. It seems appropriate to explain by way of allusion that Cain and Abel were divided on what constitutes human perfection. Is this world and its successes the ultimate perfection of man with no perfection beyond it, or is there another eternal world? Apparently, Cain, being a lover of the earth, believed there was no reckoning in the grave and this world leaves nothing behind. Therefore, he chose as his portion all the desires of this world and its successes, thinking that the advantage of the earth is in everything (Ecclesiastes 5:8). Abel, however, believed there was another eternal world in which man achieves his final purpose. Therefore, he chose to be a shepherd of sheep, which facilitates solitude, as many prophets did, like Moses and David and others, and to bring offerings from them to God. Perhaps they made divisions between themselves, as found in the Midrash regarding Esau and Jacob, who made a division between themselves where Esau took as his portion all the pleasures of this world, as he said Let my Lord pass before his servant (Genesis 33:14) — meaning he should take his portion first — while Jacob chose the eternal world as his portion, his hand grasping Esau’s heel (Genesis 25:26), meaning at the end of Esau’s dominion. Similarly, Cain and Abel made this division between themselves. This is the intent of the Midrash which says that Cain took land as his portion while Abel took movable property, etc. This indicates what was in their hearts regarding the division of reward between this world and the World to Come. All the desires of this world cannot be moved or taken to carry across to the world of descent — they are like land that stays in its place. It is similar to one who goes to a fair and purchases land and houses with his money, which he cannot take home with him. He only benefits from their fruits while in the foreign land, and when he goes home, he returns empty-handed, carrying nothing from his labor of what he built and planted, leaving his wealth and walls he established for others. Similarly, one who makes this world primary only gains a handful of satisfaction acquired from full handfuls of toil and spiritual distress, using them only during his temporary stay in this world — his brief dwelling as a stranger and passing guest — and takes nothing with him to the eternal world, for there is his true home. This was Cain’s view and that of his associates who love temporal acquisitions. Abel, who considered all temporal acquisitions as vanity, for they are vain teachings, chose movable property — these are God’s commandments that a person can carry with them from their temporary place as a stranger and sojourner to the place where they are a permanent resident and citizen, for there they will make their true home. It is already well known that all lovers of monetary acquisition never perform any mitzvah or charity from their wealth throughout their lives, with this scheme they have devised: “There is still much day left here to eat to satisfaction and to use their money.” As long as they see themselves as strong and healthy, and their strength remains as it was, they give nothing from their wealth and possessions for the service of God, thinking “Who will eat and who will benefit besides me?” However, at the end of their days, when they see themselves approaching the gates of death and realize that they cannot take everything with them in death (see Job 1:21), then a spirit of jealousy passes over them to envy their fellows who do God’s work, and they too do a tiny bit and agree to bring an offering to God — whether through sacrifice, giving to the poor, or in another way. This is what is meant by “one who lends to the poor in his time of need” — meaning the lender’s need, when time pressures him to act, as will be explained later in Parashat Vayelech (31:17), God willing. Even then, when he is close to the gates of death, he does not give for the sake of the mitzvah, but only the smallest portion of his wealth, selecting the inferior quality and sending it as an offering to God. Every despised and rejected item becomes the portion for the Divine, while every good cut is his portion, for his hands refuse to touch the choice portion, and his eye begrudges giving a proper portion as an offering to God. Therefore, it is said about Cain, who was among these types, And it came to pass at the end of days (Genesis 4:3) — meaning either at the actual end of his life or the remembrance of his end is what caused this minimal awakening, as he felt within himself that there would be an end to all his labor in this world. If he had not felt within himself that all flesh comes to an end and had not frequently remembered [the end of] his life’s days, he would never have brought any offering to God. Even then, the remembrance of the end of days only helped him to separate the inferior and worst — namely, flax seed. This is the intention of the Midrash Hane’elam which says that Cain was from the evil side, therefore it says at the end of days [miketz yamim] and not “at the end of the right” [miketz yamin]. I heard but do not understand the intention of this Midrash — what is the difference between “yamim” [days] and “yamin” [right]? Certainly, its intention is to say that Cain did not sacrifice for the true purpose hidden for the righteous at the end of the right [ketz hayamin] in the World to Come, as it is said, And you shall stand up for your lot at the end of the right (Daniel 12:13), for Cain denied the resurrection of the dead. Rather, he brought from the end of days, thinking that in any case there would be an end to all his labor and he would take nothing with him — this is what he began to do, as mentioned. This is the intention of the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 22:5) which gives the parable of Cain to a servant who ate the first fruits and sent the dregs to the king. Meaning, in his youth, which are the first days that have the right of the firstborn and primary status, he consumes his wealth as much as he can find strength to consume, and sends to the King, the King of the Universe, blessed be He, the dregs — meaning the end of his days, for those days about which one says “I have no desire in them” and no bodily desires — those he sends to the King to do God’s service which is foreign to him. And “dregs” is the same as “end of days” that was mentioned. I saw in the book Tzror HaMor, and so too explained the Re’em, that the word “korban” [sacrifice] — its final letters spell “pishtan” [flax] when you spell it out: kuf, reish, bet, nun. And according to their words, this explains the midrash that says: “This is comparable to a servant who ate the first fruits and sent the leftovers to the king.” For the “first fruits” refers to the first letters of the word “korban,” meaning the thing that is fitting for a sacrifice, which is the choicest part, and the “leftovers” refers to the final letters, meaning flax. And Abel brought from the firstborn of his flock and from their fat parts — not from the perspective of remembering the end and the final days of his existence, but rather for the true purpose of bringing sustenance to his eternal home at the end of days, like one who travels to distant places and is not particular about his own eating while he is a temporary guest, but sends the choicest portion to his eternal home. Therefore, And the Lord turned to Abel and to his offering — meaning, to Abel because his intention was desirable to Him, blessed be He, and to his offering because the action too was desirable. And this matter is explained explicitly at the beginning of the sacrifices, as it is said When a person from among you brings a sacrifice to the Lord (Leviticus 1:2). When one wants to bring a sacrifice that will be accepted by God, then they should do as Abel did, who brought from the firstborn of his flock and from their fat parts — so too should they bring from the animals, from the cattle and from the flock, etc., meaning the firstborn of his flock. And that is the meaning of what it says you shall bring your sacrifice — which refers to from their fat parts — meaning the choicest portion that you would select for yourself for your own food, because without doubt you would choose for yourself all good vegetables, the shoulder and choice cuts — this is called “your sacrifice” that you bring close to yourself and desire, and that choicest portion you should offer to the Most High. Regarding what is written “And Abel also brought.” What does also mean? I saw in the Sefer Tzror HaMor that it somewhat criticizes Abel for not being self-motivated regarding the sacrifice, as he did not bring it until after he saw Cain going and offering his sacrifice. Therefore, it says And Abel also brought — the word “also” hints that he was late with his sacrifice and brought it out of jealousy of his brother. And it’s possible that regarding one who acts out of jealousy, Solomon said Then I saw that all toil and all excellence of work comes from one man’s rivalry with another; this too is vanity (Ecclesiastes 4:4). [“Hevel,” which is Abel in Hebrew.] Meaning, this is the “also” that Abel stumbled with, as it says And Abel also brought. It seems to me to bring a kind of proof to his words from what is written And it came to pass when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. It mentions “field” because there was an argument between them regarding the sacrifices, and each one found fault with his fellow’s sacrifice, as is common between two people who have a dispute. Abel accused Cain of bringing from the worst of his flax seed. And Cain accused Abel that he wasn’t self-motivated to act, but rather only after seeing Cain’s sacrifice did a spirit of jealousy pass over him and he too wanted to equal him. And Cain said to him: “Since you don’t become motivated to do good deeds on your own, but only after you see others doing them, this might work when you live among your people, but when you’re in the field where no one is around, surely you will never do any good deed there. Therefore, you don’t deserve to exist in the world, for God has no desire for fools and many vanities who act out of jealousy and not for the sake of heaven.” And with this, Cain defeated Abel in argument, therefore it says And it came to pass when they were in the field. When he responded with this decisive answer regarding the field, then Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him, for the field was the place of sin, and there would be his burial. This is why they said that Adam’s sacrifice had one horn on its forehead (Chullin 60a). They meant by this that since Adam was alone in the world — meaning “one horn” — he certainly did not see this practice from any other person, but rather was inspired to perform this act on his own initiative, and therefore his sacrifice was accepted. This is why it states When a person [adam] brings an offering to God — when one will be like Adam, who was inspired to bring a sacrifice on his own accord. This is the meaning of when he brings from you — namely, that the inspiration should come from within you — this is truly an offering to God, and not motivated by jealousy of one’s fellow man. This will be further explained later in Parshat Vayikra (1:2), God willing.

