PARS HAT B REIS HIT

THE F IR ST ARGUME NT
Ra bbi Ari Kahn

In the beginning G-d created the heaven and the earth. (1:1)

The Torah begins with a description of the unfolding of events, at the dawn of
history. It has long been the understanding of the Rabbis that, as important as the
literal text may be, the primary importance of the Torah lies in its theological
teachings. The Torah is a book of theological truth which is the word of G-d, and,
therefore, historically accurate as well. The Rabbis in the Talmud, Midrash, and
Zohar were well aware of this idea. Consequently, verses which may seem
mundane or simplistic to the uninitiated reader often contain the most profound
teachings and secrets of the Torah1.

The Midrash, in this week’s Parsha, makes an inference, not from what is said, but
by noting what is missing:

Why is ‘that it was good’ not written in connection with the second day? R.
Yochanan explained, in the name of R. Yose b. R. Halafta: Because on it the
Gehenna (Hell) was created,… R. Hanina said: Because on it schism came
into the world, [as it is written, ‘And God said, Let there be a firmament in
the midst of the waters, and] let it divide the waters from the waters’..
(Midrash Rabbah - Genesis IV:6)

The Midrash teaches that this act of separation of waters, is the power, which
allows for dissension to enter into the world. However, readers familiar with the
text will note that the term vayavdil, to separate, was used on the first day as
well, when G-d separated between light and darkness. Why, then, is the power of
dissension only expressed on the second day? Apparently, argumentation can
only take place when two things or two people do not have clearly defined
boundaries. The separation between light and darkness is absolute; they are
opposites, and therefore no dissension follows their separation. However, the
separation between water and water, which are ostensibly the same, is where the
power of dissent originates. G-d separated the higher waters from the lower
waters—two items which seem to be the same. On this day, dissension was
created.

This Midrash serves as an introduction to one of the most tragic events recorded
in the Book of Genesis. Chapter IV records the birth of Cain and Hevel, their
difference of opinion, and finally the tragic murder of Hevel.

And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bore Cain, and said, ‘I
have acquired a man from the Lord’. And she again bore his brother Hevel.
And Hevel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.
1
This is specifically true in the Zohar, the list of Kings of Esav in Bershit 36 is one example of this phenomena.
 These two verses lack symmetry. When Cain is born, his name is immediately
explained; when Hevel is born, no rhyme or reason is given for his name. At the
outset, Hevel is described simply as a brother-- “and she continued to give birth
to a brother.”

Let us consider the name given to Cain. The section began “And Adam knew Eve
his wife”. Immediately preceding this section was the expulsion of Adam and Eve
from the Garden of Eden due to their improper partaking of the fruit of the Tree of
Knowledge. Immediately afterward, we are told that Adam knew Eve. Evidently,
they took the knowledge, distilled from the “Tree of Knowledge,” and applied it.
When she names her son Cain, from the word meaning ‘acquisition’, Eve seems to
be seeking a way to rekindle her relationship with G-d, which had become
dysfunctional.

In the Garden of Eden, G-d’s presence is felt. G-d is the Creator (with a capital
“C”); Adam, too, creates by giving names to the animals, by categorizing the
animals. Adam uses speech to be creative (with a lower case “c”). The fact that
Adam creates with speech is quite significant: We find that when G-d creates, He
creates via speech-- “And G-d said, let there be light.” Surely G-d could have
created by simply willing it, but it is stressed that G-d creates with speech. When
the Torah tells us that man was created in the image of G-d, the Targum (2:7)
explains that G-d endowed man with speech. Thus, G-d creates with speech, and
man creates with speech. G-d’s creation is ex nihilo, creating something from
nothing; man’s creative act is in categorizing and understanding G-d’s creation.
When man is expelled, he is told that he must work the land, engaging in a
different type of creative activity. Eve, for her part, seeks to repair her damaged
relationship with G-d and sees in the birth of Cain a reacquisition of her own
partnership in Creation.

