In my paper I will look at the story of Cain and Abel and try to draw out the meaning of this story in order to examine the pain of rejection and the power of human freedom.  I will do this by examining some of the texts of the Midrash Rabbah and by touching on two pivotal moments in John Steinbeck’s book East of Eden.  The Rabbis look at both the pain experienced by Cain when God rejected his sacrifice and favored Abel’s oblation, while they also look at the concept that was central to Steinbeck’s novel, the problem of choice.  I will first focus on the account of the sacrifices offered by the two brothers, and then I will attempt to explain why God rejected the offering of Cain.  After briefly examining that, I will then move on to Cain’s reaction to the Lord’s rejection of his offering and how he became jealous and angry.  Then I will look briefly at the idea that Cain’s path was not predetermined, but that he truly could have chosen a different path in dealing with his rejection, and thus really was the master of his own destiny.  Finally I will examine the murder itself and the possibility that someone other than Cain holds some blame for it.

          Genesis chapter four begins with the account of the birth of Cain, followed by the birth of Abel, and I would like to note something the Rabbis indicate but something which is not in the scriptural text itself.  The Rabbis relate that Cain had a twin sister and the Abel had two twin sisters, and that this fact may have contributed to the animosity between the brothers, because they fought over their sisters.  The text begins by describing the first sacrifices ever made to the Lord, unless one counts the skins from which God made Adam and Eve’s first clothing.  The Rabbis disputed what kind of skins these were, Rabbi Eleazer said: “They were of goat’s skin,” Rabbi Samuel Ben Nahman said, “[They were made from] the wool of camels . . .” [cf. Midrash Rabbah, 1:171].  It is interesting to note that the Gnostics believed that the skin spoken of in Genesis [cf. Gen. 3:21] was human skin, and they thought this because of their antipathy to material existence.  But I have digressed far enough, because the skins were given to them by God and so they would not properly correspond to a sacrifice.  So, Cain and Abel offered the first sacrifices recorded in the Hebrew Bible, and the text itself says, that:          

          In the course of time Cain brought to the Lord

          an offering of the fruit of the ground, and Abel

          brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their

          fat portions.  And the Lord had regard for Abel

          and his offering, but for Cain and his offering

          he had no regard. [Gen. 4:3-5a]

Why was it that the Lord had no regard for Cain’s offering, and what made Abel’s offering so good and Cain’s so disappointing in God’s eyes?  The first thing that the Rabbis pointed out is that Cain’s being a tiller of the ground was not a good thing, as they put it, “Three had a passion for agriculture, and no good was found in them: Cain, Noah, and Uzziah” [Midrash Rabbah, 1:181].  Each of these men had tragedy marked on them; Cain murdered his brother, Noah was a drunkard and his son “uncovered his nakedness,” and Uzziah became a leper.  So, Cain started this unhappy trilogy, and it follows that Abel was the start of a more blessed occupational trilogy; for he was a shepherd and his offering was pure; and Moses tended the flock of his father-in-law Jethro; and finally of course, David, the shepherd boy who became King of Israel.

          So, the Lord rejected the offering of Cain.  The Rabbis did not stop with simply saying that there was something wrong with tilling the ground; instead, they moved on to the heart of the matter, the very substance of what was offered, and in this area Cain’s sacrifice was deficient because he did not offer the best of his crop.  He chose to offer the “. . . inferior crops, [like] . . . a bad tenant who eats the first ripe figs but honours the king with late figs” [Midrash Rabbah, 1:182].  In other words, he held back the best portion of the work of his hands for himself, and tried to give the Lord what he himself did not want, while Abel gave joyfully to the Lord God the best portion of his flock, and offered the valuable fat as well.  By his selfishness Cain began his fall into error, and in this way he allowed his passions to rule his intellect and so he chose to do evil rather than good.  This becomes clear from the concluding portion of the verses quoted above.,which said that, “. . . Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell” [Gen. 4:5b], and so he allowed his passions to reign.

          In the next few verses, the problem of  translation becomes apparent.  The Revised Standard Version of the Bible which I quote throughout this paper is partially based on the American Standard Version of the Bible, and that ironically is the translation mentioned in Steinbeck’s book, East of Eden.  In the R.S.V. the Lord says to Cain, “‘Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen?  If you do well, will you not be accepted?  And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it” [Gen. 4:6-7].  It is the word “must,” which is a problem.  The Hebrew text uses the word timshel, which is translated ‘you may,’ but the majority of English translations either translate the word as ‘you shall’ or ‘you must.’  Both of these translations move Cain’s action from an order that allows for freedom to one that promotes some from of determinism. 