And Abel brought as well — from the firstborn of his flock and from their fat portions. And there was favor from before Hashem toward Abel and toward his offering.

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

"And He had regard" — on the pattern of "and it burned to Cain" (Gen. 4:5). Its meaning is like 'he accepted.' The closest [parallel] is "look away from me" (Isa. 22:4), in accordance with the manner of the mystery of sacrifice. It is possible that fire descended and consumed Abel's offering but not Cain's. In my view, a full year is called "days" (Gen. 4:3), as it is likewise written: "its redemption shall be for a period of days" (Lev. 25:29) — because the days return in length or brevity just as they were at the beginning. Similarly: "from days to days" (Exod. 13:10). The meaning of "two years of days" (Gen. 41:1) is: complete days, two years — for if it were written simply "two years," it might mean they were not complete from day to day. Likewise "until a month of days" (Num. 11:20), meaning that the month returns to what it was. I therefore said in my commentary on Daniel that "a thousand two hundred and ninety days" (Dan. 12:11) refers to actual days and not years, because they are stated as a specific number.

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

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. 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, 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 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.

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' 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.

But toward Cain and toward his offering there was no favor. And Cain was exceedingly angered, and his countenance fell.

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, due to his jealousy of his brother, ויפלו פניו, he was downcast, being ashamed, feeling that G’d had publicly shamed him.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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)

And Hashem said to Cain, "Why are you angered, and why has your countenance fallen?"

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

"Is it not so: if you improve your deeds, you will be forgiven? But if you do not improve your deeds, your sin is kept until the day of judgment — it is destined to be exacted from you, if you do not repent. But if you repent, you will be forgiven."

הלא אם תטיב IF THOU MENDEST — Its meaning is as the Targum gives it: “if thou wilt improve thy doings, thou shalt be forgiven”. לפתח חטאת רובץ SIN CROUCHETH AT THE ENTRANCE — Right up to the door of your grave (until your death) your sin will be preserved. 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. ואתה תמשול בו NEVERTHELESS THOU MAYEST RULE OVER IT — If you desire to, you can gain the victory over it (Kiddushin 30b).

IS IT NOT THUS, IF THOU MENDEST ‘SE’EITH’. In the opinion of the commentators, 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? For he who is ashamed presses his face downward. Similarly, it is said, And the light of my countenance they cast not down, 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; Meaning, perhaps he will accept me. Do not lift the face of the poor. 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? 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. 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.