We are given no explanation of Hevel’s name. His birth seems to be an

afterthought. The very name “Hevel” means ‘nothingness’. It is difficult to
interpret what significance Adam and Eve saw in the arrival of Hevel, but it does
not seem to inspire the same fanfare as the arrival of Cain.

And Hevel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground.

Cain becomes a farmer. He is relating to G-d as per the rules of exile; he is

working the land. Hevel, however, becomes a shepherd; he seems to ignore the
rules of exile and tries to relate to G-d in the way his father did before the sin.

The Midrash tells us something interesting about the births of Cain and Hevel.
Cain, we are told, was born with a twin sister; Hevel, however, was born along
with two sisters.

R. Joshua b. Karhah said: Only two entered the bed, and seven left it: Cain
and his twin sister, Hevel and his two twin sisters. (Midrash Rabbah -
Genesis XXII:2)
Perhaps this is the origin of the friction between Cain and Hevel . Cain is the older
brother, the “golden child.” The hopes and aspirations of Eve rest upon him. Cain
questions the propriety of G-d’s giving the younger brother two sisters, when he
himself had only one. After all, if anyone should have received a double share, it
should have been Cain, the first born. This sets the stage for the rest of the Book
of Genesis, where the younger brother consistently achieves superiority over the
older brother who inevitably fails.2

Cain, however, sets about his task, works the land and brings an offering to G-d.
Hevel, too, offers from his flock.

And Hevel also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat of it. And
the Lord had respect for Hevel and for his offering. But for Cain and for his
offering he did not have respect. And Cain was very angry, and his
countenance fell. And the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry and why is
your countenance fallen? If you do well, shall you not be accepted? And if
you do not well, sin lies at the door. And to you shall be his desire, and yet
you may rule over him.

Cain repeatedly compares himself with his brother Hevel, and finds himself on the
short end of the stick. First, he felt slighted that his brother had two sisters, and
now Hevel’s offering is accepted by G-d and his own offering is not. Cain defines
himself in terms of his relationship with his brother. He judges his
accomplishments by comparing them with his brother’s. When Cain sees that he
has not been as successful as Hevel, he becomes bitter, angry and depressed.
Cain’s problem was that he assumed that he and his brother were the same and
were, therefore, deserving of equal opportunities and success. This reminds us
of the second day of Creation when G-d separated between the waters. When two
things are assumed to be equal, dissension follows.

And Cain talked with Hevel his brother; and it came to pass, when they
were in the field, that Cain rose up against Hevel his brother, and slew him.
And the Lord said to Cain, Where is Hevel your brother? And he said, I know
not; Am I my brother’s keeper? And He said, What have you done? the voice
of your brother’s blood cries to me from the ground. And now you are
cursed from the earth, which has opened her mouth to receive your
brother’s blood from your hand. When you till the ground, it shall not
henceforth yield to you her strength; a fugitive and a wanderer shall you be
in the earth.

Cain speaks to Hevel, but we do not know what he said. Hevel never answered.
Hevel is apparently not involved in this argument; it is one-sided. Cain is haunted
by the competition; Hevel is merely concerned with tending his flock, offering gifts
to G-d, trying to relate to G-d. Again, there is a lack of symmetry. We are told
that the earth, which had already been cursed and was now to be worked by man,
2
This theme will be returned to in our analysis of the book of Shmot, specifically in relationship with the plauge of the
First born.
opened up its mouth and swallowed the blood of Hevel. The earth will be cursed
again, and Cain will be forced to wander the earth, finding no respite.

