Rabbi Ari Kahn

PARSHAT BREISHIT

THE FIRST ARGUMENT

Rabbi Ari Kahn

 

In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth. (1:1)

 

The Torah begins with a description of the unfolding of events, at the dawn of history. It has long been the understanding of the Rabbis that, as important as the literal text may be, the primary importance of the Torah lies in its theological teachings. The Torah is a book of theological truth which is the word of G-d, and, therefore, historically accurate as well. The Rabbis in the Talmud, Midrash, and Zohar were well aware of this idea. Consequently, verses which may seem mundane or simplistic to the uninitiated reader often contain the most profound teachings and secrets of the Torah¹.

 

The Midrash, in this week’s Parsha, makes an inference, not from what is said, but by noting what is missing:

 

Why is ‘that it was good’ not written in connection with the second day? R. Yochanan explained, in the name of R. Yose b. R. Halafta: Because on it the Gehenna (Hell) was created,… R. Hanina said: Because on it schism came into the world, [as it is written, ‘And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and] let it divide the waters from the waters’.. (Midrash Rabbah - Genesis IV:6)

 

The Midrash teaches that this act of separation of waters, is the power, which allows for dissension to enter into the world. However, readers familiar with the text will note that the term vayavdil, to separate, was used on the first day as well, when G-d separated between light and darkness. Why, then, is the power of dissension only expressed on the second day? Apparently, argumentation can only take place when two things or two people do not have clearly defined boundaries. The separation between light and darkness is absolute; they are opposites, and therefore no dissension follows their separation. However, the separation between water and water, which are ostensibly the same, is where the power of dissent originates. G-d separated the higher waters from the lower waters—two items which seem to be the same. On this day, dissension was created.

 

This Midrash serves as an introduction to one of the most tragic events recorded in the Book of Genesis. Chapter IV records the birth of Cain and Hevel, their difference of opinion, and finally the tragic murder of Hevel.

 

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bore Cain, and said, ‘I have acquired a man from the Lord’. And she again bore his brother Hevel. And Hevel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

 

These two verses lack symmetry. When Cain is born, his name is immediately explained; when Hevel is born, no rhyme or reason is given for his name. At the outset, Hevel is described simply as a brother-- “and she continued to give birth to a brother.”

 

Let us consider the name given to Cain. The section began “And Adam knew Eve his wife”. Immediately preceding this section was the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden due to their improper partaking of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. Immediately afterward, we are told that Adam knew Eve. Evidently, they took the knowledge, distilled from the “Tree of Knowledge,” and applied it. When she names her son Cain, from the word meaning ‘acquisition’, Eve seems to be seeking a way to rekindle her relationship with G-d, which had become dysfunctional.

 

In the Garden of Eden, G-d’s presence is felt. G-d is the Creator (with a capital “C”); Adam, too, creates by giving names to the animals, by categorizing the animals. Adam uses speech to be creative (with a lower case “c”). The fact that Adam creates with speech is quite significant: We find that when G-d creates, He creates via speech-- “And G-d said, let there be light.” Surely G-d could have created by simply willing it, but it is stressed that G-d creates with speech. When the Torah tells us that man was created in the image of G-d, the Targum (2:7) explains that G-d endowed man with speech. Thus, G-d creates with speech, and man creates with speech. G-d’s creation is ex nihilo, creating something from nothing; man’s creative act is in categorizing and understanding G-d’s creation. When man is expelled, he is told that he must work the land, engaging in a different type of creative activity. Eve, for her part, seeks to repair her damaged relationship with G-d and sees in the birth of Cain a reacquisition of her own partnership in Creation.

 

We are given no explanation of Hevel’s name. His birth seems to be an afterthought. The very name “Hevel” means ‘nothingness’. It is difficult to interpret what significance Adam and Eve saw in the arrival of Hevel, but it does not seem to inspire the same fanfare as the arrival of Cain.

And Hevel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

 

Cain becomes a farmer. He is relating to G-d as per the rules of exile; he is working the land. Hevel, however, becomes a shepherd; he seems to ignore the rules of exile and tries to relate to G-d in the way his father did before the sin.

 

The Midrash tells us something interesting about the births of Cain and Hevel. Cain, we are told, was born with a twin sister; Hevel, however, was born along with two sisters.

 

R. Joshua b. Karhah said: Only two entered the bed, and seven left it: Cain and his twin sister, Hevel and his two twin sisters. (Midrash Rabbah - Genesis XXII:2)

 

Perhaps this is the origin of the friction between Cain and Hevel . Cain is the older brother, the “golden child.” The hopes and aspirations of Eve rest upon him. Cain questions the propriety of G-d’s giving the younger brother two sisters, when he himself had only one. After all, if anyone should have received a double share, it should have been Cain, the first born. This sets the stage for the rest of the Book of Genesis, where the younger brother consistently achieves superiority over the older brother who inevitably fails.²

 

Cain, however, sets about his task, works the land and brings an offering to G-d. Hevel, too, offers from his flock.

