והאדם ידע את חוה אשתו, “and man had been intimate with his wife Chavah, etc.” After Adam had realized that he had been expelled from Gan Eden, that death had been decreed for him, and that he would not live indefinitely, it became necessary for him to have sexual relations with his wife in order to assure himself of children for posterity. You should remember that the Torah usually calls the act of marital union ידיעה, “(carnal) knowledge.” The reason for this is that the seminal fluid of man originates in the brain, the seat of his wisdom and knowledge. In addition to this, the desire to engage in sexual intercourse was the result of man having eaten from the tree of “knowledge.” Hence the use of the word ידיעה, “knowledge,” to describe such relations is most appropriate.

וקין היה “and Kayin had become, etc.” We would really have expected the Torah to write ויהי קין עובד אדמה, similar to the Torah’s describing Hevel’s vocation as ויהי הבל רעה צאן, “Hevel became a shepherd of sheep.” The reason the Torah changed its style in describing the respective vocations of the two brothers was that there was a cardinal difference between the vocation of the one and the vocation of the other. Hevel was a righteous person whereas his brother Kayin was a wicked person. The whole episode teaches that good and evil have the same root. The root by itself is totally good; after all when Adam was created he was totally good. Nonetheless we observe that from such a good “root,” two sons with totally different personalities emerged. Seeing that both wicked people and good people developed out of the same root is proof that there was only One Creator, that evil and good are not separate domains, that there are no two competing deities in this world, one promoting the source of all that is good and promoting it, and one which is the root of all that is bad and promoting same. In fact, if you look at Isaiah 45,7 עושה שלום ובורא רע, אני ה' עושה כל אלה, “Maker of peace, Creator of evil, I the Lord am doing all this,” G’d realised that unless He, personally, took responsibility for being the originator of anything good and evil, people would believe that there must be two totally separate domains, two totally diverse prime causes. An additional reason why the Torah had to write וקין היה עבד אדמה is because the potential of a personality such as Kayin had preceded his birth; he had not invented it. [Rabbi Chavell quotes an interesting numerical value of the combined words עבד היה is the same (96) as that of the planet מאדים, Mars, which stands for bloodshed, for war. This would be an additional reason for the Torah having written קין היה, instead of ויהי קין וגו'..]

מפרי האדמה, “from the fruit of the earth.” He should have brought of the first ripe fruit of the trees (of one or all of the seven species for which the land of Israel is famous instead of fruit grown in the earth). The Torah reveals Kayin’s avarice, his stinginess. This is why the Torah refrains from mentioning that the fruit he brought were from the first ripe fruit of the earth. The manner in which the Torah describes his offering is meant to convey that he selected the poorest type of produce, flax, rather than the best. Our sages in Tanchuma claim that he brought flax-seed. They derive this from the text seeing that the Torah mentions Kayin’s offering only briefly while devoting more space to describing the offering of Hevel. The Torah also stresses that Hevel brought from the firstlings of his sheep and their most perfect ones. Hevel brought firstlings from a category of product which was fit to serve as an offering for G-d. Kayin, on the other hand, offered produce which is not even fit to serve as an offering. Moreover, even the fruit which he did bring were the poorest quality of that category he could find. Bereshit Rabbah 22,8 compares Kayin to a bad land tenant who consumes the best produce of the owner’s land himself, giving the owner only the inferior part.

מנחה לה'., “as a gift for G-d.” This offering was presented on the fiftieth day after the world had been created. Both Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabbi Eliezer who had disagreed as to the date on which the world was created, agree on this. They agree that Hevel lived for no more than fifty days.

Seeing these two scholars agree on the number fifty on which the first “gift-offering” was presented to G-d, we can understand why the Torah legislated that the Jewish people offer a similar public gift offering on the fiftieth day after the Passover and why it is called מנחה חדשה “a new gift-offering.” We are to commemorate the date on which Kayin and Hevel offered a gift to G-d. This offering which we offer on Shavuot is like an acknowledgment of the truth of the Torah’s report of what happened to early man. G-d’s prediction and promise to Kayin that he (or any human being) could regain good standing in the eyes of G-d if they complied with G-d’s rules for proper conduct was borne out by the history of the Jewish people.

