Torah - Consequences for Cain - Sheet 10

For a second time in the biblical narrative, human interaction with the earth is negatively impacted. In the Garden of Eden, Adam was told: arurah ha-adammah ba’avurekha, “the earth is cursed on your account”. But now, the consequences are even more dire; it is Cain himself who is cursed: arur ata. This time, no degree of creative farming will help navigate humanity’s adversarial relationship with the soil. This worsening of consequences, combined with the presence of the word “sin” in this story – in contrast with its absence in the Garden of Eden story – suggests that in numerous, significant ways, the interpersonal crime committed in Genesis 3 is even more egregious than the crime against God in the Garden of Eden (see my comments on Gen. 4:7). (Intertextuality)

In another parallel to the Garden of Eden narrative, the story ends with the physical relocation of the offending protagonist. But there is a significant difference between the two endings. While Adam and Eve were explicitly banished, g-r-sh, from their dwelling place, Cain is not. He will wander the earth, but there will be no equivalent of a “fiery ever-turning sword” to block his path toward home.

Intriguingly, in Cain’s paraphrase of God’s decree in verse 14, he chooses to employ the root g-r-sh: “Behold, you have banished me from the face of the earth….” It appears that in Cain’s mind, he and his parents share an identical fate: a forceable, heavily guarded, removal from their chosen geographical location. But is that what God intends for Cain?

To help clarify God’s intent, Ramban’s words are instructive [Gen. 4:12, s.v.לא תוסף תת כחה לך]. In Ramban’s view, God’s pronouncement of na va-nad is not meant as a punishment inflicted from on high. Rather, his ceaseless wandering is intended as a vehicle for authentic, internally generated penitence, which would begin with an agitated soul. In Ramban’s words, “[Cain’s] heart would not rest or find quiet [and as a result, he would not be able to] remain in one place.” More impactful than any punishment God might have imposed, Cain was destined, like Raskolnikov in Dostoevsky’s Crime and Punishment, for the eternal restlessness of a guilty conscience.

God’s decree, so different from that delivered to Adam and Eve, suggests that for an interpersonal transgression such as murder, true repair can be undertaken only from within, through an arduous, internally turbulent process of true reckoning.

Tragically, Cain again refuses to take responsibility for his behavior. Rather than embracing the contemplative disquiet to which God refers, he chooses to view himself as a victim of God’s unjust “banishment.” Yet again, instead of taking charge of his own fate, Cain casts the responsibility and the blame outward, opting to wallow in feelings of self-righteous persecution. (Intertextuality, Semantics, Archetype)