 

And Hevel also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat of it. And the Lord had respect for Hevel and for his offering. But for Cain and for his offering he did not have respect. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. And the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry and why is your countenance fallen? If you do well, shall you not be accepted? And if you do not well, sin lies at the door. And to you shall be his desire, and yet you may rule over him.

 

Cain repeatedly compares himself with his brother Hevel, and finds himself on the short end of the stick. First, he felt slighted that his brother had two sisters, and now Hevel’s offering is accepted by G-d and his own offering is not. Cain defines himself in terms of his relationship with his brother. He judges his accomplishments by comparing them with his brother’s. When Cain sees that he has not been as successful as Hevel, he becomes bitter, angry and depressed. Cain’s problem was that he assumed that he and his brother were the same and were, therefore, deserving of equal opportunities and success. This reminds us of the second day of Creation when G-d separated between the waters. When two things are assumed to be equal, dissension follows.

 

And Cain talked with Hevel his brother; and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Hevel his brother, and slew him. And the Lord said to Cain, Where is Hevel your brother? And he said, I know not; Am I my brother’s keeper? And He said, What have you done? the voice of your brother’s blood cries to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the earth, which has opened her mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you till the ground, it shall not henceforth yield to you her strength; a fugitive and a wanderer shall you be in the earth.

 

Cain speaks to Hevel, but we do not know what he said. Hevel never answered. Hevel is apparently not involved in this argument; it is one-sided. Cain is haunted by the competition; Hevel is merely concerned with tending his flock, offering gifts to G-d, trying to relate to G-d. Again, there is a lack of symmetry. We are told that the earth, which had already been cursed and was now to be worked by man, opened up its mouth and swallowed the blood of Hevel. The earth will be cursed again, and Cain will be forced to wander the earth, finding no respite.

 

The tragic relationship between Cain and Hevel created the spiritual power for other arguments that take place in the future. We are told of one such argument in the Book of Bamidbar:

 

And they gathered themselves together against Moshe and against Aharon, and said to them, ‘You take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you lift up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?’ (Bamidbar 16:3)

 

Korach was a populist. He had an attractive philosophy which he conveyed to the masses. Korach claimed that all people are holy- all people are equal- therefore all people should have the right to the same opportunities and the same tasks. The origin of such thought dates back to the second day of Creation, before G-d separates the upper and lower waters. Korach’s argument is the same as Cain’s. The mystics based on a tradition from the Ariza’l, have a very elegant explanation for this similarity: They teach that Korach is a reincarnation of the soul of Cain.³

 

Ironically, the punishment which Korach receives is that the earth “opens up its mouth” and swallows him (Bamidbar 16:30). The last time -in fact, the only other time in the Bible where this terminology appears- is when the earth swallowed the blood of Hevel (Breishit 4:11). Now Korach, who follows in the footsteps of Cain, receives the appropriate punishment. The earth “opens up its mouth” and swallows him.

 

The similarity between Korach and Cain is not the only one; there is also a striking similarity between Moshe and Hevel. As we have seen, the name “Hevel” means nothingness. We are told that Moshe was the most modest of men. We may assume that Moshe, like Hevel, did not think too much of himself. Moshe’s position was not attained through political maneuvering; he was chosen directly by G-d. Moshe tried to decline, but G-d impressed upon him that his destiny, his unique task, was to lead the Children of Israel.

 

When Cain argued with Hevel, Hevel did not respond. Similarly, Perkei Avot describes the argument of Korach as the argument of Korach and his followers, not as the argument between Korach and Moshe.

 

Every controversy that is in the name of heaven, the end thereof is [destined] to result in something permanent; but one that is not in the name of heaven, the end thereof is not [destined] to result in something permanent.

Which is the [kind of] controversy that is in the name of heaven? Such as was the controversy between Hillel and Shammai; and which is the [kind of] controversy that is not in the name of heaven? Such as was the controversy of Korah and his entire congregation. (Avot 5:17)

 

Moshe was aware of the uniqueness of each individual; Korach tried to blur the differences between people. The Zohar goes even further in highlighting the nature of dispute:

 

