Why did God reject Cain's offering?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Who exactly is giving the commentary?

Nahum Sarna.

 

[Badran]

***Mod post***

Please keep rules 1 and 10 in mind while posting;

1. Personal comments about Members and Staff
Personal attacks, and/or name-calling are strictly prohibited on the forums. Speaking or referring to a member in the third person, ie "calling them out" will also be considered a personal attack. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.

10. Discuss Individual Religions Forums/Same Faith Debates/"Only Sections"
The DIR subforums are for the express use for discussion by that specific group. They are not to be used for debate by anyone. People of other groups or faiths may post respectful questions to increase their understanding. Questions of a rhetorical or argumentative nature or that counter the beliefs of that DIR are not permitted. DIR areas are not to be used as cover to bash others outside the faith. The DIR forums are strictly moderated and posts are subject to editing or removal.

-For any DIR or discussion sub-forum that is colored blue, non-members of that area are limited only to respectful questions, and are not allowed to make any non-question posts.

-For any DIR or discussion sub-forum that is colored green, non-members of that area may make respectful posts that comply with the tenets and spirit of that area. This includes questions, as well as knowledgeable comments.

The Same Faith Debates subforum is specifically for debate between members of the same faith. Members that are not part of a same faith debate thread's selected faith may not post at all in those threads. The Political "Only" subforums are also used specifically for that group and may not be posted in by members that do not correspond to the political position of the subforum. These two forums are colored purple.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

More from Plaut ...

Farmer and Shepard

Cain is a farmer, a settler, and Abel is a shepherd. One reading of the story suggests that the brothers represent man's two original cultures in tension. It is interesting to note, however, that Cain is condemned to be a nomad. If the nomadic way of life is, indeed, superior, why this choice of punishment? Most probably, the farmer-shepherd theme contributed to the original story but was blurred in later generations. From time to time, the Bible returns to this theme. and especially when the city is portrayed as an object of distrust (see commentary to Gen, 11:1-26, "The City").

The Rejected Sacrifice

Both Cain and Abel bring sacrifices to God - only Abel's is accepted; the biblical writer offers no explanation for God's choice.

Some commentators maintain that the key to God's preference may be found in the intent of the two worshippers. While Cain brings merely "an offering," Abel brings "the choicest of his flock. One performs outward motions, the other offers the service of the heart.

A better explanation, however, is that God's rejection of Cain's offering is inexplicable in human terms. God acts in accordance with His own wisdom: "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious" (Exod. 33:19) His reasons are unknown to man. The inexplicability of divine preferment marks Cain as an essentially tragic character; he reacts with blind violence to a rejection he cannot comprehend. "We are accustomed to think of him with revulsion: but the text of Genesis aims rather at evoking sympathy for a man who atoned for his crime with homelessness and fear - a fate worse thsn death." (Cyrus H. Gordon, Before the Bible, p. 16)

- source

Later, in Gleanings (p. 49), there are two relevant entries:

1. Cain Was Tested
   
   The text says of sin that "its urge is toward you" [Gen. 4:7]. This implies that sin wants to be conquered by man; but if man fails to conquer it, sin returns to God and accuses man.
   - Samson Raphael Hirsch
   
   [This interpretation suggests that Cain was tested by God and that the temptation was instituted for Cain's benefit. Such a theme is explicit in the stories of Abraham and Job.]

2. The Quarrel
   
   Abel said: "My sacrifice was accepted because my good deeds exceeded yours." Cain answered: "There is no justice and there is no judge, there is no world-to-come and no reward or punishment for the righteous and the wicked." About this the brothers quarreled. Cain set upon his brother Abel and killed him with a stone.
   - Jonathan Ben Ussiel

I find the midrash interesting if only because it frames Cain as the Acher - the "Other One" - and this, of course, links us to the other as well. And, as our Torah approaches its end, we are given a formula - a prayer - to recite with the offering of our first fruits at the temple: arami oved avi.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Hi BJTY,

I also agree your observation that the older/ younger brother issue is another relevant factor.

The Lonely Man approach contrasts the majestic to covenental man. Perhaps there is some analogy to Cain and Abel here as well. Nice observation.

