The Zohar states that the words "Let there be light" represent the possibility of experiencing the light of God's kindness directly, "through the side of the right;" whereas the words "and there was light" refer to the experience of God's kindness indirectly, "through the side of the left."

 This observation is based on the fact that the phrase "And God said, 'Let there be ...'," in every other verse pertaining to the Creation is followed by the sentence "And it was so." Here, however, the phrase "And God said, 'Let there be light'" is followed by the words "and there was light." According to the Rabbis, this indicates that the light which was actually brought into existence was inferior to that which might have been. And that light which might have been was reserved for the righteous in the World-to-Come.

 The wording of the verse "And God saw the light that it was good" is also exceptional with regard to other similar verses pertaining to the Creation, which conclude with the phrase "And God saw that it was good." The meaning of "it" is always understood within the context of the preceding verses. Thus, why was it necessary to define what God saw in terms of "the light" in this particular verse? In answer to this question, the Rabbis explained that the words "and God saw" refer to His mind's eye, as it were, seeing "the light" which might have been, "that it was good." And God set aside this light of absolute good for the righteous in the World-to-Come.

 "Direct" experience is indeed possible only in the World-to-Come. There, the fullness of God's kindness will be revealed. Its roots will be seen to extend to all that exists, sustaining and perpetuating, providing new possibilities and means for return. In this world, however, the experience of God's kindness is relative and indirect. We appreciate light in contrast to darkness, the blessing of health as it negates the predicament of illness, good fortune as the antithesis of lack of success. We rejoice when things go well and suffer when what we want is something other than what we possess.

 The righteous, however, are endowed with an otherworldly perspective. Their pure faith allows them to perceive God's kindness, which is at the heart of all that exists. The blessings concealed in the darkness are revealed to them, and they come to the realization that vessels for light are conceived in suffering, while worthiness is proven through an ongoing commitment to, and perseverance in, the struggle. But "direct" experience lies beyond the limitations of vessels: it is like the ultimate confirmation of faith itself, and this is only possible in the World-to-Come. It is there that the righteous are rewarded for their faith and granted the experience of light from "the side of the right" directly and absolutely.
 

"AND THE WOMAN SAID TO THE SNAKE, 'OF THE FRUIT OF THE TREES OF THE GARDEN WE MAY EAT; BUT OF THE FRUIT OF THE TREE WHICH IS IN THE MIDST OF THE GARDEN, GOD HAS SAID: 'YOU SHALL NOT EAT OF IT, AND YOU SHALL NOT TOUCH IT, LEST YOU DIE.' AND THE SNAKE SAID TO THE WOMAN: 'YOU SHALL NOT SURELY DIE! FOR GOD DOES KNOW THAT IN THE DAY YOU EAT THEREOF THEN YOUR EYES SHALL BE OPENED, AND YOU SHALL BE AS GOD, KNOWING GOOD AND EVIL'" (Gen. 3:2-5).

The serpent's primary argument to Eve was that she should eat in order to become like God, knowing good and evil. The strength of the snake's argument was based on the assumption that God created the universe in order to afford man freedom of choice. The serpent argued that God wants man to value free choice above all else. Man can only emulate God and come close to Him through the process of utilizing his free choice. Therefore, man must assert and confirm his freedom of choice at every opportunity, even if God himself should command man to negate his choice. God's command should not be taken seriously, but instead should be seen as a test to see whether or not man truly values the ability to choose. In fact, according to the serpent, if God really did not want man to eat from  the tree, then the eating would not be possible. Since God told man not to eat, but at the same time granted man the choice and ability to eat, this would prove that God was not absolutely against man's eating; rather, He was providing a test to assess whether man truly valued the gift of choice bestowed upon him.

Furthermore, if man is to emulate God, in the truest sense, then it must be remembered (according to the serpent), that God Himself is absolutely free to choose. He does not have to negate His will to any greater god. Hence, it stands to reason that if God wants man to emulate himself then He could not possibly want man to negate free-will even to himself.

This, therefore, was the serpent's argument: "In the day you eat thereof ... you shall be as God, knowing good and evil." ('Knowing,' in other words, knowing one thing as opposed to another, and being able to choose between the two. As the rabbis taught, "If not for knowledge, how may one distinguish ?"[T.J. Berakot 8:2].) If you eat, then you will be like God, Who does not submit His will to any other entity, and as a reward for passing the test you will be granted many other opportunities to make decisions according to your own choice rather than following a directive.