"Is it not so" — and the meaning of "s'et": in the view of many commentators, the lifting up of your sin. In my view the correct interpretation is "lifting of the face" [i.e., countenance], for it is written at the outset "his face fell" (v. 5), which is the way of shame, as in the sense of "how could I lift my face" (2 Sam. 2:22). The meaning is: if you do good, you will lift your face. Similarly: "then you will lift your face free of blemish" (Job 11:15). "Sin crouches" — some say that "sin" here stands in place of "iniquity." Others interpret it: at the entrance of the grave your iniquity will crouch on the day of judgment, and they read the vav of "its desire" as referring to Abel — the meaning being: why are you angry that I accepted Abel's offering, when he has turned to obey you and you are like a ruler over him? Others refer it to the evil inclination — but that is not what is written. Those [interpreters] say: at the entrance of your house your sin crouches and it follows you wherever you go. Some say "at the entrance" means the mouth, as in the sense of "guard the openings of your mouth" (Mic. 7:5). In my view the correct reading is that "sin" is in construct [with what follows], and the inclination of man's heart is what crouches with him. "And toward you is its desire" — for the inclination will submit to your will if you wish, and you also have the power to rule over it.

הלא אם תיטיב, if only you improve yourself you will also be welcome in My eyes. שאת, every lofty level of greatness is lying in wait for you, ready to become yours, 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. 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.” 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.”

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. 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 Bereshit, 36) There is a story in Bereshit 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.

.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.” ואם לא תיטיב, “but if you fail to improve (your deeds) you will find the sin at the very entrance of your grave.” G’d told Kayin that though in this life punishment may not be immediate, as you as you die you will be punished for the sins you committed and have not been punished for while on earth. This punishment will take place in the world of the souls. An alternative meaning of the words לפתח חטאת רובץ, may be that it is an allusion to the physical pain inflicted upon sinners even while they are in their grave. The words ואליך תשוקתו mean that you will have a natural disposition for listening to the evil urge; however, ואתה תמשל בו, “you are able to rule over it, control it.” If you want to listen to the voice of the יצר הטוב, “the urge to be good and to do good,” G’d promises that you will be able to counter the influence of the evil urge. This is what Solomon said in Kohelet 9,15: ומלט הוא את העיר בחכמתו, “and he saved the city through his wisdom.” He also said two verses previously that עיר קטנה ואנשים בה מעט ובא אליה מלך גדול וסבב אותה ובנה עליה מצודים גדולים ומצא בה איש מסכן חכם ומלט את העיר בחכמתו. “There was a small town with only a few inhabitants, and a mighty king came and surrounded it, and built great fortifications against it. Within that town there was a poor wise man who by his wisdom saved the town.” Solomon describes man‘s body as “a small town,” seeing man is perceived as a microcosm. The “few inhabitants” are a metaphor for the various cravings of man, both of his body and his animalistic life-force, נפש. The reason Solomon refers to these cravings as מעט,” is because though man has many cravings only a few of them will be satisfied. The “mighty king” is a reference to the evil urge who has at his command many assistants, i.e. the many and variegated cravings of man. These cravings are for the evil urge what an army with many troops is for a king. The words: “he surrounded it,” are a metaphor describing how the evil urge surrounds the entire body invading even our thought processes. The great fortifications are the wicked deeds already performed by man. The “poor wise man” is a simile for the יצר הטוב, the urge to be good, the שכל, intelligence; seeing that this urge has relatively few “assistants.” he is described as מסכן. He is generally very unpopular as we know from Proverbs 19,7 כל אחי רש שנאהו, “all the brothers of a poor man hate him.” This is why Solomon continues in Kohelet 9,16 ואדם לא זכר את האיש המסכן ההוא; “and no one remembers that poor man.” Solomon is also on record as saying there וחכמת המסכן בזויה ודבריו אינם נשמעים, ”the wisdom of the poor man is despised and no one listens to what he has to say.” When Solomon said that nonetheless this poor man saved the town by means of his wisdom, this is because a little truth sometimes goes a long way and is able to outweigh the efforts of the many wicked all of whose efforts are devoted to perverting the truth and to make the lies appear as if they were the truth. The matter is similar to a little light driving out darkness from a vast area which had previously been totally dark. I believe that Kayin’s sin was threefold. 1) He did not believe G’d when He told him in a prophetic vision that the system of reward and punishment was indeed applied truthfully throughout the universe. This is why the Torah continues —

