CAIN AND ABEL

and

THE CANAANITES WERETHEN IN THE LAND

Two stories re­explained

Alan Smith

Elibooks

© Alan Smith 5778 (2018)All rights reserved

ElibooksP.O.B. Lilac 1, Eli

44828, IsraelTel. (02) 994-3836

(From overseas 972-2-994-3836)www.torahtextmakesenseofit.wordpress.com

CONTENTS

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Cain and Abel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

The Canaanites Were Then in the Land . . 11

("%

PREFACE

The two items in this booklet are not connected, but have

been put together simply because each is too short to justify

a booklet on its own.

The story of Cain and Abel poses a number of questions,

and the reference to the Canaanites when Abram entered the

Land seems at first sight superfluous and even ridiculous. This

monograph attempts to put a different aspect on each, based

on careful examination of the text and in the first case also

of a correct understanding of Classical Hebrew grammar.

There is no guarantee that the explanations given here are

the correct ones, they merely aim to give acceptable answers

to problems in the absence of anything better.

Unlike with my other monographs, in this case the Hebrew

version is more suitable than the English one, but I have left

this English version available for anyone interested who may

find difficulty in coping with the Hebrew.

My great thanks to the Almighty for preserving me in

health to old age and giving me help in all ways.

A.S.

ELi, Mt. Ephraim, 5778

CAIN AND ABEL

Let us take a look at the first part of the story.

DXf DI HÅ É LX KÌ?ß JÅ ×YKÈLÎ Ò eLÈ LÅ LÉ DÊ (Ê-ÅAÈ ßÎÞÅÝÆ)

A½LÎ DÎ?ß JÅ IÎYHÅ Î HßÎ_HÕ LÜ Ý JÓÅ fÃfKÊ ÔHÎ eKÜ?ß JÅ ÈJÑ IfKÊ iÝ KÉjKfKÊÑ JÆXLÉ?ß JÅ ÊÎYHÌ LÅ?ß JÅ ß JÈ eJÑ LÑ Ø JÖÃfKÊ

ÔÅ eÃÛ É I×ÃÝ iÑ JÆjJÉ?Î HÉ DÎKÊAɽLÓLÈFÅ È_IÆÃ× ÉYLÎ LÉ ÔHÎ fKÜ DÊ

A½LÎÎKÑ ÉYLÌ DÕ HÓ É]LÓ LÈFÅ LÉ ÎaVÝ Db HÓ ÔHÎ kKÜ ÅjIÆL[KÊ ÒÎXHÓLÎ Ú Id HÓ ÎYHÉ DÎKÊÔXJÉ IÆ DÑ JÌ IÓX DYÕÅÃÛ ßD_ÝÃÐ DT HÓ ÅX]É?ÒKÇ ÅÎ_HÆ IÉ Ñ JÆjJÉ DÊ

AD ½ß LÌ DÕ HÓ?Ñ JÅ DÊ Ñ JÆYJÉ?Ñ JÅ eLÎ DÎ × KI H[ KÊÉXL× LI ÅWÑ DYß LÌ DÕ HÓ?Ñ JÅ DÊ ÔHÎ_KÜ?Ñ JÅ DÊAÊνLÕ Lb XYÑ DbH[KÊ È eÃÅ DÓ TÔHÎjKÜ DÑ Ý KÌ[H[ KÊ

SSSSS ÔHÎXLÜ?Ñ JÅ YLÎ DÎ Ý JÓÅ_Â[ KÊ

Assuming that all is in chronological order, we are puzzled

as to why Cain’s offering was not accepted while Abel’s was.

True, Abel brought of the best, Cain did not, but then if Cain

was the first to bring an offering, that was something to

accept, and Abel improved on it.

Then again how did Cain know that Abel’s was accepted

and that his was not? Commentators resort to the Midrash, fire

came down from Heaven in one case and not in the other.

Midrash loves to stick in miracles everywhere to explain

anything difficult, but the text does not say that fire came

down, nor does the absence of fire indicate non-acceptance.

No, we have mis-read the text and must start again.

[Note that the verb K×KÈLÎ means ‘got to know’ not ‘knew’.]

