Torah - Cain and Abel Bring Offerings - Sheet 5

In a strikingly innovative act, Cain is the first human being to bring an offering to the Lord. By doing so, he again shows signs of the hoped-for creativity inherent in his name Kayin, which, as we have seen, can mean “to create.”

Yet, along with this, there are hints of a negative turn in Cain’s behavior. The verse opens with the seemingly extraneous words, “it was at the end of days.” These words do nothing to orient the reader: we are not told what days, or how many days, are being referenced. Why then is this phrase included? In our commentary to verse 4, we will address this verse’s enigmatic opening, viewing it as one of several subtle indications of Cain’s decline. (Syntax, Character Analysis)

In commenting on Cain’s offering, Rashi begins with two words: min hagaru’a, “from the inferior (fruit).” Looking closely at Rashi’s words, we discover that he seeks not only to describe Cain’s offering; he means to provide a rationale, missing in the text itself, for God’s rejection of Cain’s gift.

In unpacking Rashi’s terse, and harshly judgmental, comments, we go back to the text, focusing on the symmetry that is set up between verses 3 and 4. In each verse, one brother “brought” a sampling of his produce: fruit for Cain and sheep for Abel. But when we observe more closely, we note the collapse of the parallel in verse 4. While Abel’s offering is afforded two laudatory adjectives – his sheep were “from the first” and “from the fat,” meaning the best – Cain’s fruit receives none. This omission is what leads Rashi to the conclusion that Cain’s produce was substandard.

To support Rashi’s contention that Cain’s offering was deficient, we now revisit the opening of verse 3, which, as we have seen, contains the seemingly extraneous words, “It was at the end of days.” We would do well to view these words, too, as part of the text’s intended contrast between the brothers and their offerings. While Abel’s offering was “from the first of his flock,” Cain waited until “the end of days” to bring his. This contrast mitigates Cain’s great initiative and hints at its half-hearted execution. Following the subtle structural and linguistic clues in the text, we may reasonably conclude that Cain’s offering, while conceived with creativity and good intent, emerges as both late in coming and mediocre. And although at first Abel showed no initiative, his offering is brought with both alacrity and excellence. (Syntax, Structure, Juxtaposition, Character Analysis)

Before we turn our attention more directly toward Abel, we note that with their offerings, both brothers have strayed from the labels they were assigned at birth.

While Cain has fallen short of expectations and Abel has exceeded them, together they demonstrate the potential of human beings to surmount the dictates of their origins. This extraordinary capacity will emerge as the primary subject of God’s address to Cain in verse 7.

We now revisit the opening words of verse 4, momentarily shedding a spotlight on the relatively obscure Abel. Because he is such a transitory figure, fleshing out his character calls both for close reading and some degree of speculation. Of particular interest is Abel’s role in the disintegration of sibling relations. Is this story of sibling conflict entirely one-sided? Or is there a hint of Abel’s contribution to the tragic events that occur?

It is noteworthy that following Cain’s initiative in bringing an offering to the Lord, Abel, the “additional” brother, copies him. The text’s inclusion of the words gam hu, “he too,” highlights Abel’s continued derivative status, which began at his birth.

But perhaps Abel’s behavior hints at more than a younger brother respectfully following in his older sibling’s footsteps. It is possible that in copying his brother only to outperform him, Abel seeks not merely to emulate Cain, but to eclipse him. Perhaps Cain’s ensuing feelings of imperilment, and the heightened sense of competition with his brother that he will soon exhibit, are not completely unfounded. It is possible that Abel’s act reveals a hint of his ambition which is, as Cain, fears, to unseat his brother from his privileged position within the family (see my essay comparing Cain and Abel to Jacob holding on to Esau’s heel in utero).

In support of the notion that Abel’s motives contain an element of rivalry, we zero in on the first adjective affixed to Abel’s offering: bekhorot, literally “firstborn.” In the broader context of the book of Genesis, it is difficult to view this word with neutrality. The fierce struggle for the status of firstborn, bekhor, will inform the stories of Isaac and Ishmael, Jacob and Esau, and Joseph and his brothers. It appears that here, in the first – arguably archetypical – biblical story of sibling rivalry, we find a second-born child who dreams of being first. It is possible that in copying his brother and then surpassing him, Abel discloses his deeply rooted desire to replace Cain.

This reading reveals a profound truth regarding virtually all sibling conflict, which is that no one side is absolutely innocent. It appears that even the barely-drawn, evanescent character Abel, by virtue of his evocative choice of bekhorot in his offering, does his part to exacerbate sibling tensions. (Symbolism, Character Analysis, Subtext)

Before we take leave of Rashi’s comments to verse 3, it is worth noting the intriguing midrashic theory he appends to his interpretation of the verse. Citing Midrash Tanhuma, Rashi suggests that Cain’s offering was comprised of flax seed. What might Rashi, whose stated goal is to proffer the plain sense of the text, seek to convey with this enigmatic comment? Why does he see a need to identify the “fruit” brought by Cain? And why, of all possible produce, does he cite a midrash that classifies it as flax seed?

Perhaps Rashi chose this midrash because readers will associate flax seed with its best-known derivative, linen. And, as students of the Bible know well, linen is one component in the strictly prohibited mixture of materials known as shaatnez. The second ingredient in the forbidden blend is wool, which is the chief product of the shepherd. It appears that the midrash employs symbolic language in order to underscore the essential incompatibility of the two offerings, and more profoundly, of the two brothers who brought them. On an existential level, hints the midrash, these two brothers are doomed; their looming collision is inevitable.

To take a more expansive view of this midrash, perhaps its words are aimed beyond this pair of brothers, to the book of Genesis as a whole, and to humanity at large. A basic truth of sibling relationships is that, despite their capacity for unparalleled closeness, they are often inherently fraught and prone to conflict, much like the incompatible mix of linen and wool. As the book of Genesis unfolds, we will return to this theme, expanding on the volatile nature of sibling relations. (Derash, Symbolism)