The tragic relationship between Cain and Hevel created the spiritual power for
other arguments that take place in the future. We are told of one such argument
in the Book of Bamidbar:

And they gathered themselves together against Moshe and against Aharon,
and said to them, ‘You take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation
are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them. Why then do you
lift up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?’ (Bamidbar 16:3)

Korach was a populist. He had an attractive philosophy which he conveyed to the

masses. Korach claimed that all people are holy- all people are equal- therefore all
people should have the right to the same opportunities and the same tasks. The
origin of such thought dates back to the second day of Creation, before G-d
separates the upper and lower waters. Korach’s argument is the same as Cain’s.
The mystics based on a tradition from the Ariza’l, have a very elegant explanation
for this similarity: They teach that Korach is a reincarnation of the soul of Cain.3

Ironically, the punishment which Korach receives is that the earth “opens up its
mouth” and swallows him (Bamidbar 16:30). The last time -in fact, the only other
time in the Bible where this terminology appears- is when the earth swallowed the
blood of Hevel (Breishit 4:11). Now Korach, who follows in the footsteps of Cain,
receives the appropriate punishment. The earth “opens up its mouth” and
swallows him.

The similarity between Korach and Cain is not the only one; there is also a striking
similarity between Moshe and Hevel. As we have seen, the name “Hevel” means
nothingness. We are told that Moshe was the most modest of men. We may
assume that Moshe, like Hevel, did not think too much of himself. Moshe’s position
was not attained through political maneuvering; he was chosen directly by G-d.
Moshe tried to decline, but G-d impressed upon him that his destiny, his unique
task, was to lead the Children of Israel.

When Cain argued with Hevel, Hevel did not respond. Similarly, Perkei Avot
describes the argument of Korach as the argument of Korach and his followers,
not as the argument between Korach and Moshe.

Every controversy that is in the name of heaven, the end thereof is

[destined] to result in something permanent; but one that is not in the
name of heaven, the end thereof is not [destined] to result in something
permanent.
Which is the [kind of] controversy that is in the name of heaven? Such as
was the controversy between Hillel and Shammai; and which is the [kind of]
controversy that is not in the name of heaven? Such as was the controversy
of Korah and his entire congregation. (Avot 5:17)
3
Shaar Hagiligulim hakdama 33, and see the Shem MiShmuel in Parshat Korach.
Moshe was aware of the uniqueness of each individual; Korach tried to blur the
differences between people. The Zohar goes even further in highlighting the
nature of dispute:

“A dispute that was composed on the pattern of the supernal dispute, that
became more and not less worthy as it proceeded, and that perpetuated
itself rightfully, was that between Shammai and Hillel. The Holy One,
blessed be He, approved of their dispute, for the reason that its motive was
lofty and that it therefore resembled that which took place at the Creation.
Hence, like the latter, the dispute between Shammai and Hillel has survived
to this day. Korah, on the other hand, denied the Creation, fought against
heaven itself and sought to confute the words of the Torah. He certainly was
of the following of the Gehinnom, and therefore remained attached to it.”…
Shammai conducted his dispute in that spirit of calm which should follow on
the first burst of passion; it therefore became a quarrel of love and obtained
the approval of Heaven. This is indicated by our text. It says first: “Let there
be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide, etc.” This refers
to the beginning of quarrel, the outburst of passion and violence. There was
a desire for reconciliation, but meanwhile the Gehinnom arose before the
wrath and passion cooled down. Then “God made the firmament, etc.”; that
is, there emerged a quarrel of love and affection which made for the
permanence of the world. And in this category is the dispute between
Shammai and Hillel, the result of which was that the Oral Law approached
in a loving mood the Written Law, so that they mutually supported each
other.( Zohar Gen. 17b)4

This is one of the profound teachings of Judaism, that not all people are created
equal. Each person certainly has an inalienable right to his or her dignity, but not
all people possess equal roles and destinies.