Let us start with the first verse, apparently that ‘Adam got

to know Eve,’ clearly understood as a euphemism. Rashi does

not disagree with the euphemism, but does disagree with the

translation. Not ‘Then Adam got to know Eve’ but ‘Meanwhile

Adam had got to know Eve.’ This took place before what had

just been mentioned, the expulsion from Eden. How does he

know that? He explains, because it says ¼×KÈLÎ ¼ÒLÈ LÅ LÉ DÊ and not

the more usual ¼ÒLÈ LÅ LÉ ¼×KÈI[KÊ.Rashi casually cites a rule of grammar that applies in very

many cases in the Bible, without explaining it, assuming that

it is known, though surprisingly it does not appear in the

grammar books. (He quotes it again once again in Gen. 21:1.)

The rule, to which exceptions are rare, is that whereas

normally in Biblical Hebrew the verb precedes the subject,

where the subject precedes the verb it refers to something

previous. In English we call it the pluperfect. Not that Adam

did something, but that Adam previously had done it.

The effect on the first verse of this correction by Rashi

does not concern us in our discussion here, but the rule does.

The main part of the story begins with the last line above,

‘God said to Cain’. Before that we have a prologue giving

background. Note the style adopted in the order of the clauses:

Cain - Abel; Abel - Cain; Cain- Abel; Abel - Cain; Cain

as laid out above. To fit in with this style, the clauses were

not necessarily placed in chronological order. Each clause did

not always follow its predecessor in time, sometimes it

preceded it, indicated by the pluperfect.

Now let us approximately translate the above verses, noting

Rashi’s rule that where the subject comes before the verb, the

verb is a pluperfect.

6

‘She gave birth to Cain, then again gave birth – to his

brother Abel. Abel was (or became) a shepherd, while Cain

was already a grower. At the end of a year Cain brought an

offering to God of the produce of the land, while Abel too

had brought an offering of the best of his flocks. God

accepted Abel’s offering, but that of Cain he did not accept.

Cain was angry.’

This shortened and simplified translation is sufficient to

show the sequence of events. In particular we see that Abel

brought his offering first, and this throws a whole new light

on the story. Even so, that alone does not fully answer the

problem.

There is a well-known rabbinic parable. A king happened

to spot a very old man planting a fruit tree of a species that

would not give fruit for many years. He asked the man why

he planted it, since he was unlikely to live long enough to

enjoy the fruit. The man replied that just as he enjoyed fruit

from trees planted by his ancestors, so he was planting for his

descendants.

But he did live long enough. When fruit appeared he took

a bowl and put the first fruit into it, then took it to the king.

‘Do you remember asking an old man why he planted a fruit

tree?’ he said. ‘Well I am that old man, the tree has given

fruit, and I have brought you the first pickings as a gift.’

The king was delighted, and ordered his servants to empty

the fruit, fill the bowl with gold, and give it to the old man.

The man went home and told his wife about it, and she in

turn told her neighbour. The latter then turned to her husband

and told him ‘The king takes fruit and replaces it with gold.

Take a bowl of fruit to him and he will fill it with gold.’

7

He did this, and told the king ‘I have brought you a bowl

of fruit which I understand you will replace with gold.’ The

king told his servants what to do and they did it – threw him

out and pelted him with the fruit and then with stones.

Such is the parable, and we see a parallel here. Abel

brought, out of pure goodwill, an offering of his sheep, of the

best, and God accepted it. How did he accept? Not by fire

from Heaven, but by a blessing: the next year his flock

increased considerably. It was at the end of that year ( ¼Ò¼Î HÓLÎalone means a year as pointed out by Ibn-Ezra) that the

blessing was seen, Cain noticed it and brought his offering as

an investment. As such it was not accepted, he received no

special blessing as a result.

The story of Cain and Abel may or may not be history, but

it should not be treated as mere history, because then we

cannot learn anything from it, and the word ‘Torah’ means

teaching. Better by far to treat it as a parable, which has

many teachings.

For example, what was the dispute between Cain and Abel?

They represented the first farmers, Cain an agriculturist or

grower, and Abel a man with livestock. We are told that God

expressed no preference or favouritism – he only accepts good

behaviour and rejects bad behaviour, from each.

The dispute was how to use the land. One said it is all

mine and all yours, the other said divide it. The agriculturist

took a plot and grew crops, and told the other to do the

same. Divide the land into yours and mine. But the shepherd

said it is all yours and all mine, my livestock can go

wherever it wants to go. So it did, and damaged the crops.

