והאדם ידע את אשתו, seeing that their libido had developed, they engaged in marital relations, Chavah became pregnant and gave birth after 7 or 9 months. The formulation of the words here does not prove that Chavah gave birth immediately after becoming pregnant, as stated by the Midrash (Sanhedrin 38, and Bereshit Rabbah 22,2) The words used here are the same as when Sarah’s pregnancy is reported (Genesis 21,2) and no claim has been made that Sarah’s pregnancy was so short-lived.

ותלד את קין, she bore a son whom she called Kayin, to symbolise what she meant when she said קניתי איש את ה'. Even though the word קין is a composite of 2 different roots, such a construction is quite common. 'קניתי איש את ה, the meaning of these words is: “I have now produced a human being in this world who was not the result of a direct activity by His Creator, which makes me a partner to G’d the Creator.” G’d has given this human being His divine soul also, just as He had given it to the creation of His own, Adam, into whom He Himself literally blew this soul. The rest of this human being grew and developed within my body. The word קניתי as used by Chavah here is similar to G’d being described asקונה שמים וארץ by Avraham in Genesis 14,22 where it meant that G’d owns heaven and earth because He made it, produced it. The reason why Chavah attributed production of the child to herself was that she, rather than her husband, provided the home for the fetus during the whole period of its development. She credited the attribute of Hashem without mentioning the attribute elohim of G’d, seeing that she considered that with the birth of Kayin the universe had become complete, human offspring having been missing up until now. This was the last time, in the normal cause of events, that G’d’s creative talent elohim would need to be called for, as from now on all the pieces were in place for the earth to function on the basis of natural law. This was already intimated at the conclusion of the sixth day (2,3) when the Torah wrote אשר ברא אלוקים לעשות, “which G’d had inititated, now to continue to function normally.” We already explained this attribute in connection with the construction of the world; G’d’s attribute אלוקים refers to טבע, natural laws, as we explained on 2,4. From hereon the holy name of G’d appears sometimes as His attribute אלוקים, and sometimes as His attribute י-הוה, and only very rarely do we find a combination of both attributes. Every time such a variation occurs there is a good reason for it. The scholar Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra wrote in this vein in his commentary on our verse here, pointing out that Chavah reminded us that the attribute elohim is constantly present among the human species on earth, no less so than it is in the celestial regions. His words are well worth remembering.

ותוסף ללדת את אחיו את הבל, the construction of ותוסף ללדת instead of ותהר עוד ותלד, “she again became pregnant and gave birth,” supports the words of our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 22,2 that the two brothers Kayin and Hevel were born as twins. The birth was additional, not the pregnancy. Our sages added further that not only were these two brothers born as twins, but that a twin sister was born at the same time to each of them. This also is in line with a statement by Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah in the same Midrash that on that day three miracles occurred. 1) Adam and Chavah had been created on that day. 2) They had engaged in marital intercourse on that same day. 3) They produced twin children on that same day. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchoh phrased it as follows: “2 human beings united on the bed and eight descended from the bed.” He referred to Kayin and his twin sister and Hevel with two twin sisters. [in my count this makes only 7. Actually, in my version of Bereshit Rabbah, it says that “seven” descended from that bed. Ed.] The Torah fails to mention why Chavah called her second son Hevel. [In fact, the Torah does not say that it was Chavah who named Hevel. Ed.] There is nothing unusual in the Torah not providing the reason for the name Hevel, as there are hundreds of names which have not been explained in the Torah. None of the names of the people in the generations between Sheth and Noach have been explained. Perhaps, the reason why Chavah called the second son Hevel is an allusion to Psalms 62,10 כי הבל בני אדם כזב בני איש, “men are mere breath; mortals illusion.” Perhaps Chavah expressed her realisation that even the good found in this material world may prove short-lived, illusory, as her brief sojourn in Gan Eden had taught her. Seeing that both her husband’s and her own life had become very difficult compared to what it had been like, she showed that she had assimilated this truth as being something she had to bequeath to her offspring now that she had children. It is immaterial in this connection if Hevel was named by her or by her husband.

ויהי הבל רועה צאן, as the brothers grew up, they divided their occupation in accordance with their respective needs. The one who became the shepherd was interested in eating the dairy products obtainable from the sheep and goats. He was also in need of the wool of the sheep to make clothing. They restricted themselves to these vocations, seeing that G’d had not permitted the eating of meat but only grass, fruit of the trees, and bread after backbreaking labour, as we have explained. The generations until the deluge adapted themselves to this lifestyle. It was only in Genesis 9,3 that G’d permitted killing animals for the purpose of eating their meat.

