The World’s First Murder: A Closer Look at Cain and Abel -- Blood on the ground

Jewish World Review

Jewish World Review

By Rabbi David Fohrman

Printer Friendly Version

Email this article

To sophisticated moderns, the Bible can sometimes seem like a collection of fairy tales. No longer.

Combining a careful reading of the text with ancient rabbinic analysis, the author takes us behind the scenes in Scripture, revealing a startling tapestry of meaning in stories that many have written-off as fiction.

As before, he has designed the series to be interactive. You are encouraged to pose questions and offer comments. Try to stump the rabbi -- he'll respond!

The fourth in a series

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | If it was up to you to sentence the first murderer in the history of the world, what punishment would you impose?

You'd probably try to come up with something that fits the crime. Perhaps Cain should himself be killed to avenge his brother's blood. If you were in a less punitive frame of mind, you might argue that Cain should be forced to experience something that teaches him about the horrors of murder. Or, if you were really in a lenient mood, you might opt for a rigorous community service assignment: Maybe Cain should be required to contribute in some fundamental way to the building of human society.

But G-d does not choose any of these options. Here is the Almighty's response:

And now: Cursed are you from the ground that has opened its mouth to take the blood of your brother from your hand. When you work the ground, it will no longer give its strength to you; a wanderer shall you be throughout the land.

G-d declares that Cain shall be "cursed from the earth", that he shall experience difficulty farming and that he will be a wanderer. But what does any of this have to do with Cain's act of killing his brother?

The verse, of course, supplies an answer. It says that the earth has "opened its mouth to accept" Abel's blood -- and for this reason, Cain shall experience a curse with respect to that same earth. But there's something less than satisfying, at least at face value, with this explanation. One can't help feeling that the ground's role is rather incidental here: It happened to be that Abel's blood fell on the ground and soaked into the earth, but that doesn't describe the essential heinousness of the crime, does it? If Abel's blood had fallen on the kitchen floor instead, would Cain have been cursed through linoleum tiles?


A closer look at things reveals something astir in this text. For some reason, the "earth" is very important in these verses. The ground is not an incidental part of Cain's punishment; it is the essential core of it. Everything that happens to him is phrased in terms of the ground. First, Cain is told that he will be cursed "from the land"; then, that when he works the land, the land will no longer give its strength to him; and finally, that he will be a wanderer throughout the land. The Torah's focus on land here is relentless, and Cain's anguish in the face of all this is palpable:

My sin is greater than I can bear... here you have cast me away from the face of the earth...

Why, of all things, is Cain's relationship to the ground targeted by the Almighty in response to his act of fratricide? And why is Cain so deeply affected by this?


A clue, perhaps, comes from two things we find out about Cain the moment we are introduced to him. The text tells us his name and his profession. He is called Cain, and he chooses to be a farmer. Curiously, these two facts seem to be related.

We tend to think of names as fairly incidental pieces of information. But in the Bible, that assumption doesn't always hold up. Names are often important clues. When we name people, we try to embody our hopes for them; we try to sum up who we think they are, or hope they will be. All the more so with Cain, for in fact, Cain was never actually named Cain. He just was Cain.

And Eve conceived and bore Cain

Other children in the Bible -- Ishmael, Moses and Samuel, for example -- are given names by parents or by others. But not Cain. In his case, the association between name and identity runs even deeper. He is not someone merely named Cain, he is Cain; he embodies the word. But what does Cain mean?

In Hebrew, Cain's name is "kayin". The context suggests, as we will explore a bit more next week, that the name derives from the word kanah, which means "acquire".

Cain the farmer works the earth. And Cain the "acquirer" seeks to ground himself in possessions. For both, land -- ground -- is indispensable.


It is no coincidence that people call land "real estate". It is called that because it is the most "real" thing we can have. By comparison, everything else is transitory. Everything else comes and goes. Even we come and go. We die and are gone. But not land. Land sticks around. And having it makes us feel real, it makes us feel anchored to something that lasts.

Cain the "acquirer" has a special relationship to land.

It is here that we come to an interesting difference between Cain and Abel. While "Cain" comes from the word kanah, acquire, Abel comes from the very opposite: In Hebrew, Abel is pronounced hevel , which means, of all things, "breath", or more precisely, the steam that escapes one's mouth on a cold winter's day.

