This dvar Torah was adapted from the hashkafa portion of Rabbi Yissocher Frand’s Commuter Chavrusah Series on Parshas Bereishis: #1484 – The Bracha of Borei MeOrei HaAish.

This shiur was a guest appearance by Rabbi Yakov Frand. Good Shabbos.

This week’s parsha contains the machlokes (argument) between Kayin and Hevel that ultimately resulted in Hevel’s murder at the hands of Kayin. This is the first machlokes in the Torah, and as such, it serves as the prototype for understanding machlokes in general.

The pasuk says “Vayomer Kayin el Hevel ochiv. Vayihee bihiyosom basadeh. Vaykam Kayin el Hevel ochiv vayehargayhu” (And Kayin said to his brother Hevel. And they were in the field together. And Kayin got up against Hevel his brother and he killed him.)

The pasuk says that Kayin spoke to Hevel. Rashi says that they got into an argument. But Rashi doesn’t say what they argued about.

As an aside, the Medrash discusses what they fought about. The Medrash offers several possibilities. One opinion is that they argued over property. Another is that they argued over where the Beis Hamikdash would be built. A third is that they argued over marriage. The Medrash provides several possible explanations, but Rashi leaves the issue unresolved, and more importantly, the Torah itself never says what was said.

As an aside to the aside, someone once said that all fights are about one of three things. Fights are either about money, religion, or family matters like marriage, etc. All the real fights in the world are about one of those three things, all of which the Medrash mentions.

The bottom line is, despite the fact that the Medrash explains the machlokes, the Torah does not explain it. True, there are many times when the Medrash provides background, color, nuance, and details for things that are not in the Chumash. The Torah often omits background information. But here the Torah begins the conversation and then suddenly stops. If the Torah wants us to know Kayin said something, why doesn’t it tell us what he said? And if it doesn’t want us to know what he said, why mention the conversation at all?

I heard a beautiful pshat (explanation) from my good friend Rav Avraham Bukspan in Miami Beach. He shared a sad but true pshat in the pasuk. He said that most fights outlast the fight. Sometimes people don’t even remember what started a machlokes. All they know is that there is a machlokes. The issue that sparked the machlokes may have disappeared years ago, but the machlokes itself remains.

That is exactly what the Torah is teaching. “Vayomer Kayin el Hevel ochiv.” Rashi says they got into a machlokes. What was the machlokes about? The Torah never says because, in the end, the subject of the machlokes is not the story. The machlokes is the story. The issue may disappear, but the damage caused by the machlokes often remains.

The Torah continues. Kayin gets punished for what he did to Hevel. The Torah is never merely punitive. It is consequential. When the Torah punishes, the punishment reflects the aveira (sin) and teaches something about it. Kayin’s punishment is no exception.

What was Kayin’s punishment? He became a na venad – a wanderer. He became a nomad. He did not have a home. He needed to be constantly on the move.

Why is this the mida kineged mida (measure for measure)? Why is this the consequence of what Kayin did to Hevel? Why is na venad the proper response that the Torah gives him? The answer is because in the end, a machlokes is about a person standing firm. A machlokes usually begins when a person decides, “I am not moving.” We often call it standing on principle, standing firm, or holding our ground. The language of machlokes is the language of immovability.

The Torah says, do you know what’s going to happen when you make a machlokes because you had to stand strong? The Torah’s response is striking. Because Kayin insisted on standing his ground, he becomes na venad. The person who refuses to move becomes the one who can never find a place to stand. You’re going to be na venad. You’re never going to be settled and happy.

I will share one final ha’ara (insight) on this trajectory. Kayin had several einiklach (grandchildren). The Torah highlights an extraordinary parallel. Kayin’s descendants include names such as Chanoch, Lemech, and Mesushael. Kayin’s younger brother Sheis’s descendants include Chanoch, Lemech, and Mesushelach.

The Torah seems to be drawing a comparison between the two families. On the surface, both families appear remarkably similar. Yet one family line endured and one did not. A person consumed by machlokes may continue building, but the machlokes occupies his thoughts and drains focus, energy, and permanence from everything else he does. Kayin wanted to stand his ground, but he became na venad. His descendants bore many of the same names and achieved many of the same accomplishments, yet his line had no lasting kiyum (continuity). In contrast, Sheis inherited the legacy of Hevel, who was not a baal machlokes, and from him, the future of the world was built.

Dovid Hoffman; Baltimore, Maryland; [email protected]; Editor
David Twersky; Jerusalem; Editor Emeritus

This week’s write-up is adapted from the hashkafa portion of Rabbi Yissocher Frand’s Commuter Chavrusah Series on the weekly Torah portion. View a full listing of the halachic portions for Parshas Bereishis.

A complete catalogue can be ordered from the Yad Yechiel Institute, PO Box 511, Owings Mills MD 21117-0511. Call (410) 358-0416 or e-mail [email protected] or visit http://www.yadyechiel.org/ for further information.