ויהי מקץ ימים, it was some time after Kayin had become a farmer tilling the soil, that he offered a gift to G’d. The Torah is deliberately vague about how much time had elapsed, writing only מקץ ימים, at the end of a number of years. It is reasonable to assume that the word ימים refers to years rather than days, as it is clear from Leviticus 25,29 that in that verse the word ימים represents the number of days that make up a year. It would seem therefore, that after having worked the soil for a full year Kayin offered a gift to G’d, part of what he had harvested. He did this in the spot in which his father Adam had offered prayer and had offered a sacrifice of his own as an acknowledgement of his gratitude, his sons presumably having been in attendance. Although the Torah does not spell out the composition of Adam’s sacrifice, the Talmud in Shabbat 28 suggests that it included a one-horned ox, basing itself on Psalms 69,32 משור פר מקרן מפריס, “ox with horn and hooves,” His sons imitated him, each one bringing a gift from what his labour had produced. The offering was meant to be an expression of man’s gratitude to G’d for the success of his endeavours. מפרי, the Torah is vague about precisely what the offering consisted of, other than saying that it was part of the fruit produced by the earth. We know nothing about the quality or quantity of this offering. Seeing that when describing Hevel’s offering the Torah adds the words: “from the firstborn of his sheep and from their best ones,” it is reasonable to assume that Kayin’s gift, by comparison, was stingy, in fact represented an insult to G’d rather than a grateful acknowledgment of G’d’s part in making the earth produce a crop for him. This is why his offering was not welcome, was rejected. Had Kayin at least brought of the best quality of the produce he had grown, the Torah would have mentioned this to his credit, just as it had done in the case of Hevel’s offering. As a result of the philosophical contrast expressed by these two offerings, i.e. Kayin’s flax and Hevel’s wool, mixing these two fibres in one garment has been outlawed by the Torah for the Jewish people. The lesson for us is that the gifts proffered by a Kayin and the gifts proffered by a Torah-observant Jew are not compatible with one another.

והבל הביא גם הוא, this could have been before Kayin brought his offering, or it could have been after Kayin had brought his offering. In the event that Hevel had brought his offering first, we must understand the words גם הוא, “also he,” as referring to the story as such, not to the specific incident.

מבכרות צאנו ומחלביהם, this brother brought a gift which was honourable, generous. Mention of the word מבכורות emphasises that the reason he brought from the “first,” is that before enjoying the fruits of his labour himself, he wished to express his gratitude to G’d. Only after that would he use the milk and the wool for his personal consumption. He also included in the gift the best quality, seeing that not all were of the same uniform quality. The word חלב is used in that sense on the author’s book ספר השרשים. ומחלבהן, there is a letter י missing before the letter ה as would be customary in a plural mode. The Torah did not mention that Hevel built an altar on which he presented his gift, as it did when describing Noach offering animal sacrifices in Genesis 8,20. It seems to me that Hevel did not slaughter the sacrifice (sheep) but left it bound but alive, expecting heavenly fire to descend on it and to consume it. The same had happened when his father had presented the ox which we described earlier as Adam’s offering. There was no point in slaughtering these animals since there was no one who was allowed to eat the meat thereof. In Bereshit Rabbah 22,5 there is an opinion that Hevel offered the animal without stripping it of its skin, and without cutting it up into pieces, whereas in the future all animal sacrifices would have their skin stripped and their bodies cut up into pieces. There are still more differences of opinion concerning the nature of these offerings, some scholars saying even that they were meat-offerings, i.e. that the owners consumed some if not most of the sacrificial meat. According to the view of the scholars who hold that Hevel brought a meat-offering, the word מחלבהן would describe the fat parts burned up on the altar, similar to the fat pars burned up on the altar in any other meat-offering the Israelites would offer in the future. The text permits us to draw conclusions in both directions, seeing it appears to be deliberately inconclusive. It is possible that the words היא העולה, best translated as “this is the type of burnt-offering” in Leviticus 6,2 tips the scale in favour of those who believe that it must have been a burnt-offering, also considering the fact that we have no record that they were allowed meat when the part of a sacrificial offering.

וישע ה' אל הבל ואל מנחתו, the reason why G’d turned with goodwill towards Hevel’s offering was that He observed that Hevel’s attitude throughout had been honourable, pure, not make believe, as if he only did what he perceived to be his duty. The nature of his offering testified to his good intentions.

ואל קין ואל מנחתו לא שעה, but to Kayin and to his offering G’d did not turn benevolently. His intention had not been good and pure; G’d does not need to accept gifts proffered reluctantly, as He is not in need of them. How did Kayin find out that G’d had not looked with favour on his offering? He found out that Hevel’s offering had been accepted, fire descending on it from heaven and consuming it. Nothing of that kind happened to Kayin’s offering. This caused Kayin dismay and anger and his face became downcast. The expression נפלו פניו, describes that someone feels insulted, depressed..