At the entrance sin crouches, and its desire is toward you. From here there is support for the words of our Sages of blessed memory (Eruvin 19) who said that the wicked, even at the entrance of Gehenna, do not repent. For the entrance of Gehenna is called “the entrance of sin,” as it is an entrance and an open source for sin and impurity, and even when a person crouches at the entrance of sin — meaning the entrance of Gehenna — nevertheless, the evil inclination’s desire is still toward you and its desire does not cease. Another explanation: According to what our Sages said (Berakhot 5), “A person should always incite his good inclination against his evil inclination, etc. If it [the evil inclination] departs, good; if not, one should remind himself of the day of death, and then it will certainly depart.” This is what it means when it says If you do well — meaning if you succeed in driving away the evil inclination, then God will lift up His countenance to You and accept your repentance. And if you do not do well, meaning if the evil inclination does not depart and its impurity remains within you, then sin crouches at the door — meaning you should remind yourself of the day of death, as if your grave’s opening is open before you, and then the sin — which is the evil inclination that causes you to sin — will crouch under its burden. And even though its desire is toward you, nevertheless you can rule over it. Another explanation: We find that our Sages (Berakhot 61) compared the evil inclination to a fly, and they based this on the verse Dead flies make the perfumer’s oil fetid (Ecclesiastes 10:1). The reason for this comparison is that every fly’s mouth is weak and lacks the strength to pierce intact flesh. However, where a fly finds an opening in living flesh, there it will lie, and its mouth has the power to widen the breach. Similarly, the evil inclination’s power is too weak to make a breach in the “living flesh” — a righteous person of many accomplishments who has not given his evil inclination any opening at all — it cannot breach his defenses and enter to cause him to sin. However, when it finds people of its kind who breach even a small opening and create an entrance for sin and impurity, then it has the power to widen the breach and add transgression upon transgression, as our Sages said (Shabbat 104a), “One who comes to defile himself, they open for him,” and some versions read “they open doors for him” — meaning, he opens a door for the evil inclination to find a place to enter through that breach and widen it until the wound becomes incurable. The analogy for this is someone who finds a completely closed entrance — it is difficult for them to open it, but if they find an entrance slightly open, it becomes easy to widen the opening until it becomes like a gate in their soul through which everything enters easily. This is an apt metaphor for the evil inclination. And in this way we find in the Yalkut at the end of Parashat Beshalach (17:7) that it compares Amalek to a fly: Just as a fly is drawn to a wound, so too was Amalek drawn to the blood of Israel, etc. And why specifically was he compared to a fly? Because he too could not engage with Israel as long as they were complete with God, except in Rephidim where they weakened [literally: their hands became weak] from Torah, then they opened a doorway for him and Amalek came and defiled them with homosexual relations according to our Rabbis of blessed memory (Tanchuma Ki Teitzei 9). This is what the Midrash concludes there with a parable: [It is like] a person who enclosed his vineyard and said, “Whoever breaches the fence will be bitten by the dog,” etc. It specifically mentions one who breaches the fence because this relates to the opening of the doorway that we mentioned, for through the opening many will break through. Similarly, through opening a doorway to one’s evil inclination, many accusers will enter who prevent one from following the straight path, as will be further explained below in Parashat Beshalach (17:8). And in Tractate Yoma (39b), our Rabbis of blessed memory said: “If a person defiles himself a little, they defile him much, etc.” And this is explained according to our approach. This is what it means sin crouches at the door — for the evil inclination, which is called “sin,” where it finds an open doorway to sin, there it will crouch and enter through that opening. And don’t say that its desire is only for the doorway alone, rather its desire is toward you — for all its desire is to proceed from here onward directly to you, to lead you astray from God. However, as long as it remains at the “opening of the eyes,” meaning at its initial approach to you, you can rule over it in the way I explained above regarding the verse he will crush your head. But if it has already passed beyond the doorway, meaning the small breach, and has already passed directly to you to lead your entire being astray from God, then it will be difficult for you to rule over it. Therefore, the wise person keeps his eyes in his head not to give it any place to enter at all, and this is a precious interpretation.

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.

And Cain said to Abel his brother. And it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him.

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.

"And Cain said" — the interpretation closest to me is that Hashem said to him all the rebukes with which Hashem had rebuked him. Some questioners — those born on a rainy day — ask: how did he strike him when there was no sword? This is a foolish question, for he could kill him with his hands by strangulation, and a thousand pieces of wood and stone are to be found.

ויאמר קין אל הבל אחיו, how upset he was, and how he had become downcast on account of his brother. ויהי בהיותם בשדה, away from the presence of their parents. ויקם קין, Kayin arose without any previous quarrel, similar to Deuteronomy 19,11 וארב לו וקם עליו, “he ambushed him and attacked him.”

-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. 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. 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.

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 —

And Cain spoke to Abel his brother. The Torah does not specify what he said to him, and it appears to me that this “speaking” [amirah] is similar to the usage in all workers of iniquity boast themselves (Psalms 94:4), which is an expression of boasting, and similarly you have exalted God (Deuteronomy 27:17). The meaning is that Cain boasted to him saying, “The world and its fullness belong to me, and the ground upon which you stand is mine.” Immediately thereafter, he rose up against him over matters concerning the field and killed him. But above I explained that “matters of the field” was that he said to him, “When you are in the field, a place where people are not commonly found, you never initiate any action on your own, for this sacrifice that you brought — you saw it from me and then did likewise.” According to this interpretation, the meaning of And Cain spoke is that Cain boasted, saying “I am better than you because I sacrificed first, and from me the act of sacrifice extended to you.” This is why it specifically says to Abel his brother, because he was saying “I was the cause for your actions, for if you hadn’t seen me sacrifice, you wouldn’t have sacrificed anything at all.”

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. 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)

And Hashem said to Cain, "Where is Abel your brother?" And he said, "I do not know. Am I my brother's keeper?"

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

The meaning of "ei" is like "ayeh" [where]; and the word "eifoh" is compounded of two words.

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. 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.

— 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.