Hevel is a word that appears elsewhere in the Bible. Its most common string of occurrences is in the Book of Ecclesiastes. The word hevel is, in fact, the first word in that book: "Vanity of vanities, all is vanity", says Solomon in Ecclesiastes. Except what he's really saying is " hevel havalim..". Everything is hevel, everything is "breath".

What does it mean to say everything is "breath"? It goes to the very heart of the Book of Ecclesiastes. In that book, Solomon, one of the richest, most successful men to ever live, reveals his anguish -- an anguish that is, ironically, the stepchild of his success. His distress comes from the realization that his achievements will not, cannot, last. Everything, Solomon declares, is like breath. It all dissipates. It all ends with death. At the great door to the next world, you have to leave everything behind you.

Donate to JWR

It is not just that you can't take your wealth or possessions with you. For the successful man wants more than wealth. He wants to make a difference; he wants to leave his mark on the world. But here, too, he is frustrated by the problem of "breath". All the rivers flow to the sea, Solomon observes, but it doesn't seem to matter: The sea is still not full. We try to make a lasting impression, but in the end, only one things lasts:

One generation comes, one generation goes, but the land lasts forever....

The earth itself outlasts us. It alone, in the world we inhabit, has the aura of permanence. And by clinging to the earth, we achieve a measure of solace against the great terror of hevel, of breath. Hevel -- Abel / breath -- dies. Hevel is unattached and transitory; he chooses to herd sheep. But Cain the acquirer attaches himself to the ground -- he becomes a worker of the earth -- and relentlessly seeks to share in its permanence.


And now we come back to the consequences for Cain's act of murder.

If you look carefully, I think you'll find that the three elements of Cain's punishment are closely related. They form a kind of "triangle", if you will. The top of the triangle states a principle, and the two "sides" express how the principle plays out.

The top of the triangle is the general, opening statement that Cain will be "cursed from the land" (1) -- that Cain will be separated from the ground. And what is the effect of this separation between Cain and the earth? For that, we look to the two "sides" of the triangle. The effect is that Cain becomes a wanderer and that he experiences difficulty farming.

We human beings get two basic things from the ground. Firstly, the ground "grounds" us; it gives us a place to be. Secondly, the ground nourishes us. The soil provides us with the fruits and vegetation that we cultivate through agriculture.

Cain related to both these aspects of ground. He cultivated the earth in an effort to partake of its nourishment, and he was the "acquirer", a man seeking "grounding". Now, in both these respects, Cain becomes "distant" -- cursed -- from the ground.

First off, the ground will no longer give him a place to be. He will become a wanderer, unable to settle down anywhere. (2) But it is not just in the sense of "home and hearth" that Cain is rootless. Cain's lack of roots expresses itself quite literally in an inability to cultivate roots, an inability to succeed in the great enterprise of agriculture. The second leg of Cain's triangle is that the ground will no longer give its strength to him, it will no longer provide him with the bounty he had sought through farming.


For Cain, the impact of this triangle of consequences -- curse "from" the ground, being a wanderer, difficulty farming -- seems less economic than personal. He has been distanced from something that really matters. This, at least, is how Cain himself seems to see it:

My sin is greater than I can bear. Here, you have cast me away today from upon the face of the earth and from Your Face I will hide...

When Cain speaks of being "cast away" from the earth, the Hebrew word is "geirashti". Speakers of Hebrew will be familiar with the word. Its other meaning is divorce; the termination of the marriage bond between a man and woman. In Cain's eyes, he has been rejected, separated -- divorced, even -- from the earth. This painful distance expresses itself in the two fundamental ways the earth takes care of us, in its ability to give us a home and in its capacity to nourish us. In both these ways, Cain finds himself at odds with earth.

We have begun to see how the twin portraits of Cain the farmer and Cain the "acquirer" begin to merge for a fuller portrait of Cain and the consequences that befall him. But we have just begun to scratch the surface of a much larger and more expansive picture. For in fact, the links between Cain the farmer and Cain the "acquirer" go much deeper than this. Indeed, if we look carefully at these two aspects of Cain, we may begin to discern the answers to the two fundamental questions we raised in recent weeks: Why Cain, a man bold enough to bring the first recorded offering to G-d in the history of mankind, would choose to give merely average produce as his gift. And why the story of Cain seems so eerily reminiscent of the story of Eden.

We will embark on that journey when we return next week.