'ויאמר ה, the reason that G’d addressed him was in order to discipline him and to bring him back to a lifestyle that would endear him to G’d. He wanted to teach him how to repent, something of the utmost importance for subsequent generations. He taught him that there is atonement for sinners if their repentance is 100% sincere.

הלא אם תיטיב שאת, when your heart will be good and your deeds will be of benefit for you. The meaning of such terms as כפרה, סליחה, is like נושא עון in Exodus 34,7. The scholar Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra explains the concept שאת mentioned in our verse as derived from נשיאה the lifting of something, the opposite of ויפלו פניו, Kayin’s face having “fallen.” G’d told Kayin that if he were to become good, mend his ways, then his face would be “lifted,” he could hold his head high. G’d Himself would raise his face for him. In Bereshit Rabbah 22,6 the words אם תיטיב שאת are understood as a blessing, whereas the words ואם לא תיטיב are understood as a curse, quoting Leviticus 20,19את עונם ישאו. Another approach, also taken from the Midrash: “if you will improve your ways I will forgive all your previous sins, if not the very sin you were guilty of will weigh even more heavily in the scale.” (seeing you have spurned My offer of forgiveness). Rabbi Berechyah, quoting Rabbi Shimon bar Ami, explained Psalms 32,1 אשרי נשוי פשע כסוי חטאה to mean: “hail the man who towers above (is higher than) sin,” as opposed to the sin which towers above man.”

ואם לא תיטיב לפתח חטאת רובץ, as if the Torah had written not in general terms לפתח, “at the entrance,” but לפתחך, “at your entrance.” The word רובץ, crouches, lies in wait, is in the infinitive to underline that the temptation to commit a sin is ever present for such people. Sin is a constant peril, an obstacle waiting to trip you up. It awaits you both coming and going. The apparent contradiction between the masculine mode רובץ, and the feminine mode for sin, חטאת instead of חטא, is a reminder of the evil urge, the נחש, the serpent, masculine, the force causing sin, being very powerful.

ואליך תשוקתו, its desire is centered on you; it is constantly engaged in trying to seduce you by making you stumble.

תשוקתו, a word meaning desire, greed, lust. The word also occurs in this context (more or less) in Song of Songs 7,11 ועלי תשוקתו, “His longing is for me.”

ואתה תמשול בו, he will have control over you only if you do not actively remove him (it) from your presence. If you want to, you can control it, govern it, resulting in your humbling it before you. By saying these words G’d demonstrated to Kayin the immense power inherent in his possessing free choice. Moses repeated this thought at the end of his life when in his parting speech he said to the Jewish people (Deut. 30,15) ראה נתתי לפניך היום את החיים ואת הטוב ואת המות ואת הרע. “See here, I have placed before you this day life, and the good, or death and the evil.” Moses added the admonition: ”choose the life!”

ויאמר קין אל הבל אחיו, apparently, Kayin had no remorse, did not try to respond to G’d’s promise and warning. Proof is that he proceeded to do something far worse than what he had been guilty of thus far, by killing his brother.

ויאמר קין, Kayin accused his brother of being the cause that G’d had rebuked him. As a result his anger had intensified. He did not attack Hevel physically at that time as he was afraid of the reaction of his father. He kept his fury under control until the two of them were alone together in the field. This is when he killed him out of jealousy.

The word אל in our verse is to be understood as equivalent to על, upon. We have a similar use of the word אל in Ezekiel 18,6 אל ההרים לא אכל, “he did not eat upon the mountains.” There are numerous examples in Scriptures of such a use of the word אל. In Bereshit Rabbah 22,7 the subject of the conversation between the two brothers is described as follows: They were discussing how to carve up the earth between them. They agreed that one of them would lay claim to the real estate, whereas the other would own all the movable objects on earth. Thereupon one of them claimed that the ground the other stood on belonged to him, whereas the second one claimed that the clothing his brother wore actually belonged to him. Kayin, who had laid claim to the earth, told Hevel to fly off as he did not want him to set foot on his earth. Hevel countered by telling Kayin to strip off his clothing. The resulting feud led to Kayin killing Hevel. Rabbi Yehudah bar Ami said that they quarreled about whether the original woman had died immediately after having eaten from the tree of knowledge, and that G’d had given Adam a substitute for her, [so that they had both not been the children of a sinful mother and therefore not inherited a tendency to sin, Ed.] or if they had been born of Chavah, Adam’s original wife. Yet another opinion (Rav Hunna) quoted in the Midrash describes the subject of their quarrel as being the extra twin sister born with Hevel. Hevel claimed her as his wife, seeing she had been born with him, whereas Kayin claimed her as his wife, seeing he was the eldest. We need to understand why these scholars in the Midrash offer so many divergent views as to what Kayin and Hevel quarreled about. Not only this, but in the commentaries dealing with the mystical dimension of the Torah, the kabbalah, we find yet more opinions on this subject. Moreover, in the Jerusalem Targum the version of our verse is equivalent to: ”Kayin said to his brother: ‘lets go outside and have a talk.” When they had gone outside, Kayin said to his brother that there is no justice and no judge in the universe, that there is no afterlife, neither is there a reward or punishment. If there were, why would G’d have rejected his offering and accepted that of Hevel? Hevel disagreed, saying that there was a judge (G’d) that there was justice, and that there was a judge, There was reward and punishment and there was an afterlife beyond the material physical world they lived in. The world had been created as an act of love, not as Kayin had said that there was no love. Proof was the very fact that his offering had been accepted, seeing that he had served his Creator faithfully. Seeing that their argument had become not merely philosophical but personal, Kayin attacked his brother Hevel and killed him.