“And God said to Cain, ‘Where is Abel your brother?’” There is great puzzlement regarding Cain — how could he say I do not know? If he erred in thinking that God does not see and does not understand the actions of those below, then why did he bring an offering to God? It seems appropriate to say that Cain certainly understood that the Holy One, Blessed be He, was asking about the killing of his brother, and he responded I do not know, am I my brother’s guardian? Meaning to say, “I did not know there was any sin in the act of killing.” And am I my brother’s guardian is not meant as a question, but rather connects back to I did not know — for he said, “I did not know if I am obligated to protect my brother’s life from being killed by my hand.” This guardianship is in the sense of but guard his life (Job 2:6). Thus Cain argued that he did not know whether he was obligated to protect his brother’s life or not. The Holy One, Blessed be He, replied to him, “How could you not know? This commandment is among those that are self-evident!” This is what is meant by The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to Me from the ground — that reason itself compels one to fulfill this commandment even if it had not been commanded, for without it, people would swallow each other alive. And the land would become desolate without inhabitants (Isaiah 6:11). Therefore, the ground demands justice for the murdered one, because the existence of the earth depends on this — for if there were no restriction on killing one’s brother, it would be impossible for the earth to exist, as its existence would be pointless and it would be desolate without inhabitants. Therefore, the ground shall no longer yield its strength to you. The reason for this is that just as the ground is affected by and seeks judgment for murder, so too the ground itself is obligated to execute judgment on murderers, as it is written (Numbers 35:33), For blood pollutes the land, and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed in it except by the blood of the one who shed it. And one should contemplate in what way blood pollutes the land. What appears most correct to me in explaining this is that the earth always appears as if it has opened its mouth to swallow everything, as it is said, Three things are never satisfied: the grave, the barren womb, etc. (Proverbs 30:15-16). And as it is said, Therefore the grave has enlarged itself and opened its mouth without measure, etc. (Isaiah 5:14). From all this, there is proof that the earth’s mouth is always open to swallow, and one who places something in its mouth appears to be flattering it. This can be said about murderers who spill innocent blood, for through this blood they flatter the earth by giving it something to swallow in its mouth. Correspondingly, the earth also flatters them by giving to those who are unworthy all their needs that come from the ground. These are two things: (1) all food that is eaten and other human needs that come from the earth, and (2) the dwelling place and rest available to those who live upon it. Therefore, for future generations, the earth can only be atoned through the blood of the murderer, so that they won’t say that both are flattering each other — the wicked giving something for its mouth to swallow, and the earth flattering them by providing for their needs. The earth requires atonement for the small benefit that the murderer received from the earth before he was killed, because it was not rightfully given to him. However, in this case, for the sake of populating the world, Cain was not killed. If so, how does the earth escape suspicion that they’re not mutually flattering each other, and why doesn’t it need atonement? Rather, it’s because it fulfilled its Creator’s will who said, When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. You shall be a wanderer and a nomad on the earth (Genesis 4:12). For once you committed this act, the earth comes with authorization and claims from you your brother’s blood, whose voice cries out to Me from the ground. It too will execute judgment against you by no longer providing you with the two benefits available to all who dwell upon it: all necessities [about which He said it shall no longer yield its strength to you] and dwelling and rest [about which He said you shall be a wanderer and nomad on the earth]. No place will want to accept you. Through this, the earth escapes the suspicion of flattery because it will not flatter you, and therefore it also doesn’t need atonement. However, to go back and kill you now is impossible because of the need to populate the world, as Adam had no other son at that time.

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.

And He said, "What have you done? The voice of the blood of the descendants who were destined to come forth from your brother — they cry out before Me from the ground."

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).

"Crying out to Me" — this is not in grammatical apposition to "the voice of," just as in "the voice of my beloved — here he comes" (Song of Songs 2:8), where "comes" refers back to "my beloved," as I have explained in [my commentary on] Song of Songs. The meaning is that He heard the cry of [Abel's] blood that had been poured out on the ground. The Targum says [it refers] to his sons — those whom he had the potential to beget.

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.]

"And now, cursed are you from the ground, which opened its mouth and received the blood of your brother from your hand."

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 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”.

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. 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, and He further stated, “When thou tillest the ground with all your efforts to cultivate it properly by plowing and hoeing, and in all manner of service in the field and by properly sowing it, it shall not continue to give unto thee her strength. 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. Thus He uttered the curse in connection with his occupation for he was a tiller of the ground, and so He cursed his work. This then is the sense of the expression, it shall not continue to give unto thee her strength, 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 strength in his estate, and the trees of the field would not yield him their fruit. 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 slain 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. 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.

"And now, cursed are you from the ground" — a loss will come to him on account of the ground which he would sow and plant, for he had been a tiller of the ground; and the ground will no longer yield harvest and fruit to him, and he will be compelled to go to a distant land far from his father Adam, who is close to the Garden — and he will not rest in one place but will wander.

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

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, “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.”

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 —

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.

"When you till the ground, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. A wanderer and an exile shall you be in the land."

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

"And a wanderer" — some say that "nad" means one who mourns, like "to console him" (Job 2:11). In my view, "nad" is the companion of "na" [a wanderer], as in: "behold, I would wander far away" (Ps. 55:8).

