The Perils of the Number One Son

While the Parsha of Beraishit contains many well-known, seminal stories with respect to the universal human condition, the verse to which I find myself being drawn year after year, is Beraishit 4:7. After Kayin is crestfallen because his younger brother Hevel’s sacrifice has been Divinely Accepted, and his own rejected, God tells him, “Halo, Im Teitiv Se’eit. VeIm Lo Teitiv LePetach Chatat Roveitz VeEilecha Teshukato. VeAta Timshal Bo” (If you do well, you will be uplifted. And if you do not do well, sin crouches at the door, and to you shall be its desire. Yet you can rule over it.) Unfortunately, Kayin does not heed the warning that he is given, and in the very next verse (4:8) , he eliminates his competitor once and for all.

Although Adam and Chava also sinned (3:1-7) and suffered dire consequences as a result (v. 16-24), there apparently was no prior opportunity for them to learn how to deal with God and His Commandments. Kayin’s parents originally received a single warning concerning avoiding the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and a threat of mortal consequences (2:16-17), and then were left to their own devices to either comply or transgress. They were not told about human nature’s susceptibility to temptation; neither were they instructed regarding the best means by which they could avoid error, nor the possibility of repentance following improper behavior. Perhaps God Deemed it sufficient to threaten them with death (v. 17) as a sufficient deterrent against their ignoring the Divine Command.

Life and death do not enter into the calculation with which the Divine Confronts Kayin; the lesson taught to him after the rejection of his sacrifice emphasizes the issue of free choice and the consequences, both good and bad, of earlier actions, rather than the threat of premature end to the life of the sinner. Furthermore, Kayin is never explicitly told either that it was his responsibility to bring the best of his produce when presenting a sacrifice to God*—from the story it appears that bringing sacrifices was his own idea rather than a fulfillment of a Divine Order—or even that murder is wrong,** in contrast to the clear injunction against eating from the prohibited tree, explicitly told to Adam.*** The Kayin story conveys the impression that what God is telling him does not have to do with one particular sin or another, but rather with one’s general approach to living a good and exemplary life.

Yehuda Kil, in Da’at Mikra,**** notes the literary parallels between God’s Words to Kayin—“Im Teitiv Se’eit”, and what Yaakov tells Reuven in his final blessing to him (49:3)—“Yeter Se’eit VeYeter Az” (exceedingly uplifted and exceedingly powerful.) The commentator suggests that the term “Se’eit” reflects the special status of priesthood and being a firstborn son.***** While one way to read the stories of the bible would be to understand them as a negation of primogeniture and inherited privilege, making the case that chosenness should be based upon merit rather than geneology and birth order, it is equally significant and quite poignant to consider these stories from the point of view of the first born children who are regularly stymied in their aspirations for leadership. One might even ultimately conclude that being born first is actually a handicap rather than an advantage!

Just as Kayin’s expectation of birth order privilege is thwarted by his brother’s sacrifice being accepted instead of his own, so too all of Leah’s children in general, and Reuven in particular, experience a similar rejection when the latter is replaced by Yosef as Yaakov’s firstborn (See 48:5. By Yaakov’s designating Yosef’s sons Efraim and Menashe into full fledged tribes, he in effect confers upon Yosef the double portion of the firstborn, which technically belonged to Reuven.) Yaakov’s justification for Reuven’s demotion, (v. 4) “Pachaz KaMayim Al Totar” (unstable as water, you shall not excel)—the verse then refers to Reuven’s impetuous interference with Yaakov’s conjugal life following Rachel’s death (35:22)—could be just as easily applied to Kayin in the sense that he is unable to pay attention to the Divine Instruction being given to him, but rather immediately proceeds to give in to his emotions of jealously and frustration and violently ends his competitor’s life.