'ויאמר ה, the reason G’d spoke to him now was only in order to show him that he could not hide his deed from G’d, and that whatever man does, or even plans to do is fully known to Him. Kayin had thought that by burying Hevel he could hide his deed from G’d, just as he had been able to hide it from his father. This is why he had killed Hevel in the field where there had not been any witnesses. The additional reason why G’d addressed him was to inform him of his impending punishment. The reason that G’d phrased His remarks as if He questioned him, saying: אי הבל אחיך, was only an opening line, just as He had asked Adam in 3,9 איכה, “where are you?,” knowing full well where Adam was hiding. He also had asked Moses in Exodus 4,2 מזה בידך, “what is this in your hand?,” knowing full well that Moses held a staff in his hand. There are more such examples of a question by G’d being for purposes other than to obtain information not at His disposal. Seeing, however, that He had not said to Kayin: “why did you kill your brother?” Kayin thought that G’d was not yet aware of Hevel being dead. He denied all knowledge, saying: לא ידעתי, השומר אחי אנכי, claiming that Hevel had gone about his work just as he, Kayin, had gone about his work.. He added, gratuitously, that he could not be expected to know the whereabouts of his brother all the time, seeing he had not been hired to be his keeper. He acted far worse than his father at the time, as Adam had never denied that he had done wrong. He had only made excuses for himself. Adam was well aware that G’d was well informed about all such matters, and that even though He had commenced the conversation with a question, it was not because He had not known the answer.

ויאמר...דמי אחיך, He said: “the blood of your brother whom you have slain cries out to Me from the very earth, and the sound of its cry is what I have heard and what caused Me to confront you.” This was, of course, a figure of speech. מן האדמה, upon which you spilled his blood. The fact that the Torah uses the plural mode when referring to blood, writing דמי instead of דם, is not especially significant, as the word דם occurs frequently in the singular mode and also in the plural mode. (Compare Leviticus 20,9 and Leviticus 20,11 to mention just as few examples.) Actually, the justification for treating the word דם as both singular and plural is the fact that on the one hand it is an entity, but at the same time it contains 4 different categories of moisture. Onkelos explains that the reason why here in particular the use of the plural mode is appropriate is the fact that by killing Hevel who had not yet been married and sired children, spilling his blood also meant spilling the blood of the children he would now never have. He may not even have had marital relations with his wife as yet, just as his brother Kayin had also not yet had marital relations with his wife until after he had murdered Hevel (comparer 4,17).

ועתה ארור אתה מן האדמה, the curse will be spelled out in the verse following, where G’d explains that Kayin will experience that the source of his curse is the very earth he had used to hide his crime. This earth would not continue to provide its strength for Kayin.

אשר פצתה את פיה, a reference to soaking up Hevel’s blood, [not as in the case of Korach being actively involved in swallowing Hevel. Ed.] We have a similar incident in Job 16,18 ארץ אל תכסי דמי, “Earth, do not cover my blood!” Also Ezekiel 24, 7-8 uses similar language, i.e. כי דמה היה על צחיח סלע שמתהו לא שפכתהו על הארץ לכסות עליו עפר, “For her blood remained within her, she placed it on a smooth rock. She did not pour it upon the ground to cover it with dust.”

כי תעבד, G’d cursed the earth because Kayin’s occupation involved getting his sustenance from the earth. לא תסף תת כוחה לך, even though the earth had already been cursed ever since Adam had eaten from the tree of knowledge, now G;d added another curse on account of Kayin. He said that even the amount of yield that the earth had been in the habit of providing since being cursed previously, it would not be capable of producing for Kayin the murderer. It is entirely possible that this new curse was restricted to the results Kayin’s efforts would have, and does not mean that all other human beings, farmers, were made to suffer for Kayin’s act of fratricide. Possibly, it applied only to Kayin and his direct descendants until the time of Noach. Maybe it even applied also to the descendants of Sheth until Noach. It seems that with Noach’s birth, Lemech his father, had knowledge that the curse had run its course. We read in Bereshit Rabbah 22,10 that in the view of Rabbi Eleazar the word לך in our verse means that whereas the earth would not yield up its strength for Kayin, it would do so for others. On the other hand, Rabbi Yossi bar Chanina is on record that the curse applied both to Kayin and to others. It appears more likely that the word לך in our verse is indeed restrictive and means that other people farming the earth would experience better success than Kayin. [Kayin’s failure as a farmer would demonstrate to the others that he, and not they, had indeed been punished on an ongoing basis for his having committed murder, hoping to benefit by it at the expense of his brother. Ed.] There is no question, however, that the first curse earth experienced after Adam had eaten from the tree of knowledge was a permanent curse still in effect nowadays. The word בעבורך in 3,14 has a different connotation entirely from the word לך, meaning “on your account,” not “for you personally.”

