Cain, Abel, The Malbim and Melanie Klein.

The sacred act, for Jews, consists in discovering, or more accurately, uncovering meaning in sacred text, meaning that is always considered mutable, dynamic, and changing each time it is encountered. It is incumbent on each generation to own the text, to make it relevant to its unique historical circumstances, taking into account both the personal and collective ethos of the time. The following paper presents a perfect example of the dynamic nature of Jewish biblical interpretation; how an already astute and perceptive interpretation can be given new, perhaps even more profound meaning when seen through the lens of a more contemporary theory. The focus of this paper is the psychologically prescient commentary of the Cain/Abel story provided by Reb. Meir Leibush, a nineteenth century Torah sage known in the literature as “The Malbim” (the name Malbim is obtained by using the first letters of his full name, Meir Leibush ben Yehiel Michal Wisser). When the Malbim’s commentary is augmented by the theories of British psychoanalyst Melanie Klein (1882-1960), this classic biblical tale is elevated to a mythic representation regarding the ontogeny of human consciousness and moral development.

The relevant biblical text is as follows:

In the course of time, Cain brought an offering to the Lord from the fruit of the soil; and Abel, for his part, brought the choicest of the firstlings of his flock. The Lord paid heed to Abel and his offering, but to Cain and his offering, He paid no heed. Cain was much distressed and his face fell. And the Lord said to Cain,

Page 1

“Why are you distressed,
and why is your face fallen? Surely, if you do right,
There is uplift.
But if you do not do right
Sin couches at the door;
Its urge is toward you,
Yet you can be its master.”
Cain said to his brother Abel…and when they were in the field, Cain set upon his brother Abel and killed him (Genesis 4:1-4).

The fratricide of Abel by his brother Cain is the subject of countless midrashim (midrashim, the plural of midrash, consists of stories, legends, parables, and interpretations of the biblical text stemming from 200CE to 400CE), mostly emphasizing Cain’s character flaws and his inordinate envy and jealousy of his brother Abel. We will subsequently examine how Malbim’s interpretation stands alone. What follows are some examples of the most widely accepted and known midrashim: “Abel selected the best of his flocks for his sacrifice, but Cain ate his meal first, and after he had satisfied his appetite, he offered unto God what was left over, a few grains of flax seed (Ginzberg, 1909/1937, p. 110). Nahum Sarna (renowned Biblical scholar, 1923-2005) adds:

The reason for God’s different reactions may be inferred from the descriptions of the offerings: Abel’s is characterized as being ‘the choicest of the firstlings of his flock’; Cain’s is simply termed as coming ‘from the fruit of the soil,’ without further detail. Abel appears to have demonstrated a quality of heart and mind that Cain did not possess. Cain’s purpose was noble, but his act was not ungrudging and openhearted. Thus the narrative conveys the fundamental principle of Judaism that the act of worship must be informed by genuine devotion of the heart.

(Sarna, 1989, p. 5)

The Netziv (Rabbi Naftali Zvi Berlin, head of Volozhin Yeshiva, 1817-1893) sees Cain’s response to God asking “Why art thou angry? And why is thy countenance fallen?” as indicating that Cain felt himself much more worthy than Abel as he had worked harder. This self-righteous anger added fuel to Cain’s resentment, hurt and humiliation, and feelings of envy. W. Gunther Plaut, (1912-2012) noted Reform Judaism scholar, offers the additional interpretation that God’s rejection of Cain’s offering

Page 2

is inexplicable in human terms. “God acts in accordance with divine wisdom: ‘I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious’ (Exodus 33:19). God’s reasons are unknown to us. The inexplicability of divine preferment marks Cain as an essentially tragic character; he reacts with blind violence to a rejection he cannot comprehend” (Plaut, 1981, p. 47). All these midrashim focus on Cain’s greed, his envy, his jealousy, his resentment, his humiliation and his unquenchable rage that then lead to the murder.

