LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

Lamek took two women to be his wives. One was named Adah, and the second was named Silah.

      20 Adah gave birth to Yaval, who was the patriarch of those who live in tents and breed livestock.

      21 His brother was Yuval, who was the patriarch of musicians who play stringed instruments and flutes.

      22 Silah bore Tuval-Cain, who wrought brass and iron, as well as Tuval-Cain’s sister, Na’amah.

23 Then Lemek said to his wives Adah and Silah, “Listen to me, to Lamek; pay attention to my words. I killed someone who hurt me, as well as a child who bruised me.6

      24 If seven-fold curses come upon anyone taking vengeance on Cain, seventy-fold curses will fall upon anyone taking vengeance on Lemek!”

      25 The (first) man once again had intimate relations with his wife, and she bore a son, calling his name Seth, because “God has gifted me with another offspring in place of Hevel, since Cain killed him.”

      26 Seth also fathered a son, and named him Enosh. It was then that humanity began to worship God.

1. v.1: The name Cain is connected to Chava’s words in the Hebrew for “I have gotten” (“qaniti”).

2. v. 2: The name “Lemek” in Hebrew connotes a fool.

3. v. 7: Verse seven uses very idiomatic Hebrew. The text uses a very interesting word, se’et, which I have translated as “live correctly before Me.” My thought is that this word, often used specifically in wedding and betrothal language, expresses a unity with God’s purposes. It also expresses an ability to do something that was later expressed by God to Avraham via the Hebrew word lehithalek. This means to live in such a way as is pleasing to God.

4. v. 8: I translated the Hebrew phrase vayahargayhu as “so he murdered him.” Although another word existed for “murder” in ancient Hebrew (ratsach; cf. Exodus 20.13), the evidence of the scriptures is that God considered Cain’s action not just a mere “killing,” but an unrighteous, uncalled-for and evil action, thus justifying my translation (cf. 4.10–11). Professor Dov Landau has an interesting take on Cain’s motivation for murdering Hevel. He writes the following in his article “But to Cain and his offering He paid no heed”: “. . . The expression gam hu, ‘for his part,’ (lit. ‘also he’) in the verse ‘and Abel, for his part (Gen. 4.4) clearly indicates that Abel brought his offering after Cain had brought his, and that he had seen what Cain had brought. ….Abel’s offering could be interpreted as competitiveness, or even as inciting Cain. Now Abel succeeded in this competition….Cain, for his part, perceived the situation as follows: after his initiative in bringing an offering, Abel came and ‘upped the ante’ for drawing near to God. Henceforth it would no longer suffice to bring an offering to God; rather, one would have to embellish that offering… the new situation made Cain feel totally helpless and aroused his ire. Cain became frustrated, and frustration is one of the most dangerous things” (http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/bereshit/lan.html).

5. v. 9: Rabbi Schonfeld has another interpretation of Cain’s words in verses 7–9. He sees it as the commensurate interplay of God’s foreknowledge and mankind’s freedom of choice: “If you do good,” He (God) goes on, immediately impressing upon him the reality of his free volition, “there will be special privilege.” For Cain will have chosen freely, despite God’s knowledge, and hence merits reward. “And if you do not do good”—that, too, is in your (Cain’s) hands.” (Schonfeld, 71). That is, Rabbi Schonfeld sees all mankind in a similar situation to Cain—like Cain, mankind is able to acknowledge God’s ownership and rulership over the world, and consequently to do His instructions. Conversely, as Cain decided, mankind can choose not to care for others (e.g. as Cain put it, “Am I my brother’s guardian?”) and to disregard God’s instructions (in this specific instance, His words in verse 7). May I add that Cain did not see reality in a proper perspective. He lied to God (“I do not know” of verse 9, when he clearly did know what happened to his brother). Perhaps a lesson that Bereshit’s author wanted us to realize was that when God’s ways are disregarded, humanity sees reality wrongly, is prone to violence, and believes lies (just as Cain did).

6. v. 23: This verse could refer to Lemek killing one and the same person, that is, a young man who had struck him, or two separate people—a man and, in addition, a youngster. The most accurate translation depends upon the meaning of the word “ve” in the text. I have chosen to translate this verse to indicate that two persons were slain. Historic Jewish translation does interesting things to this text. In one version of the Targum (2E), the translated Aramaic reads: “I did not kill a man, for whose sake I should be killed, and also I did not wound a young boy, on account of which my clan should be destroyed” (4.23, Clem translation).Thus, Babylonian Jewish translation (and interpretation) relays that Lemek was claiming his innocence, instead of boasting about his violent actions. 4.24 would seem to favor the “boasting” translation, given that Lemek seemed to have expected possible blood vengeance to be taken by the clan of the slain. The meaning of the numbers in “seven-fold” and “seventy-fold” curses is obscure. It may mean seven times the number of an understood curse for an unrighteous killing, which in the mouth of Lemek seems meaningless and twisted. But that is my conjecture.

      The medieval Jewish sage the “Ramban” (acronym for Moshe ben Nachman; see glossary) has a different explanation. He wrote: “. . . have I killed a man for my injury and a child for my wound? [I surely have not!] If Kayin [who murdered] shall be avenged sevenfold, then Lemech [who only produced weapons but did not himself use them] shall be avenged seventy-sevenfold!” (4.23–24).” Rabbi Hattin adds: “Perhaps there is even a note of sarcasm to be added to Lemech’s defensive words, for he seems cavalierly unconcerned with his wives’ anxiety. “What are you two fretting about?” he seems to exclaim, “I have done nothing wrong! Am I then like Kayin who murdered his own brother in cold blood?” (M. Hattin, “The Legacy of Kayin,” http://vbm-torah.org/archive/intparsha 66/01-66bereishit.htm).

      Chapter 5

      1 This is the historic recounting of the first man, from the day on which God created man in His image.

      2 He made them male and female, and He blessed them. Then He named them “mankind” on the day that He created them.

      3 So this man was 130 years old when he fathered a son named Seth, who was born in his likeness and possessed his features.

      4 The first man lived eight hundred years after the birth of Seth, and he fathered other sons and daughters.

      5 The first man’s entire lifetime was 930 years; then he died.

      6 Seth was 105 years old when he fathered Enosh.

      7 Seth lived another 807 years after fathering Enosh, and he fathered other sons and daughters.

      8 Seth’s entire lifetime was 912 years; then he died.

      9 Enosh was ninety years old when he fathered Kaynan.

      10 Enosh lived another 815 years after fathering Kaynan, and he fathered other sons and daughters.

      11 Enosh’s entire lifetime was 905 years; then he died.

      12 Kaynan was seventy years old when he fathered Mahalalel.

      13 Kaynan lived another 840 years after fathering Mahalalel, and he fathered other sons and daughters.

      14 Kaynan’s entire lifetime was 910 years; then he died.

      15 Mahalelel was sixty-five years old when he

Скачать книгу