Why was Cain his mother’s favorite? Moreover, was not Eve’s favoritism for baby Cain and disregard for baby Abel inappropriate? Is this really the right 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 within the framework of 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 just under 3½ thousand years ago; namely the system of primogeniture.1 

 

At this time in history, the firstborn male became the head of the family on the death of his father. As such, he was responsible for the financial aspects of the family when his father passed away such as taking care of all the females. He was also 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. In effect, this constituted a bribe to the gods that they take care of his departed parents. These matters related to death obviously never became part of Judaism. Nevertheless, the firstborn still occupied a privileged position in the family and was groomed for his role. Thus, it is taken for granted in this story that Cain is in charge of religious rituals for the family. When thanks are due to God, he is the one to initiate it. Abel has no role, since Cain as the firstborn represents everyone in the family. In fact, if Abel attempts to become involved in the family rituals, he could well be considered to be stepping on Cain’s toes and even attempting to usurp his position.

 

With this in mind, the Torah’s words when Abel brings 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 God. And Abel also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fattest parts.” (Genesis 4:3-4)

 

The Torah says “also” with respect to Abel’s offering when it could equally well have said “And Cain and Abel brought offerings to God.” The Torah is pointing out that Cain was the initiator of a sacrifice and there was no reason for Abel to follow, since the family offering had already been given. 

 

What we are reading here is the beginning of a biblical debate about the role of the firstborn in the spiritual direction of the family. The issue the Torah needs to face head on is what is to happen when the firstborn is unsuitable for the role of spiritual head of the family? Is it possible to transfer this role to another son? This debate will continue throughout all of Genesis and onwards until it is finally resolved in the Book of Numbers.2 It is a debate that has no reverberation for us in the modern world but would have been very relevant for those living in the ancient world.

 

There is another question that can be asked. Why did Cain feel it necessary to bring an offering at all? He was not commanded to do so by God. His father had never brought an offering like this. 

 

The answer must surely be that to bestow a gift on another from a feeling of gratitude is a very natural human sentiment. God also appreciates mankind acknowledging His direct or indirect role in their lives and giving something of themselves to Him. It is true that God did not request such an offering from Cain, but when it was offered Him, it would have found favor. On the other hand, a gift offered with the wrong intent would be worse than no offering at all. God has no reason to participate in such a charade. This, it is suggested, is exactly what happened.

 

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.3  The lack of superlatives for Cain’s offering in contrast to that of Abel’s suggests that Cain put no thought into his offering. He brought whatever was available, which happened to be inferior produce. 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.  

 

Nevertheless, 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 the layers more. Significantly, the text seems to indicate that God had a problem with Cain himself and not just his offering:  

 

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 intent, which was inappropriate. How so?

 

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks provides an explanation that is both brilliant, and let us admit it, 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.4

 

Cain was certainly prepared to acknowledge God’s role in furthering the success of his farming. What Cain now wanted from God was His help in keeping the favorable conditions flowing — good soil conditions, sufficient water, absence of natural disasters. In effect, he was offering God a bribe. His offering had little to do with a free-will gift of gratitude to God and far more to do with what he needed for himself. For an offering such as this, God has no desire; and He rejected it.

 

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 say that he gave the “firstlings of his flock?  What difference does that make"? 

 

I would suggest it makes a lot of difference. 

 

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 it is the first time that it is mentioned explicitly). 

A

s 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 need 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 have 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.5

 

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 YKVK, 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).

 

There are questions one could ask about this sentence. Why does God consider Israel to be His firstborn? It cannot be because Israel was the first nation to exist, since 70 nations existed before Israel. Commentators on this verse suggest a number of reasons —Israel was (and still is) considered by God to be the first in rank (Nahmanides), 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 Him slaying the Egyptian firstborn. The sentence seems a non-sequitur.  

 

Another explanation suggests itself: Israel is God’s firstborn because this nation is His representative to all the nations of the world. This is implied by Israel being described elsewhere 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 is a representative of that entity is even clearer from the following verse in the Book of Exodus:6

 

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 states that every “peter” of the womb is God’s. 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, and this is how the commentator and Hebrew grammarian R’ Hirsch understands it:

 

In the “bechor (firstborn)” it is not just the first that becomes holy. By the consecration of the firstborn, the mother’s womb becomes sanctified to God, together with everything that it bears henceforth.7  

 

In summary, this was the first offering described in the Torah brought by man. God did not ask for it, since He has no needs. Nevertheless, it was natural for Cain to offer something of himself in gratitude to God for the bounty He had been enabled to produce. God appreciates this. 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.

 

However, the Torah indicates that there are correct and incorrect motivations for an offering. If the sacrifice is brought to God as Him being the source of everything, this is very acceptable to Him. However, if this offering is to further one’s own possessions and power, God wants nothing to do with it. It is a bribe and akin to the sacrificial bribes offered by pagans to their gods. 

 

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

 

Another idea. Could it be that God favors shepherds more than farmers and this was the reason he accepted Abel’s offering so readily? Many shepherds are described in the Bible as having a special relationship with God. All the forefathers were shepherds. Moses was a shepherd. David was a shepherd. Let’s face it. God likes shepherds! 

 

There are good reasons for God to turn to shepherds. 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.8 

 

To an extent the dice was somewhat loaded against farmer Cain in that the lifestyle of a shepherd is more conducive to spirituality than that of a farmer. The farmer is at a disadvantage with respect to developing a relationship with God in understanding that everything he “creates” is in reality due to God.

 

This theme will be continued in the Torah. The aim of the Sabbatical and Jubilee years is to make the farmer aware that both the land he works on and its produce truly belong to God. This is also the reason for the laws regarding the agricultural produce that is to be left for the poor, such as the forgotten sheaf and the corner of the field. All these statutes and laws remind the farmer that he is a tenant on the land that he calls his own and that people in need have a right to a portion of his produce. 

 

References

1 Rabbi 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.”  In Chumas with commentary based on the teachings of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. The Neuwirth Edition. Bereishis. Complied and edited by Dr. Arnold Lustiger, p41, OUPress, First edition 2013.

 

2. 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 become the priests and workers in the Sanctuary (Numbers 3: 45). From now on firstborns will no longer be the spiritual heads of the family. In effect, the Torah has broken with the ancient world and the firstborn will no longer have an automatic spiritual role. Nevertheless, in the Torah, as in the rest of the ancient world, the firstborn will continue to receive a double portion of the family’s inheritance (Deuteronomy 21:16).

 

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

 

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

 

5. See also Mishna Zevachim 112b.

 

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

 

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

 

8. The Pentateuch, Translation and Commentary by Samson Raphael Hirsch on Genesis 4:1-2, p97. Judaica Press, United Kingdom, 1989.