נע ונד תהיה בארץ, this is yet another curse, one that most certainly applied only to Kayin personally, a curse which resulted in his not being able to feel at home permanently in any one place on earth. This was something psychological, forcing Kayin to adopt a nomadic lifestyle, trying his luck at growing things by moving to a new location every time he experienced crop failure. G’d did not kill him outright, something that every murderer deserves. The reason was that killing him now would be counterproductive as it would leave the earth without males other than Adam, and Adam could not be expected to sire more children after he had lost the two sons he had helped produce. We know, that even with Kayin surviving, the trauma of what happened prevented Adam from maintaining marital relations with his wife for 130 years. (5,3) Although G’d had not killed Kayin, he was under sentence of exile in addition to the earth having been cursed as an instrument of providing his livelihood. The words נע ונד are as if the word נע had been repeated, stressing the seriousness of the curse. Our sages, in commenting on the line כל הורג קין שבעתים יוקם, “that anyone killing Kayin, he (Kayin) will be avenged sevenfold,” explain that seeing that Kayin personally had not been executed for his murder, people would reason that murder goes relatively unpunished. In order for people not to draw such a conclusion from what had not happened to Kayin, the curse of murdering even someone already as guilty as Kayin, had to be highlighted in such terms. (Bereshit Rabbah 22,12) Another reason explaining why Kayin was not subjected to immediate execution is that Kayin, being the first murderer, had not known that the penalty for murder is execution. Subsequent generations knowing the penalty for murder, could not expect to be treated so leniently. It is even possible to consider Kayin’s killing Hevel as having been an inadvertent killing, seeing that he did not know what injury would prove fatal. He had never seen a person who had been killed, and when hitting Hevel he had not thought that he had injured him fatally. If that is so, the penalty of exile, i.e. נע ונד תהיה בארץ, “you will not be at home anywhere on earth,” is exactly the penalty devised by the Torah for people who killed inadvertently In Torah Shleymah on our chapter item #96 the word נע is understood to mean that Kayin will be forever on the move, whereas the word נד is understood to mean that he will not be able to sit down and relax but that his body will remain in constant motion, much like that of a drunken person. Once he had repented, one of these curses was removed from him, as we know from Genesis 4,15 וישב בארץ נוד. The Torah did not say, however, בארץ נוע, because he was not able to settle in one location for long.

הן גרשת אותי...מעל פני האדמה, a reference to the soil of Eden, near the garden, where his father and mother had taken up residence. This is what the Torah had meant with the words לעבוד את האדמה אשר לקח משם, “to work the soil from which he had originally been taken.” (3,23)

ומפנך אסתר, “and I have to hide from You, seeing that You are angry at me and have hidden Your face from me. I am in a position where everybody will be entitled to kill me, seeing You have withdrawn Your protection from me. Even the wild beasts will be entitled to kill me as I am forced to roam around a fugitive on earth.” In Bereshit Rabbah 22,11 Kayin’s complaint is “yesterday You expelled my father, and now You expel me. Am I supposed to hide from You, how could I?”

ויאמר לו ה' לכן כל הורג קין שבעתים יוקם, I have decreed that anyone killing Kayin will be punished twice sevenfold for that deed, irrespective of whether the killer is man or beast. The number “seven” mentioned here is not to be understood literally, but is a figure of speech for multiples of one. The number is used in a similar sense in Leviticus 26,21 where it also does not mean that G’d will punish the Jewish people sevenfold for each of their sins, but He warns them that their punishment will be very severe. In Proverbs 24,16 שבע יפול הצדיק וקם, the meaning is also not that the righteous will fall down seven times and rise again, but that even if a righteous person falls on bad times repeatedly, being righteous, he will recover. These many ways in which a killer of Kayin would be avenged could be that his killer will be afflicted with numerous sicknesses, diseases, not with just one. They would afflict him successively, until he will succumb to the last such disease. According to Torah Shleymah on our chapter item #114 G’d told Kayin that in consideration of the fact that he now displayed fear of and reverence for G’d, he would have his lifespan extended for seven generations. Onkelos explains the expression שבעתים as receiving punishment spread over seven generations. Just as Kayin’s eventual death was suspended for 7 generations, so he who killed him would experience a similar fate. Eventually, Lemech killed Kayin. He was the sixth generation after Kayin, but the seventh counting from Adam.