Of particular interest, is the more enigmatic verse containing the words “sin is couching at the door; and its urge is toward you, yet you can be its master” (Genesis 4:7). This verse is dealt with in most of the midrashim with the implicit assumption that Cain understands that God is warning him about his own inner impulses. Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo ben Yitchaki, an 11^th century scholar who wrote extensive commentary on the Torah) comments: “If thou wilt better thy deeds, thou shall be forgiven.  ‘Sin coucheth at the door’. At the entrance of your grave, your sin will be kept unless you repent. ‘And unto thee is its desire’ that refers to the evil inclination continually desiring and craving to make you stumble. ‘But thou mayest rule over it’…If you but will it, you will prevail over it” (as cited in Leibowitz, 2010, p. 43)

And still another midrash says:

If you do well then your countenance will be lifted up, but if not, ‘sin coucheth at the door.’ Sin is ever lying in wait for your soul and continually waiting for you to sin. This is a vivid figure of speech picturing iniquity outside a closed door waiting for an opportunity to enter. But if you wish, you have the power to rule over it, and for this reason I have said that it is within your power to raise yourself out of your defection. Your anger and fallen spirits are nothing more than wickedness of heart (Leibowitz, 2010, p.43).

Note that in each of the above examples, the midrashim emphasize the belief that Cain has the power within to resist the “evil inclination,” if he so chooses, that he can overcome the “wickedness of heart.” The claim, the assumption, is that Cain is able to comprehend that both the “evil” and the ability to resist it lie within him.

The commentary offered by The Malbim,” stands out as unique. An immensely popular and formidable Eastern European biblical scholar, The Malbim avers that though Cain understands that good and evil exist in the world as realities, Cain does not have the self-awareness to recognize that the duality exists directly within him. When trying to understand God’s assertion that “evil couches at his

Page 3

door,” Cain mistakenly sees his brother as that source of evil. Therefore, Cain believes that killing Abel will destroy the source of evil, an action that Cain views as not only right, but in accordance with what he thought was God’s will. Cain thought that it was Abel who was “couching at the door,” that it was Abel’s intent to lead him down to Sheol, (a very nebulous concept of the underworld) and that he, Cain, had the power to subdue his brother. The Malbim’s commentary suggests that Cain was in no way fully conscious. That is, he was totally unaware of his own motivations, and thus the commentary offers keen psychological insight. Regarded from a contemporary perspective, the interpretation includes psychoanalytic concepts of “splitting” and “projection” as well as the specific Kleinian concepts of unconscious envy, jealousy and greed.

Using the theories put forward by Melanie Klein and a group of other British object relations psychoanalysts, serves both to enrich and to enhance The Malbim’s interpretation. In particular, a consideration of Melanie Klein’s two developmental phases, the paranoid-schizoid position and the depressive position, show how the Cain-Abel story can be seen as a mythic representation of these alternative phases of psychic development, ones, that according to Klein’s theory, continue to operate unconsciously throughout our lives.

Object relations theory is thought of as an offshoot of traditional Freudian psychoanalytic theory. Freud’s emphasis was on the “pleasure seeking” motives of the psyche, and specifically, the need to discharge tensions associated with biological instincts. He originally used the term “object” to refer to the object of the instinct, where the object was that which satisfied the person’s instinctual need (This initial object was in most cases, the mother’s breast). Object relations theory de-emphasizes the role of biological instincts, and emphasizes inherent object-seeking, i.e. relational motives. In other words, we human beings are pre-disposed to seek relationships with others, making those initial early relationships central to our psychic development. From the beginning, we yearn for connection. As development proceeds through the first three years of life, these connections become internalized. In psychoanalytic terms, they form the core of the ego, i.e. the core of our very sense of self.

Object relations theory uses the word “object” in a very specific way. The “object” is not literally a physical person, but the internal mental structure that is formed throughout early development by the continual interpersonal relationship between the infant and person in question, usually the mother.  This mental structure is built through a series of experiences with those significant others through intrapsychic processes known as introjection and projection. The infant takes in, or “introjects,” the relationship with the “object,” while projecting onto the “object” those aspects of the self that are

