Why was Cain his parents’ favored son? Was their disregard for baby Abel appropriate? Is this really the proper way to raise children — to favor the firstborn child while relegating the second child to insignificance? 

 

It can only be that we are reading this story with modern sensibilities. Something else is going on here that needs to be unraveled. This “something else” was the status of firstborns in Mesopotamia at the time the Torah was written nerly 3,500 years ago — namely the institution of primogeniture.1 

 

As R’ Joseph Soloveitchik comments: “The nascent social order involved primogeniture, where the firstborn exercised power over siblings. Abel’s role was to be a helper to Cain.”  

 

Under this system, the firstborn son became head of the family upon his father’s death. As such, he was responsible for the financial aspects of the family, including taking care of all the females in the household. He also became the spiritual head of the family. In this role, he was expected to offer sacrifices to the gods of the underworld when his parents died. This constituted a bribe to these gods.

 

These matters concerning death never became part of Judaism. Nevertheless, the firstborn occupied a privileged position in the family and was groomed for this role. It is taken for granted that Cain is in charge of the religious rituals for the family. When thanks are due to God, he is the one who will initiate it. Abel has no role. In fact, should Abel attempt to become involved in family rituals, he could well be considered to be attempting to usurp Cain’s position.

Abel’s subordinate status may also be reflected in his name, which can mean breath, transience, or vanity.

 

With this in mind, the Torah’s words when Abel brought his offering become clearer:  

 

And in process of time, it came to pass, that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to YHWH. And Abel also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fattest parts. And YHWH turned to Abel and his offering, but to Cain and his offering He did not turn (Genesis 4:3-4).

 

The Torah’s inclusion of the word “also” with respect to Abel’s offering is striking. It could simply have stated that both brothers brought offerings. The Torah is indicating that Cain initiated the sacrifice and there was no reason for Abel to bring another, since the family offering had already been given. 

 

But why did Cain feel it necessary to bring an offering at all? He was not commanded to do so. His father had never brought one. 

 

The answer is surely that gratitude naturally finds expression in gift-giving. Human beings instinctively wish to acknowledge those from whom they have received benefits. God likewise welcomes genuine expressions of gratitude. Although He had not commanded an offering, one sincerely motivated would have found favor. Conversely, an offering brought for the wrong reasons was worse than no offering at all, for God has no desire to participate in such a charade. 

 

God’s acceptance of Abel’s offering 

​

Why did God reject Cain’s offering while accepting Abel’s? Let us look at this sentence again:

 

After a period of time, it came to pass, that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to God. And Abel also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fattest parts (ibid 4:3-4).

 

Rashi suggests that there was a qualitative difference between the two siblings’ offerings.2 The lack of superlatives for Cain’s offering in contrast to that of Abel’s suggests that Cain put no effort into his offering. He brought whatever was available, which happened to be inferior stuff. Abel, on the other hand, brought the best of his flock. God can penetrate the thoughts of man. He did not specifically ask for a gift but when it was offered, maximum effort should have been applied. Cain should not have been surprised, therefore, that his offering was rejected.  

 

However, one can argue with this interpretation since there is nothing in the text indicating that Cain brought an inferior offering. We need to peel off more layers. Significantly, the Torah seems to indicate that God had a problem with Cain himself:  

 

And God turned to Abel and to his offering. But to Cain and to his offering he did not turn . . .  (Genesis 4:4-5).

 

It was to the person Cain that God did not turn and only secondarily to his offering. God can read Cain’s mind. What disappointed Him was not the substance of Cain’s offering but his attitude. How so?

​

R’ Jonathan Sacks provides an explanation that is both brilliant and rather obvious:

​

The reason God rejected Cain’s offering becomes clear in the words stated immediately after: “Cain became very angry and depressed.” Imagine the following: you offer someone a gift. Politely, they refuse it. How do you respond? There are two possibilities. You can ask yourself, “What did I do wrong” or you can be angry with the intended recipient. If you respond in the first way, you were genuinely trying to please the other person. If the second, it becomes retrospectively clear that your concern was not with the other but with yourself. You were trying to assert your dominance by putting the other in your debt. . . . I give, therefore I rule.3

 

Cain acknowledged God's role in his agricultural success, but his offering was motivated less by gratitude than self-interest. He sought continued prosperity — fertile soil, sufficient rain and protection from disaster. In effect, the offering functioned as a transaction rather than an act of devotion.

​

This will become even clearer when we look at Abel’s offering and ask the opposite question — why was Abel’s offering so readily accepted?

