The story of Cain and Abel follows seamlessly from the Garden of Eden account. It involves the same characters, Adam and Eve, it is set in the same historic period, towards the beginning of the Agricultural Revolution, and it relates to the same aspect of God YKVK who is close to mankind and who wishes to develop relationships with humanity. However, its subject matter is very different.

 

This story introduces the novel concept that YKVK is concerned not only with relationships between mankind and Himself but there is also a moral code with respect to interpersonal relationships. This seems very obvious to us; but this is because of the influence of the Torah on civilization. In the ancient world, on the other hand, this would have been a revolutionary concept. The gods of that time were not concerned at all about human behavior. In fact, since the gods themselves were frequently in conflict, it is not surprising that the world also would be a place of conflict. This story also introduces another radical idea — that the earth itself, the foundation of the Agricultural Revolution, also functions according to a moral code.

 

At first glance, the story of Cain the farmer and Abel the shepherd seems to be a simple account of fratricide. And the whole point of the story? To warn us against murder!

 

Such a conclusion, however, is most unlikely. The biblical stories are highly sophisticated and contain depths of meaning. There is far more to this story than merely a warning against murder. In the final paragraphs of the Garden of Eden story, YKVK Elokim indicates the direction of society — pregnancies, childbirth, the raising of children, and backbreaking agricultural work. Although this path is God-directed, however, it does not mean that it is free from pitfalls. For women, motherhood can lead to forgetting about the role of God. For men, a farming existence results in materialism. This can lead to a quest for power and the exploitation of others, as well as jealousy, rivalry, and the potential for violence.

 

The story’s first sentence sets the scene:

 

And Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, for she said I have (in Hebrew koniti) a man with God. And she continued to give birth  to Abel his brother. And Abel became a shepherd and Cain worked the ground (Genesis 4:1-2).

 

When Adam loses the possibility of immortality and is expelled from the Garden of Eden, he names his wife “Chava,” meaning “the mother of all the living” (Genesis 3:20). It is fitting, therefore, that the Garden of Eden story is followed by an account of Eve’s first two pregnancies and about the lives of her offspring.

 

Her son’s name Cain is clearly significant — because Eve says so. But what does this name mean? 

 

There are two possible translations for the Hebrew word “koniti.” The verb liknot in modern Hebrew means “to buy” or “purchase.” However, the meaning of this verb in biblical Hebrew is broader than this. Buying is a form of acquiring, and the root of this verb has the general meaning of “to acquire” or “to possess.” Hence, Eve is saying: “. . .  I have acquired a man with God . . . ”

 

However, this is not the only meaning of this verb, though. In the Abraham account we are told:  

 

And he [Malchitzedek] blessed Abram and said: Blessed is Abram to God Almighty, Creator (in Hebrew koneh) of heaven and earth (Genesis 14:19).2

 

The word “koneh” as used here means “Creator.” If we put this translation into our sentence, Eve would be saying: “ . . . I have created a man with God . . . . ”. 

 

So, which one is it – “to acquire” or “to create”?  

 

In fact, both translations fit well into the context of this sentence and both meanings can be found among Biblical commentators. Nachmanides and Abarbanel suggest the first interpretation, while Radak favors the second. A third and very plausible possibility is that this word encompasses both meanings.

  

Eve has indeed received an “acquisition.” Her son was also “created” by the combined efforts of herself and God. Moreover, in the near future, Cain will become the prototype farmer who embodies the very essence of the name given to him by his mother. As the second participant in the Agricultural Revolution he will become a man of property and possessions. By virtue of his work as a farmer, he will also be someone who “creates” crops and harvests.  

 

This is an example of the richness of the Torah text in that a single word or phrase can possess multiple meanings.

 

R’ Hirsch discusses the implications of the path Cain is taking in relation to his name: 

 

For [the Hebrew word] kayin is derived from kon [meaning] property . . . In bending his neck under the yoke of the effort to attain real property, his soul too becomes bowed. He gets caught by this effort. It begets subjugation, one man enslaved by the other.1

 

But what about Cain’s brother Abel? The contrast between his naming and that of Cain’s jumps out from the text. Abel merits no naming ceremony. His name in Hebrew is “hevel,” which means “a breath,” “insignificance,” or “futility.” In a word, Abel is an add-on. And sure enough, this name constitutes the very essence of his character. Abel becomes a shepherd, often on the move and with few possessions. Even his life is brief and futile. Abel is born a nobody and dies as one.

