5 But God did not particularly favor Cain and his offering. So Cain was very angry, and he carried a sad facial expression.
6 So God told Cain, “Why are you so upset? Why do you look so down?
7 Don’t you know that if you do what is right, you will live correctly before Me? But if you don’t do what is right, you will miss the mark and desire to do what is wrong. So you must control your actions.”3
8 Afterwards, Cain argued with his brother Hevel when they were together in a field. Cain became angry at Hevel, and so he murdered him.4
9 God then asked Cain, “Where is Hevel your brother?” Then he (Cain) answered, “I don’t know. Am I my brother’s guardian?”5
10 Then God said, “What did you do? Your brother’s blood cries out loudly to me from the ground!
11 Because the ground has absorbed your brother’s blood that you shed, you have brought curses upon yourself!
12 When you farm the ground, it will not be fruitful and yield crops for you. Instead, you will now be a nomad and wanderer throughout the earth.”
13 Then Cain complained to God, “This is too harsh of a punishment for me to bear!
14 Today you banished me from everyone’s presence, as well as from Your presence. I will be a nomad and wanderer upon the earth, and everyone who sees me will try to kill me.”
15 God then said to him, “So anyone who tries to kill Cain will suffer curses seven-fold . . . and God will put on Cain a sign so that all who find him will know not to attack him.”
16 So Cain had to leave God’s presence, and he settled in the region of Nod, just east of Eden.
17 Afterward, Cain had intimate relations with his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Hanoch. [Cain] then built a town and named it Hanoch, after his son.
18 Hanoch had a son named Erad, and Erad had a son named Mehuya’el. Metuya’el fathered Metusha’el, who fathered Lamek.
19 Lamek took two women to be his wives. One was named Adah, and the second was named Silah.
20 Adah gave birth to Yaval, who was the patriarch of those who live in tents and breed livestock.
21 His brother was Yuval, who was the patriarch of musicians who play stringed instruments and flutes.
22 Silah bore Tuval-Cain, who wrought brass and iron, as well as Tuval-Cain’s sister, Na’amah.
23 Then Lemek said to his wives Adah and Silah, “Listen to me, to Lamek; pay attention to my words. I killed someone who hurt me, as well as a child who bruised me.6
24 If seven-fold curses come upon anyone taking vengeance on Cain, seventy-fold curses will fall upon anyone taking vengeance on Lemek!”
25 The (first) man once again had intimate relations with his wife, and she bore a son, calling his name Seth, because “God has gifted me with another offspring in place of Hevel, since Cain killed him.”
26 Seth also fathered a son, and named him Enosh. It was then that humanity began to worship God.
1. v.1: The name Cain is connected to Chava’s words in the Hebrew for “I have gotten” (“qaniti”).
2. v. 2: The name “Lemek” in Hebrew connotes a fool.
3. v. 7: Verse seven uses very idiomatic Hebrew. The text uses a very interesting word, se’et, which I have translated as “live correctly before Me.” My thought is that this word, often used specifically in wedding and betrothal language, expresses a unity with God’s purposes. It also expresses an ability to do something that was later expressed by God to Avraham via the Hebrew word lehithalek. This means to live in such a way as is pleasing to God.
4. v. 8: I translated the Hebrew phrase vayahargayhu as “so he murdered him.” Although another word existed for “murder” in ancient Hebrew (ratsach; cf. Exodus 20.13), the evidence of the scriptures is that God considered Cain’s action not just a mere “killing,” but an unrighteous, uncalled-for and evil action, thus justifying my translation (cf. 4.10–11). Professor Dov Landau has an interesting take on Cain’s motivation for murdering Hevel. He writes the following in his article “But to Cain and his offering He paid no heed”: “. . . The expression gam hu, ‘for his part,’ (lit. ‘also he’) in the verse ‘and Abel, for his part (Gen. 4.4) clearly indicates that Abel brought his offering after Cain had brought his, and that he had seen what Cain had brought. ….Abel’s offering could be interpreted as competitiveness, or even as inciting Cain. Now Abel succeeded in this competition….Cain, for his part, perceived the situation as follows: after his initiative in bringing an offering, Abel came and ‘upped the ante’ for drawing near to God. Henceforth it would no longer suffice to bring an offering to God; rather, one would have to embellish that offering… the new situation made Cain feel totally helpless and aroused his ire. Cain became frustrated, and frustration is one of the most dangerous things” (http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/bereshit/lan.html).
5. v. 9: Rabbi Schonfeld has another interpretation of Cain’s words in verses 7–9. He sees it as the commensurate interplay of God’s foreknowledge and mankind’s freedom of choice: “If you do good,” He (God) goes on, immediately impressing upon him the reality of his free volition, “there will be special privilege.” For Cain will have chosen freely, despite God’s knowledge, and hence merits reward. “And if you do not do good”—that, too, is in your (Cain’s) hands.” (Schonfeld, 71). That is, Rabbi Schonfeld sees all mankind in a similar situation to Cain—like Cain, mankind is able to acknowledge God’s ownership and rulership over the world, and consequently to do His instructions. Conversely, as Cain decided, mankind can choose not to care for others (e.g. as Cain put it, “Am I my brother’s guardian?”) and to disregard God’s instructions (in this specific instance, His words in verse 7). May I add that Cain did not see reality in a proper perspective. He lied to God (“I do not know” of verse 9, when he clearly did know what happened to his brother). Perhaps a lesson that Bereshit’s author wanted us to realize was that when God’s ways are disregarded, humanity sees reality wrongly, is prone to violence, and believes lies (just as Cain did).
6. v. 23: This verse could refer to Lemek killing one and the same person, that is, a young man who had struck him, or two separate people—a man and, in addition, a youngster. The most accurate translation depends upon the meaning of the word “ve” in the text. I have chosen to translate this verse to indicate that two persons were slain. Historic Jewish translation does interesting things to this text. In one version of the Targum (2E), the translated Aramaic reads: “I did not kill a man, for whose sake I should be killed, and also I did not wound a young boy, on account of which my clan should be destroyed” (4.23, Clem translation).Thus, Babylonian Jewish translation (and interpretation) relays that Lemek was claiming his innocence, instead of boasting about his violent actions. 4.24