— 'כי תעבד את האדמה וגו “when you will work the ground it shall no longer yield its strength to you.” The third curse was נע ונד תהיה בארץ, “you shall become a vagrant and a wanderer on earth.” He would suffer exile, be banished from place to place. His punishment was not dissimilar to that of a murderer who had not even killed intentionally but has to move to a city of refuge until the death of the High Priest. Looking at our verses from a rational-investigative point of view, we note that even in the names of קין והבל we already find allusions to the subject of existence and destruction (loss), respectively. They were brothers, closely related. The name קין hints at worldly possessions, whereas the name הבל suggests somebody who is extremely humble, almost despising worldly goods. This may have been why he offered sheep, the most humble and undemanding of animals, something that reflected his own philosophy. This is also why G’d took a liking to him. The Torah expresses this with the words וישע ה' אל הבל ואל מנחתו, ”G’d turned to Hevel and to his gift-offering.” The gift-offering of קין on the other hand was מפרי האדמה, “from the fruit (products) of the earth.” This reflected his own preferences, i.e. earthly possessions. He was totally absorbed in working with his body, concentrating on matters of only transient value, matters destined to disintegrate. He was addicted to earthly pleasures and this is the reason G’d did not turn to his offering. The Torah expresses this by writing ואל קין ואל מנחתו לא שעה, “and to Kayin and to his gift-offering He did not turn.” The self-effacing Hevel was murdered because he did not concern himself worldly concerns, not considering life on this earth as a supreme value. The one who loved worldly possessions wound up being cursed when G’d said to him: “be a vagrant and a wanderer on earth.” He was told not to consider worldly possessions as something permanent. Kayin was to learn this lesson by his not being at home anywhere on earth. His lifestyle reflected what we read in Kohelet 5,9 אהב כסף לא ישבע כסף, “the one who loves silver will never feel satisfied even when he possesses it.” Solomon already alluded to this syndrome of the wanderer in Kohelet 2,23 where he wrote (concerning man’s role on earth) כי כל ימיו מכאובים, “for all his days are painful.” There are numerous other references in Kohelet to this unsatisfactory state of affairs for people who consider the be-all of their existence as being merely תחת השמש, in the regions under control by the sun. All of such statements [which I did not choose to quote in detail. Ed.] are addressed to people of the mentality of Kayin. Every time Solomon speaks about vanities and return to dust, this is the type of human being he has in mind. In Kohelet 2,11 Solomon spells out in detail how futile all the energy he spent on the acquisition of worldly goods had proven to be. Finally, when he concludes his preaching he teaches us that the only true values to be acquired in this life is reverence for G’d and His Torah. It was only Adam’s third son שת who represented what the Torah considers a balanced view of life on earth. This is why basically speaking, the species of mankind was really carried on by that son. It is worthwhile noting that only when Sheth was born does the Torah describe him as reflecting his parents in that he was conceived and born בדמותו וצלמו, “in his likeness and his image (Adam’s). It was quite appropriate that these philosophical considerations should have been alluded to already in the respective names of Kayin and Hevel. [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.

And Cain said before Hashem, "My iniquity is too great to be forgiven."

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 2:25. 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 judgments even though You have punished me exceedingly. And now behold, Thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the land 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 hid 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. But what shall I do? Whosoever findeth me shall slay me, 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.” 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.

The interpretation of "my punishment is greater than I can bear" — in the view of all commentators, he confessed his sin. And "naso" means forgiven, as in "bearing iniquity" (Exod. 34:7). But in my own view, the Hebrews call the consequence [of a deed] its reward, and the evil punishment that comes on account of the sin they call "sin" [chet]. Similarly: "for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete" (Gen. 15:16); "if iniquity comes upon you" (1 Sam. 28:10); "and the iniquity of the daughter of my people has grown great" (Lam. 4:6). The meaning, then, is: this punishment is so great I cannot bear it. And the verse that follows confirms this interpretation. The meaning of "patztah" is "opened." Similarly: "emptiness opens his mouth" (Job 35:16).

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 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.]

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.

"Behold, You have driven me out today from upon the face of the ground, and from before You it is impossible to be hidden. And I shall be a wanderer and an exile in the land, and whoever finds me will kill me."

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.

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.

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.’” 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.

And Hashem said to him, "Therefore, whoever kills Cain shall be punished through seven generations." And Hashem set a mark upon Cain, so that none who found him 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. 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 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.

Now because Scripture says, And the Eternal appointed a sign for Cain, 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 Rabbah 2:27. 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).

"Sevenfold" — up to seven generations. For this word does not mean fourteen, nor three hundred and forty-three. The proof is: "the light of the sun shall be sevenfold" (Isa. 30:26), and the prophet then explained his own words by saying "as the light of the seven days" (ibid.). The meaning of "yukkam" ["shall be avenged"] is that his vengeance shall be taken. Similarly "lo yukkam" (Exod. 21:21). The meaning is that Hashem extended His patience toward Cain for seven generations. Do not wonder and ask how he could have lived all those years — for Seth his brother was alive during many of Noah's years as well. It is also possible that the offspring of Cain are called by their father's name, as [is the practice with] Israel. Some say the sign was a horn. Others say that He placed strength in his heart and removed the fear [of others] from him. In my view the correct interpretation is that Hashem made him a sign until he believed [he was protected], but Scripture does not reveal what the sign was.

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 59,12 אל 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.

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

And God placed a sign for Cain so that whoever finds him would not strike him. The Sages disagreed about the nature of this sign and what it was. In the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 22:27), they said that He caused the sun’s orb to shine upon him, etc. This is difficult to understand — how would the shining of the sun prevent anyone who finds him from striking him? According to the letter of the law, the wicked will be silenced in darkness, so how could He cause the sun to shine upon him? The explanation appears to be as follows: Since it is written If a thief is found while tunneling and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him; but if the sun has risen on him, there shall be bloodguilt for him (Exodus 22:1). Similarly, Cain was a thief, for he stole from the Supreme Knowledge, as Rashi explained in this section (4:9). He was walking as if he was tunneling, for God had hidden His face from him and expelled him from the holy land — the land that the eyes of the Lord your God are always upon. He was banished to outside the Land, where dwelling there is like being without God due to His concealed face, as it is written and from Your face I will hide. At that point, he was like someone found while tunneling, for he was fleeing from place to place, and anyone who flees hides themselves in concealment. Therefore, it was obvious that whoever found him would kill him, for he had no blood liability since he was found while tunneling. Therefore, God caused the sun to shine upon him in all the places he went, indicating that he should not be judged as one found while tunneling, but rather as one upon whom the sun has risen, who has blood liability, and whoever kills him would be executed for it. This was decisive proof preventing anyone who found him from striking him. You should know and understand why the phrase whoever finds me was used — why does it depend on finding him? Obviously, those who don’t find him cannot kill him! It should have said “every creature will kill me.” Rather, this indicates that he was afraid he would be judged as one found while tunneling, for the term “finding” applies to this situation, as it is written if a thief is found while tunneling. Through the shining of the sun, whoever found him would not strike him in this state of tunneling, where he was hidden due to his fleeing from place to place. This is a precious interpretation.

