**This... before he sinned.**Rashi is answering the question: It should have been written וַיֵדַע [rather than יָדַע].

Children were born to him. Rashi used the expression “children were born to him” rather than “he knew his wife” because otherwise Rashi would be implying that Adam knew her only after he was exiled, not before. [And this is not true,] for earlier, on the verse of “This at last is bone of my bones...” (2:23), Rashi says: “Adam attempted to find a mate amongst all the animals... until he discovered Chavah.” This implies that Adam had relations with Chavah at that point. This answers another question: How does Rashi know that Adam’s “knowing his wife” before he was exiled included conception and birth as well? Perhaps it was referring only to relations. The answer is: “This at last is bone of my bones...” already taught us that Adam had relations. Thus, the verse “The man knew his wife...” perforce [includes conception and birth].

With Hashem. This comment is out of sequence, because Rashi did not wish to state that the word את “implies additional facts or things” before he explained את ה', [which is understood differently]. Once he explained that את ה' means “with Hashem,” rather than “implying additional facts or things,” he can then state: “The word את is repeated thrice, to expound additional facts or things.” (Divrei Dovid)

We are co-partners with Him. For there are three partners in [the formation of] a person: Hashem, the person’s father, and the person’s mother. (Nidah 31a)

**Consequently, it says: “And she increased.”**In other words, it means, that “she increased an את.” This is because two instances of את imply two additional children. This fully explains why the word ותוסף is written.

Because the earth was cursed... Rashi is answering the question: Why was Hevel a shepherd? Since they were not allowed to slaughter any creature, what benefit could be derived from this? [This is not true,] for he could benefit from the butter, cheese, milk and wool, which were permitted to them.

From the worstashi is answering the question: Why did the Torah not write, “From the first fruits of the soil,” as it writes for Hevel: “From the firstborn of his flock, from the best thereof.”

That it was linseedHow does Rashi know this?] Because it is the answer to the question: Why does it say, “Fruit of the soil?” It should say either “From the soil,” [i.e., a vegetable], or “Fruit of the tree.” [The answer is:] Kayin brought a “fruit” that was like [a vegetable of] the soil. For it says in Berachos 40a that if a plant that does not produce fruit from its branch a second time, it is called [a vegetable of] the soil. And flax plants do not produce fruit from their stalks a second time. Yet flax is also called a tree, as it says (Yehoshua 2:6), “And she hid them with the stalks of flax trees.” Thus, “Fruit of the soil” must refer to linseed, which is of the soil, yet called a tree. (Maharshal) An Aggadah explains that “the worst” refers to linseed, as it says in Bava Basra 92a: “One who sells fruit to his friend and it did not sprout, even if it was linseed...” The Gemara did not mention any seed [other than linseed as the example], because it is the most inferior of foods. (Nachalas Yaakov)

And he turned... Do not turn (אל ישעו). Many are puzzled by this, as Rashi himself says in Parshas Shemos 5:9 that the אל ישעו written there does not mean “Do not turn,” [rather, “Do not talk”], and is unlike לא שעה written here! It seems the answer is: לא שעה, [whose basic meaning is “to disregard”], is an expression [that can connote disregard] in a broad sense and in a limited sense. There are two ways of [disregarding a] matter: 1. To not even to speak of it. 2. To speak as one wishes but refrain from action. This answers the question. For in Shemos, אל ישעו also means “to disregard.” But Pharaoh did not mean in the narrow sense, refraining only from action, as לא שעה means here. That is why the Torah writes there בדברי שקר, rather than אל דברי שקר, as Rashi points out there — to indicate that אל ישעו בדברי שקר means even in speech. Therefore it is fine that Rashi here explains the אל ישעו of Shemos as disregarding, for that indeed is what it means, [but in the broad sense]. Rashi in Shemos is saying that אל ישעו cannot mean the same as the וישע אל הבל of Bereishis — which was in action alone. That is why there, Rashi was careful to say that אל ישעו means, “Let them not... even talk,” to convey that even talking is included. (Divrei Dovid)

A fire descended and consumed his gift-offering. Rashi is answering the question: How did Hevel know that Hashem paid regard to him? The answer is: “A fire descended...”