But the serpent's devious argument relied on a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of choice. For God, too, imposes restraints upon His ability, and limits His choices in order to create a universe where individual things may co-exist with Himself. Were this not so, all Creation would be annihilated before the light of God's infinite essence. Hence, if man is to learn from God and emulate His ways, then the first lesson to be understood is that freedom of choice must be limited, to some extent, in order to accomplish any creative or productive act.

The serpent was not punished for tempting man to eat from the tree (after all, this is the task it was meant to fulfill in the garden), but because he misrepresented God's purpose in creation. The serpent did not actually lie when he said, "you shall be as God knowing good and evil." For God does indeed 'know' good and evil. (The word 'know' may connote the unity between two opposites, as we read in the verse, "And the man knew," that is, was united through sexual intercourse with, "Eve, his wife" [Gen. 4:1].) Both good and evil are at harmony with God's purpose in creation, and ultimately will serve to accentuate the perfection of that purpose. Only God, who is one with Himself and at harmony with His creation, can be objective in his perception of reality. As Creator of the universe, He is constantly aware of the harmony that exists between good and evil. Hence, God's 'knowing' is an objective knowing which comes from an absolute objective knowledge of His creation.

As soon as Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil their perceptions were immediately integrated with the forces of subjective reality. Hence, as indicated above, the serpent did not truly lie, but instead misled Adam and Eve. They did, in fact, become like God, knowing good and evil. But their knowledge was experiential and subjective, whereas God's knowledge of good and evil is completely objective.

Before eating from the tree, Adam and Eve perceived their uniqueness of being as rooted in the unity of God. The acuteness of this perception was so profound that every other perception was of lesser significance. Hence, they could distinguish objective reality with unsurpassed precision. They could appreciate the reasoning of the serpent, who argued that they should eat from the tree, while at the same time never falling from an intimate awareness of God's presence and command. Once they ate from the tree, however, their consciousness and that of humankind fell under the influence of a totally integrated subjective reality. It was no longer possible for Adam and Eve to clearly distinguish their rootedness in God's unity from the information and experience gleaned through their worldly interaction.

Eve's acceptance of the serpent's argument led to the partaking of the forbidden fruit, and the limiting of choice by the forces of subjective reality. In order to clarify this point, let us consider the following.

God relates to humankind in language which adheres to a process of reason which He Himself created; and mankind was meant to relate to God in terms of this same language and process of reason. Both man and God are somewhat vulnerable in terms of this language medium that defines their mutual relationship. Man is vulnerable in that he is finite, and therefore can never truly fathom, through reason, God's innermost intentions or motivations, which are infinite. On the other hand, God is vulnerable in that He desires to bestow His good upon humankind in such manner as would afford people the opportunity of emulating Himself through the perpetuation of goodness. But since the good done by God is completely altruistic - it is something that God chooses to do because He wants to and not because He is forced - if man is to emulate God's good, man, too, must be given choice. But as soon as man is given choice, God becomes vulnerable in the sense that man may use his power of reason (which is necessary for free choice) to doubt and question God's existence or motives to the point where God's goodness might go unrecognized and hence unduplicated in the universe.

The serpent's argument to Eve used the logic of reason to analyze God's motivations. For, as explained earlier, the serpent argued that if God really did not want man to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, then man would have been created without the ability to eat from it. But since man could eat from the tree and at the same time was commanded not to eat, this would suggest that God would not necessarily mind if he ate. In fact, it is reasonable to assume that God might actually want man to affirm his right to choose by eating.

Thus, the serpent's argument to Eve was premised on the notion that man might utilize his finite powers of reason to interpret God's infinite motives. This point of view caused Eve to neglect God's explicit command in favor of a deductive assumption concerning God's motives. As a result, the choices of humankind were permanently limited by the forces of subjective reality. For the nature of subjective reality forces people to recognize the vulnerability of language and the process of reason. We are made to realize that even our own perceptions and motivations, and how much more so those of God, are beyond our ability to clearly define or articulate in objective terms.

