The Investigation

This week we hit the replay button, again. So, every year we try to find something fresh and significant to report on the Torah reading Breishit, which we’ve already poured over forever. If the material doesn’t change, how can we be fresh and topical? Well, we evolve. We try to examine the material from a new personal perspective. In that vein, I’m going to reconsider the first homicide as if it’s a cold case. Why did Kayin (Cain) kill Hevel (Abel)? It’s important to find new insights and look at old evidence from new angles.

First of all, this isn’t your regular Whodunnit. We know the perpetrator. What we don’t know is the motive. As the first ever murder, I think it’s very important to know why Kayin did it. It should shed light on the superabundance of subsequent cases. So, let’s do some sleuthing.

The verse which records the deed gives us very little to go on. Here’s the testimony: Kayin said to his brother Hevel… and when they were in the field, Kayin set upon his brother Hevel and killed him. (Breishit 4:8)

We’re missing the quote. What did Kayin say? There’s been no end to speculation about this lacuna. The Midrash (Breishit Raba 22:16) famously makes three suggestions. They talked about land, women or religion. Those topics suggest the three most famous motives for murder. The Septuagint (Greek translation of Tanach, TARGUM HaSHIVIM) suggests that he said: Let’s go out to the field. Which sounds like opportunity more than motive. But this year, I’d like to take a different approach: We’re not told what he said because it’s irrelevant to our case.

Maybe Kayin just hated Hevel because farmers hate shepherds and cowboys. I think, though, that the text does provide the necessary evidence to discover motive.

The critical information, I speculate, is to be found in the previous two verses: God said to Kayin, ‘Why are you so furious? Why are you so depressed? If you do good, will there not be special privilege? And if you do not do good, sin is crouching at the opening (Kaplan ‘door’, Alter ‘tent flap’). It lusts after you, but you can dominate it. (verses 6 & 7)

Clearly, Kayin is angry and downcast, because God didn’t accept (SHA’A) his offering. Apparently, Hevel’s animal offering was more acceptable (‘firstborn’, ‘fattest’). Kayin was clearly upset. His younger brother copied his original idea, and got Divine approval while he did not. Kayin was having difficulty processing this development. God informs him of two crucial spiritual realities: 1. TESHUVA (repentance) is available, and 2. CHATAT (sin) is a constant.

Yes, life has tribulations, but they can be managed. I’m not sure if that’s comforting or terrifying. Kayin, I believe, was terrified.

CHET is a very specific type of sin. It is not a purposeful sin; it is a sin of neglect or inattention. The Hebrew root CHET literally means to ‘miss’ the mark. One can hear that term on a rifle range or basketball court. 

Kayin thought his attempt to gift his produce was only rejected because of comparison to Hevel’s. Let’s remove the competition and God will settle for my gift.  Perhaps it’s a case of Macy’s murdering Gimbel? It’s an idea with merit.

But I think that the motive is to be found in a more subtle methodology. The Talmud (Yoma 52b) declares that our text is one five in which an objective observer can’t decide if the text is positive or negative. Is Kayin being given good news (‘you can improve’) or bad news (‘sin is everywhere’)?

I think Kayin messed up the theology lesson. He found the message too depressing to bear, because he ignored the uplifting part about humanity’s ability to rise above sin. The idea that sin is pervasive was just too much for him to assimilate. His faulty philosophy led him to murder. Why not, it’s everywhere.

But what should we learn from God’s message to all generations of humanity?

Rav Shimshon Rephael Hirsch suggests that the take away is: Indeed, temptation is sent down from heaven to entice humanity…However, these desires are not sent to conquer us. Indeed, they are for us to overcome, and remain in control of ourselves on the path to freedom and free will.

Rav Aharon Lichtenstein built on that vision and declared that humanity should be humbled by the appreciation of the reality that spiritual success requires intelligence, sensitivity and grit (I added that last term on my own.). He added another fascinating and salient observation: The verse (Bereishit 4:7) says: Sin crouches at the door (PETACH). But presumably it is not the same sin at every door. Each door, each domicile, each community has its particular sin, a specific spiritual danger indigenous to it, endemic to that group or that individual. 

Cool! Each generation, community and individual has their own specific ‘sin’ or temptation. This requires each and everyone of us to not only become proficient in Torah and Mitzvot, but in self awareness. He added: 

We need to be aware of this sin at our door, because only to the extent that we are aware of it will we be able to cope with it. If we are to engage in teshuva that is particularly relevant to ourselves, it is, perhaps even more than the teshuva of repentance (which is within the context of relationship to God), the teshuva of return. 

I must admit that in my study of Breishit I only get fully engaged in chapter 12, when Avraham Avinu takes center stage. But that doesn’t mean that there are not important lessons for us to absorb in the Antediluvian world. Most of those lessons speak directly to our humanity, and God knows that we are humans even before we accept Avraham’s Covenant and Moshe Rabbeinu’s Torah. 

Let’s expend energy on understanding our human motivations. That effort will help solve many mysteries, including our own motives for our actions and, sometimes, our crimes. Sleuthing can be enlightening.