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. 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.

And Cain went out from before Hashem and dwelt in the land of exile and wandering, which had been prepared for him before the Garden of Eden.

ויצא קין AND CAIN WENT AWAY — He went away in pretended humility as though he would deceive the Most High (Genesis Rabbah 22:13). בארץ נוד IN THE LAND OF NOD — In the land where all exiles wander about. 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).

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, [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.

"In the land of Nod" — it was called that because he was a wanderer and a rover. "East of Eden" — the east of Eden, which is to the north of the Garden. The city was named Enoch, just as Samaria was named for Shemer (1 Kings 16:24), and likewise Egypt [took its name similarly]. Lemech was the sixth generation from Cain and the seventh from Adam.

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. 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.

And he dwelt in the land of Nod, east of Eden. We find that all who kill a person are exiled to the east, just as Adam, who caused death for all his descendants — it is written about him (3:24) And He placed at the east of the Garden of Eden. Similarly, regarding all cities of refuge, it is written (Deuteronomy 4:41) beyond the Jordan toward the sunrise. This is because anyone who kills a person hastens the setting of the victim’s sun, as it is said (Ecclesiastes 12:2) before the sun darkens, etc. Therefore, he is exiled to the opposite extreme, similar to what they said about Herod (Bava Batra 4a): “He extinguished the light of the world, so let him go and engage with the light of the world.” This is the way of all penitents — to go to the opposite extreme in the matter in which he sinned, and to perform some mitzvah that is opposite to the transgression he committed. This is the proper path for all penitents, and the wise will understand from this exile how to rectify every transgression with some mitzvah that is opposite to the transgression, for through this his wrongdoing will be corrected.

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. 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)

And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Chanoch. And he was building a city, and he called the name of the city after the name of his son, Chanoch.

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; And the children of Gad built Dibon — 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, 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, and his descendants perished. Our Rabbis say 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, rather he saw his destruction and all his seed with him. It would appear that Cain’s descendants consisted of only six generations 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. [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.

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.

And he was building a city. It doesn’t say “and he built” but rather he was building in the present tense, to indicate that he was continuously building all his days and his building was never completed. For this is their foolish way — that anyone who loves earthly possessions like Cain and his companions is forever building and proceeding, and can never complete his building all his days, because he never has enough of what he lacks. If he has one hundred, he desires two hundred, as is well known about the nature of all those who love money. Therefore, he is forever building and going, and all his days he has no rest, but rather is restless and wandering on the earth like Cain who was restless and wandering. So too is every lover of money — restless and wandering, sitting at home little, as most of his days he chases after wealth as if he were hunting a partridge in the hills. He runs with feet like deer through the desert, mountain, and lowland, crossing ocean paths, all the days of his life — these being the nights too, as even at night his heart does not rest. For he will go to all dangerous places to attain what his soul loves; they will seek but not find, and will never reach their goal, rather all their days they are building and going — cities of poverty that endanger their soul and body, leaving for others the wealth and walls which they built and planted. And a sign for this matter: In the alphabet, the letters spelling “poor” are adjacent and follow the letters spelling “money,” indicating that all who love money are forever poor in their mindset. But that which is said The Lord builds Jerusalem (Psalms 147:2) in the present tense can be explained according to what is concluded in the Gemara (Bava Batra 75a): He saw ministering angels who were cutting precious stones and pearls, etc. He said to them, “For whom are these?” They said to him, “The Holy One, Blessed be He, will set them in the gates of Jerusalem, etc.” If so, at all times The Lord builds Jerusalem, and this is easily understood. Similarly, the language of “building” said regarding Cain hints that he was continuously building forever, as it is written A man to whom God will give wealth and possessions, etc., but God will not enable him to eat from it (Ecclesiastes 6:2). Note that “will give” is in the future tense, when it should have said “gave.” Rather, this is its interpretation: Anyone who is not satisfied with what God has granted him and is always seeking what God will give him — more wealth and possessions beyond what he already has — such a person is surely a scoundrel, a miser, and a penny-pincher, and has no control over his own possessions to eat from them, all the more so to give to others.

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.]

And to Chanoch was born Irad; and Irad fathered Mechuyael; and Mechiyael fathered Methushael; and Methushael fathered Lamech.

.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.

And Lamech took for himself two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the second was Tzillah.

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). 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). 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).

The meaning of "Adah" and "Zillah" — do not pay attention to or heed the Gaon's words on names, for even if we knew every word of the Holy Tongue, how could we know all that came to pass [in history] — just as [we cannot know the circumstances behind the names] "Moses" and "Issachar"?