Good to see you again.

Thanks, good to see you also.

 

[CMike]

Nahum Sarna.

Never heard of him.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Reference - JPS, 1999, p.18, commentary for Gen. 3-5: "Alternately, the episode may evidence the high regard for shepherds....".

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.

I provided a reference and a quote. This conforms to standard citation norms.
It is not unusual for different sources, even from the same publisher to vary. Mine is from the JSB.

..., I went back and gave it some more thought. I think the idea described in my JSB makes perfect sense, so I encourage you to check it yourself. If you find other references, please let us know.

Permit me to touch upon "the idea described" in your reference instead. From The Jewish Study Bible pages 18 and 19:

3-5: The Torah does not say why the Lord accepted Abel's offering, but not Cain's. Perhaps we are to infer that Abel offered his with greater devotion (the choicest of the firstlings as opposed to the fruit of the soil). Alternately, the episode may evidence the high regard for shepherds and the pastoral life manifest, for example, in the early life of national heroes such as Joseph, Moses, and David. Like Abel, however, all the latter - and many others chased by God in the Tanakh (e.g., Isaac, Jacob, and Solomon) were younger brothers. The story of Cain and Abel thus demonstrates a theme widespread in the Tanakh: the difference between God's will and human conventions, such as primogeniture. In this text, the emphasis falls, not on the reasons for God's preference, but on Cain's fatal and culpable refusal to reconcile himself to it. 7: The end of the verse is strikingly reminiscent of the words of God to Eve in 3.16, just as Cain's punishment in 4.11-12 recalls Adam's in 3.17-19. It is possible that the story of Cain and Abel itself once served as an account of the primal sin and the expulsion from paradise. 9: The Lord's question to Cain recalls that to Adam in 3.9. In both cases, He asks about more than location. Cain's flippant answer offends against the Torah's ethic of responsibility for one's kinsman and neighbor (e.g., Lev. 19.16; Deut. 21.1-9).

To reduce all this to "Alternately, the episode may evidence the high regard for shepherds...." serves only to dilute, if not distort, a commentary deserving of far greater respect.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Who exactly is giving the commentary?

Nahum Sarna.

Never heard of him.

I am not at all surprised.

 

[CMike]

Lol me neither.

 

[CMike]

Yanno he isn't a legitimate source.

The sources we use are the Torah and Talmudic geniuses of their lifetime, not some teacher from Brandeis U.

 

[RabbiO]

Yanno he isn't a legitimate source.

The sources we use are the Torah and Talmudic geniuses of their lifetime, not some teacher from Brandeis U.

So you are saying that the possibility for legitimate and meaning Jewish insight into text ended when??

B'shalom,

Peter

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yanno he isn't a legitimate source.

The sources we use are the Torah and Talmudic geniuses of their lifetime, not some teacher from Brandeis U.

So you are saying that the possibility for legitimate and meaning Jewish insight into text ended when??

Perhaps this deserves its own thread so that this one might return to a discussion of the text.

 

[CMike]

So you are saying that the possibility for legitimate and meaning Jewish insight into text ended when??

B'shalom,

Peter

When secular interpretations are made.

 

[Levite]

Yanno he isn't a legitimate source.

The sources we use are the Torah and Talmudic geniuses of their lifetime, not some teacher from Brandeis U.

That "teacher from Brandeis U." and others like him are brilliant scholars, with years of intensive learning and study behind them, both traditional and academic. Just because we don't look to them for halachah doesn't mean we can't learn many other things from their expertise and learned readings of the text. If nothing else, there is no reason not to consider such readings similarly to midrash, or to philosophical divrei torah.

Dismissing scholars just because they're not frum is ridiculous.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Please forgive the immodesty, but I rather liked the thread running from Cain as Acher to arami oved avi. I wonder if others have made a similar link.

 

[CMike]

That "teacher from Brandeis U." and others like him are brilliant scholars, with years of intensive learning and study behind them, both traditional and academic. Just because we don't look to them for halachah doesn't mean we can't learn many other things from their expertise and learned readings of the text. If nothing else, there is no reason not to consider such readings similarly to midrash, or to philosophical divrei torah.

