In the process of understanding the psychological and moral development of early “man” on Earth, post creaturae, we are witness to one of the first horrific acts of moral and, in today’s terms, civil disobedience. There is a two-fold set of events that occur when Kayin kills his brother Hevel. “VaYomer Kayin El Hevel Achiv VaYehi BeHiyotam BaSadeh VaYakam Kayin El Hevel Achiv VaYahargeihu,” “And Kayin spoke to Hevel his brother, and it came to pass when they were in the field, that Kayin rose up against Hevel his brother and killed him” (BeReishit 4:8). Kayin is presented here as the first murderer in the history of humanity. Kayin has a very clear motive that by today’s Western legal standards would merit a charge of Murder in the First Degree, given the notable premeditation and Kayin’s seeming passion for slaying Hevel. The next Pasuk, however, brings a new side to the case, perhaps even catalyzing Hevel’s inevitable punishment. “VaYomer Hashem El Kayin Ei Hevel Achicha VaYomer Lo Yadati HaShomer Achi Anochi,” “And Hashem said to Kayin, ‘Where is Hevel your brother?’ And he said, ‘I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?’ (ibid. 4:9). Rashi (ibid.) points out that Kayin was not merely making any declaration, rather this was a question directed to Hashem. There is a very obvious question to be asked of this Pasuk: How on Earth could Kayin speak to Hashem, the Almighty, in a way that degrades His stature and the blatant and eternal fact that Hashem knows everything which occurs?
Sforno (ibid.) attempts to offer an explanation to this dialogue between Kayin and Hashem as follows. “Ei Hevel Achicha” is Hashem asking Kayin to politely fess up to his actions and declare his guilt before it is too late, the modern-day equivalent of a plea deal. Hashem did not seek to kill Kayin, though he was already eligible for the death penalty according to Halacha. However, Kayin tries playing the “luck card” and instead of an admission of guilt, answers “Lo Yadati HaShomer Achi Anochi.” Sforno asserts that Kayin did not fully grasp what was being asked of him, thinking that the question concerned Hevel’s whereabouts rather than a “plea deal” to cop to his crime. He then notes that this may be due to the fact that Kayin had not been previously interested in HaKadosh Baruch Hu, or any of His mighty abilities, such knowledge as the question posed by Hashem to Kayin comes to teach a profound lesson regarding the condition of man.
Rav Soloveitchik was famous for his many philosophical and Torah works, but none more so, arguably, than The Lonely Man of Faith. The Rav notably defines the philosophical and moral distinction between Adam I and Adam II, showing the evolution of the human psyche through these two individuals, and how it reflects upon the present society (the “present society” being 1960s America). Adam I represents the human as creator, architect, and master of nature, trying to impose his or her will upon the material world. Adam II, on the other hand, serves as the “covenantal personality,” as described by Rabbi Lord Jonathan Sacks (See Essays on Ethics, pp. 227-231), and lives in obedience to a transcendent truth (ie. G-d’s control and place in the universe), guided by a moral sensibility to serve and not simply be served. Adam I strives, like the many Americans of the Rav’s time, for material success and wealth, focusing solely on the “I” rather than the “thou” in society. Adam II differs by virtue of his Tzedakah, Ahavat Olam, and selflessness in the servitude of God and people. These ontological (in immortalizing the language of the Rav) differences can be veritably applied to the case against Kayin as well.
What inspired Kayin to rise up against his brother and commit such a heinous act? We see very clearly that the inspiration for this act of fratricide was inspired by Hashem accepting Hevel’s Korban over Kayin’s. Kayin, enraged by this event, sought to exact revenge upon his brother, but also upon Hashem. By murdering Hevel, Kayin has actively committed two crimes. He has first and foremost committed murder, but has subsequently attempted to commit a second murder as well. This second murder was not of a physical nature, but of a spiritual. This murder was not of a suicidal nature, for as Sforno and many Mefarshim have noted previously, Kayin was not interested in growing closer to Hashem. Rather, Kayin attempted to kill the concept of HaKadosh Baruch Hu, banishing Him from his life entirely. In light of the fact that Hevel’s Korban was so blatantly accepted in comparison to Kayin’s, Kayin has actively decided to cut God out of his life completely, seeking only to serve the rest of his life on Earth in the ontological domain of Adam I. For this, Hashem asks Kayin the question of his brother’s whereabouts, seeking to give him a “plea deal” before it is too late. Kayin, so impassioned and driven by his loss of moral sensibility and driven by material possessions, seeking to rid himself of HaKadosh Baruch Hu, misinterprets this question and responds with an equally material answer to the question he perceives.
As a result of Kayin’s crimes, Hashem sentences Kayin to a life of solitude and wandering, seemingly not consistent with the manner in which Halacha prescribes Ayin Tachat Ayin. Instead, Hashem sentences Kayin to punishment with both material/physical as well as spiritual implications. There is indeed an aspect of Ayin Tachat Ayin involved in Kayin’s punishment but instead of his being killed like his brother, he is instead left to live the rest of his life in the very same manner of his brother. Hevel was a shepherd, and thus embodied the ideology of a vagabond’s life, seeking not material possession and physical nourishment like Kayin, but spiritual nourishment and the bare minimum of material pleasure needed to sustain life. That is why, in the way that Hevel was a man of God who did not seek material possessions, Kayin was cast off into the wilderness to live in this new environment under the same conditions to learn humility.