(1) Yes, the syntax is awkward, but in Hebrew, that's exactly what the text says: that Cain will be cursed "from" the ground. The strange phrase can either mean that the ground is the source of Cain's curse, (the one doing the cursing, as it were), or that the effect of the curse is to separate Cain "from" the land. Either way, the sense is that a rupture has occurred between Cain and the ground. The earth is being portrayed in strangely sentient and personal terms, and the implication is that something has gone wrong with Cain's relationship with this being, the earth.

(2) Interestingly, the end of the story tells us that Cain settles in the land of Nod, and that he builds a city which he names after his son. At first glance, Cain seems to succeed in subverting his decree of exile. But the place he "settles" in is not really a place; its name is the Land of Nod, a Hebrew term that means "the Land of Wandering". And, as the classic commentator Nachmanides notes, the Torah speaks of Cain's urban construction project -- his building of a city -- in the present tense. The text doesn't say, as you might expect, that Cain built a city and dedicated it to his son, but rather that:

Cain was building a city and dedicated it to his son...

Nachmanides suggests that the present tense indicates that Cain never finished the project. He was perpetually "building", starting at one point, then stopping, then starting again, always dreaming the dream, but never able to see the project through to completion. Cain desperately seeks to ground himself -- to make a home for himself, or to build a whole city full of homes. But he is a wanderer. The harder he tries, the more the dream evades him. He is truly rootless, condemned in every sense of the word to a life of complete transience..

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes uplifting articles. Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

Comment by clicking here.

Yes, send a note. We're waiting to hear from you!

Rabbi David Fohrman teaches Biblical Themes at the Johns Hopkins University, and directs the Hoffberger Foundation for Torah Studies. His intriguing talks on a wide array of Biblical themes are available on tape and CD at jewishexplorations.com


Echoes of Eden
The enigmatic genius of Cain
A Closer Look at Cain and Abel
Sure, the Bible is holy, but does it really mean anything?

© 2005, Rabbi David Fohrman

Losing their heads over Gitmo

Jewish World Review
Jewish World Review June 16, 2005/ 9 Sivan, 5765

Ann Coulter

Ann Coulter

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | I guess Bush should have backed Katherine Harris, after all. Sen. Mel Martinez, the Senate candidate Bush backed instead of Harris, has become the first Republican to call for shutting down Guantanamo. Martinez hasn't said where the 500 or so suspected al-Qaida operatives currently at Gitmo should be transferred to, but I understand the Neverland Ranch might soon be available.

Maybe Sen. Arlen Specter — the liberal Republican Bush backed instead of conservative Pat Toomey, which still didn't help Bush in Pennsylvania — will step forward to defend the Bush administration. That Karl Rove is a genius.

Martinez explained his nonsensical call for the closing of Guantanamo by asking: "Is it serving all the purposes you thought it would serve when initially you began it, or can this be done some other way a little better?"

There are Arabs locked up at Guantanamo, no? Admittedly, not enough. (And not under what any frequent flier would describe as "harsh conditions.") Still and all, Arabs are locked up there. That is what we call a "purpose."

By becoming a focus of evil for human rights groups, Martinez suggested, Guantanamo has become a recruiting tool for al-Qaida: "It's become an icon for bad stories," Martinez said, "and at some point you wonder the cost-benefit ratio." (I've been wondering the same thing about Mel Martinez.)

This is preposterous. NBC's "The West Wing" is an icon for bad stories; Gitmo is a place where we keep an eye on evil, dangerous people who want to kill us.

Martinez was borrowing a point from Sen. Joe Biden — which is always a dangerous gambit because you never know who said it originally. The "Biden" version was: "I think more Americans are in jeopardy as a consequence of the perception that exists worldwide with its existence than if there were no Gitmo."

So if people around the world believe that if they try to kill Americans they might go to a bad, scary place called Guantanamo, that will make them more likely to kill Americans? How about doing a cost-benefit ratio on that analysis?

Let's also pause to ponder the image of the middle-of-the-road, "centrist" Jihadist who could be "recruited" to Jihad by reports about abuse at Guantanamo. You know — the kind of guy who just watches al-Jazeera for the sports and hits the "mute" button whenever they start in about the Jews again, already.

Liberals want us to believe such a person exists and that he is perusing newspaper articles about Guantanamo trying to decide whether to finish his coffee and head off to work or to place a backpack filled with dynamite near a preschool.