8

The dispute continued for thousands of years through all

generations, It was noticeable especially in America, and was

even put into a song in Oklahoma! Fencing helped, but could

be very expensive and unreliable on a large estate – cattle

could often break a fence. The problem was finally solved

only with the invention of barbed wire.

The story has many teachings. It not only tells us that you

cannot simply give to God grudgingly as a mere investment

and expect a reward. It reminds us of the dispute between the

grower and the man of cattle and sheep, and points out what

God accepts and what he does not accept. It tells how, even

where God may not completely forgive a sin that has done

irreparable damage (like murder), if the sinner repents he will

at least mitigate the punishment. It shows the damage done by

jealousy, how even brothers hated each other from the very

first, how even murder existed as long as man existed, and

the further sin of ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?’ Perhaps more.

It illustrates aspects of life and attitudes that still exist today,

in the form of a simple story from which we are to learn

something of how to behave and how not to.

Consider the story of Oliver Twist by Charles Dickens,

which showed up terrible conditions in an orphanage in a far

better way than by giving cold facts. Oliver was a fictitious

character yet typical; the way he was mistreated in the story

was actually inflicted on many orphans in many orphanages.

The story led to investigation, public outcry, and reform.

Perhaps Cain and Abel were specific real individuals who

existed in history, perhaps they were not and the story is a

parable, but that does not matter either way – the story shows

up life in reality and is there to teach us.

9

Treating it as history leaves us with many problems. Not

only do we not care what happened thousands of years ago,

but where did Cain get his wife from? How did he carry on

a conversation with God? Why was he afraid that anyone he

met might kill him, when there were only his parents and

himself in existence? Who was there who would want to

avenge Abel? Why did he need a sign that they should not

kill him? Why did he build a town or even a village? How

many people were there to fill one? And what use was it to

him as he was a permanent nomad? All this is not of vital

importance, but treating the story as a parable we learn a lot.

One problem remains even in a parable. If God accepted

Abel’s offering, why did he allow him to be killed without

offspring, while Cain’s descendants continued until the Flood?

We cannot find the answer to everything. Some things have

to be simply accepted. Perhaps it was far better to be killed,

quickly, than to spend a lifetime of suffering, a man of the

soil not being able to settle down anywhere but always on the

move from place to place, with a conscience gnawing at him

all his life on what he had done. Who knows? But if fire

came down from the sky six thousand years ago, as it does

not do today, what can we learn from it?

10

THE CANAANITES WERE THEN IN THE LAND

We are told that Abram entered the Land, reached Shechem,

and

(ÊAÆÎ ßÎÞÅÝÆ)Ú JÝ ½LÅ LT Ë_LÅ ÎYHÕF×KÕ D] KÉ DÊThe Canaanites were in the Land at that time.

Two problems jump to mind. Suppose a friend who has just

travelled through Europe tells you that he was amazed to find

Germany full of Turks and France full of Arabs. He has at

least told you something. But if another tells you that he was

amazed to find Germany full of Germans and France full of

Frenchmen, you begin to wonder about him.

Here we are told that Abram entered Canaan and found

Canaanites there! Does our Torah descend to stupidity?

Secondly, in any case why bother to mention them? They

do not enter our story later on. They gave the country its

name because they were either the first or the principal nation

living there, but Abram made friends with Amorites, bought

land from Hittites, he and his son Isaac had dealings with

Philistines, Jacob had trouble with some Hivvites; the

Canaanites themselves do not come into the story.

The answer to the first is fairly simple. The word ¼Ú JÝ JÅ here

does not mean the country, the Land of Canaan, but (as often

elsewhere) the district or region. There were several nations

living in the country. Each nation inhabited a different area

(cf. Num. 13:29) and it tells you here that when Abram arrived,

that particular region – between Shechem and Bethel, known

11

later as Mount Ephraim (and including modern Eli) – was

inhabited specifically by Canaanites. The word was not meant

here to include Amorites, Perizites, Hittites and the rest, but

to exclude them.

Then the second problem – so what? There is no record of

Abram having any dealings with them, or of having any

trouble with them, so why mention it?

It will be shown that there is indeed no relevance here, the

reason for mentioning it here appears only later.