The entire episode teaches that G-d directs and supervises the world and that there is a system of reward and punishment. The Jewish people received the Torah on the fiftieth day after the Exodus at which time they became G-d’s most favoured nation. Kayin, who murdered on the fiftieth day was cursed whereas Hevel received his reward for good conduct in that his soul was reincarnated in Moses’ body and he was even instrumental in bringing the Torah to the Jewish people. In due course, the power of the evil urge will be broken on the fiftieth day (in terms of G-d’s calendar, after 7 times 7.000 years in terms of our years.) [The author elaborates on this in his commentary on Parshat Behaalotcha and in his commentary on Parshat Behar.] Everything G-d does is based on the principle of מדה כנגד מדה, that “the punishment (or the reward) is appropriate to the nature of the sin.” Everything G-d does is based on justice as we also know from Proverbs 16,11 פלס ומאזני משפט לה', “Honest scales and weights are the Lord’s.” This is also the reason that the Torah prohibits the presence of leavened dough as part of the gift-offering as leavening is an allusion to the evil urge. Leviticus 6,10 states specifically that gift-offerings must not be baked in such a manner that their dough has time to rise. The only time the Torah specifically commands such a gift-offering to consist of dough which has been leavened, has been allowed to rise is in Leviticus 23,17 where this offering of the שני הלחם “the two breads” of the Shavuot festival is legislated. The reason is that this offering looks forward to the יובל הגדול, “the great Jubilee year,” when the evil urge will no longer be part of this universe.

וישע ה', “G-d turned, etc.” He turned His personal attention to Hevel and his sacrifice with the result that heavenly fire descended and consumed it. This reminds us of Psalms 20, 4 יזכור ה' כל מנחותיך ועולתך ידשנה סלה, “May the Lord receive the tokens of all your meal-offerings, and approve of your burnt-offerings, Selah.” He did no such thing for Kayin’s offering.

ויחר לקין מאד ויפלו פניו, “This annoyed Kayin very much and his face fell.” Kayin and Hevel were both familiar with the mysticism underlying the ritual of offerings to G’d. They both offered their respective sacrifices in honour of the Lord G’d and Him only. Up until this point in the Book of Genesis we have only encountered two names for G’d; either He was called אלוקים, or ה' אלוקים. Now, in connection with the offering, we encounter the Ineffable four-lettered Name by itself for the first time. The Torah refers to the destination of the offering as מנחה לה'. When each the brothers had offered his respective sacrifice, it turned out that Hevel’s offering had been accepted by G’d whereas Kayin’s offering had not. At that point, Kayin began to develop doubts about the whole system of reward and punishment. This is why G’d saw fit to explain the system to him, i.e. that the entire universe is run and judged by this system of reward and punishment. This is why G’d saw fit to explain the system to Kayin by addressing him personally as we see in the next verse.

.הלא אם תיטיב (מעשיך) שאת, “surely if you improve (your deeds) you will be forgiven.” The word שאת is similar in meaning to Numbers 6,26 ישא ה' פניך, “may the Lord lift His countenance toward you.” G’d chose this expression as it is the reverse of ויפלו פניו, “his face fell.”