וישם ה' לקין אות, He gave him a sign in his heart, i.e. He fortified his self-confidence which had been shattered. G’d made the various beasts and men who would be born after him be in awe of him so that they would not attack him. We will come back to allegorical material pertaining to this verse when we explain verse 23.

'ויצא קין מלפני ה, He went forth away from the presence of the Lord, from one place to another, away from the proximity of Gan Eden, the area where G’d’s presence was most in evidence, until וישב בארץ נוד, a play on words, i.e. he moved from place to place, נד. Eventually, he settled down in an area east of the Garden of Eden, a good distance away from where his father and mother lived. Even there he remained restless due to the curse he had been smitten with. The Torah merely informs us that if and when he did settle down for short spaces of time, it was in that vicinity, east of Eden. His wife and children lived there permanently, whereas he was always on the go, doomed to roam on the surface of the globe. Of course, at intervals he would return to his wife and children, even building towns for them.

וידע קין...ויהי בונה עיר, at the time when a son was born for him he was engaged in building a town to serve as residence for himself and his children in subsequent generations. All of this was east of Eden. This is why he named the town the same as he named his son, i.e. Chanoch.

ויולד, he called the first one מחויאל with the letters ו and י, whereas the second one he called מחייאל with two letters י. The first one has dagesh in the letter ו and is read with the vowel kametz, whereas the second letter י in מחייאל is not heard. We have a similar example in Jeremiah 37,13. All the names mentioned here are a reminder of certain events in the lives of the fathers naming the sons. This was a very common method of people remembering important occurrences in their lives in former times. Sometimes, the Torah recorded the event in question, other times it did not. In Bereshit Rabbah 23,2 an attempt is made by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi to see in these names proof of the father’s rebellious attitude. [Basically, according to this line of approach, the names reflected the fact that Chanoch, or the respective father naming his son, wished for the name of G’d to be uprooted from the earth. Ed.]

ויקח לו למך, it appears that the generations prior to Lemech and even subsequent to him did not marry more than one wife. Lemech, who was the first one to marry two wives, was also the first one of whom disagreements between him and his wives have been recorded. The two wives were jealous one of the other so that Lemech had to scare them that he would kill them if they would disturb his domestic peace.

ותלד..אבי ישב אהל ומקנה. The word אבי, is the same as “the first of,” The meaning of יושב אהל ומקנה is that he dwelled in a tent to supervise what was happening to his herds and to tend them. Apparently, the need for a tent, i.e. temporary shelter, was due to his leading his herds to pastures far away from his home. People prior to him were content to graze their flocks within walking distance of their homes. The letter ו at the beginning of the word ומקנה is to save having to write the word רועה. We find similar constructions in Proverbs 20,1 לץ היין, where it refers to someone drinking wine, the author saving himself the word שותה by writing the letter ה in front of the word יין. It is also possible that the meaning of the letter ו in front of the word מקנה means “with.” A similar construction occurs in Exodus 1,5 in the line ויוסף היה במצרים, where it means that when one combines Joseph (and his family) who were already in Egypt with the number of Israelites descending to Egypt now the total comes to 70.

ושם אחיו...אבי כל תפש כנור ועוגב, he was the first man to invent music and musical instruments. The reason why the Torah uses the term תפש, “holding in one’s hand,” is probably because the instruments such as guitars and violins have elongated parts which are held by hand.

וצלה גם היא, the word גם relates to the sons of Adah, both of whom had acquired special skills. Tzilah, contrary to her function, to be decorative, also acquired another skill, giving birth to a son or sons. The son mentioned here is mentioned by name because he too excelled in a new skill, becoming a coppersmith. The reason why he was given a dual name, Tuval Kayin, might be that when born he was simply called Tuval. When Kayin died, this name was added to his original name to provide a memorial of sorts to his ancestor Kayin.

לוטש כל חרש נחשת וברזל, sharpener of copper and ironcraft; this description by the Torah, as opposed to the previous introduction of artisans as אבי, “father of, i.e. inventor of or discoverer of, maybe that his predecessors had already worked with these metals and had fashioned tools and vessels out of them. Tuval Kayin’s contribution may have been that he learned how to sharpen these tools so that they did not have to be replaced by new ones all the time. The word לטישה in this sense occurs in Samuel I 13,20. During the period described in Samuel, the Israelites had to travel to the land of the Philistines to have their agricultural tools sharpened, as they were not allowed to have weapons made of metal. The word חרש אבן is found in Exodus 31,6 where it describes the parallel art of working with stone. (compare Samuel I 15,15 and Joshua 8,7 where the word תפש appears in a related manner)

ואחות תובל קין נעמה. The reason the Torah mentions this is to inform us that Tuval Kayin did not have a brother, as opposed to his half-brother יבל, but that the sibling he did have, i.e. a sister, was called נעמה According to Bereshit Rabbah 23,3 this Naamah became the wife of Noach, being the only surviving individual of the offspring of Kayin. She was called נעמה in recognition of her good character. Other scholars in the same Midrash do not agree that the Naamah who became Noach’s wife was the one mentioned here. They attribute the name Naamah here to this woman’s ability to play music on these instruments.