The serpent recognized God and hated Him at the same time. On the one hand, his hatred of God stemmed from a jealousy of God's special relationship with Adam and Eve. He could not accept that human beings were given choices and opportunities superior to his own. Thus, the serpent considered God to be unfair. He resented what he considered to be a secondary role in the universe. By  framing an argument based on doubt concerning God's motives, he expressed his hatred towards God. On the other hand, when he concealed the misguided premise of his argument from Eve and reinterpreted the nature of her test, he was actually trying to make her sin in order that humankind would be discredited in the eyes of God, and proved unworthy of God's good. The serpent was able to accomplish all of this by exploiting the gap that exists between man's limited language of reason and the infinite essence of God which is beyond man's intellectual capacity to discern.

We find, therefore, that God came to Adam and asked him, "Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree which I commanded you not to eat?" And then God came to Eve, as the verse reads: "And the Lord God said to the woman, 'What is it that you have done?'" But when God confronted the serpent, it is written, "And the Lord God said to the serpent: 'Because you have done this, cursed are you ...'." The Biblical commentators point out that God confronted Adam and Eve in the form of a question thus giving them an opportunity to explain themselves in a way which would somewhat excuse their actions. But the serpent was not granted any such opportunity. Instead, God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this ...", and went on to relate his punishment. Had God given the serpent a chance to defend himself, the serpent would have said, "It is true that I misrepresented, but in the final analysis I, the servant, said that they should eat and You, the Master, commanded them not to eat. Whom were they required to obey, the servant or the Master?" God knew the cunningness and dishonesty of the serpent. He knew how the serpent capitalized on the gap which exists between His infinite intention and the limited language of reason created for humankind. Had the serpent been given the opportunity, he would have utilized the process of reason to defend himself against God and escape punishment. But the serpent had caused Eve to sin by diverting her mind away from the language and reasonability of God's command and, as explained above, cunningly drew her attention to the nature of God's motives to the point where she began to doubt whether she had properly understood the true dimension of her test. Therefore God would not permit the serpent to defend himself by means of the very language of reason which it had precluded from man.

As we have seen, the serpent caused Adam and Eve to sin because he was consumed by jealousy and was unable to accept his place in the universe. Because their potential opportunities were greater than his, the serpent rebelled against God and sought to discredit Adam and Eve. The serpent could not accept his own inherently limited condition, and therefore caused Eve to become overly conscious of her own limitations to the point that she doubted her ability to interpret the true nature of God's test. It was only then that she accepted the serpent's version of what God wanted and ate from the tree. Hence, the serpent rebelled against God because of jealousy and an unwillingness to accept his own limitations, and wanted to prove that humankind was no better and would ultimately rebel against God's command as a result of limitation.

Once Eve ate from the tree, her perception fell from an absolute awareness of being, rooted in the source of God's unity, to one mingled with the forces of subjective reality. She knew that she had sinned because it was no longer possible for her to absolutely disassociate the essence of who she was from the subjective reality of which she was a part. She feared that she would die and gave Adam to eat from the fruit as well. For as a result of her newly found 'knowledge,' Eve began to experience still greater limitations of self. She was jealous of Adam who had not eaten and could not bear the thought that his future held a potential greater than her own. Surely she would die and a new woman would be created for the man she loved. It was this jealousy and her unwillingness to accept limitation that drove Eve to cause Adam to sin. Indeed, some of the innate qualities of the serpent, his questioning of God's motives, his unwillingness to accept limitation and his hatred and jealousy, had to some extent been transferred to humankind.
 

"AND THE LORD SAID UNTO THE WOMAN: 'WHAT IS THIS THAT YOU HAVE DONE?' AND THE WOMAN SAID: 'THE SERPENT TRICKED ME AND I DID EAT'" (Gen. 3:13).

Adam unwittingly ate from the tree. He trusted Eve and ate unquestioningly of the fruit which she gave him. Hence, he defended himself before God saying: "The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree and I did eat." There was no reason for him to suspect that the fruit came from the forbidden tree; after all, there were many fruit trees in the garden from which they could partake.

God sympathized with Adam and did not curse him directly. Instead, God cursed the ground, so that Adam would be caused to suffer great difficulty throughout life. This is the meaning of "Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil shall you eat of it all the days of your life." [cite] Adam's sin was done indirectly, having trusted his wife. He was, therefore, cursed with a form of indirect punishment. The ground could no longer be trusted to provide him with produce as a result of direct and simple toil.