ואם לא תיטיב, “but if you fail to improve (your deeds) you will find the sin at the very entrance of your grave.” G’d told Kayin that though in this life punishment may not be immediate, as you as you die you will be punished for the sins you committed and have not been punished for while on earth. This punishment will take place in the world of the souls. An alternative meaning of the words לפתח חטאת רובץ, may be that it is an allusion to the physical pain inflicted upon sinners even while they are in their grave. The words ואליך תשוקתו mean that you will have a natural disposition for listening to the evil urge; however, ואתה תמשל בו, “you are able to rule over it, control it.” If you want to listen to the voice of the יצר הטוב, “the urge to be good and to do good,” G’d promises that you will be able to counter the influence of the evil urge. This is what Solomon said in Kohelet 9,15: ומלט הוא את העיר בחכמתו, “and he saved the city through his wisdom.” He also said two verses previously that עיר קטנה ואנשים בה מעט ובא אליה מלך גדול וסבב אותה ובנה עליה מצודים גדולים ומצא בה איש מסכן חכם ומלט את העיר בחכמתו. “There was a small town with only a few inhabitants, and a mighty king came and surrounded it, and built great fortifications against it. Within that town there was a poor wise man who by his wisdom saved the town.” Solomon describes man‘s body as “a small town,” seeing man is perceived as a microcosm. The “few inhabitants” are a metaphor for the various cravings of man, both of his body and his animalistic life-force, נפש. The reason Solomon refers to these cravings as מעט,” is because though man has many cravings only a few of them will be satisfied. The “mighty king” is a reference to the evil urge who has at his command many assistants, i.e. the many and variegated cravings of man. These cravings are for the evil urge what an army with many troops is for a king. The words: “he surrounded it,” are a metaphor describing how the evil urge surrounds the entire body invading even our thought processes. The great fortifications are the wicked deeds already performed by man. The “poor wise man” is a simile for the יצר הטוב, the urge to be good, the שכל, intelligence; seeing that this urge has relatively few “assistants.” he is described as מסכן. He is generally very unpopular as we know from Proverbs 19,7 כל אחי רש שנאהו, “all the brothers of a poor man hate him.” This is why Solomon continues in Kohelet 9,16 ואדם לא זכר את האיש המסכן ההוא; “and no one remembers that poor man.” Solomon is also on record as saying there וחכמת המסכן בזויה ודבריו אינם נשמעים, ”the wisdom of the poor man is despised and no one listens to what he has to say.” When Solomon said that nonetheless this poor man saved the town by means of his wisdom, this is because a little truth sometimes goes a long way and is able to outweigh the efforts of the many wicked all of whose efforts are devoted to perverting the truth and to make the lies appear as if they were the truth. The matter is similar to a little light driving out darkness from a vast area which had previously been totally dark.

I believe that Kayin’s sin was threefold. 1) He did not believe G’d when He told him in a prophetic vision that the system of reward and punishment was indeed applied truthfully throughout the universe. This is why the Torah continues —

ויאמר קין אל הבל אחיו, "Kayin said to Hevel his brother" The Torah did not spell out what Kayin told his brother. According to the Targum Yerushalmi on this verse he told him that he did not believe in the system of reward and punishment and that there was no judgment in the hereafter. The second sin Kayin committed was that he slew his brother as reported in the Torah ויקם קין אל הבל אחיו ויהרגהו, “Kayin arose against his brother Hevel and killed him (4,8)”. Kayin’s third sin was when he responded to G-d’s question —

— אי הבל אחיך “where is your brother Hevel?” by saying: “I do not know; am I my brother’s keeper?” He spoke as if it were possible to fool G-d. Because of these three sins Kayin was cursed with three curses.

קול דמי אחיך, “the sound of your brother’s blood, etc.” Our sages (Sanhedrin 37) understand the reason the word דמי, “blood of” is in the plural as reminding us that not only Hevel’s blood was spilled when he was murdered but also that of the offspring which he never had on account of being murdered so early in his life. This Midrash is actually to be viewed as an allusion to the time of the resurrection. After all, seeing that his offspring at the time of his death had only been something potential, how could the Torah speak of actual blood of his unborn children and grandchildren? The answer therefore must be that it refers to human beings that should have been brought back to life at the time of resurrection. Kabbalists, on the other hand, see in the plural of the word דמי here an allusion to the reincarnation of souls in other bodies. In the case of Hevel, he was “reborn” in the body of Sheth as the Torah adds the words תחת הבל “in place of Hevel,” when Sheth’s birth is reported for the first time in 4,25. Kayin’s punishment was another example of מדה כנגד מדה, the punishment fitting the crime, as all his descendants perished at the time of the deluge. He who had tried to deny his brother Hevel a place on earth forfeited his own place on earth. [according to the view that Naamah the wife of Noach was descended from Kayin, this latter statement is hard to reconcile with that view. Ed.]

ארור אתה אשר פצתה את פיה, ”you are cursed more than the ground which opened its mouth, etc.” The meaning may be “you are cursed (separated) from the ground (which was your source of sustenance) which has opened its mouth, etc. From now on the earth would not yield its produce to you voluntarily. The second curse was that even if Kayin would labour mightily to make the earth yield its produce the way it had done previously. This is why the Torah said in verse 12 —

— 'כי תעבד את האדמה וגו “when you will work the ground it shall no longer yield its strength to you.” The third curse was נע ונד תהיה בארץ, “you shall become a vagrant and a wanderer on earth.” He would suffer exile, be banished from place to place. His punishment was not dissimilar to that of a murderer who had not even killed intentionally but has to move to a city of refuge until the death of the High Priest.