Dismissing scholars just because they're not frum is ridiculous.

What makes him a "brilliant scholar" of the Torah to you?

The Torah isn't a secular book for jews.

 

[dantech]

Yanno he isn't a legitimate source.

The sources we use are the Torah and Talmudic geniuses of their lifetime, not some teacher from Brandeis U.

So Rav Ovadia Yosef is not a brilliant scholar? Baba Sali? Rav of Lubavitch? Gaon of Vilna?
You need to have died 1800 years ago to be a brilliant scholar?
I'm orthodox just like you, but you are saying stuff that even the most eccentric orthodox Jews shouldn't say.

Just because the person doesn't have a long beard, or the title of rabbi doesn't mean he can't be a brilliant scholar.

70 facets, everyone will understand differently. You can disagree, but no need to disrespect because the scholar is not what you would traditionally call a scholar.

 

[CMike]

So Rav Ovadia Yosef is not a brilliant scholar? Baba Sali? Rav of Lubavitch? Gaon of Vilna?
You need to have died 1800 years ago to be a brilliant scholar?
I'm orthodox just like you, but you are saying stuff that even the most eccentric orthodox Jews shouldn't say.

Just because the person doesn't have a long beard, or the title of rabbi doesn't mean he can't be a brilliant scholar.

70 facets, everyone will understand differently. You can disagree, but no need to disrespect because the scholar is not what you would traditionally call a scholar.

Were they secular and did they study from a secular point of view?

This isn't studying hamlet. At least it shouldn't be for Jews.

 

[Levite]

So Rav Ovadia Yosef is not a brilliant scholar? Baba Sali? Rav of Lubavitch? Gaon of Vilna?
You need to have died 1800 years ago to be a brilliant scholar?
I'm orthodox just like you, but you are saying stuff that even the most eccentric orthodox Jews shouldn't say.

Just because the person doesn't have a long beard, or the title of rabbi doesn't mean he can't be a brilliant scholar.

70 facets, everyone will understand differently. You can disagree, but no need to disrespect because the scholar is not what you would traditionally call a scholar.

I would frubal this, if I could.

 

[Levite]

What makes him a "brilliant scholar" of the Torah to you?

The Torah isn't a secular book for jews.

I would quote shiv'im panim l'Torah, but dantech beat me to it. So instead I'll quote Ben Bag-Bag: hafoch v'hafoch ba ki d'kula bah. Everything is found within it: not just a few selected viewpoints, not just one particular way of reading and understanding the text, not just one specific interpretive agenda.

The Torah may be primarily designed to teach Jews spiritual matters, but it diminishes the Torah to say that only certain matters can be spiritual, and only that kind of spiritual material is found in Torah, or that anything not primarily spiritual taught from the Torah is worthless or wrong.

I think anything that makes Jews read the Torah-- and read it with respect and interest-- is worthwhile and valuable, even if it's not traditional or spiritual, it's something. Better that the people study Torah, even if it doesn't immediately lead them to increased observance, even if it doesn't immediately lead them to traditional commentary and understandings of the text-- it's still better than their not reading Torah at all.

Besides which, though I may not agree with everything that every academic scholar of Torah teaches or says, I find much in academic scholarship to be helpful in providing context for understanding the tradition, for understanding why certain things in the Tanach might have been said the way they were said, or for clarifying what was going on in that part of the world at the time a given text was written, or for shedding light on the history of how certain things have been interpreted. For that matter, I don't agree with everything that every traditional scholar of Torah-- whether they were gedolim or not-- teaches. But I study as much of the traditional scholarship as I can, anyway, and don't dismiss it all just because sometimes this oe that great scholar said things I find unjustifiable or wrongheaded. Because much of it-- maybe the vast majority of it-- is amazing.

It's counterproductive to disrespect something merely because you don't agree with it. I think that's a great part of the point of the story in Eruvin 13b, when we're taught that Beit Hillel studied what Beit Shammai taught-- indeed taught Shammai's views first to their students-- even though they disagreed with it.

 

[Rakhel]

Oh brother.