ויאמר למך לנשיו, our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 23,4 state that when Lemech wanted to sleep with his wives they refused him. They used several arguments, one being that they were afraid of the deluge and they did not want to give birth to children already doomed. Lemech countered that if Kayin whose deed of foul murder had resulted in suspension of his death sentence for 7 generations, then he, Lemech, who had killed inadvertently, accidentally, would not be punished for far longer than that, and his wives had no reason to worry. Even if a deluge would come tomorrow, he was free from the taint of sin and would not become its victim. He went further, saying that even assuming he had deliberately killed a man or a child, G’d would forgive him, seeing he had many merits which would offset one such sin. Kayin had not had such merits even before he killed his brother but had sinned so that G’d had rejected his offering, and still his sentence had not been carried out for seven generations. This is how he arrived at the expression שבעה ושבעים as opposed to שבעתים the period during which G’d had suspended the carrying out of the sentence of death on Kayin. He appealed to G’d’s patience to extend this patience to him. It is also possible that Lemech’s logic was totally foolish, as hinted at by Rashi, as the wives of Lemech did not worry about retribution for Lemech’s sin but the long overdue retribution for Kayin’s sin, something that would include all of Kayin’s offspring. We have to assume that Lemech’s speech to his wives took place before his wife Adah had given birth to Yaval. Some of our sages (Tanchuma 11), claim that Lemech was blind and that when whenever he went out hunting a child (Tuval Kayin) would serve as his guide. When the child spotted the animal he would tell Lemech to draw his bow and aim his arrow in a certain direction. In this fashion Kayin, while being mistaken for an animal, was killed. Other sages (Bereshit Rabbah 22,12) claim that the “sign” provided by G’d for Kayin to warn people and beasts not to kill him, was a horn which grew out of his forehead. Kayin, being constantly on the move in the field due to G’d’s curse, was mistaken by the boy accompanying Lemech for a wild beast seeing that it had a horn on its forehead. Once the boy and Lemech came close to inspect the “beast” they thought they had killed, the boy told Lemech that they had killed a human being. Lemech then suddenly realised that he had killed his ancestor Kayin and this gave rise to his words איש הרגתי לפצעי וילד לחבורתי, he told his wives not to worry because whereas Kayin had murdered intentionally, he had reason to believe that G’d would delay punishing him for longer even than He had delayed Kayin’s punishment. Rabbi Yaakov bar Idi asked Rabbi Yochanan why our verse mentioned both איש and ילד, would not either have been enough? Rabbi Yochanan replied that the word איש refers to the slain’s physical size, i.e. he was an adult, whereas the word ילד refers to the age of the slain person. [in which case the slain person was not Kayin at all, seeing that if he was still alive during Lemech’s time he must have been at least 500 years plus at the time he was killed by Lemech who was already married. Ed.] It is also possible to understand the passage as hinting at the jealousies between Lemech’s two wives, especially, since it appears that no one prior to Lemech had taken two wives. This is also why in Talmudic parlance such wives are known as צרות. This expression occurs first in connection with Chanah and Peninah the two wives of Elkanah (Samuel I 1,6). Lemech threatened to kill both his wives if they would continue to feud with one another. He made it plain that he had no reason to be afraid of the punishment for killing them, since G’d would be even more lenient with him than He had been with Kayin who had not had any good reason to kill his brother. Seeing that the number שבעה had already been used in connection with Kayin and his punishment, Lemech used an amended version of the number seven in describing how long it would take for him to be punished. According to our commentary earlier on verse 15, Lemech intended here to make plain to his wives that whoever would kill him if he were forced to kill his wives, would experience far greater retribution than the one who killed Kayin, concerning whose killing G’d had warned the killer of especially severe (not sevenfold) retribution. The justification for such drastic retribution was that G’d Himself had assured Kayin of protection against being killed arbitrarily, hence the crime would be both against G’d and against Kayin. In practice this meant that the penalty could be paid only by the offspring of the killer. In addition to the killer himself. G’d’s retribution would include those who are close to the killer, for instance. His reasoning was that whereas he would have killed with provocation, Kayin had killed without provocation, ergo anyone killing him would be far more guilty than Kayin had been at the time. Seeing that G’d had not bothered to warn anyone who would kill Lemech of such draconian punishment, he had to go on record himself. The reference to פצע, which seems unrelated to killing, is to a wound which results in the victim bleeding, whereas חבורה is an injury that does not result in blood flowing from the victim. He associated the word חבורה with children, as these, being frail, are more likely to die from injuries that did not result in loss of blood. The word הרגתי is to be understood as the same as אהרג, i.e. a future mode, seeing he is warning of what may yet occur. Alternatively, the references to injuries refer to he himself being injured, and he is warning those who might injure him that he would retaliate by killing them. According to the first explanation the letters י at the end of the word לפצעי and לחבורתי would refer to the people causing such injuries, whereas according to the second explanation these letters would refer to the ones sustaining such injuries. We have numerous examples of such constructions, for instance Psalms 2,6 ואני נסכתי מלכי, “but I have installed my king, etc.” or Psalms 74,12 ואלוקים מלכי מקדם, “O G’d my King from old;” in the former the letter י refers to the passive subject, in the letter to the active party.

