-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why did God reject Cain's offering?
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
Levite
Higher and Higher
We don't know with certainty. The most common drash of the verse in traditional commentary and midrash is that Hevel (Abel) offered the best of what he had, gladly, with intention to honor God, whereas Kayin (Cain) offered goods of minimal quality, grudgingly, with intention only to fulfill his obligations.
Overall, I personally believe that everything in the first eleven chapters or so of Bere**** (Genesis) are wholly parable and metaphor; but even to the degree I might attribute any factuality to those stories in the context of traditional discourse, I don't know that I can think of anything in particular that I find more compelling as an explanation.
I think the kavanah (intention) of the offering is the most persuasive element. I do think there's a lot to be said for offering God one's best-- whether literally in physical goods or metaphorically in terms of one's spiritual or inner resources-- but even more than what one offers, I think how one offers (sacrifice, prayer, whatever) is of primary importance.
Avi1001
reform Jew humanist liberal feminist entrepreneur
It has also been interpreted that the decision was based on Abel being a shepherd and Cain being a tiller of soil. The decision may be evidence of the high regard for shephards.
Avi1001
reform Jew humanist liberal feminist entrepreneur
Reference - JPS, 1999, p.18, commentary for Gen. 3-5: "Alternately, the episode may evidence the high regard for shepherds....".
CMike
Well-Known Member
Genesis 4
3. Now it came to pass at the end of days, that Cain brought of the fruit of the soil an offering to the Lord.
4. And Abel he too brought of the firstborn of his flocks and of their fattest, and the Lord turned to Abel and to his offering.
5. But to Cain and to his offering He did not turn, and it annoyed Cain exceedingly, and his countenance fell., and the Lord turned to Abel and to his offering.
Since it says that Abel brought the best of his flocks and that G-D turned to Abel and his offerings, and that it says that Cain simply brougth the fruit of the soil, we learn from this that the BIG difference is that Abel brought the best, and Cain didn't.
I think what is really interesting is verse 7
7. Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it."
To those who believe that you must believe in jesus to be forgiven G-D says if you improve you will be forgiven.
G-D says that even though there is the temptation of sin you can "rule over it".
3. Now it came to pass at the end of days, that Cain brought of the fruit of the soil an offering to the Lord.
4. And Abel he too brought of the firstborn of his flocks and of their fattest, and the Lord turned to Abel and to his offering.
5. But to Cain and to his offering He did not turn, and it annoyed Cain exceedingly, and his countenance fell., and the Lord turned to Abel and to his offering.
Since it says that Abel brought the best of his flocks and that G-D turned to Abel and his offerings, and that it says that Cain simply brougth the fruit of the soil, we learn from this that the BIG difference is that Abel brought the best, and Cain didn't.
I think what is really interesting is verse 7
7. Is it not so that if you improve, it will be forgiven you? If you do not improve, however, at the entrance, sin is lying, and to you is its longing, but you can rule over it."
To those who believe that you must believe in jesus to be forgiven G-D says if you improve you will be forgiven.
G-D says that even though there is the temptation of sin you can "rule over it".
CMike
Well-Known Member
Yeah...I"m sure that's it. :clap
CMike
Well-Known Member
It doesn't say that Cain did offer the best as it does say with Abel.
...So?
dgirl1986
Big Queer Chesticles!
I remember this being brought up in a unitarian universalist sermon I listened to online. Made some interesting points.
CMike
Well-Known Member
So that's how we learn that Cain didn't bring his best offereings and why G-D was angry at him.
Nothing in the Torah is extra. That is the reason is said the best offering regarding Abel, and not regarding Cain.
So we just assume.
Levite
Higher and Higher
The principle that nothing in the Torah is excess or superfluous is a central one in Rabbinic thought. We may derive different meanings from what might seem "extraneous," but the general idea of deriving meanings from what seems "extra" is a basic notion we all agree upon as key.
Nonetheless, while the drash I cited (the same one which Mike is putting forth) is the standard traditional gloss for the verse, it is an open implication: it is open to interpretation whether Cain knowingly brought truly inadequate offerings, or whether he was simply not as scrupulous as Abel to offer only his best, or something in between. There are various midrashim that play with the idea of different motivations or misunderstandings or whatnot on Cain's part, trying to illustrate the context for this open implication in the text.
I think the implication in the text is strong enough that it would be hard to construe a different pshat (plain, surface reading), though I suppose it's not impossible.
The opinion that Avi brought from the JPS commentary, regarding the story as a mark of esteem for herding over agriculture, is an academic reading of the text, as opposed to the drash mentioned above, which is a traditional reading of the text. The JPS reading of the text is looking at the story from a historical critical point of view, the potential mythopoeic crystalization of sociological phenomena into a pericope within an assemblage of narratives. The traditional reading is just that: a reading of the text as an element within a holistic narrative, Torah, that seamlessly is rendered further coherence by the elucidation of the Rabbis and the commentators, teaching the lessons they bring from the text as first among potential interpretations. They are two very different ways of looking at the text, with utterly different agenda driving them. Both ways are valuable and needful, they are simply very different from one another.
Avi1001
reform Jew humanist liberal feminist entrepreneur
Rabbi, the JPS is more academic, but also provides deeper analysis and broader context. I am a proponent of the JPS approach, so I look forward to sharing some of those ideas with you.
Last edited:
Levite
Higher and Higher
I think I'd say that the JPS provides a broader historical, sociological/anthropological and linguistic context, and deeper critical analysis. But "deeper" and "broader" alone, without modification, seem to me to miss the breadth and depth of the traditional commentaries, midrashim, homilies and mystical writings, which JPS tends to draw upon in more limited and sometimes indirect ways.
But that's not a criticism of JPS, because traditional commentary and spiritual understanding isn't their project. Nor is it to say that what JPS offers is inferior to traditional commentary: it's brilliant work, and infinitely worth studying. I'm just pointing out that academic and traditional text study tends diverge pretty widely. Not always to the point of being apples and oranges, but often close. They're different things, and should be approached as such.
Avi1001
reform Jew humanist liberal feminist entrepreneur
Rabbi, I look forward to learning more about those commentaries and other writings which provide perspective to the JPS. Maybe even from a liberal Jewish perspective ?