Page 4

threatening and bringing fear of imminent annihilation. During both the process of birth, and in the adjustment to the postnatal situation, the newborn baby experiences anxiety of a persecutory nature. Because the infant’s earliest experiences are usually with his/her mother, the mother becomes the first internal object formed by the infant. In Klein’s view, it is the part-object, the mother’s breast that becomes internalized first. Later, the part-objects become integrated into a complete object, and the father and other significant people also become internalized. Thus, the core of our very selves is constituted by these early relationships. According to Klein, early in development, the infant vacillates between states of extreme euphoria and extreme tension. The best illustration of this process can be found in the hungry infant taking in milk from the mother’s breast. Sometimes the milk flows easily and the supply seems endless (a state of absolute euphoria, an “Eden”), and sometimes, it does not, therefore increasing the level of tension in the baby. Since the infant only lives “in the moment,” this tension is perceived as unendurable. The young infant unconsciously feels every discomfort as if these discomforts were inflicted on him/her by outside hostile forces. The infant lives in an all-or-nothing universe. What gives pleasure – leads to euphoria, and what is perceived as pain – leads to an unbearable increase in tension, a virtual hell. These feelings of pleasure and pain the infant attributes to the object itself. Thus, the good breast is the one that gives satisfaction, and the bad breast leads to frustration and rage. Since the feelings of natural rage and longing that are experienced by the infant are intolerable, in order to survive, the infant “splits them off” and represses them from consciousness or projects them on to the mother. The “split-off” feelings can be thought of as other parts of the self (ego), but are not recognized as such. The mother (or mother’s breast) is split between the “good breast,” from which milk flows in abundance, and the “bad breast” that is withholding. The infant’s inner and outer worlds are peopled with good or with bad objects as well. The infant tries to ward off the bad (e.g., the absent hostile breast) by projection. These feelings of frustration, discomfort, and pain are experienced as persecution from without. “At the same time, frustration, discomfort and pain, experienced as persecution enter as well into his feelings about his mother, because she represents the whole of his external world” (Klein, 1957, p. 920). Therefore, this defensive process of splitting, enables the infant’s burgeoning sense of self to be peopled with good objects ensuring survival. Sometimes, however, bad objects are introjected and these too must be gotten rid of, i.e. projected outward, in order for the infant to survive.

Melanie Klein (1957) portrayed the newborn’s state of mind in terms of anxiety about imminent annihilation. This anxiety is derived from an inborn aggressive force that could be self-directed, particularly when these “bad” objects are introjected. She posited that the most persistent problem

Page 5

throughout life becomes the need to escape this paranoid anxiety, this sense that one’s very existence is endangered, and a fear of imminent annihilation. These aggressive destructive impulses are projected out of the self and put into another. It is far less dangerous to feel that the malevolence is located outside of oneself. This evil can be more easily escaped from without than rid of from within. Klein termed this state of affairs the “paranoid position,” which was later called the “paranoid-schizoid” position, because throughout our lives, we continue to split both, the external and the internalized objects. So, during times of great anxiety, frustration, or great loss, there are inevitable regressions to the paranoid (paranoid-schizoid) position.

Using Klein’s paradigm to explain Cain’s motivation, we can argue that Cain perceives the evil within him as “not him,” and it is projected outward. Another psychological defense known as “projective identification” may possibly be at work here. Cain’s aggressive tendencies (again, according to Klein, they are innate) are split-off as they pose threats to his core self.  When God triggers in Cain the rage by rejecting his sacrifice, Abel becomes the repository of Cain’s inner deflected rage. As the bible does not tell us at all what goes on between the brothers (“Cain said to his brother Abel… and when they were in the field, Cain set upon his brother Abel and killed him,” Genesis 4:8), it is probable that Abel, denies Cain’s projected rage. This denial augments the rage in Cain, who then feels that he has no choice but to kill his brother. As previously stated, The Malbim alleges that Cain understands that good and evil exist in the world as realities, but he is not aware that the duality exists directly within him. This leads him to readily interpret God’s admonition of “sin … couching at the door” as alluding to his brother. With respect to the paranoid position explicated above, that fear of annihilation by one’s own evil impulses diminishes, if projected out or seen as coming from outside the self. This is remarkably similar to The Malbim’s interpretation of the fratricide in terms of Cain’s inability to comprehend that he can be the source of the “evil.”