And Lemech took for himself two wives, etc. This entire narrative about his two wives, Adah and Zillah, serves an important purpose in the Torah: To teach and inform that when marriage is conducted properly, solely for the continuation of the species, then righteous children who observe God’s commandments will be born. However, when marriage is not for the continuation of the species but rather for beauty and to satisfy one’s desires, then alien children will be born to them — evil seed, destructive children. As we find with these two wives, Adah and Zillah: the one meant for procreation was called Adah, as Rashi explains, and it can also be interpreted as relating to pregnancy, as translated [in Genesis 4:1] as “ve’adiat” [and she became pregnant]. The one he took merely for pleasure was called Zillah, as Rashi explains, and perhaps at least they were modest in their relations, always seeking shade/privacy [“tzel”]. Therefore, it follows that from Adah, worthy children would be born. This is what is meant by And Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock, as this was the occupation of the righteous Abel, and after him all the upright of heart like Moses, David, and many prophets and righteous ones, until through this occupation they merited connection with the Divine Presence. And his brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all who grasp the harp and flute, which were created to praise the Creator, blessed be He, as it is written, Praise Him with lyre and harp, etc. (Psalms 150:3). And through these instruments, the holy spirit rests upon them, as it is written, And it happened when the musician played, the hand of God came upon him (II Kings 3:15). And Zillah, whom he took for pleasure and gave her a cup of sterility herbs which did not help at all, nevertheless eventually bore strange children, as it is said, And Zillah, she too bore Tubal-Cain, who renewed Cain’s actions in his place and created instruments of destruction to damage and murder, as it is written who sharpened all implements of copper and iron which shorten man’s life. Perhaps this was measure for measure, for excessive sexual relations shorten a person’s life. Therefore, its results turned out to be like it, engaging in things that shorten lives, and his occupation came to fruition as it is said, for I have slain a man for my wound, etc. This is an appropriate allusion in the Torah from which to learn about proper marriage according to the Torah.

And Adah bore Yaval — he was the master of those who dwell in tents and possess livestock.

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.

The meaning of "avi" [father] is: the first [in a line], as similarly "av" [father] and also "aviv" [spring/early grain]. It is never used in construct form except with a yod [i.e., the form "avi"], and its counterpart is "ach" [brother].

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.

And the name of his brother was Yuval — he was the master of all who play by the mouth of the lyre, who know the music of the harp and the flute.

"Lyre and pipe" — types of musical instruments, and this is a great wisdom.

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.

And Tzillah as well — she bore Tuval-Cain, the master of all who know the craft of copper and iron. And the sister of Tuval-Cain was Naamah.

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

FORGER OF EVERY CUTTING INSTRUMENT OF BRASS AND IRON. He was a forger and cutter of all brass 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. 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. 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; And Miriam their sister; His sister’s name was Maacah. In Bereshith Rabbah 3:4. 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 Midrash concerning her which states that she was the very beautiful woman in whom the bnei ha’elohim erred. This is hinted in the verse, And the ‘bnei ha’elohim’ saw the daughters of men, as mentioned in Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer. But other sources (See my Hebrew commentary, p. 46, Note 3.) have it that Naamah was the wife of Shamdon, the mother of Ashmedai, 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.

"Latush" ["sharpener"] — like "mechaded" [sharpener], and comparable to it: "to sharpen each man his plowshare" (1 Sam. 13:20).

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.

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. 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.] 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]

And Lamech said to his wives, Adah and Tzillah, "Hear my voice, wives of Lamech, give ear to my word: I have not killed a man for whom I should bear guilt, nor have I injured a youth for whom my seed should perish."

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

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’ as meaning that at the end of seven generations, vengeance shall 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); restore ‘shivatha’im’ (sevenfold); and the light of the sun shall be ‘shivatha’im’, meaning doubled and redoubled seven times. But the meaning of therefore, whosoever slayeth Cain 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. But he [Lamech] told them: “I did not slay a man by wounds, nor a child by bruises, 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.

Know that "and Lemech said" is a passage later [in time] than its position in the parashah — and I have already mentioned two similar instances. Like it: "and the man took a gold nose-ring" (Gen. 24:22); and also: "say to the children of Israel, you are a stiff-necked people" (Exod. 33:5); and also "and I pleaded" (Deut. 3:23). The meaning, as our Sages said, is that Adah and Zillah had been withholding themselves [from marital relations], because they feared bearing sons who would be seventh in descent from Cain and thus be killed or die. Therefore Lemech said to his wives: I am in truth the seventh generation, and if a man who is an adult should wound me, or a child should bruise me, I would have killed him. The word "haragti" ["I killed"] is a substitution for "ehrog" ["I will kill"]; just as: "I have given the money for the field" (Gen. 23:13); "which I took from the hand of the Amorite" (Gen. 48:22) — and there are many like these.

שמען קולי נשי למך, Lemech called out in grief אמרתי, I have to express my mental anguish’ 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.

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

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.]

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.

"For Cain's punishment was suspended for seven generations — surely for Lamech his son, seventy-seven generations."

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? 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.

"For if Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, then Lemech seventy-seven" — because he [Cain] had killed with malice, whereas I have not killed. The meaning is that he said to his wives that the decree against Cain had already been annulled. And in truth, Lemech's sons and all his offspring died in the Flood, and no trace of Cain's line remained — because of the violence done to his brother.

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 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 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?]

And Adam again knew his wife, and she bore a son and called his name Shet, for she said, "Hashem has given me another son in place of Abel, whom Cain killed."

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).

The meaning of "in place of Abel" is: in his place.

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. 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 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.

And to Shet as well a son was born, and he called his name Enosh. It was then, in his days, that the children of men began to profane themselves, ceasing from prayer in the name of Hashem.

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).

The grammatical analysis of "huchal" — it is from the class of doubled-root verbs. Were it not that the chet is a guttural, it would take a dagesh. It derives from the root of "techilah" [beginning]. The meaning is that they began to pray. But if it came from the root "chillul" [profanation], the divine name would be in construct with the word [and we would read it differently].

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.

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

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.