Looking at our verses from a rational-investigative point of view, we note that even in the names of קין והבל we already find allusions to the subject of existence and destruction (loss), respectively. They were brothers, closely related. The name קין hints at worldly possessions, whereas the name הבל suggests somebody who is extremely humble, almost despising worldly goods. This may have been why he offered sheep, the most humble and undemanding of animals, something that reflected his own philosophy. This is also why G’d took a liking to him. The Torah expresses this with the words וישע ה' אל הבל ואל מנחתו, ”G’d turned to Hevel and to his gift-offering.” The gift-offering of קין on the other hand was מפרי האדמה, “from the fruit (products) of the earth.” This reflected his own preferences, i.e. earthly possessions. He was totally absorbed in working with his body, concentrating on matters of only transient value, matters destined to disintegrate. He was addicted to earthly pleasures and this is the reason G’d did not turn to his offering. The Torah expresses this by writing ואל קין ואל מנחתו לא שעה, “and to Kayin and to his gift-offering He did not turn.” The self-effacing Hevel was murdered because he did not concern himself worldly concerns, not considering life on this earth as a supreme value. The one who loved worldly possessions wound up being cursed when G’d said to him: “be a vagrant and a wanderer on earth.” He was told not to consider worldly possessions as something permanent. Kayin was to learn this lesson by his not being at home anywhere on earth. His lifestyle reflected what we read in Kohelet 5,9 אהב כסף לא ישבע כסף, “the one who loves silver will never feel satisfied even when he possesses it.” Solomon already alluded to this syndrome of the wanderer in Kohelet 2,23 where he wrote (concerning man’s role on earth) כי כל ימיו מכאובים, “for all his days are painful.” There are numerous other references in Kohelet to this unsatisfactory state of affairs for people who consider the be-all of their existence as being merely תחת השמש, in the regions under control by the sun. All of such statements [which I did not choose to quote in detail. Ed.] are addressed to people of the mentality of Kayin. Every time Solomon speaks about vanities and return to dust, this is the type of human being he has in mind. In Kohelet 2,11 Solomon spells out in detail how futile all the energy he spent on the acquisition of worldly goods had proven to be. Finally, when he concludes his preaching he teaches us that the only true values to be acquired in this life is reverence for G’d and His Torah. It was only Adam’s third son שת who represented what the Torah considers a balanced view of life on earth. This is why basically speaking, the species of mankind was really carried on by that son. It is worthwhile noting that only when Sheth was born does the Torah describe him as reflecting his parents in that he was conceived and born בדמותו וצלמו, “in his likeness and his image (Adam’s). It was quite appropriate that these philosophical considerations should have been alluded to already in the respective names of Kayin and Hevel.

[The following comment refers to v.10] קול דמי אחיך, “the sound of your brother’s blood, etc.” Our sages (Sanhedrin 37) understand the reason the word דמי, “blood of” is in the plural as reminding us that not only Hevel’s blood was spilled when he was murdered but also that of the offspring which he never had on account of being murdered so early in his life. This Midrash is actually to be viewed as an allusion to the time of the resurrection. After all, seeing that his offspring at the time of his death had only been something potential, how could the Torah speak of actual blood of his unborn children and grandchildren? The answer therefore must be that it refers to human beings that should have been brought back to life at the time of resurrection. Kabbalists, on the other hand, see in the plural of the word דמי here an allusion to the reincarnation of souls in other bodies. In the case of Hevel, he was “reborn” in the body of Sheth as the Torah adds the words תחת הבל “in place of Hevel,” when Sheth’s birth is reported for the first time in 4,25. Kayin’s punishment was another example of מדה כנגד מדה, the punishment fitting the crime, as all his descendants perished at the time of the deluge. He who had tried to deny his brother Hevel a place on earth forfeited his own place on earth.

ומפניך אסתר, “and I have to hide from Your countenance.” It is possible to understand the meaning of the word ומפניך, as “from Your presence” i.e. from the place where Your presence is manifest, from Mount Moriah This would prove that Adam lived near Mount Moriah and that his children lived there also. In that event, we would have to understand the words of our verse as follows: הן גרשת אותי היום מעל פני האדמה הקדושה כדי שאסתר מפני“ here You have expelled me this day from the holy site on earth in order that I have to hide from Your presence.” Anyone who has been expelled from the presence of G’d is considered as נסתר, “in hiding,” as he is under the domain of other forces (horoscopes, etc.). David mentioned this in Samuel 26,19 כי גרשוני היום מהסתפח בנחלת ה' לאמר לך עבוד אלוהים אחרים, “for they have driven me out today, so that I cannot have a share in the Lord’s possession but am told: ‘go and worship other gods.’”

