Cain and Abel: Ideological Differences
It is axiomatic in Judaism that humans and animals are world apart. Animals are part of nature. Humans are the outsiders who were charged with the responsibility to uplift nature.
CAIN AND ABEL: IDEOLOGICAL
DIFFERENCES
Vicarious Assault on G-d
The Biblical account of Cain killing Abel raises an interesting question. The Torah states that Cain brought an offering to G-d from his fruit of the earth, while his brother Abel then brought an offering to G-d from his sheep. G-d accepted Cain’s offering, but rejected Abel’s. Cain was outraged and he killed his brother Abel.
The question is, how could it be that Cain would kill Abel because G-d accepted Abel’s offering and not his own? That would be a reason to be angry with G-d; but why did he kill Abel?
One possible answer to this question is based on Rashi’s comment elsewhere that the anti- Semite’s hatred of Jews is actually an expression of the anger he feels towards G-d. But since one cannot hurt G-d, the hater directs his attack against G-d’s chosen people.
Cain was livid with rage against G-d for not accepting his offering, especially considering the fact that Cain was the one who first had the idea to bring an offering to G-d. What made even angrier was the fact that G-d accepted Abel’s offering. It is human nature that when one is criticized, while another person, who is deemed inferior, is praised, it elicits a more strident negative reaction than just being reprimanded.
But there was no way that Cain could vent his anger against G-d, so he chose to do so by attacking a person who was created in G- d’s image.
This explains why when reading the Ten Commandments horizontally; the first commandment to believe in G-d is followed by the sixth commandment not to murder. Frequently, murder is a repudiation of the first commandment to affirm one’s belief in G-d, for the person who murders is actually expressing his rage to G-d.
Animal Rights Versus Human Rights
Rabbi Joseph Albo (a fifteenth century rabbi and philosopher) in his Sefer HaIkarim explains that the ideological difference between Cain and Abel—that can also explain why he killed Abel rather than venting his anger against G-d—concerned the status of animals, vis-à-vis humans.
Cain did not want to bring an animal offering because in his opinion people and animals were equal, and he had no right to take the life of an animal even to serve G-d.
Abel, Rabbi Albo maintains, believed that humans were superior to animals and it was therefore permitted to sacrifice an animal in the process of worshipping G-d.
G-d’s acceptance of Abel’s offering demonstrated that humans are indeed superior to animals. But Cain took G-d’s acceptance of the animal sacrifice not as a sign that humans were superior to animals, but that just as it was acceptable to kill an animal it was also acceptable to kill a human. This, in turn, led to the breakdown of society that followed in Cain’s ways and equated people to animals, resulting in a diminished value of human life.
Judaism believes that only the human being is endowed with the requisite intelligence, the ability to choose freely between right and wrong, and therefore entrusted with the mission to change the world.
The human being is indeed superior to the animal if he or she recognizes his or her mission to contribute to the world and refine it. If we shirk our obligation to fulfill their G- dly mission, then we are inferior to even the most insignificant creature.
This sentiment is expressed in the Talmud that says that the reason man was created last, was to inform him that if he doesn’t carry out his mission, he is indeed inferior to all other creatures.
A Gesture or a Full-fledged Action
There is another approach to their ideological differences that degenerated into animosity and ultimately to murder. What follows is based on the thesis of the Hungarian Chassidic work Arugas Habosem with some additions.
Cain and Abel had differing views of the value of action in relation to serving G-d. G-d does not need our sacrifices. It is the gesture that counts. If so, Cain surmised, the main point of a sacrifice is to coordinate our thoughts towards G-d; the actual act of sacrificing is only a symbol, an outward expression of our devotion to G-d. Therefore, only a token was necessary.
Alternatively, according to Cain, the action is only an instrument to help us focus our thoughts, but there was no intrinsic value in the physical action of bringing an offering.
In Cain’s view, one may suggest, bringing an elaborate sacrifice is nothing short of blasphemy. It gives the appearance that the one making the offering thinks that G-d enjoys the elaborate gift; and the more elaborate the greater the pleasure G-d receives. This smacked of heresy, applying anthropomorphic qualities to G-d.
It may be further suggested that in Cain’s view Abel was deserving of the death penalty, for blasphemy is one of the Seven Noahide commandments (that were originally given to Adam), the violation of which warrants the death penalty.
Abel had a completely different philosophy. Abel believed that G-d wants our actions. Our actions are not just a means they are an end. Action is not just a means to help express our feelings and thoughts. There is actually intrinsic value in action. And the sacrifice has intrinsic value because it involves making our physical actions and possessions, which are made holy and closer to G-d.
Indeed, the very word for sacrifice in Hebrew is korban, which means to get close.
In Cain’s view, the korban, the agent of getting close, was intended for the person who brought the sacrifice exclusively.
In Abel’s world view it was not only for the person but also for the world. (See Essay: “Adam Saw Two, not Three.”)
Action will Leads to Knowledge
This “debate” as to which is superior, action or thought, is echoed in the Talmud, where this matter was discussed: “Which is greater study or action?” The conclusion was, “study is greater because it leads to action.” In effect, action is the goal whereas study is the means, contrary to Cain’s view that thought and meditation is the end and action the means.
In the Messianic Age, Cain’s view that action leads to thought will gain some legitimacy. Chassidic thought states that in the Messianic Age, action will be the means to knowledge.
Presently, we can only acquire knowledge through study. In the Messianic Age, one will not have to study to gain knowledge; one will anticipate the knowledge of the Torah through the action of Mitzvot. When one will put on Tefillin they would understand its laws, meaning and even its mystical dimensions.
According to this analysis, Cain’s mistake was that he projected the future into the present. He was not alone in this regard. Korach, for example, also saw into the future where the Levite will be higher than the Kohain and they therefore felt confident in his rebellion against Aaron.
That mistake to project the future into the present was only wrong in the early stages of history. Now that we are standing on the threshold of Redemption, it behooves us to start acting as we will in the future; bringing the future into the present.
There is a right time for everything; including the right time to be in another time frame.
From the book Light from the Future: Parshas Breishis by Rabbi Heschel Greenberg, published by the Jewish Discovery Center.