The notion of sin is introduced in the Cain/Abel story with the phrase “sin couches at the door.” In Jewish sacred text, the word hata’at is translated as sin and implies a “missing of the mark.” The word is derived from archery, and is the antithesis of “Torah,” which comes from the word yarah, or aiming at a target. Thus, sin from the Jewish perspective is not necessarily a “deadly sin” as defined from the Christian perspective. In the Cain/Abel narrative, “sin” can be construed as being synonymous with “envy.” And envy begets violence. From a Kleinian perspective, envy is present almost from birth.  It is ever-present; it ‘couches at the door.’ The very fact that envy is there from the beginning implies that God’s admonition to Cain constitutes a moral imperative. That is, if envy is always present, and it is

Page 6

up to each individual to overcome, and it is not impossible (see Steinbeck’s East of Eden for a midrash on the Hebrew word timshol, “thou mayest”). Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki (Rashi) states that, “sin refers to the evil inclination, continually desiring (the Hebrew word shokak meaning making noise) and craving to make you stumble.”

Rashi continues in Parshat Noah (Genesis 8:21), “It is written from the time the embryo bestirs itself to come out from the belly of its mother there is placed in it the Evil Inclination.” It is therefore “not a stretch” to see envy, that is unconscious envy, as Cain’s sin. Perhaps, we may surmise that God is trying to help Cain to become more consciously aware of his own inclinations.

According to Melanie Klein (1957), the best way to understand envy is to see it as the angry feeling that another possesses, but is withholding, or keeping to him/herself, something one desires for oneself. The envious impulse is to attach, or to spoil the very source that one originally relied upon… The infant’s feeling of failed gratification is experienced as a deliberate withholding of the breast, the object of desire. In his discussion of Klein, Dave Hiles (2012) uses the example from the play Amadeus, by Peter Shaffer, concerning the rivalry between Mozart and Salieri, in order to distinguish between envy and jealousy. Shaffer alleges that Salieri is tormented by the question as to why God has granted Mozart the ability and not he. Salieri is jealous of Mozart but is envious of God. Here one can see a direct parallel in the biblical text. Cain is jealous of Abel but is envious of God. In the biblical story, God is the source of goodness who is keeping all for Himself. Cain and his family have been exiled from Eden, a place where all was available, where all needs were instantaneously met. Cain’s destructive unconscious envious fury towards God is displaced onto Abel, as Abel has thus become the repository for Cain’s aggressive impulses. The displacement is aided from “the outside” as God has chosen Abel’s sacrifice over Cain’s. Cain feels that he is prevented by his brother from getting all that should be his, rendering him insanely jealous. The consciously experienced jealousy further enables Cain to displace those destructive unconscious envious feelings he has towards God onto his brother. Thus, Cain feels that he has escaped annihilation and the evil that is within, by killing the projected evil that is personified in Abel.

Cain has not developed beyond Klein’s paranoid-schizoid position. What Cain feels should be forthcoming (e.g., God’s love, His unceasing bounty) is perceived by Cain as being withheld. These feelings of want and longing for what is perceived as being denied evoke aggression and rage, much as the longing for the perceived “withholding” breast results in the infant’s feelings of rage and aggression.  Here, God is the object of Cain’s aggression; God taking the place of the breast for Cain. Klein herself

Page 7

avers that the infant sees the breast as omnipotent, God-like. The inner rage and aggression must be projected outward. Cain kills his brother. The early ego, according to Klein, lacks cohesion, and the tendency towards integration alternates with a tendency towards disintegration. The early ego’s primary function is dealing with the anxiety that stems from fear of imminent annihilation. Thus, we see in Cain’s murderous rage that results in the fratricide, a lack of progression towards integration. In order to survive, he feels he must murder.

God, of course, finds out. He asks Cain where his brother is. Cain replies, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” Most biblical scholars read Cain’s response as his defiance of God. Rashi maintains that the reason that God asks Cain about the whereabouts of his brother is in order to give Cain a chance to repent. Instead, Cain acts as if might be able to deceive God. Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai (a second century rabbinic sage), alleges that Cain blames God by claiming that God created the “evil inclination” in him. “True, I slew him, but Thou didst create the evil inclination in me. Thou guardest all Things; why, then didst Thou permit me to slay him? Thou didst Thyself slay him, for hadst Thou looked with a favorable countenance toward my offering as toward his, I would have had no reason for envying him, and I had not slain him” (quoted in Ginzberg, 1909/1937, p. 110). Here again, Cain does not accept responsibility, the blame is still projected, on to God.

