Genesis 4:1 [1] This statement should put to rest any notion that Cain was not the son of Adam and Eve. Other than the outright statement that he is their son, Eve further notes that when God created them he created them by themselves, but in this act she and Adam had become agents of the LORD in the creation of the human race.
[1] From Rashi, "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; we see this in that "ותוסף" (and she bore more) than the previous time (Genesis Rabbah 22:3)."
Genesis 4:2 [2] Cain followed in his father's footsteps, as a keeper of gardens, a farmer; and took upon himself the pain of the curse, believing that he must accept it and work through it and from this process redeem the land. Abel did not till the ground (for it was cursed); instead, he took care of animals, which showed kindness. By this process of showing kindness to animals, he would reap the benefits of the (cursed) land via the sheep, and in this manner his work would not be affected by God's curse. Although this is one oft-considered explanation of why Abel's sacrifice was accepted (either that or only 'blood' is acceptable) the real answer is in [3].
Genesis 4:3a [3a] "And it came to pass, in the course of time," Cain's offering was given in his spare time, and "of the fruit of the ground" meaning vegetables and herbs, not even delicious fruit of the tree.
Genesis 4:4 [4] Abel brought immediately (compared to Cain, "brought", not "in the course of time,") the "first-born" and "fattest" of his flock. This contrasts with Cain's offering, which was not done with the same honor and care.
Genesis 4:5 [5] Certainly Cain's offering was not comparable to Abels due to the contrast which immediately precedes it. Cain 'did not do well' in 'pleasing' God with his offering. This is referred to by 4:5 "lō šā·‘āh;" (not he did respect) and 4:4 "way·yi·ša‘" (And looked favorably) which are the same word (8159. shaah "to gaze").
Genesis 4:7a [7a] "If you do well," means that Cain has the ability to improve his ways and God would accept him in the future.
Genesis 4:7b [7b] this "accepted" is "śə-’êṯ," (h7613), which also has the meaning of "countenance being lifted up", and this plays into the idiom of one's face falling from the previous verse.
<blockquote>"An illustration for this Hebrew figure of speech can be found in the Aaronic priestly blessing: ‘The LORD lift up His face…’ – there, the Hebrew word for ‘lift up’ is ‘Yisa’ {ישא} which comes from the same root as ‘Set.'{שאת}".<cite>"God’s Warning to Cain: A Study of Hebrew Idioms"
https://www.hebrewversity.com/gods-warning-cain-study-hebrew-idioms/</cite></blockquote>
Also, according to Rashi, this "śə-’êṯ," means forgiveness. For example, "nō-śê" in Exodus 34:7 means forgiveness, and is the same root word. Here Rashi is explaining that God's words are a warning; God is not just telling Cain there is reward or punishment for one's actions in the future; but also that if Cain turns from his anger and does what is right he will lift up Cain's face and make him feel better.
Genesis 4:8 [8] this "way·yō·mer" is commonly found until now and means "And (Cain) said," but it does not tell us what it says but leaps into the next grammatical construct. The meaning here is that it doesn't matter what Cain said because Cain was just arguing fruitlessly; some commentary suggests Abel was speechless at his brother's ranting, some commentary suggests he started an argument as a pretext to find a reason to kill Abel. In any case the discussion did not solve anything, and Cain's anger continued to bubble until he killed his brother in the field. We note this is in contradiction to 4:7 when God tells Cain he can still repair his situation if he improves his ways.
[8] In this passage, the Rabbis who penned the Septuagint make the strong statement that "This is not the Tanach". For one may not add to or subtract from the words of the Torah; yet in this passage the Rabbis added {'Let us go into the field;'} to the Greek. Thus, by adding these words the Rabbis are telling us this work is not an authentic Torah. Secondly, that such a change ocurrs in the first passage discussing murder is well-taken; with this one change they murder the notion that this is a reliable, authentic Torah worthy of study!
<blockquote>"Here is this verse from Young's Literal Translation.
<wrap indent>"And Cain saith unto Abel his brother, {'Let us go into the field;'} and it cometh to pass in their being in the field, that Cain riseth up against Abel his brother, and slayeth him."</wrap>
Young's remains true to the Hebrew, but adds, "Let us go into the field." Where did Young's get this? From the Greek Septuagint, which reads as follows.
<wrap indent>"And Cain said to Abel his brother, Let us go out into the plain; and it came to pass that when they were in the plain Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him."</wrap>
Where did the Septuagint get the "Let us go out into the plain?" We don't know."<cite>"The Untold Story of Cain and Abel" By Jeff A. Benner
https://www.ancient-hebrew.org/studies-interpretation/untold-story-of-cain-and-abel.htm</cite></blockquote>
Genesis 4:9a [9a] 'I'; The LORD said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" and he said, "I don’t know. Am I[a] my brother’s keeper?" This is a fascinating passage so let's delve into the Hebrew for this one.