          In the Midrashic texts the Rabbis see this distinction clearly, and this is no doubt where John Steinbeck got the idea, which he used so well in his book.  The Rabbis saw that for man to be responsible he had to have the ability to choose.  They see in the words, “. . . sin is couching at the door,” the fact that sin has power over a human being only when he gives into it, it is as if it were asleep at the door and the individual wakes it up by giving into evil inclinations.  One must be on guard against it.  Rabbi Abba Ben Judan said that, sin “. . . is like a decrepit brigand who sat at the crossroads and ordered every passerby to surrender his possessions, until a shrewd person passed by and saw that he was feeble, whereupon he began to crush him.  Similarly, the Tempter destroyed many generations – the generation of Enosh, the generation of the flood, and the generation of the separation [of races]” [Midrash Rabbah, 1:185].

          But the Rabbis insist that the Tempter can be resisted.  It lays couched as if asleep, but is in fact looking for your weakness.  Rabbi Hanina said, it is “. . . written for you in the Torah, and unto thee is its desire, but thou mayest rule over it” [Midrash Rabbah, 1:186].  Thus if one does not lower his guard, if he stays in control of his passions, then the Tempter cannot have dominion over him, but if he is weak and if he gives in, then his cause is lost.  This is what John Steinbeck was saying in his novel.  This can be seen when you concentrate on the episode in the middle of the book in which Lee gives an exposition of the Cain and Abel story, and with the insights given there, one can then see the ending of East of Eden as a sign of redemption.  Steinbeck was obviously influenced by the Rabbinic Midrash on this part of the Book of Genesis.  In his book he saw the central point of the Rabbis, and that point concerns human freedom, the power to choose good or evil, and in his novel he was able to express this with the one word “Timshel” (thou mayest).

          There is one other point that I found interesting in the Midrashic literature, and that concerns the way in which language is bent and folded, in order to bring out new meanings.  I find this aspect most intriguing.  As the story continues the biblical text says:

          Cain said to Abel his brother, “Let us go out to

          the field.”  And when they were in the field,

          Cain rose up against his brother Abel, and killed

          him.  Then the Lord said to Cain, “Where is Abel

          your brother?”  He said, ‘I do not know; am I

          my brother’s keeper?  And the Lord said, “What

          have you done?  The voice of your brother’s

          blood is crying to me from the ground.  And

          now you are cursed from the ground, which

          has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s

          blood from your hand” [Gen. 4:8-11].

What the Rabbis do here is to concentrate on specific words and give them a meaning that is not explicit in the text.  An example of this occurs in verse eight, in that verse the Rabbis see the strength of Abel, as Rabbi Johanan said, “Abel was stronger than Cain, for the expression rose up can only imply that [Cain] lay beneath him” [Midrash Rabbah, 1:187].  In other words, Abel was not passive, the Rabbis say that he fought back and was actually stronger than Cain, but Cain was wicked and tricked Abel by saying, “‘. . . what will you go and tell our father [if you kill me]?’” [Midrash Rabbah, 1:187].  Because of those words, Abel took pity on Cain, and that was his undoing.  In this regard Rabbi Hanina said, “‘Do not do good to an evil man, then evil will not befall you’” [Midrash Rabbah, 1:187].

          Finally there is the question of fault.  It is obvious that Cain is guilty for murdering his brother, but could someone else bear some guilt in this matter.  Rabbi Simeon Ben Yohai seems to think so, he said, “It is difficult to say this thing, and the mouth cannot utter it plainly.  Think of two athletes wrestling before the king; had the king wished, he could have separated them.  But he did not so desire, and one overcame the other and killed him, he [the victim] crying out before he died, ‘Let my cause be pleaded before the king!’” [Midrash Rabbah, 1:189].  It is clear what the Rabbi Simeon is saying, he is saying that God could have prevented this from happening, but He did not.  It follows then that God bears some portion of the blame.  That is why Rabbi Simeon went on to say, “The voice of thy brother’s blood cries out against Me” [Midrash Rabbah, 1:189].  This is a very powerful statement, and a very profound one, it shows the multivalent nature of the biblical text.  This story is so rich in meaning that a person will always be able to find new meanings within it.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Rabbi Dr. I. Epstein (Editor).  The Midrash Rabbah.  (New York:  The Soncino Press, 1983).  10 Volumes.

John Steinbeck.  East of Eden.  (New York:  Penguin Books, 1979).

The Bible:  Revised Standard Version.  (New York:  American Bible Society, 1971).  

Cain and Abel:  The Pain of Rejection and the Power of Choice

by Steven Todd Kaster

San Francisco State University

Philosophy 551 (JS 516):  Biblical Ethics (The Moral of the Story)

Dr. Laurie Zoloth

16 December 1999

Copyright © 1999-2025 Steven Todd Kaster