The Malbim uniquely sees this passage as Cain asking if he is truly his brother’s keeper with the emphasis on the first word of “Am I.” Here we have the first inkling in the text of a moral imperative regarding the nature of one’s relationship to his “brother.” God tells Cain that his brother’s blood cries out from the land and then God imposes punishment on Cain. “And now, damned be you from the soil which opened up its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you wish to work the soil it will not henceforth give its strength to you, wavering and wandering must you be on earth!” Constant wandering that will be his destiny. Cain cries out “My iniquity is too great to be borne!” (Genesis 4:11-13). Note that the Hebrew word avon is used here, not hata’at. Avon connotes “moral guilt,” which when used here, appears to indicate that Cain is accepting his role in the killing of Abel.  “Here you drive me away today from the face of the soil, and from your face I must conceal myself.”

Returning to Klein’s theory, we see there an articulation of the child’s burgeoning awareness. Klein points to an inherent developmental tendency, in line with the infant’s growing cognitive capacities, that leads to seeing the mother as a whole person who is sometimes good and sometimes bad.  “Occurring at a time when reality and imagination are not as yet differentiated and aggressive wishes are believed to be magically destructive, the child comes to believe that he is in danger of destroying, or has

Page 8

already destroyed the person he most needs and loves” (Brown, 1961, p. 75). This stage, because it leads to feelings of depression, is known as the “depressive position”. “With the introjection of the object as a whole, the infant’s object-relation alters fundamentally. The synthesis between the loved and hated aspects of the complete object gives rise to feelings of mourning and guilt which imply vital advances in the infant’s emotions and intellectual life” (Klein, 1957, p. 733). The child seeks to make reparations, to repair the damaged relationships, to restore love and to show remorse. “The frustrating whole object who has been destroyed is also the loved object toward whom the child feels deep gratitude and concern. Out of that love and concern, reparative fantasies are generated, in a desperate effort to heal the damage, to make the mother whole once again” (Mitchell & Black, 1995, p. 95). This process also includes repairing the child’s inner world of introjected objects. “Reparation is the will, means, and action of repairing an inner world shattered under the pressure of destructive impulses and an outer world of damaged relationships, peoples, and things” (Berke & Schneider, 2003, p. 217). As a result, the ego becomes more whole and more unified. The child’s growing abilities to perceive and adapt to reality augment the ego’s capacities. The child has to believe in its own capacity for reparation. Mitchell and Black (1995) assert that she has to believe that her love is stronger than her hate, that she can “undo the ravages of her destructiveness.”

Klein’s total account of infantile experience evokes an image of continual vacillation between a loving orientation towards lovable objects and a hateful orientation towards hateful objects. This indecision then conjures up a struggle between paranoid anxiety, fear of annihilation, depressive anxiety, and fear of abandonment. It is only through love and reparation that these fears are kept at bay. If we look at Klein’s theory regarding the “depressive position,” we find an increase in developmental awareness on the part of the child. She or he now understands that objects and internalized objects (now integrated as whole objects, not parts) consist of both good and evil intents. A sense of responsibility is inculcated. One can detect that same sense of responsibility being awakened in Cain as he now realizes that he is indeed responsible for himself and for his brother. He must acknowledge the part he played in his brother’s murder and atone for that sin. According to Klein, reparative impulses play a large part in good human relationships and are also the basis of all sublimation. In Cain’s lament that he must conceal himself from God’s face, we find the impetus for teshuvah, a Hebrew word usually translated as repentance, but actually comes from the word lashuv, to return. It is a return to a more inclusive sense of self, one that that has re-integrated some of the split-off parts of the personality and that now includes an awareness of both the good and evil impulses that exist within. Cain is to wander alone, at the mercy of