Your grave. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say, “At the opening?” [The judgment of] being sentenced to Gehinom has no “opening”! Thus Rashi explains, [it refers to] “The opening of your grave,” i.e., the pain of being put in the grave.

**He engaged him in argument and dispute.**Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse not explain what Kayin said? It must be that “he engaged him in argument...” (Devek Tov) In Bereishis Rabbah (22:7) it explains that Kayin the soilworker would argue that the soil belongs to him, thus Hevel the shepherd had no place in the world. Kayin would not allow him to graze his flocks. This caused a dispute.

So that he may repent... Why did Rashi not say the same regarding Adam? The answer is: By hiding himself, Adam admitted that he had sinned. Thus Rashi could not say, “He may repent and say: ‘I sinned.’” Another answer: Adam was a great tzaddik, as he was created by Hashem Himself. Surely he will admit his sin! Not so concerning Kayin. Therefore, Hashem had to “engage him in conversation so that he may repent...” (Maharshal)

He became a deceiver... Kayin thought that Hashem is not All-Knowing; otherwise he would not have tried to deny [that he had sinned].

For he did not know... This is from Sanhedrin 37b, which goes on to say: “Until he reached his neck.”

Even more... This refers to the ground’s sin of bringing forth [inedible] trees bearing fruit; when Adam was cursed, so too was the ground. It does not refer to the ground’s sin of opening its mouth. For about that sin it cannot be said, “You are cursed more than the curse of the ground,” as the ground had not yet been cursed for it.

It continued to sin. Rashi apparently holds that the term פצתה means to open extra wide, which was the [ground’s] sin, as Tosafos says (Sanhedrin 37b ד"ה מיום): “It left no trace [of Hevel’s blood] at all.” (Nachalas Yaakov) Re’m asks: Here, it was considered bad for the ground to open its mouth. So why does it say in Sanhedrin 37b: “From the day the ground opened to accept Hevel’s blood it has not opened [again] for the good”? This implies that opening its mouth was good! However, I do not understand what the question is. Surely it was good for Kayin that Hevel’s blood be covered, but for Hevel it was bad [that the ground opened and covered his blood] because as long as Hevel’s blood remains visible, his death would be avenged — as was the case with the blood of Zechariah the prophet (see Gittin 57b). (Divrei Dovid)

An incredulous question. This is a question, although it lacks the ה which would indicate this. It cannot be a statement, with Kayin saying that his sin is unforgivable and more than he can bear, for Kayin would then be magnifying his sin. How could he then [contest his punishment and] say, “Behold, today You have banished me...” if he already admitted that his sin is deserving of it? (Re’m) Question: What does Hashem’s bearing of the worlds have to do with His bearing of Kayin’s sin? It seems the answer is: Kayin is saying that earthly creatures surely sin, as it says (8:21), “For the inclination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.” Why did You, Hashem, create them? It must be that repentance can rectify their sins. If so, “You cannot manage to bear my sin?” (Divrei Dovid)

**“And you cannot manage to bear my sin?”**This may be understood according to (Tehillim 130:4): “Forgiveness is with You, in order that You be feared.” “Forgiveness is with You” — nothing stops You [from forgiving sin]. “In order that You be feared” — [this forgiveness increases fear of Hashem]. But a human king cannot grant pardon beyond the rules of protocol. Thus a transgressor [against him] thinks, “I am surely lost!” and therefore he will continue to sin more. [However, Hashem’s forgiveness holds man back from further sin.] Accordingly, Kayin said: “You bear the worlds. Everything is Yours and no one holds You back [from forgiving]. Why can You not bear my sin? People will say that You are unable to forgive beyond the rules of protocol, Heaven forbid!” (Tzeidah L’Derech, citing Maharshal)