Let us take a look at certain aspects of the history. First

iß IÅ DÊ DeÕ DT?Ô JT TÔLÝ LÉ?Ô JT ÍD[Ñ?ß JÅ DÊ DgÕ DT Ò LÝ DÆ KÅ?ß JÅ Ì KÝ kJf ÌjKdH[KÊ (ÅÑAÅÎ ßÎÞÅÝÆ)

Ô K×eKÕ D] É LÛUÝ KÅ iß JÐjJÑ LÑ ÒÎgVV DKK] ÝXÅ IÓ Ò kLf HÅ XjÅ DÛI[KÊ DXÕ DT Ò LÝ DÆ KÅ ß JIYIÅ D eß L K] Î KÝ LKÔYLÝ LÌ?È K× XÅ_ÃÆL[KÊ

Terah took his son Abram, his grandson Lot, and his

daughter-in-law Sarai from Ur of the Chaldees intending to go

to Canaan but reached Harran and stayed there.

Note – there was one group of people (one family) headed

by Terah.

Next we find

ÊÎ gHÌ LÅ?Ô JT ÍDÑ?ß JÅ DÊ D kf DI HÅ ÎjKÝ LK?ß JÅ oÒLÝ DÆ KÅ Ì KdH[KÊ (ÉAÆÎ ßÎÞÅÝÆ)

iß JÐjJÑ LÑ X gÅ DÛI[KÊ ÔXLÝ LÌ DÆ XK L×?Ý JIFÅ I JÙYJ KÉ?ß JÅ DÊ XI eLÐLÝ Ý JIFÅ iÒ LIXÐUÝ?Ñ L]?ß JÅ DÊÔ K×½LÕ D] É LÛUÝ_KÅ XÅYÃÆL[KÊ Ô K×eKÕ D] É LÛUÝ KÅ

Abram took his wife Sarai, his nephew Lot, and (all the

rest) from Harran to Canaan, and arrived at Shechem. Later he

moved south to Bethel and pitched his tent there.

Note – there was one group of people (one family) headed

by Abram.

12

Some years later there was a famine and they all went

down to Egypt for a while. On returning we find

DY_ H× ÍD_Ñ DÊ D]Ñ?Ý JIFÅ?ÑLÐ DÊ Daf DI HÅ DÊ ÅXpÉ ÒHÎkKÝ DÛ H_ HÓ ÒjLÝ DÆ KÅ oÑ K×K[KÊ (ÅAÇÎ ßÎÞÅÝÆ)

AÉ LT DǽJ KÉAbram returned from Egypt with his wife and posssessions,

and Lot with him. (Later we are told that he was rich in

livestock, and Lot who went with Abram was also.) Lot was

now independent and two groups travelled together, one

headed by Abram and the other (shepherds etc.) by Lot.

For the moment bear these facts in mind as background.

On returning, we are given first some geographic

information as to where he pitched his tent and preached.

AƽLÉLY KÆX Ø JÖYJ] KT ÉfJÕ DÜ H_ KT ÈXÃÅ DÓ È IÆ L] ÒYLÝ DÆ KÅ DÊÉ eL HÌ DfKT iÉWÑGÉ LÅ Ò[LI ÉLÎjLÉ?Ý JIFÅ ÒD gÜ L_ KÉ?È K× ÑXIÅ?ßÎ IT?È K× DÊ ÆJÇYJ HÓ ÊÎ eL× La KÓ DÑ iE JÑjI[KÊÅ_LÝ DÜH[KÊ ÉXLÕWIÅVÝ LT ÒYLI É LK_L×?Ý JIFÅ KÌ eIT DË H_ KÉ iÒDÜ DÓ?Ñ JÅ AνL× LÉ ÔÎ_IÆX ÑYIÅ?ßÎ IT ÔÎ_IT

A½LÎ DÎ Ò_II DT ÒYLÝ DÆ KÅ Ò]LIThis is followed by a political problem, trouble between

Abram and Lot.

AÒνHÑ LÉÃÅ DÊ ÝYLÜ LÆX?ÔÅÃÛ É_LÎ LÉ ÒXLÝ DÆ KÅ?ß JÅ EYIÑÃÉ KÉ ÍD eÑ DÑ?ÒjKÇ DÊß JÆ_JILÑ XYÑ DÐLÎ Å_WÑ DÊ Æ eLÝ iÒ LIXÐUÝ É[LÎ LÉ?Î H] ÊXLV DÌKÎ ß JÆ JI LÑ Ú JÝYLÅ LÉ Ò]LßÃÅ Å_LKLÕ?ÅWÑ DÊ

ÍDXÑ?ÉIÕ DÜ HÓ Î I×ÃÝ ÔÎYIÆX Ò eLÝ DÆ KÅ?ÉIÕ DÜ HÓ Î I×ÃÝ ÔÎ\IT ÆÎ gVÝ?Î HÉ DÎKÊ AʽLV DÌKÎ[A kitchen may be big enough for ten men to work there

but no kitchen is big enough for two women.]