Adam, however, was indirectly responsible for Eve's having eaten from the tree. This is what the Rabbis taught: "Adam wanted to protect Eve from eating from the tree. He therefore added to God's command and instructed his wife not even to touch the tree, whereas God had simply said not to eat from it. We know this from what Eve told the serpent, "Of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden God has said: 'You shall not eat of it, neither shall you touch it, lest you die'"(Gen. 3:3). The serpent then pushed Eve against the tree (see Rashi on Gen. 3:4), and when she saw that nothing happened, she went ahead and ate. Adam should have pointed out the difference between God's command and his own protective measure. Hence, Adam was somewhat responsible for Eve's transgression. He most definitely bore an indirect responsibility for what happened and therefore received an indirect punishment.

Eve, on the other hand, ate from the forbidden fruit with full knowledge of her action. Her sin brought death to the world in two respects which are actually linked. First, it brought spiritual death which, as already explained, means that she fell from a state of unique self-awareness rooted in the unity of God to a consciousness distorted by the limitations of subjective reality. Second, it brought physical death which, like the distortions of subjective reality, would torment the condition of mankind forever. Paradoxically, however, it is physical death which can combat the misconceptions born of subjective reality. In the final analysis, it is precisely death that inspires man in his quest for self-knowledge and a greater transcending reality.

Furthermore, Eve had allowed herself to be seduced by the serpent which, until it was cursed, bore the likeness of man. The serpent impregnated Eve with its poison. This can be gleaned from the Hebrew expression used by Eve while attempting to explain the reason for her transgression to God. She said, "HaNachash hyshya'ni," the serpent tricked me. The word hyshya'ni, tricked me, is a form of the word nesuyin, marriage (see T.B. Sanhedrin 146b, and Rashi ad loc.). The serpent's poison entered the womb of Eve and mingled with the seed of Adam from which all mankind came.

There were two aspects of evil contained in the serpent's poison. One was a kind of irredemable evil which tarnished the soul of Cain. It led Cain to accept the existence of God and yet hate Him and want to rebel against Him at the same time. Eventually the soul of Cain was freed from the influence of this aspect of evil. But irredemable evil, once brought into the world as a result of Eve's sin, was perpetuated in the form of Amalek, the arch-enemy of the nation Israel. Amalek believes in God but hates Him for having entered into a covenant with Israel. Amalek is jealous of Israel and its spiritual potentiality in the universe.

The second aspect of evil affected the souls of all mankind. It shows itself in the form of innate self-centeredness and arrogance, intuitive rejection of authority, and refusal to submit to a higher order. Not all souls, however, are affected to the same extent by this second aspect of evil. The souls of humankind are also influenced by the strengths, weaknesses and attitudes of their parents. Often a child is born with certain character deficiencies inherited from his parents. Such a person is granted the ability to overcome these weaknesses through the proper use of choice. In a sense, it is the mission of every child to remedy the failings of his parents while struggling toward his own level of perfection and self-fulfillment. Abel's soul was affected by the second aspect of evil and, as we shall see, he was also affected by the shortcomings of Adam. Cain, on the other hand, was affected by the first aspect of evil, which was more closely related to the serpent and his mother's sin.
 

"AND THE MAN KNEW EVE HIS WIFE; AND SHE CONCEIVED AND BORE CAIN, AND SAID: 'I HAVE BEGOTTEN A MAN WITH THE HELP OF THE LORD.' AND AGAIN SHE BORE HIS BROTHER ABEL" (Gen. 4:1-2).

The Rabbis taught that Cain was born with a twin sister, while Abel was born with two twin sisters. This is deduced from the Hebrew word "et," which is mentioned once in connection with the birth of Cain and twice in connection with the birth of Abel. The word "et" has no intrinsic meaning of its own; instead, it indicates the existence of something additional as, in the instance at hand, additional sisters (see Bereshit Rabbah 22:2 and commentaries ad loc.; T.B. Pesachim 22b).

Cain's attitudes closely resembled those of the serpent. He was jealous of the additional sister born with Abel, his brother. For the sons of Adam married their twin sisters. Why did God provide his brother with more child-bearing potential than he himself was granted? Like the serpent before him, Cain could not accept the limitations imposed upon him by God. He began to question God's motives. It seemed to him that God conducted the universe in a random, thoughtless and unfair manner. After all, why should one brother be born with an advantage over the other? Cain saw his own potential opportunities as worthless by comparison. He did not think in terms of individual destiny. He did not consider that God might deliberately place people in dissimilar circumstances so that they might be uniquely challenged by different forms of opportunities and choices. Instead, Cain was consumed by jealousy. For the soul of Cain had been affected by the first aspect of evil.