​

Abel brought the fattest and therefore the best of his flock. This was surely reason enough for his offering to be accepted. Why, then, does the Torah emphasize that he offered the “firstlings of his flock"?  What difference does that make? 

 

This detail could be highly significant.

 

On a simple level, one could say that the firstborn of his flock was the most precious to him, and therefore the most meaningful gift he could bring. But we can go deeper than this, as this is the second time that the concept of the firstborn is brought up in this story (although the first time it is mentioned explicitly). 

​

As the firstborn, Cain was the representative of the family. Similarly, by bringing the firstborn of his flock, Abel was bringing an animal that was representative of his entire flock. In effect, Abel was saying to God: “Everything I possess belongs to You and this sheep represents what I have now and everything You will give me in the future.” 

 

Is there any scriptural support for this explanation?  

​

The concept of the firstborn is mentioned many times in the Torah outside of inheritance matters:

​

• The Children of Israel are God’s firstborn (Exodus 4:22).

 

• God kills the firstborn of the Egyptians and the firstborn of Egypt’s animals during the Plague of the Firstborn (Exodus 4:23 and Exodus 12:29).

 

• The firstborn of the Jewish people needs to be redeemed by a sacrifice (Exodus 43:20).

 

• All the firstborn of a shepherd’s flock are to be sacrificed to God (Exodus 43:19).

 

• The firstborn of one’s asses have to be redeemed by the sacrifice of a lamb or kid (Exodus 43:20).

 

• The first of one’s fruits need to be brought to the Sanctuary/Temple (Exodus 23:16 and Numbers 28:26).

 

• An omer measure of the first of one’s wheat has to be offered to God (Leviticus 2:14).

 

• The firstborn of the Jewish people were priests to G-d until the building of the Tabernacle.

 

The Torah links together the first two in this list. Consider the following sentences from the Book of Exodus: 

 

So, you [Moses] shall say to Pharaoh: “So said YHWH, My firstborn son is Israel. So, I say to you: ‘Send out My son that he may serve Me – but you have refused to send him out; behold, I shall kill your firstborn son” (Exodus 4:22-23).

 

This passage raises several important questions. Why does God consider Israel to be His firstborn? It cannot be because Israel was the first nation to exist since 70 nations already existed before Israel. Commentators on the verse suggest a number of reasons — Israel was (and still is) considered by God to be the first in rank (Nachmanides), the first in greatness (Rashi), or the first to serve Him (Ibn Ezra, R’ Hirsch). Nevertheless, none of these comments explain why Israel being the first in anything justifies God slaying the Egyptian firstborn.4 At first glance, this appears to be a non sequitur. 

 

A very different explanation may be proposed. Israel is called God's firstborn because it serves as His representative among the nations. This understanding is reinforced by Israel's later designation as "a kingdom of priests and a holy nation" (Exodus 19:6). Israel is a sanctified priesthood to God to benefit the entire world. Hence, God is saying: “Because you, Pharaoh, are enslaving My representatives and not permitting them to serve Me, I will now slay your representatives to your gods, namely your firstborn sons and your firstborn animals.”

 

The concept that the firstborn of a living being is a representative of that entity is even clearer from the following verse in the Book of Exodus:5

 

All that first emerges (peter) from the womb is Mine; and all your livestock that produces a male, that first emerges from an ox or a sheep. The first issue of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb or kid, and if you do not redeem it, you shall axe the back of its neck. You shall redeem every firstborn of your sons. You shall not appear before me empty-handed (Exodus 34:19-20). 

 

The verse declares that every “peter” of the womb belongs to God. The word “peter” means an “opening of the womb.” It is often translated as “firstborn” because the verse itself indicates this, but “opening of the womb” is the most literal translation. This is how the commentator and Hebrew grammarian R’ Hirsch understands it:

 

In the “bechor (firstborn)” it is not merely the first offspring that becomes holy. By the consecration of the firstborn, the mother’s womb becomes sanctified to God, together with everything that it bears henceforth.6 

 

Cain’s offering is the first sacrifice described in the Torah. God did not ask him for it since He has no needs. Nevertheless, it was natural for him to offer something from the bounty he had received. In the coming chapters of Genesis, Noah and the Jewish forefathers will also offer sacrifices. Sacrifices in the Book of Leviticus will become the way God chooses for the Jewish people to draw close to Him and become a holy nation.