^ Hebrew ^ English |
^ way-yō-mer | And he said, |
^ Yah-weh | the LORD, |
^ ’el- qa-yin, | to Cain, |
^ ’ê | where is |
^ he-ḇel | Abel |
^ ’ā-ḥî-ḵā; | your brother? |
^ way-yō-mer | And he said, |
^ lō yā-ḏa‘-tî, | I don't know, |
^ hă-šō-mêr | the keeper |
^ ’ā-ḥî | my brother |
^ ’ā-nō-ḵî. | I (?) |
This passage is fascinating because Cain uses the word "’ā-nō-ḵî.". First, imagine how Cain would have said this. "I don't know, am I my brother's keeper?" the insinuation being, if not Cain, then it is God who must be Abel's keeper. This is driven home by the word "’ā-nō-ḵî." as mentioned -- this is a very uncommon form of the word 'I', which is also used by God as in, "I am the Lord your God..." (Exodus 20:2). Also see 7:4, 15:1, and others.
""So this is what Cain said (to God): “I killed him [because] you created in me the evil inclination. But You — You are the keeper (haShomer) of all things, why did you allow me to kill him? You are the one who killed him — You who are called I (Anokhi), for if you had accepted my sacrifice as you did his, I wouldn’t have been jealous of him!” (Tanhuma Bereishit).
The rabbis understand Cain’s use of the word ‘Anokhi’ here not as first person singular, but as another name of God. “Isn’t Anokhi (God) the guardian of my brother?” he retorts in response to God’s question, thereby proving, as it were: “It is God (and not I, Cain) who had the task of watching over my brother Abel, and therefore God who failed him.”"" This is, in fact, the same sort of finger-pointing that preceded Adam and Eve being kicked out of the garden.
From Rashi; Rashi notes that this is a question, and therefore can be read similar to "You bear the worlds above and below. and is it impossible for You to bear my sin?" (Genesis Rabbah 22:11). However, Cain must bear his sin and accept his punishment.
Genesis 4:13a [13a] 'guilt'; Cain is distressed by this punishment and says to God, according to the translations; "My punishment is greater than I can bear (RSV, Genesis 4:13)." Did Cain commit the sin of Adam and Eve and mishear what God said, thus allowing him opportunity to sin? The Hebrew here has strong support for 'sin', 'iniquity' and 'guilt' as possible alternate translations, and this enlightens the passage; It is not Cain over-reaching with God's word as Eve had done, but it is Cain's great remorse and guilt at what he has done that causes him to believe he will be driven from before God's presence -- in the same way Adam and Eve were driven from the garden of Eden (also see 2:17, 3:10). As we see, he is wrong in that he would be killed; and this is striking because as God tells Noah later, the punishment for murder is death. He is also wrong about being driven from God's face; yet he goes out from before God's presence into the east, some commentators have said as a form of false humility (as he was told he was wrong about his punishment and God had set a mark on Cain).
Genesis 4:15 [15] "Here is an instance where God shows grace and mercy. The story of Noah, the Exodus of the Israelites and many others are stories of grace and this story is no different as God grants mercy, grace and hope to Cain.
Then the LORD said to him, "Not so! If any one slays Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold." And the LORD put a mark on Cain, lest any who came upon him should kill him. (RSV, Genesis 4:15) ""
Rashi notes the grammar here is an elliptical construction (ex. "And Cain said to Abel, ...") with a literally abbreviated statement. "Therefore whoever kills Cain," express a threat, suggesting the consequence "it shall be done to him" and "such shall be his punishment" but it does not explicitly state what the punishment would be. So how can someone who kills Cain be punished seven times? He cannot die seven times, but, he will lose seven generations; thus the seventh generation will kill Cain.
Genesis 4:16 [16] Despite the fact that Cain had added to God's punishment, he went out from the presence of the LORD; it was not a punishment, but the shame of Cain. Cain left from before God's presence and went into the land of Nod.
Genesis 4:18a [18a] Adam, Cain, Enoch, Irad, Mehujael, Methushael, Lamech. Therefore Lamech was the seventh generation; Lamech killed Cain (see: [19])
Genesis 4:19 [19] From Rashi, "And Lamech took for 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 "for I have slain a man for wounding me." (v. 23).
From Rashi, "two wives" This was the custom of the generation that lived before the time of the Flood; they had two wives, one for children and the other for companionship. The one for companionship was made barren and was dressed in rich clothing and fed with the best food, while the first wife was left without her husband’s companionship to mourned like a widow. Job expressly mentions this (Job 24:21). "He is a companion to (or, he feeds) the barren that bear not, and does not good to the widow", (see the Agada of Pereq Chelek, see also Genesis Rabbah 23:2).