On the other hand, Cain's soul, in terms of itself, was unblemished and pure. It was the first soul ever to be drawn into physical existence through an act of man. Cain was torn between jealousy and doubt about God's motives, and a deep inner desire to come close to God and find favor in His eyes. He decided to confront God in terms of his own negative feelings. Perhaps God would understand and somehow redress the seeming injustice.
 

"AND IN THE PROCESS OF TIME IT CAME TO PASS, THAT CAIN BROUGHT OF THE FRUIT OF THE GROUND AN OFFERING UNTO THE LORD. AND ABEL, HE ALSO BROUGHT OF THE FIRSTLINGS OF HIS FLOCK AND OF THE FAT THEREOF. AND THE LORD TURNED UNTO ABEL AND HIS OFFERING BUT UNTO CAIN AND HIS OFFERING HE DID NOT TURN. AND CAIN WAS VERY ANGRY AND HIS FACE FELL. AND THE LORD SAID UNTO CAIN, 'WHY ARE YOU ANGRY? AND WHY IS YOUR FACE FALLEN? IF YOU DO WELL SHALL IT [YOUR FACE] NOT BE LIFTED UP? AND IF YOU DO NOT DO WELL, SIN LURKS AT THE DOOR; AND UNTO YOU IS ITS DESIRE, BUT YOU MAY RULE OVER IT! AND CAIN SAID TO ABEL HIS BROTHER. AND IT CAME TO PASS WHEN THEY WERE IN THE FIELD, THAT CAIN ROSE UP AGAINST ABEL HIS BROTHER AND SLEW HIM" (Gen. 4:3-8).

"Cain brought of the fruit of the ground ... And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof." The Rabbis taught: "Cain brought of the worthless fruit. He randomly chose that which first came to his hand. Whereas Abel brought from the choicest of his flock" (Rashi ad loc.). Cain was jealous of his brother. It seemed to him that God conducted the universe in a random, thoughtless manner. He saw his own potential opportunities as worthless. To emphasize his feelings, Cain deliberately brought an offering which was both randomly - thoughtlessly -- chosen and worthless. Yet, despite his doubts concerning God's motives, he recognized the importance of communicating with God. Hence, it was he who first decided to bring an offering. It was only later that Abel, following his brother's lead, brought an offering of his own. As the verse proclaims: "And Abel, he also brought ..."

But God did not turn to Cain or his offering. For both Cain and his offering represented a desire to confront God in terms of His motives and, as we have already explained, were God to grant man an understanding of His motives, then human choice would be negated.

However, God judged Cain in terms of his desire to communicate and did not punish him for his impudence. Instead, God rebuked Cain and tried to make him understand the necessities of limitation. "Why are you angry? And why is your face fallen?" In other words, God asked Cain, why are you angry at Me? Even if you cannot understand why your brother was born with an additional sister, why are you angry? Perhaps you were meant to accomplish something different from him, something possibly even greater. How can you expect to know all the answers without struggling with the questions? And even then, perhaps comprehension lies within the struggle, and has nothing to do with the answer. Besides, were you to comprehend My motives and resolve all questions, who would you be? Why has your face fallen? Why has your self-image deteriorated? Why can you not believe in the potential of your abilities and choices? If you pursue the good on the basis of what you can understand, then your face - your self-image --  will be lifted. And if you do not, thinking that all endeavor is worthless since there are limitations which you cannot comprehend, then know, sin lurks at the door.

What is meant by the expression "sin lurks at the door"? Antoninus asked Rebbe, "Does the evil inclination reside in man from the time he is formed or from the time he comes forth from his mother's womb?" Rebbe answered, "From the time he is formed." "If this is so," said Antoninus, "then a child should rebel in his mother's womb and force himself out before the proper time." Thus, Rebbe agreed (that the evil inclination enters into a man when he emerges from the womb), and used to say, "This is something I learned from Antoninus, and there is a verse which proves him right. For it is stated: 'Sin lurks at the door'," at the door of the womb (T.B. Sanhedrin 91b).