“I do not wish... I will take my vengeance. The sevenfold vengeance is not referring to the killer of Kayin. For Lemech killed Kayin — and revenge was not taken on him to be killed after seven generations! Rather, “Whoever kills Kayin...” serves as a threat [that no creature injure Kayin], while “Revenge will be taken on him sevenfold” refers to Kayin’s own punishment. Thus, Hevel’s revenge from Kayin will come only after seven generations. This is seen from the end of the verse, “Revenge will be taken on him sevenfold,” that it pertains to Kayin and not to Kayin’s killer. (Re’m) Another reason why this verse cannot mean that sevenfold revenge will be taken on Kayin’s killer: why should Kayin’s killer be different from other killers, to have his punishment delayed seven generations? Perforce, “Revenge will be taken on him sevenfold” is a separate point — that Hashem will take revenge from Kayin after seven generations, [due to Kayin’s claim, “You cannot manage to bear my sin?”] Consequently, “This is one of those verses in which words are brief...”

The verse speaks by hinting. It means that here, the verse speaks by hinting, but in another place it is spelled out: He who kills these, “He shall be a leader and general.”

And the blind. The “blind” and the “lame” were idolatrous images. The “lame” corresponded to Yaakov [who limped on his thigh], and the “blind” corresponded to Yitzchak [whose eyes dimmed]. Upon these idols was written the oath Avraham swore to Avimelech that they would not wage war against one another. However, in David’s time the oath had been voided.

He inscribed a letter from His Name. It means a letter from Kayin’s name, the letter ת, which hints: “With this, תחיה (you shall live).” I.e., none shall kill him. [ת is a letter from Kayin’s name because his mother named him (4:1): “I have obtained (קניתי) a man with Adonoy”]. Alternatively, it means a letter from Hashem’s Name, the letter ה, which hints: “Therefore, whoever kills (הורג) Kayin...” (Maharshal)

He exited with humility... a deceiver... Rashi knows this because the Torah uses the term ויצא (exited), which means leaving an enclosed area, instead of וילך (went). But Kayin ‘exited’ from the Presence of Hashem, for Whom there is no enclosed area, as the whole earth is filled with His Glory! [Thus it hints, “He exited with humility.”]

Which indicates that Adam was there... For if not, why were the angels in the east and not elsewhere?

**An alternative explanation of בארץ נוד.**But the verse cannot mean only this explanation, for otherwise, why does it say: “East of Eden”? Thus we need the first explanation, “That is where his father was exiled.” And the verse cannot mean only that explanation, for otherwise, why does it say: “In the land of Nod,” instead of, “In the territory”? [Thus Rashi offered both explanations.] (Maharshal)

**Kayin was building.**Rashi is explaining that Kayin is the one who “was building a city,” not Chanoch although his name is mentioned immediately before. Otherwise, why would it say: “He named the city after his son Chanoch”?

**It would not be necessary to detail...**It could have just said: “Mesushael had a son Lemech, and Lemech had a son Yuval.” Why is it written, “Lemech married two women”?

The one intended for conjugal relations. She was given a potion that would make her barren so she would not lose her beauty. You might ask: If so, why does it say, “Tzillah also gave birth”? The answer is: She gave birth before she drank the potion. Another answer: It says, “Tzillah also gave birth,” to teach that even though she took the potion she gave birth anyway, as the potion did not affect her at all. (Re’m)

He was the first one. I.e., “father” means that he was the “first” to dwell in tents and to breed cattle. Rashi says “in the wilderness” since Yaval was different from Hevel who shepherded in a settled area. [In the wilderness] it requires great mastery of the craft.

Sharpens the tools [used for working]. I.e., the verse should be understood by rearranging its order, as if it said: לוטש וחורש כל כלי נחושת וברזל. Rashi adds the phrase “all tools of crafts,” to imply “tools of crafts” such as those for plowing, cutting and the like, which are sharpened and polished (לטישה).