Genesis 4:22 [22] The early Jewish midrash Genesis Rabba (23.3) identifies this Naamah (the daughter of Lamech and sister of Tubal-cain) as the wife of Noah (see Rashi's commentary on Genesis 4:22), while some Jewish traditions associate her with singing.
The Naamah mentioned in the Bible is a Cainite, a descendant in the lineage of Cain. However, a Sethite Naamah is named as the wife of Noah, and a daughter of Enoch, Noah's grandfather, in a medieval midrash. Also, the deuterocanonical Book of Tobit (written c. 225–175 BC) does not name any of the wives aboard Noah's Ark, but it does say that Noah's wife was one of his "own kindred" (Tobit 4:12).
The [17]th-century theologian John Gill mentioned a theory which identified Naamah instead with the name of the wife of Ham, son of Noah, who he believed may have become confused with Noah's wife.
In the Book of Jubilees (160–150 BC) the names of the wives of Noah, Shem, Ham and Japheth are as follows:
* Wife of Noah – Naamah
* Wife of Shem – Sedeqetelebab
* Wife of Ham – Na'eltama'uk
* Wife of Japheth – 'Adataneses
It adds that the three sons each built a city named after their wives.
Genesis 4:23 [23] Lamech killed Cain, from Rashi; "hear my voice" his wives left him because he had killed Cain and Tubal-Cain, his own son, and they were afraid of retribution. 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 fled from him in fear of a punishment ("whosoever kills Cain...") thereupon separated from him, and he wanted to reassure them he could take care of them.
From Rashi, "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!
Genesis 4:24 [24] Rashi, "If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold..." 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 Lamech who slew inadvertently it follows that it should be suspended until many seven generations.
Also "Seventy and Seven" Lamech's wives 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 "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.
[24] forgive your brother seventy and seven (from NT) may be a reference to this.
Genesis 4:25 [25] This "‘ō-wḏ" meaning "again" has the secondary meaning of "more". Rashi "(this word) is used here to teach that his love for her was now greater than before (Genesis Rabbah 23:4-5)."
Genesis 4:26 [26] Rashi explains the hebrew word "הוּחַ֔ל" (hū-ḥal,) is the same root as "חולין" (profane matters); they called the names of men and the names of idols after the name of the Holy One, blessed be He — making them into objects of idol worship and calling them Deities (Genesis Rabbah 23:7).
[26] From Ellicott's; "It is the hopeless error of commentators to suppose that Eve, and Enos, and others, knew all that is now known, and all that the inspired narrator knew. They thus do violence to the plainest language of Holy Scripture, and involve its interpretation in utter confusion. Read without these preconceived notions, the sense is plain: that the name Jehovah had now become a title of the Deity, whereas previously no such sacredness had been attached to it. It was long afterwards, in the days of Moses, that it became the personal name of the covenant God of the Jews."
There is support for this in "When Abram entered Canaan, he camped between Ai and Bethel. There, “he built an altar to the Lord and called on the name of the Lord” (Genesis 12:8). In other words, Abram publicly thanked God, praised His name, and sought His protection and guidance. Years later, Abraham’s son Isaac built an altar to the Lord in Beersheba and also “called on the name of the Lord” (Genesis 26:25)." Also Joel 2:32; "32 And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved. For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the Lord has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the Lord calls."
Calling on the name of the Lord is to be a lifelong pursuit (Psalm 116:2). God commands us to call on Him in times of trouble (Psalm 50:15). The one who “dwells in the shelter of the Most High will rest in the shadow of the Almighty” (Psalm 91:1) and has God’s promise of blessing: “‘Because he loves me,’ says the Lord, ‘I will rescue him; I will protect him, for he acknowledges my name. He will call on me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in trouble, I will deliver him and honor him’” (verses 14–15).
From Clarke's; "Then began men to call upon the name of the Lord - The marginal reading is, Then began men to call themselves by the name of the Lord; which words are supposed to signify that in the time of Enos the true followers of God began to distinguish themselves, and to be distinguished by others, by the appellation of sons of God; those of the other branch of Adam's family, among whom the Divine worship was not observed, being distinguished by the name, children of men. It must not be dissembled that many eminent men have contended that הוחל huchal, which we translate began, should be rendered began profanely, or then profanation began, and from this time they date the origin of idolatry. Most of the Jewish doctors were of this opinion, and Maimonides has discussed it at some length in his Treatise on Idolatry; as this piece is curious, and gives the most probable account of the origin and progress of idolatry, I shall insert it here."