Then another geographical point, a very important half-verse

AÚJÝ ½LÅ LT Æ_IIÂÎ ËYLÅ ÎeHYVÝ Db KÉ DÊ TÎHÕF×KÕ D] KÉ DÊand finally how Abram dealt with the matter

ÔÎ IÆX ÎYK×ÃÝ ÔÎ_IÆX FeJÕÎ IÆX Î HÕ Î IT iÉ LÆÎVÝ DÓ Î[HÉ Dß ÅjLÕ?Ñ KÅ ÍDgÑ?Ñ JÅ ÒkLÝ DÆ KÅ Ý JÓÅjÂ[KÊAXÕ D̽LÕFÅ ÒÎYHÌ KÅ ÒÎ_HILÕFÅ?Î H] FÎXJ×ÃÝ

‘Let us not quarrel, for we are brothers.’ (Let us separate!)

13

If we examine the half-verse quoted above, a number of

points spring to mind.

1. What is the relevance? Did the Canaanites and Perizites

have a bearing on the quarrel?

2. If so, it is out of place after the quarrel, it should have

been mentioned before it, along with the geography.

3. We recognise something. It reminds us of a puzzling half-

verse we met earlier. Let us compare the two.

(ÊAÆÎ ßÎÞÅÝÆ)Ú JÝ ½LÅ LT Ë_LÅ ÎYHÕF×KÕ D] KÉ DÊ(ËAÇÎ ßÎÞÅÝÆ)AÚJÝ ½LÅ LT Æ_IIÂÎ ËYLÅ ÎeHYVÝ Db KÉ DÊ TÎHÕF×KÕ D] KÉ DÊ

We note two differences. One, the word ¼Æ II¼D¼Î simply means

that these were the people living there, as against Abram and

Lot who were nomads, passing through and stopping a while.

Was there friction between settlers and nomads? Settlers

appreciated nomads (as long as they behaved themselves and

did not steal) because they brought trade, they bought surplus

produce and sold imported items. The friction here was

internal among the nomads.

But the second difference is very relevant. Instead of just

¼ÎHÕF×KÕ D] KÉ we have ¼ÎHYVÝ Db KÉ DÊ ¼ÎHÕF×KÕ D] KÉ. When Abram entered the

country he had one family, and only one nation lived in that

area. Now in the meantime the Perizites had come in. There

were two groups of nomads, quarelling, and two nations of

settlers. It is quite reaasonable to assume – in fact the

inclusion of this comment in the text hints – that there were

disputes between the two groups of settlers, probably over

land. When the disputes arose between Abram’s shepherds and

Lot’s, Abram noticed this. The disputes between the two

groups of settlers did not influence the quarrel, but did

influence the way Abram dealt with it, and that is why the

14

verse appears after the reference to the dispute and not before

it. Abram then said to Lot

|4 D+½L4F$ 1-YH+ K$ 1-_H L4F$?- H¤ SSSSS ªeJ4- I%| - H4 -Ix i(L%-V< D2 -[H( D> $jL4?0 K$Don’t let us quarrel, because we are brothers! Unlike the

Canaanites and Perizites. In other words, let us learn from the

settlers what NOT to do, how NOT to behave.

We now see the point of the earlier verse (that the

Canaanites were in the land), which is indeed totally irrelevant

at the point where it occurs and cannot be explained there,

but had to be put in there to show the change in the later

verse, the arrival of the Perizites; not to explain what

happened when Abram and Lot entered the country but to

show the difference when they returned from Egypt.

[Incidentally, the same two nations were still in the same area

in the time of Jacob, Gen. 34:30.]

Footnote.

It is sometimes necessary to go to great lengths to explain

something simple that is obvious once it is noticed.

In his commentary, Rashi’s grandson Samuel, known as

Rashbam, cites a number of instances where something

mentioned in the Torah has no direct relevance in its place

but is inserted as backgound for something that happened

later. Unfortunately his commentary on the first seventeen

chapters of Genesis, with one small exception, has been lost,

but it seems probable that he would have explained this the

same way. Certainly it adopts his approach.

15