She was Noah’s wife. You might ask: How did Rashi know this? The answer is: She is called Naamah (נעמה) because her deeds were pleasant (נעימה) and she behaved modestly. If so, why would she perish in the Flood and not be saved like Noah was? Perforce she was Noah’s wife, and was thus saved from the Flood. Another answer: Rashi’s proof is the fact that this woman is mentioned where other women are not. And why is this? Because Naamah [was Noah’s wife and she] had three brothers: Yaval, Yuval and Tuval Kayin. And Tuval Kayin was wicked; as Rashi previously explained that he produced weapons for murderers. But Yaval was righteous, dwelling in tents, according to Rashi’s first explanation. Also Yuval was righteous [according to this explanation]. Thus two brothers were righteous, and one was wicked. Noah also had three sons: Shem, Cham and Yefes. Shem and Yefes were righteous, as Rashi explains in Parshas Noah (9:23). And one son was wicked, as is seen there. Accordingly, one should not ask why two [of Noah’s sons] were righteous and one wicked. For Rashi already explained that Naamah was Noah’s wife — and children are usually like the mother’s brothers.

**His wives separated from him once they fulfilled... because it had been decreed.**This phrase [“once they fulfilled...”] is not found in our text of Bereishis Rabbah. It seems that Rashi added this phrase on his own, to explain why they gave birth until now: they wished to fulfill the mitzvah of “Be fruitful and multiply.” See Re’m. (Nachalas Yaakov)

And sweep everything away. I.e., everyone will die. You might ask: At first Rashi said they separated from Lemech because of the decree on the descendents of Kayin. Why does he say here that it was because of the Flood? The answer is: His wives knew the Flood would come in the days of Lemech. They mistakenly thought it would be in the days of [their husband] Lemech son of Mesushael, a descendent of Kayin. But it was [later,] in the days of [a different] Lemech, the son of Mesushelach [a descendent of Sheis].

**This is an absurd *kal vachomer.***But according to [Rashi’s first explanation,] Midrash R. Tanchuma, the kal vachomer is not absurd since it does not contradict Kayin’s punishment; it applies only to Lemech’s [unintentional] sin. (Re’m) You might ask: What was Lemech’s reasoning [when he put forth his absurd argument]? The answer is that he thought as follows: Kayin killed intentionally and should have been killed immediately, as it says (9:6), “Whoever sheds the blood of man, through man shall his blood be shed.” Yet with his prayer, he held back the decree for seven generations. I, who killed unintentionally, can surely hold back the decree with prayer. (Maharshal)

Lemech came... You do what you have been commanded... A difficulty arises: According to the first explanation [brought by Rashi above], that Lemech’s wives separated from him because he killed someone, what did Adam answer them? The answer is: Adam said to them, “Just because Lemech transgressed once, by killing, should he transgress further, and refrain from ‘Be fruitful and multiply’? [By way of metaphor,] if someone ate garlic [and has unpleasant breath, should he therefore eat more garlic]?” (Maharshal)

His desire for her was greater. Originally he had desire only when he saw Chavah, but now his desire was greater and he had a burning desire even when he did not see her. How does Rashi know this? Because the Torah should have instead said: “His wife conceived again.” That way, “again” would refer to her curse, the pain of pregnancy. Why does the Torah write “again” regarding “Adam knew his wife”? Obviously [he knew her, for] she could not conceive without relations. Perforce, it teaches “that his desire for her was greater...” Another answer: [Rashi knows this because] עוד is written only when the second action is close to the first. It implies actions in close succession, such as with Leah it is written (29:33): “And she conceived עוד,” meaning right after the first birth. But here, since Adam separated from his wife for 130 years, it should not say עוד, but simply, “Adam knew his wife.” Or, it should be called a second marriage, as with Amram who separated from his wife, and it is written (Shemos 2:1) that he “went and married.” So it seems to me.