 

We have not finished with this first verse about Cain! Look again at Eve’s words as they are somewhat unusual. Literally the verse reads: “I have created/acquired a man “et” (in Hebrew) God. 

 

In Hebrew, the word “et” usually has no specific meaning but signifies that the word following the verb is the object of the sentence. But this makes no sense here. Eve has obviously not acquired God. However, a few times in the Torah the word “et” has the meaning of “with.” Nevertheless, its use in this way is sufficiently unusual for commentators to attempt to fill in the ambiguity of this phrase with different translations. Nahmanides suggests it means “for the sake of God,” the Septuagint translates it as “through God,” and Targum Onkelos “from before God.” The translation many people are familiar with is that of Rashi who based on Midrash Bereshis Rabba suggests “in partnership with God.”2  

 

In actuality, these translations are interpretations. What these commentators are admitting is that the word “with” does not sound quite right here. The Bible should have used the word “from” i.e., “I have acquired a man from God.” But the word “from” is a totally different pronoun.

 

By saying “with God,” Eve is almost placing herself on the same pedestal as God. And since “et” often means an object, the Torah may even be implying that Eve regards herself as the senior partner in this joint effort!3

 

Eve’s ambivalence becomes even more apparent if we translate the verb “kanati” as “I created.” The sentence then becomes: “I have created a man with God.” Eve has now placed herself on an equal pedestal with God in the creation of her offspring! 

 

Like Rashi, R’ Hirsch translates the word “et” as “with” and “kanati” as “I have acquired,” and also senses Eve’s ambivalence with regard to God’s role in her “acquiring.”

 

With God, i.e., with God’s assistance and co-operation I have acquired a male human being by the expenditure of my strength. So, the first enthusiasm of the first mother was a raised feeling of self-importance, and the question can arise in our minds whether this does not already show some clouding of the pure conception of motherhood. A mother standing on the pure height of consciousness of duty would have thought more of God and of the new duties and tasks which come with this gift of God, rather than proudly of her own merit.4  

 

Significantly he continues:

 

A clouding of the point of view, and a disclosure of egotism and vanity which may very easily have affected the tendency of the character of the son on whose very name she imprinted the stamp of this self-esteem. 

 

When God bestowed on woman the possibility of pregnancy, He introduced a moral hazard into the world. Eve has born Cain for nine months, has sensed the fetus growing within her, and has developed physiologically and mentally with the fetus. She has also gone through the painful delivery God prescribed for her. It may indeed be her perception that she is an equal partner with God in her son’s creation. However, this is mistaken. She is but an instrument in her child’s conception and birth. As the mother of all mothers, Eve embodies this misunderstanding.4

 

Cain will embrace the values of his mother, and it will not surprise us that as a farmer he too has ambivalence as to who is the true creator of his produce. On the one hand, he recognizes the omnipresence and power of God. On the other hand, is he not the individual who brought this harvest into being by his own effort?  This will have significant implications with respect to his relationship with God. 

 

In sum, the Bible is making the point that in motherhood and farming it is easy to ignore the role of God as the creator of all that exists. In the natural world, mankind is but the instrument of God’s creation. This error in outlook will have serious implications for Cain.

 

References:

 

1. The Pentateuch, Translation and Commentary by Samson Raphael Hirsch on Genesis 4:1, p95. Judaica Press, United Kingdom, 1989.

​

2. Bereishis Rabba 22:2. 

 

3. Thomas Edison and the Glassblower in “The Beast that Crouches at the Door. Adam, Eve, Cain and Abel and Beyond” by Rabbi David Fohrman, p129. Aleph Beta Press, 2011.

 

4. A novel idea suggests itself. Could this be an additional reason that the Bible prescribes that a woman brings a sin offering after childbirth, namely because of her almost inevitable misconception that she is the true creator of her child?  Rashi suggests that this offering is a repentance for sinful thoughts she may have had during childbirth that she will avoid future pregnancies.