Another way of explaining the above words by Kayin is this: “seeing You have decreed upon me that You hide Your face from me when You told me “be a vagrant and a wanderer on earth,” this mean that exile of either an individual or a nation is an indication that G‘d has turned His countenance away from such an individual or such a nation. It means that such an individual or nation is no longer under the supervision of the Creator. Kayin’s anguished outcry was: “if this is so, what hope is there left for me? I am now at the mercy of every single creature!”

והיה כל מוצאי יהרגני, “and anyone who will find me will feel free to kill me.” Kayin was terrified of G’d’s curse and he was aware that those who praise the Lord would inherit the earth whereas those that curse Him would be cut off. This is why he was afraid for his own life both regarding any obstacles that he might encounter or regarding a plague that might strike him. He was also afraid that even animals would kill him.

ויהי בונה עיר, “he became a city-builder.” He did not build the city for himself but for his son, seeing that he himself did not have a fixed abode on earth. Seeing that he was cursed and whatever he undertook did not succeed, the Torah uses the expression ויהי בונה עיר in the present tense instead of saying “he built a city,” to show that he kept on building the same city, never completing it successfully. Kayin’s descendants and their occupations are recorded to show that G’d is very patient and allowed Kayin to live a long time during which he became a father, a grandfather and a great-grandfather many times over. This is Nachmanides’ view of this paragraph

וצלה גם היא ילדה, “and even Tzilah too gave birth.” The strange formula about Tzilah giving birth is to indicate that she was actually not meant to bear children as her husband preferred to bask in her “shadow” (as her name indicates) all the time. Nonetheless she contrived to bear a child against her husband’s wishes. This was because G’d wanted her to have offspring and that is why Lemech did not have success with the contraceptive devices he employed. Tzilah became the mother of Tubal Kayin, the first human being who knew how to sharpen metal instruments made of copper or iron.

לוטש כל חורש נחשת וברזל "who knew how to sharpen metal instruments made of copper or iron." He was a true craftsman. At this point in time the word נחושת means steel (acero in Spanish) which combines very well with iron. Proper copper is called alambre in Spanish and does not make a good alloy when combined with iron. In Jeremiah 6,28 the prophet speaks about the incompatibility of iron and copper when he writes כלם סרי סוררים הולכי רכיל נחשת וברזל כלם משחיתים המה “They are copper and iron; they are all stubbornly defiant, they deal basely all of them act corruptly.” The prophet was chastising the people for committing slander and character-assassination. He compared their conduct to the relationship of copper to iron. Even when you combine them such a combination will not stand the test of time. The end of the verse in Jeremiah emphasizes that true cooperation between people who practice slander is no more possible than alloying copper and iron. In the end, both metals will become useless. Another anomaly that you will find after you have combined iron and copper is that you can never separate these two metals again. This is the reverse of what we find with alloys containing silver and gold, for instance. The verse in Jeremiah therefore uses the example of these two metals to demonstrate the totally negative fallout of anything involving slanderous statements. The very name of the word נחשת which is derived from נחש, a word suggesting experimentation, putting something to a test, is already an allusion to its meaning. Lavan told Yaakov in Genesis 30,27 נחשתי ויברכני ה' בגללך, “I have learned by means of experimentation [in an idolatrous fashion. Ed.] that G’d has blessed me on your account.” No craftsman in the world can tell if a certain alloy contains steel or iron unless he has made an attempt to separate the component parts of the alloy. If the metal breaks, he knows it must contain steel. If it hardens and does not break this is proof that it is iron. [I have translated the text using a Spanish dictionary to describe the word אציי'ר found in the text, though it seems obvious to me that the “steel” the author speaks of is not the steel we know today. Ed.]