Page 9

murderous others. We see Cain’s fear of absolute abandonment. However, God gives Cain a “sign,” one that will prevent his murder. What is the nature of this “sign?” It is never explicitly stated. One midrash that is consistent with the present interpretation, describes the sign as a “ray that enables him to grow.” The Hebrew expression keren hitsmeah which is used in this midrash is found in a slightly different form (matsmeah keren yishua) in the prayer-book. This description of the “sign” indicates redemption as a portent of messianic times, a time to come with the advent of the messiah when there will no longer be strife, a time of universal peace and harmony (private communication with Rabbi Robert Scheinberg of United Synagogue of Hoboken). The sign given by God signals to Cain the impulse to make reparations and God remains with him, he is not abandoned. One may view this sign as a signal that helps Cain to achieve wholeness and to continue to make reparations, to achieve – in Kleinian terms – the “depressive position.” It is with the achievement of this “depressive” position that we can posit that Cain has now advanced towards personhood. One marker of this advancement being the ability to feel empathy, genuine compassion and to understand what it means to be truly repentant. The basis for repentance and self-reflection was already implicit in the text, in that it was Cain who thought that sacrifice to God for thanksgiving was incumbent upon humanity (note that in the text, God speaks to Cain, not to Abel). Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz, a noted contemporary Talmudic scholar, speaks of God’s instruction to the angels when making a human being, “make for me a creature who can decide to say Thank You” (quoted by Pollack, 2012, p. 4). Cain fits that description. He settles in the land of Nod (which means wandering), east of Eden. The reference to Eden remains, and Cain settles towards the rising sun, the sun being an indication of continuing life.

The Malbim’s interpretation of Cain’s question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” – with its emphasis placed on the “Am I” – along with Klein’s work on the “depressive position” – can be amplified further, if one notes some remarkable similarities in language and in ideas between these early biblical passages about Cain and Abel and those found in Numbers and in Deuteronomy referring to the Levitical cities of refuge (Numbers 35:9-12, Deuteronomy 4:41). Three cities of refuge were set aside as sanctuaries for those who committed accidental murder, so that they might be able to live free from avenging relatives. (We might consider the possibility of viewing Abel’s murder in some sense as accidental so that Cain may be less culpable.)

The Malbim’s interpretation of Cain’s misreading God’s admonition implies that the murder was in a sense a misunderstanding. In an article in the Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, entitled “Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him: Murder or manslaughter,” the

Page 10

authors Irene Merker Rosenberg and Yale L. Rosenberg use biblical texts (Exodus 21:13 & Numbers 35:20-23) to attest to Cain’s lack of premeditation. They go on to state that according to the text, the accepted punishment for an offense similar to Cain’s would be to send the offender to a city of refuge. These cities were to be places of sanctity, as per Sefer Ha-Hinukh, the medieval index of commandments in the Torah: “The levitical cities were chosen as cities of refuge for the manslayer over the territories of the other tribes, in the hope that their sanctified soil would bring him atonement through its sanctity” (commandment 408). It is important to note the persistent metaphor of the earth, either being contaminated by blood or (in this case) sanctified, and made holy by the presence of the priests.  The priests offer the possibility of reparation and redemption for the murderer. The all-important idea that God dwells with people whatever they have done, and that He abandons no one is profoundly expressed in commentary on the cities of refuge written by a modern rabbi (Rabbi Levi Meier), also a licensed clinical psychologist:

A sanctuary – be it a temple of marble and gold or a City of Refuge to which criminals flee – is a powerful, concrete symbol of God’s constant presence among people. …No matter who you are and what you have done, God does not abandon you. God recognizes that people make mistakes.  He always gives us another chance. And this is what the hapless offender – ridden with guilt and remorse – was to learn in the City of Refuge (Meier, 1996, p. 194).

There is also additional commentary from Maimonides, in which he asserts that when a person is assigned to a city of refuge, it is incumbent on his rabbi to go with him. This is done in order to assure study, compassion and redemption so that the murderer may truly live. There is also a midrash on the words in the biblical text from Deuteronomy (4:41): “then Moses set aside three cities across the Jordan, towards the shining sun.” This midrash comes from Rabbi Jose Hanina: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses; Shine the sun for the murderer – give him a place of refuge to which he can be exiled, so that he not perish due to the sin of taking a life, just as the sun shines on the world” (Bialik & Ravnitsky, 1992, p. 746). The sign given to Cain assumes the same purpose as the later city of refuge. It assures Cain that he is not abandoned, that if he truly repents, he will not be pursued.  This sign enables him to heal, to move beyond the paranoid position to true reparation and responsibility towards “his brother.” He is enabled to answer; “yes” to the question posed, AM I my brother’s keeper?

Page 11