In other words, sin becomes possible the moment a child is born into the physical world. If sin were not possible, then choice would not be possible. And if choice were not possible, then man could not exist as an individual. Choice, however, is predicated upon man's lack of knowledge, in particular his lack of comprehension concerning God's motives. But despite his inability to comprehend, man can rule over the temptation to sin. He can overcome frustration and anger which are stimulated by circumstances beyond his control, through the calm and patient pursuit of the potential which lies within his province. Hence, just as a child develops slowly in his mother's womb and is in no particular hurry to see the light of day, so too should man gradually develop through experience without pushing too hard against the limitations of circumstance.

As we have seen, God rebuked Cain, implying that he should abandon the useless struggle to comprehend His motives. Instead, Cain should pursue his own range of potential choices and opportunities, remembering that that which cannot be understood is what makes free choice possible to begin with. Cain was somewhat appeased and encouraged as a result of God's words. He decided to share his new sense of purpose with Abel, whom he now saw for the first time as a brother rather than a rival. He began to repeat his conversation with God. This is the meaning of the verse "And Cain said to Abel his brother ..." Cain thought of Abel as his brother for the first time. Yet the verse leaves off abruptly. We are not told what Cain actually said. For Cain was interrupted by his brother and not given a chance to continue.

In truth, the soul of Cain was potentially greater than that of Abel. It had been born first into the world to set an example for Abel to follow. Indeed, Cain was meant to be Abel's older brother in the most profound sense. He had the potential ability to reveal the light of God's purpose amid the darkness and confusion engendered by limitation and circumstance. But Cain's soul had been infected by the poison of the serpent. He bore the brunt of his mother's transgression. Eve had sinned because of self-doubt, due to her awareness of paradoxical circumstances which were beyond her ability to fully comprehend. (God had given her the ability to eat, yet commanded her not to. Perhaps the real test was to see whether or not she would exert her freedom to choose.) Cain, too, was confronted with circumstances beyond his ability to fully understand: why had he been born with fewer advantages than his brother's? How could he possibly accomplish as much in life as Abel? Moreover, he was older, and therefore felt that he deserved added recognition and status. Nevertheless, Cain had freedom of choice. He possessed the inner strength necessary to overcome every obstacle and ultimately reveal the potential goodness and Godly purpose within the limitations of circumstance. But, like Eve, his mother, he allowed the obscurities of circumstance to get the better of himself. He fell into self-doubt, questioned God's motives, and was jealous of his brother.

The soul of Abel had also been infected by the poison of the serpent, but to a far lesser extent than that of Cain. For Cain's potential purpose in life was far superior to that of Abel his brother. Hence, the serpent's poison attached itself mostly to the soul of Cain. Cain was meant to acknowledge and reveal the goodness of God hidden in the confusion of circumstance. Abel, on the other hand, was born with every advantage. He had no reason to doubt God or to become jealous of his brother. His mission in life was to acknowledge God for the goodness bestowed upon him. He was to remain faithful and humble, recognizing God as the source of all prosperity. In other words, Abel's test in life required that he master complacency and arrogance. But because he, too, had been affected by the serpent's poison, Abel thought of himself as superior and more deserving than his brother.

In a sense, Abel was very much his father's son. For Adam, too, had been very complacent. He had seen his place in the world as totally secure. He felt that he deserved, and could therefore trust in, the automatic continuance of his prosperity. Hence, when Eve gave him to eat from the forbidden fruit, he readily accepted it without question. It was conceivable that she had made a mistake, or had decided to eat of the forbidden fruit on her own. Nevertheless, how could anything go wrong with the good life Adam felt he deserved? Adam had slipped into complacency, and no longer had the humility to take proper precautions with regard to God's only command.

And so Abel interrupted his brother. He did not allow him to express his new found hope and appreciation for life. Instead, Abel interrupted with words of mockery and derision (see Da'as Zekenim on Gen. 4:8; Sha'ar haGilgulim, Hakdamot 34-36). He implied that God gave nothing to Cain but words of rebuke and encouragement; whereas he, Abel, was born with all the advantages, and it was his offering which God had accepted. Certainly, it was he whom God favored. Nothing could go wrong with his life.

Cain was angered by his brother's arrogance. Once again, he began to doubt God's motives. Being a farmer, Cain was familiar with the intricacies of nature. He understood the earth's inherent dangers. It would be simple to cause his brother to meet with an 'unfortunate accident.' Abel's arrogance would surely dissipate were he to be trapped by the forces of circumstance which he trusted and took for granted. "If Abel, too, is victimized by circumstance," thought Cain, "only then will he understand my torment."