Note to liberals: That doesn't happen.

What happens is this: There are thousands of Muslim extremists literally dying to slaughter Americans, and only three proven ways to stop them: (1) Kill them (the recommended method), (2) capture them and keep them locked up, or (3) convince them that their cause is lost. Guantanamo is useless for No. 1, but really pulls ahead on No. 2 and No. 3 ( i.e. a "purpose").

Let's just hope aspiring Jihadists are not reading past the headlines and discovering that what Amnesty International means by "the gulag of our time" is: No Twinkie rewards for detainees!

That's not a joke. As described in infuriating detail by Heather MacDonald in the Winter, 2005, City Journal, interrogators at Guantanamo are not allowed to:

  • yell at the detainees, except in extreme circumstances and only after alerting Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld — and never in the ears;

  • serve the detainees cold meals, except in extreme circumstances;

  • poke the detainees in the chest or engage in "light pushing" without careful monitoring and approval from the commander of the U.S. Southern Central Command in Miami;

  • reward detainees (for example, for not throwing feces at the guards that day) with a Twinkie or a McDonald's Filet-O-Fish sandwich in the absence of express approval from the secretary of defense. (I suppose it goes without saying, "supersizing" their order is strictly forbidden under any circumstances.)

Donate to JWR

Without careful monitoring, interrogators aren't even allowed to subject the detainees to temperature changes, unpleasant odors or sleep cycle disruptions. But on the bright side, they are allowed to play Christina Aguilera music and feed the savages the same food our soldiers eat rather than their usual orange-glazed chicken. That isn't sarcasm; these are the rules.

No cold meals, sleep deprivation or uncomfortable positions? Obviously, what we need to do is get the U.S. Army to serve drinks on commercial airlines and get the airlines to start supervising the detainees in Guantanamo.

American soldiers make do with C-rations. Dinner on an America West flight from New York to Las Vegas consists of one small bag of peanuts. Meanwhile, one recent menu for suspected terrorists at Guantanamo consisted of orange-glazed chicken, fresh fruit crepe, steamed peas and mushrooms, and rice pilaf. Sounds like the sort of thing you'd get at Windows on the World — if it still existed.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

JWR contributor Ann Coulter is the author of, most recently, "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must) : The World According to Ann Coulter" . (Sales help fund JWR.)

Ann Coulter Archives

Copyright ©2005 Universial Media

  Click here for more Ann Coulter

Wouldn't want my Pongo to get jealous, so here's a cute picture of him! Posted by Hello

Irving, Alex, Danielle, Sarah, & Maurine play with Irving's dog, "little dog" Posted by Hello

My cousin Max Friedman Posted by Hello

My cousin Irving Lebowitz from California Posted by Hello

Becky's husband, Arnold Posted by Hello

Danielle, Maurine, and Sarah Langley walking together Posted by Hello

My sister Sylvia and her husband, Dovid Avnet, pose with my sister Adelle Posted by Hello

Gary Friedman and his girlfriend Posted by Hello

Tracey Graves and Becky Pinsker Posted by Hello

A great photo of my brother Alan and his wife Marianne Posted by Hello

Jesse cuts his graduation cake. uhhhmmm chocolate! Posted by Hello

Jesse and his mom, Irene Posted by Hello

Jesse and his Aunt Adelle Posted by Hello

Jesse & his grandmother Posted by Hello

Out of order, I know, but I love this picture of Maurine and her brother Jesse at his graduation party. Posted by Hello

Most of the family's visible in this picture. L to R: Irene Langley, Stephen Langley, Arnold Pinsker, Irving Lebowitz, Adam Friedman, Jesse Langley, Becky Pinsker, Jennie Ober, Danielle Langley, Irving Friedman, Sarah Langley, Adelle Dishaw, Marianne Friedman, Maurine Langley, Aaron Friedman, and Alan Friedman. I'm just visible in the mirror. Posted by Hello

All the nephews but one. L to R: Adam Friedman, Alexander Pinsker, Aaron Friedman, & Jesse Langley. David Pinsker couldn't make it to the unveiling because of job duties. Posted by Hello

Jesse Langley (my nephew) & Jennie Ober (my niece) at the dinner following the unveiling Posted by Hello

Maurine & Danielle Langley at the unveiling. Such beautiful nieces I have! Posted by Hello