נשי למך, constructions in which one refers to people close to oneself in the third person, as Lemech did to his wives in this verse, also occur in Exodus 24,1 as well as in Genesis 2,20 and in Samuel I 12.11.

כי שבעתים, this has already been explained in the previous verse. The purpose of the Torah recording all this for all posterity is to demonstrate that in former times, even during the era of idolatry which began with Enosh, people were convinced that G’d supervises the personal fates of His creatures here on earth, meting out punishment to the wicked and reward to the deserving.

וידע אדם עוד את אשתו, this occurred 130 years later than the last time, as is evident from 5,3. During the intervening years Adam had not sired any children because Chavah had been the cause of his being punished. He had kept his distance from her during all these years.

כי שת לי אלוקים זרע אחר, seeing that this time she had given the credit to G’d, saying שת לי אלקים, “G’d gave me,” she named the son שת.

כי הרגו קין, seeing that Kayin had killed Hevel she had not had any other seed from him. She perceived the birth of Sheth as G’d’s gift to her, compensating her for the loss of Hevel, who had not even left behind any offspring. This is why the Torah immediately continues telling us that Sheth, as opposed to Hevel, had offspring born to him whom he called Enosh. The meaning of the word גם, “also,” here is that “just as Chavah bore a son, so her son also sired a son, not only that but such offspring endured.” The Torah, significantly, does not tell us about Kayin’s offspring other than what we know about Lemech. The reason is that all of Kayin’s offspring was wiped out during the deluge. Noach was descended through Sheth.

ולשת גם הוא, just as Adam had sired a good son, one in his image, so Sheth sired a good son, one in his image.

'אז הוחל לקרא בשם ה, some commentators understand the word הוחל in the sense of חלול, desecrating, profaning. Others, including Rashi understand it in the sense of התחלה, beginning. In Onkelos we find two versions. According to one version, people became lax in worshipping G’d in the days of Enosh; according to the other version of Onkelos, in Enosh’s days people began to proclaim the name of G’d, [i.e. what had been something natural up until then had to be reintroduced as it had become practically extinct. Ed.] If the second interpretation is correct, the decline of religious observance was arrested for the first time in the days of Enosh when people found it necessary to pray to G’d when they found themselves in trouble. Up until that time they had not even thought that prayer could be helpful in affecting their fate on earth. They considered G’d’s decree as irreversible under any circumstances. According to what we have seen in the writings of our sages, (Shabbat 118) and according to the understanding of most people, that idolatry was widespread in the days of Enosh, the meaning of the verse before must be that that in Enosh’s time many people began to look upon the celestial phenomena as deities and address them and worship them as gods. They did so because they considered these phenomena as intermediaries between them and the invisible G’d. Seeing that these phenomena had been appointed by G’d to run the terrestrial part of the universe on His behalf, they considered these forces as capable of bestowing favours on those worshipping them. Gradually, such initial errors spread until most forms of idolatry nowadays are totally devoid of any rationale. In people’s minds natural forces are perceived as competing with each other and possessing overlapping domains, so that unless one worships at least several of them one would arouse the jealousy of the one ignored. The matter has become so grotesque that man made statues that neither see, hear, etc., are credited with being able to influence the lives of intelligent human beings. According to the Targum Yerushalmi [not found in the regular editions. Ed.] only Sheth had a son born to him whom he called Enosh, and in his time people began to worship other forces as deities, i.e. applying G’d’s name to them. When the Targum wrote לחוד, “only,” the meaning is that Enosh was the only one of Sheth’s sons who survived, and all of mankind is descended from Enosh, neither offspring of Kayin or Hevel surviving. It is difficult to understand how an expression such as גם הוא, which suggests something additional, can be interpreted by the Targum as the opposite, i.e. as a restrictive clause.