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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do we know why God accepted Able's offering but not Cain's, possibly causing Cain to murder his brother?
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.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.
As Levites said it was because Abel offered the best of his crops.
Cain did not.
Yeah...I"m sure that's it. :clapBecause Gods love blood sacrifices?
It doesn't say that Cain did offer the best as it does say with Abel.It never says Cain did not offer the best of what he had.
It doesn't say that Cain did offer the best as it does say with Abel.
Yeah...I"m sure that's it. :clap
So that's how we learn that Cain didn't bring his best offereings and why G-D was angry at him....So?
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.
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.
Rabbi, the JPS is more academic, but also provides deeper analysis and broader context. I am proponent of the JPS approach, so I look forward to sharing some of those ideas with you.
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.