Rabbi Soloveitchik illustrated this idea with an insight regarding the Shema,
“Listen Israel, G-d is the Lord, G-d is One.” Rabbi Soloveitchik commented that he
would prefer to translate the word “ Echad- (One)”, as “Unique.” Jewish
monotheism does not differ from polytheism purely in numeric terms-- that they
believed in many gods and we believe in One. Our declaration of the Shema is
that G-d is Unique. Man is created in the image of G-d, which means that each
and every man is unique as well. The challenge of life is to find our uniqueness
and develop it, not to define ourselves in comparison with others, but to search
within ourselves and find our uniqueness—our image of G-d. Indeed, when the
Torah commands us to love our neighbor as ourselves, one can ask, “how can we
possibly love others”? The secret of loving others is in discovering their
uniqueness and appreciating it. A mother loves all her children, for she
appreciates the uniqueness of each child. We are commanded to find the
uniqueness in each person and to love them for it. When a person identifies his
own uniqueness and develops that uniqueness, he truly manifests the image of G-
4
The commentaries on the Zohar in this passage contain the elusive tradition of the Ariza”l that in the
future the law will adhere according to Shammai. See Mikdash Melech ad loc.
d within himself.5

The Book of Berishit begins with one brother murdering the other, with one
brother focusing only on the unequal treatment each receives. The horrific act of
fratricide is the result of Cain’s depression as he is haunted by his brother’s
successes. On the other hand, the Book of Shmot begins with Moshe wandering
out of Pharaoh’s palace.

And it came to pass in those days, when Moses was grown, that he went out
to his brothers, and looked on their burdens; and he spied an Egyptian
beating a Hebrew, one of his brothers. (Shmot 2:11)

He goes out to his brothers to see their suffering. Moshe seeks brotherhood. He is
not jaded by his status as Prince of Egypt. Moshe senses the brotherhood that
exists between all Jews.

And he looked this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no
man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in the sand. (Shmot 2:12)

His act is profoundly different from the act of Cain. While Cain is motivated by
jealousy, Moshe kills to protect his brother.

The Ariz”al explains that the soul of Hevel transmigrated into Moshe. Moshe knew
that each person has a unique task. Moshe never defined himself in terms of
others. In fact, the first brothers that we find in the Torah who really, truly, relate
to one another with love and respect are Moshe and his brother Aharon.

And the Lord said to Aharon, Go into the wilderness to meet Moshe. And he
went, and met him in the mount of G-d, and kissed him. (Shmot 4:27)

The Midrash stresses the importance of this kiss:

When it says: ‘Mercy (hesed) and truth are met together; righteousness
and peace have kissed each other’(Ps. LXXXV, 11)- ’mercy’ refers to Aharon,
of whom it is said: And of Levi he said: Thy Thummim and Thy Urim be with
Thy holy one-hasideka (Deut. XXXIII, 8), while ‘truth’ refers to Moshe, of
whom it says: My servant Moshe is not so; he is trusted in all My house
(Num. XII, 7). Hence ’Mercy and truth met together’ when ’He went and met
him in the mountain of G-d. ‘Righteousness’ refers to Moshe, of whom it is
said: ‘He executed the righteousness of the Lord’ (Deut. XXXIII, 21), and
peace refers to Aharon, of whom it says: ‘He walked with Me in peace and
uprightness’ (Mal. II, 6). Have kissed each other, as it says, … ‘And he kissed
him’. Why? Each one rejoiced at the other's greatness. (Midrash Rabbah -
Exodus V:10)

Throughout the Book of Bereishit, we do not find harmony among brothers. The
unity of these two brothers, Moshe and Aharon, is what enables them to lead the
5
In Parshat Kedoshim, I will return to the idea of Loving others.
people from Egypt and to bring them to Mt. Sinai and accept the Torah. In order to
leave Egypt, the Children of Israel had first to become a nation. In order to receive
the Torah they needed unity; the core of this unity was the love and mutual
respect exhibited between Moshe and Aharon. “Each one rejoiced at the other's
greatness.” Each appreciated the greatness and uniqueness of the other.

Unfortunately, Cain and Hevel never did.6

6
See my discussion in Kedoshim, where the comments of the Vilna Gaon are cited, linking the command of Shatnez
with the fratricide perpetrated by Cain.