Cain plotted against Abel. He treated him kindly, continuing to refer to him as his brother, all the while concealing his rage. Finally, he lured Abel into the field. He maneuvered him close to a place of danger -- some jagged rocks, or quicksand. Suddenly he stood up in a menacing manner. Abel moved backward, and was killed. Hence, the verse states, "And Cain 'rose up' against Abel his brother and slew him."
 

"AND THE LORD SAID UNTO CAIN: 'WHERE IS ABEL YOUR BROTHER?' AND HE SAID: 'I DO NOT KNOW; AM I MY BROTHER'S KEEPER?' AND HE SAID: 'WHAT HAVE YOU DONE? THE VOICE OF YOUR BROTHER'S BLOOD CRIES TO ME FROM THE GROUND. AND NOW CURSED ARE YOU FROM THE GROUND WHICH OPENED HER MOUTH TO RECEIVE YOUR BROTHER'S BLOOD FROM YOUR HAND WHEN YOU TILL THE GROUND, IT SHALL NOT HENCEFORTH YIELD UNTO YOU  HER STRENGTH; A FUGITIVE AND A WANDERER SHALL YOU BE IN THE EARTH'" (Gen. 4:9-12).

Cain could not have meant to kill Abel, since the phenomenon of death had not, as yet, been experienced by humankind. He merely wanted to demonstrate to his brother, and perhaps even to God, that man's opportunities and choices could be limited or negated through the manipulation of circumstance. Hence, when God asked, "Where is Abel your brother?", Cain answered, "Am I my brother's keeper?" Cain was not being facetious. He actually did not know what had become of his brother. In fact, he had been anticipating his brother's eventual return from the ground which had consumed him. By then Abel, having suffered from circumstances beyond his control, would hopefully be cured of his arrogance,.

Therefore, God did not treat Cain as a man who had wantonly and deliberately committed murder. He was not punished with death. Instead, Cain was made to become a fugitive and a wanderer. His punishment bears a strong resemblance to the penalty meted out to a person who kills accidentally, and is made to live in one of the cities of refuge, uprooted and distant from the rest of society.

Because of his jealousy and unwillingness to accept limitation, the serpent had manipulated Eve's perception of the world. And now, for similar motives, Cain, too, attempted to manipulate the circumstances of his life. The Rabbis taught, "He who desires what is not meant for him will never acquire the object of his desire but, instead, will loose whatever is his" [cite]  This is why God cursed Cain saying, "When you till the ground it shall not henceforth yield to you her strength." For Cain had been a successful farmer and now, because he desired the opportunities of his brother, he lost even that which was meant to be his.

On a deeper level, Cain realized that God created a universe characterized by a multiplicity of purposes. Various aspects of the Creation intersect naturally under certain conditions for a variety of reasons. Nevertheless, the real potentialities of the universe are not openly reflected in the natural order. They must be discovered and brought to fruition by humankind. In doing so, people prosper and God's greatness is revealed. Everything depends on man's ability to avail himself of opportunity. Cain understood all this, but resented the fact that all people were not granted equal opportunity.

What Cain failed to recognize was the nature of God's ongoing involvement with the Creation. The universe was not meant to merely put humankind in touch with the magnificence of God's creative genius and ability. People were not meant to relate to God in terms of "He Who provided," but rather as "He Who perpetually provides." It is not enough for people to thank God for having done, they must also be aware that God continues to do.

We are meant to interact with the forces of nature to the point where we come to understand our dependence upon God. Indeed, the universe was meant to communicate a sense of Providence which testifies to God's special relationship and ongoing concern for humankind.

 There are people who are meant to honor God in terms of the revealed. They must learn humility from what is obvious and manifest, never taking opportunity for granted. Such was the task of Abel. Other people, like Cain, are meant to honor God in terms of the hidden. They must acquire humility from struggling with the unknown. Their opportunities are born of paradox. The light of God's Providence was meant to shine brightest through them.

Abel was killed because of his arrogance. In the last moments of his life, he realized that nothing could be taken for granted. His soul returned to God free of blemish and full of understanding. Cain was made to become a fugitive and a wanderer. He could no longer successfully till the soil. His very existence depended on God's intercession. He became aware of Providence and repented.