 

The Torah distinguishes between two fundamentally different motivations for sacrifice. When an offering acknowledges God as the source of all blessing, it is pleasing to Him. However, when it is intended to secure further prosperity and power, it becomes little more than a bribe — akin to the transactional sacrifices offered in pagan religions.

 

Cain needed to appreciate that God’s rejection of his offering had nothing to do with his brother Abel, but a lot to do with Cain’s own approach to God.

​

Another possibility. Could it be that the shepherd’s vocation is inherently more conducive to spirituality than that of the farmer?

​

The Torah repeatedly associates shepherds with spiritual leadership. The patriarchs, Moses, and David were all shepherds. This recurring motif suggests that shepherding cultivates qualities that are particularly conducive to religious sensitivity.

 

Again, we look at the words of R’ Hirsch:

 

Already the fact that it [the shepherd] deals only with living creatures whose care and attention call for, and keep alive, all humane feelings of tenderness and consideration, is no small advantage. The instability of property of such, as well as the fact that it does not owe its existence, but only its care, to human beings is a protection against placing too much value on property and its owners.7 

 

To some extent, Cain faced an inherent disadvantage. The shepherd's vocation naturally fostered dependence upon God, whereas farming more readily encouraged the illusion of human self-sufficiency.

 

The Cain and Abel narrative also introduces a broader biblical debate concerning the role of the firstborn in the family’s spiritual leadership. The Torah will repeatedly ask what should happen when the firstborn proves unworthy of spiritual leadership? And is it possible to transfer this role to a son who is not a firstborn?

 

This debate will continue through Genesis, particularly in the Jacob and Esau story, and will only be finally resolved in the Book of Numbers when the Levites became the priests and helpers in the Sanctuary instead of the firstborn.8

 

Although this debate has little practical relevance today, it would have been of immense significance to the Torah's original audience.

​

In sum, the story of Cain and Abel introduces a fundamental biblical question: What qualifies a person for spiritual leadership? Initially, that role belonged by right to the firstborn. Yet the Torah repeatedly challenges this assumption, raising the possibility that spiritual authority should depend on character rather than birth order. This theme will recur throughout Genesis and ultimately culminate in the transfer of sacred service from the firstborn to the tribe of Levi. Viewed in this light, the Cain and Abel narrative serves as the opening chapter in one of the Torah's most significant theological discussions.

 

References

1. “Chumas with commentary based on the teachings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik.” The Neuwirth Edition. Bereishis. Complied and edited by Dr. Arnold Lustiger, p35. OUPress, First edition 2013.

2. Rashi to Genesis 4:3 suggests that he brought the poorest of his produce, and he quotes the suggestion of Tanchuma Bereshis 9 and Pirkei DeR’ Elizer 21 that it was flax seed.

3. “Violence in the name of G-d” in Covenant and Conversation. Genesis: The Book of Beginnings” by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, p31. Maggid Books, 2009.  

4. Jewish commentators view God's killing of the Egyptian firstborn not as vengeance but as divine justice. Pharaoh enslaved God's firstborn, so God killed Egypt’s firstborn. Rashi, for example, highlights the direct causal link between Pharaoh's refusal and the punishment. Since Pharaoh is holding back God’s firstborn (Israel), he incurs the loss of his own firstborn. This is just and proportional retribution.

5. Sacrificing every firstborn animal to God is considered by Ibn Ezra and Rashbam as memorializing the Exodus from Egypt when God slew all their firstborn. However, this is not indicated in the text.

6. Explanation of Exodus: 34:19-20 in “The Pentateuch, Translation and Commentary” by Samson Raphael Hirsch, p657. Judaica Press, United Kingdom, 1989. The Jewish oral tradition understands “peter” as meaning firstborn, but a literal understanding of this verse allows for an alternative translation.

7. Commentary to Genesis 4:1-2 in “The Pentateuch, Translation and Commentary” by Samson Raphael Hirsch, p97. Judaica Press, United Kingdom, 1989.

8. It was not until after the sin of the golden calf when the tribe of Levi demonstrated their loyalty to God that this function was taken away from the firstborn of all the tribes and the tribe of Levi became the priests and workers in the Sanctuary (Numbers 3: 45). From this time on, firstborns will no longer be the spiritual heads of the family. In effect, the Torah has broken with a custom of the ancient world. Nevertheless, in the Torah, as in the rest of the ancient world, the firstborn continues to receive a double portion of the family’s inheritance (Deuteronomy 21:16). This would also compensate him for his financial obligations to the women of the household.