ואחות תובל קין נעמה, “and the sister of Tubal-Kayin was Naamah.” Bereshit Rabbah 23,4 claims that Naamah became the wife of Noach. It is claimed that the Torah calls her Naamah to reflect her lovely disposition, her good deeds. There is a different tradition (compare Zohar Chadash Midrash Ha-neelam 19,2) which claims that Naamah was the wife of the demon Ashmadon if the demons Ashmadai and others were born by her. We have a tradition that four women (compare Nachmanides) became the mothers of demons. They were Lilith, Naamah, Igrat, and Machalat. Each one of them disposes of whole camps of followers and a spiritually negative aura emanates from them all. It is said that each one of these is dominant during one of the four seasons of the year and that they gather at the mountain Nishpeh (a simile for a high mountain mentioned in Isaiah 13,2.) This mountain is located near mountains called חשך, and each one holds sway during one of the four seasons of the year from sundown until midnight, they and all the members of their respective camps (entourage). Solomon alluded to all these עבדים ושפחות servants and servant maids. What he referred to was that he had made these demons subservient to him. The four women we enumerated were the four wives of the שרו של עשו the spiritual counterpart of Esau in the celestial regions. Esau on earth also married four wives corresponding to the number of wives of his celestial counterpart. These four wives are mentioned in Genesis 26,34 and 36,2 respectively; their names are יהודית, בשמת, עדה, אהליבמה Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 24,6 elaborated on the subject when they said that during the 130 years after the death of Hevel when Adam did not cohabit with his wife he produced all kinds of demons and destructive agents as a result of seminal emissions. It is one of the “advantages” of the superior being called man that he could “beget” intangible offspring, forces which inhabit the atmosphere. He also produced abstract intellectual beings which inhabit the celestial spheres. [The author refers to the “angels” created by good deeds performed by man which have been mentioned repeatedly. Ed]

כי איש הרגתי לפצעי, “for I have slain by my wound, etc.” Lemech introduced the sword and murder into the world. It is a case of the deeds of the fathers being re-enacted by the children After all, Lemech was the son (descendant) of the first murderer, Kayin. Lemech sired three sons. His oldest son taught him the art of grazing, i.e. to understand the nature and needs of the animals. His second son taught him all about music and musical instruments. His third son taught him how to use metal implements to make war both aggressively, i.e. by the sword and defensively by means of the shield. His wives were afraid that he should not die as a penalty for having brought instruments of murder and killing into the world. This is why he said to them: ”for have I killed a man by inflicting many wounds upon him (as Kayin did to Hevel) or a child (Hevel had only been 50 days old) and nonetheless G’d did not kill Kayin?” He meant to say that the sword is not what murders. Murder is the result of other considerations. The fact that I have perfected the art of war by making swords is not by itself punishable. [It is the use to which people put such instruments that may or may not be punishable. Ed.]

כי שת לי אלוקים זרע אחר תחת הבל, “for G’d has provided me with another seed to take the place of Hevel.” She said to Adam: “Look! Another seed in replacement of Hevel.” Chavah meant that if Hevel had not been slain, Sheth would not now have been born. This is the true meaning of the words תחת הבל, “a substitute for Hevel.” The Torah was careful not to say נפש תחת נפש, i.e. “another soul in replacement of the soul of Hevel.” Had the Torah written words to that effect, Sheth would not have been a true replacement of Hevel. You are aware already that all matters connected with the מעשה בראשית, the report of the creation, are in the realm of special “wisdoms.” This is why the Kabbalists saw themselves forced to look for all these allusions that we have mentioned thus far. Especially did they see allusions concerning משה רבנו, our great leader Moses, when they interpreted the word בשגם as a reference to Moses seeing that the numerical value of the letters in that word (345) is equal to the numerical value of the letters in the name משה. Moreover, the life span of 120 years accorded to man prior to the deluge which was introduced by the word בשגם (Genesis 6,3) is viewed as a reference to the life span of Moses. The word משה itself comprises all three, i.e. שת, הבל, משה (by re-arranging the letters) The fact that this “seed” is attributed by Chavah to G’d (instead of to Adam), was due to the fact that Sheth resembled Hevel extraordinarily. In fact the whole description of his birth indicates that he did not only appear to be a duplicate of Hevel but a duplicate of Adam himself who had been created in the image of G’d. For all these reasons Chavah credited G’d directly with giving her this third son. When she said: “whom Kayin had slain,” she meant that but for this murder she would not have merited to bear Sheth.