An additional literary reference to the status of the firstborn is the usage of the word “Petach” (doorway, opening) in 4:7, which R. Kil understands as the opening of his mother’s womb that the Bechor accomplishes when he is born. The reason that “sin crouches at the opening of the mother’s womb” specifically with respect to the Bechor, is the child’s expectation of privilege and special consideration. From the moment that the first siblings on earth interact with one another, God suggests that the Bechor expects to be special due to his having been first on the scene. The significance of the naming of Kayin, as opposed to Hevel, whose naming sounds like an afterthought, without even an attempt made by Chava to account for this choice, further suggests that the attitude of specialness on the part of a firstborn is not something that exclusively resides in the child’s mind, but rather that it is often aided and abetted by parents. In 4:1, Chava exults upon the birth of her first child, and proclaims, “Kaniti (I have acquired, brought into existence) a man together with God.” As for his brother, we are left to use our own imaginations and associations in order to account for why the name “Hevel” was chosen, particularly in light of its meanings including vapor, steam, and nothingness. MaLBIM even suggests that Hevel was Kayin’s twin, since the text implies not that she conceived a second time, but rather (4:2) “She continued giving birth…” The second child came forth momentarily after the first, but nevertheless paled in significance. This is also suggested by the description of the births of Peretz and Zarach, (38:28-30), where the child that extended his hand beyond the womb first, earns privileged status, even if his body enters the world after his brother’s.

If Kayin grew up believing that he was special and that his brother was insignificant and worthless, the shock of having his sacrifice rejected in favor of Hevel’s must have been all the more devastating. When another sibling appropriates the specialness that the first-born believes is his alone, it is difficult for the biological first-born child to cope with what he perceives as his usurpation. Yishmael’s mocking disposition and possible teasing of Yitzchak (21:9) could be understood to stem from a similar feeling of the oldest being suddenly supplanted by a younger child upon whom the parents shower great displays of affection. The imagery of Yaakov’s name being given to him as a result of his holding on to his twin’s heel at birth (25:26) is not lost on Eisav when he cries out after Yaakov’s trickery in obtaining Yitzchak’s blessing, (27:36) “For this reason is his name Yaakov, for he has usurped me (held onto my heel and gotten unfair advantage) twice…”

In light of the experiences of Kayin, Yishmael, Eisav and Reuven, when God tells Moshe to express the Jewish people’s specialness to Pharoah in the following manner: (Shemot 4:22) “Beni Bechori Yisroel” (Israel is My Son, My Firstborn Son), should this not only be a source of pride for us, but also an implied warning? Should Jews assume that their status as chosen people is inviolate, and therefore they will live lives of unabated privilege and favoritism? At least certain periods of Jewish history have appeared to not bear out such an assumption. All first borns, individuals as well as nations, must be careful not to sit back on their laurels and presume that they don’t have to actually continually earn their special status. If the original first born son had more carefully listened to what God Was Telling him, there is no telling how different our world would be today!

*The reason for Kayin’s sacrifice being rejected in favor of Hevel’s can only be inferred by the manner in which each of their respective sacrifices is described. Furthermore, only upon contrasting the two descriptions is anything negative implied about Kayin’s offering. Beraishit 4:3 “…and Kayin brought from the fruits of the earth an offering to God” appears to be perfectly respectable and appropriate. It is only when this verse is compared to the one immediately following, (v. 4) “And Hevel also brought from the first born of his flock and from the fattest thereof…” that the absence of comparable superlatives describing Kayin’s offering becomes noticeable. Consequently it could be concluded that this shortcoming was a subtle one, which one could easily correct, were s/he so disposed.

**Sanhedrin 56b cites a Baraita that posits that all seven Noachide commandments, including the prohibition against taking a human life, are to be derived from the verses commanded to Adam and Eve regarding the Tree of Knowledge. Specifically in terms of murder, the phrase in 2:16 “Al HaAdam” (upon man/Adam) is paralleled with 9:6 “Shofeich Dam HaAdam Damo Yishafech” (He who spills human blood of a man, his own blood shall be spilled) to posit that the prohibition of murder predated the flood to the time when the first sensate human strode the earth. Whether this was a tradition of which Kayin should have been aware or whether this is simply part of natural law and the most fundamental of social contracts, the Biblical story obviously takes him to task for his act of fratricide.

***R. Chizkiya in Sanhedrin 29a, based upon Beraishit 3:3 in which Chava says that not only was eating from the Tree of Knowledge prohibited, but even touching it, reflects that Chava’s sin, at least in part. was due to Adam’s expanding the Divine Prohibition when he conveyed it to her. Since she never directly heard the injunction from God Himself, Chava had to rely on Adam’s account of the law.

*****Originally, the Jewish priesthood was to have been comprised of the firstborn. Only as a result of the sin of the Golden Calf was Aharon and his descendants chosen to replace the firstborn in this role. See BaMidbar 3:12.