“A dispute that was composed on the pattern of the supernal dispute, that became more and not less worthy as it proceeded, and that perpetuated itself rightfully, was that between Shammai and Hillel. The Holy One, blessed be He, approved of their dispute, for the reason that its motive was lofty and that it therefore resembled that which took place at the Creation. Hence, like the latter, the dispute between Shammai and Hillel has survived to this day. Korah, on the other hand, denied the Creation, fought against heaven itself and sought to confute the words of the Torah. He certainly was of the following of the Gehinnom, and therefore remained attached to it.”… Shammai conducted his dispute in that spirit of calm which should follow on the first burst of passion; it therefore became a quarrel of love and obtained the approval of Heaven. This is indicated by our text. It says first: “Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide, etc.” This refers to the beginning of quarrel, the outburst of passion and violence. There was a desire for reconciliation, but meanwhile the Gehinnom arose before the wrath and passion cooled down. Then “God made the firmament, etc.”; that is, there emerged a quarrel of love and affection which made for the permanence of the world. And in this category is the dispute between Shammai and Hillel, the result of which was that the Oral Law approached in a loving mood the Written Law, so that they mutually supported each other.( Zohar Gen. 17b)⁴

 

This is one of the profound teachings of Judaism, that not all people are created equal. Each person certainly has an inalienable right to his or her dignity, but not all people possess equal roles and destinies.

 

Rabbi Soloveitchik illustrated this idea with an insight regarding the Shema, “Listen Israel, G-d is the Lord, G-d is One.” Rabbi Soloveitchik commented that he would prefer to translate the word “ Echad- (One)”, as “Unique.” Jewish monotheism does not differ from polytheism purely in numeric terms-- that they believed in many gods and we believe in One. Our declaration of the Shema is that G-d is Unique. Man is created in the image of G-d, which means that each and every man is unique as well. The challenge of life is to find our uniqueness and develop it, not to define ourselves in comparison with others, but to search within ourselves and find our uniqueness—our image of G-d. Indeed, when the Torah commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves, one can ask, “how can we possibly love others”? The secret of loving others is in discovering their uniqueness and appreciating it. A mother loves all her children, for she appreciates the uniqueness of each child. We are commanded to find the uniqueness in each person and to love them for it. When a person identifies his own uniqueness and develops that uniqueness, he truly manifests the image of G-d within himself.⁵

 

The Book of Berishit begins with one brother murdering the other, with one brother focusing only on the unequal treatment each receives. The horrific act of fratricide is the result of Cain’s depression as he is haunted by his brother’s successes. On the other hand, the Book of Shmot begins with Moshe wandering out of Pharaoh’s palace.

 

And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out to his brothers, and looked on their burdens; and he spied an Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his brothers. (Shmot 2:11)

 

He goes out to his brothers to see their suffering. Moshe seeks brotherhood. He is not jaded by his status as Prince of Egypt. Moshe senses the brotherhood that exists between all Jews.

 

And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand. (Shmot 2:12)

 

His act is profoundly different from the act of Cain. While Cain is motivated by jealousy, Moshe kills to protect his brother.

 

The Ariz”al explains that the soul of Hevel transmigrated into Moshe. Moshe knew that each person has a unique task. Moshe never defined himself in terms of others. In fact, the first brothers that we find in the Torah who really, truly, relate to one another with love and respect are Moshe and his brother Aharon.

 

And the Lord said to Aharon, Go into the wilderness to meet Moshe. And he went, and met him in the mount of G-d, and kissed him. (Shmot 4:27)

 

The Midrash stresses the importance of this kiss:

 

When it says: ‘Mercy (hesed) and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other’(Ps. LXXXV, 11)- ’mercy’ refers to Aharon, of whom it is said: And of Levi he said: Thy Thummim and Thy Urim be with Thy holy one-hasideka (Deut. XXXIII, 8), while ‘truth’ refers to Moshe, of whom it says: My servant Moshe is not so; he is trusted in all My house (Num. XII, 7). Hence ’Mercy and truth met together’ when ’He went and met him in the mountain of G-d. ‘Righteousness’ refers to Moshe, of whom it is said: ‘He executed the righteousness of the Lord’ (Deut. XXXIII, 21), and peace refers to Aharon, of whom it says: ‘He walked with Me in peace and uprightness’ (Mal. II, 6). Have kissed each other, as it says, … ‘And he kissed him’. Why? Each one rejoiced at the other's greatness. (Midrash Rabbah - Exodus V:10)

 

Throughout the Book of Bereishit, we do not find harmony among brothers. The unity of these two brothers, Moshe and Aharon, is what enables them to lead the people from Egypt and to bring them to Mt. Sinai and accept the Torah. In order to leave Egypt, the Children of Israel had first to become a nation. In order to receive the Torah they needed unity; the core of this unity was the love and mutual respect exhibited between Moshe and Aharon. “Each one rejoiced at the other's greatness.” Each appreciated the greatness and uniqueness of the other.

 

Unfortunately, Cain and Hevel never did.⁶