Genesis 4:5-8
ה וְאֶל־קַ֥יִן וְאֶל־מִנְחָת֖וֹ לֹ֣א שָׁעָ֑ה וַיִּ֤חַר לְקַ֨יִן֙ מְאֹ֔ד וַֽיִּפְּל֖וּ פָּנָֽיו:
ו וַיֹּ֥אמֶר יְהוָֹ֖ה אֶל־קָ֑יִן לָ֚מָּה חָ֣רָה לָ֔ךְ וְלָ֖מָּה נָֽפְל֥וּ פָנֶֽיךָ:
ז הֲל֤וֹא אִם־תֵּיטִיב֙ שְׂאֵ֔ת וְאִם֙ לֹ֣א תֵיטִ֔יב לַפֶּ֖תַח חַטָּ֣את רֹבֵ֑ץ וְאֵלֶ֨יךָ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָת֔וֹ וְאַתָּ֖ה תִּמְשָׁל־בּֽוֹ:
ח וַיֹּ֥אמֶר קַ֖יִן אֶל־הֶ֣בֶל אָחִ֑יו וַֽיְהִי֙ בִּֽהְיוֹתָ֣ם בַּשָּׂדֶ֔ה וַיָּ֥קָם קַ֛יִן אֶל־הֶ֥בֶל אָחִ֖יו וַיַּֽהַרְגֵֽהוּ:
And now for verse 8.
Qain said to Hevel his brother; It must have been at the time of their being in the field, that Qain arose at Hevel his brother and killed him.
Let me get the little thing out of the way. Remember, I said that va-y’hi plus a time expression sets the timing of the event. When you get this structure, look for the first narrative past. If it follows on from the time expression, that is a relative clause telling what happened at that time.
Notice the etnach before that. We don’t know what Qain said. We don’t care. The rest of the verse is what’s important.
You might hear people say that we are descended from murderers. That’s not true for two reasons and here is one of them.
The word for what happened here is va-yahargehu. Torah’s legal definition for this term is manslaughter, not murder. Torah’s legal definition of murder goes with the term ratsach. Qain was never a murderer. He was guilty of manslaughter, if anything.
Now let me dive back into the Gan Eden story. I said that mot tamut is the death penalty. The death penalty didn’t happen. Why not?
Because the culture that transmitted this narrative down into the Babylonian Captivity had a law that nobody suffers the death penalty except by the testimony of two witnesses. That’s in Numbers or Deuteronomy. Who were the witnesses in the death penalty case against Adam and Chavvah?
There weren’t any. Adam and Chavvah were husband and wife, and thus each other’s relatives, and relatives cannot serve as witnesses against each other. Each of them was also his or her own relative. This is one reason why confessions are not admissible evidence in a Jewish court case. There are others but let’s stick with our sheep.
To inflict the death penalty, Jewish culture also requires means, motive, intent, and opportunity. Motive means against the person killed. Qain had no motives against Hevel; Qain was angry at Gd for Gd’s behavior. Having no motive, Qain could not form intent against Hevel.
Plus they were in the field. Not only did these actions not meet the elements of murder, there were no witnesses. Qain could not be tried for murder, let alone convicted.
Gd obeys the culture He created. He does not put Adam and Chavvah to death. He does not inflict the death penalty on Qain when Hevel’s death does not fit the elements of murder.
This is the second example of how Jewish culture rejects the “do as I say, not as I do” culture. Gd obeys the rules; He always did.
