Difference between revisions of "Lemekh's Monologue/2/en"
>Title modification script m (Title modification script moved page Lemekh's Monologue/2 to Lemekh's Monologue/2/en without leaving a redirect: Converting page titles) |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<page type="Approaches"> | <page type="Approaches"> | ||
<h1>Lemekh's Monologue</h1> | <h1>Lemekh's Monologue</h1> | ||
− | |||
<div class="overview"> | <div class="overview"> | ||
<h2>Overview</h2> | <h2>Overview</h2> | ||
<p>The ambiguity of Lemekh's words allows for a wide spectrum of opinions with regard to both Lemekh's character and the purpose of the story as a whole.  Cassuto reads Lemekh as a negative figure who is so degenerate that he brags about an act of murder. The story is thus seen as exemplifying society's deterioration and the sweeping violence that necessitated its obliteration via the Flood.  In contrast, Tanchuma and others present Lemekh as the unintentional killer of Kayin.  The story thus serves as closure to the Kayin narratives and proof that justice is ultimately served.  Finally, others suggest that Lemekh was not a killer at all, but rather simply a frustrated husband (R. Yosef Kara) or a father ready to protect himself and his family from violence.</p> | <p>The ambiguity of Lemekh's words allows for a wide spectrum of opinions with regard to both Lemekh's character and the purpose of the story as a whole.  Cassuto reads Lemekh as a negative figure who is so degenerate that he brags about an act of murder. The story is thus seen as exemplifying society's deterioration and the sweeping violence that necessitated its obliteration via the Flood.  In contrast, Tanchuma and others present Lemekh as the unintentional killer of Kayin.  The story thus serves as closure to the Kayin narratives and proof that justice is ultimately served.  Finally, others suggest that Lemekh was not a killer at all, but rather simply a frustrated husband (R. Yosef Kara) or a father ready to protect himself and his family from violence.</p> | ||
<p>The various reads of the story raise important issues ranging from the power of repentance and the value of human life to the dangers of polygamy.  They also lead the reader to question whether technological advances further society and to consider the factors which can lead humanity into cycles of violence.</p></div> | <p>The various reads of the story raise important issues ranging from the power of repentance and the value of human life to the dangers of polygamy.  They also lead the reader to question whether technological advances further society and to consider the factors which can lead humanity into cycles of violence.</p></div> | ||
− | |||
<approaches> | <approaches> | ||
Line 26: | Line 24: | ||
<category>Unintentional Killing | <category>Unintentional Killing | ||
<p>Lemekh was expressing regret over an unintentional murder and/or attempting to defend himself for his unwitting action.</p> | <p>Lemekh was expressing regret over an unintentional murder and/or attempting to defend himself for his unwitting action.</p> | ||
− | <mekorot><multilink><a href="TanchumaBereshit11" data-aht="source">Tanchuma</a><a href="TanchumaBereshit11" data-aht="source">Bereshit 11</a><a href="Tanchuma" data-aht="parshan">About the Tanchuma</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RSaadiaGaonCommentaryBereshit4-16-25" data-aht="source">R. Saadia Gaon #1</a><a href="RSaadiaGaonCommentaryBereshit4-16-25" data-aht="source">Commentary Bereshit 4:16-25</a><a href="RSaadiaGaonTafsirBereshit4-23-24" data-aht="source">Tafsir Bereshit 4:23-24</a><a href="R. Saadia Gaon" data-aht="parshan">About R. Saadia Gaon</a></multilink>,<fn>See below that R. Saadia brings a second possibility as well, that Lemekh's words are a rhetorical question and he is professing his innocence of any wrongdoing.</fn> <multilink><a href="RashiBereshit4-23-24" data-aht="source">Rashi #1</a><a href="RashiBereshit4-15" data-aht="source">Bereshit 4:15</a><a href="RashiBereshit4-19" data-aht="source">Bereshit 4:19</a><a href="RashiBereshit4-23-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 4:23-24</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink>,<fn>Rashi also brings the position of Bereshit Rabbah below.</fn> <multilink><a href="AbarbanelBereshit4-23-24" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a><a href="AbarbanelBereshit4-18" data-aht="source">Bereshit 4:18</a><a href="AbarbanelBereshit4-13-14" data-aht="source">Bereshit 4:13-14</a><a href="AbarbanelBereshit4-23-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 4:23-24</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href=" | + | <mekorot><multilink><a href="TanchumaBereshit11" data-aht="source">Tanchuma</a><a href="TanchumaBereshit11" data-aht="source">Bereshit 11</a><a href="Tanchuma" data-aht="parshan">About the Tanchuma</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RSaadiaGaonCommentaryBereshit4-16-25" data-aht="source">R. Saadia Gaon #1</a><a href="RSaadiaGaonCommentaryBereshit4-16-25" data-aht="source">Commentary Bereshit 4:16-25</a><a href="RSaadiaGaonTafsirBereshit4-23-24" data-aht="source">Tafsir Bereshit 4:23-24</a><a href="R. Saadia Gaon" data-aht="parshan">About R. Saadia Gaon</a></multilink>,<fn>See below that R. Saadia brings a second possibility as well, that Lemekh's words are a rhetorical question and he is professing his innocence of any wrongdoing.</fn> <multilink><a href="RashiBereshit4-23-24" data-aht="source">Rashi #1</a><a href="RashiBereshit4-15" data-aht="source">Bereshit 4:15</a><a href="RashiBereshit4-19" data-aht="source">Bereshit 4:19</a><a href="RashiBereshit4-23-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 4:23-24</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink>,<fn>Rashi also brings the position of Bereshit Rabbah below.</fn> <multilink><a href="AbarbanelBereshit4-23-24" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a><a href="AbarbanelBereshit4-18" data-aht="source">Bereshit 4:18</a><a href="AbarbanelBereshit4-13-14" data-aht="source">Bereshit 4:13-14</a><a href="AbarbanelBereshit4-23-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 4:23-24</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="SfornoBereshit4-1523-24" data-aht="source">Sforno</a><a href="SfornoBereshit4-1523-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 4:15,23-24</a><a href="R. Ovadyah Sforno" data-aht="parshan">About R. Ovadyah Sforno</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="HaKetavVeHaKabbalahBereshit4-23" data-aht="source">HaKetav VeHaKabbalah</a><a href="HaKetavVeHaKabbalahBereshit4-23" data-aht="source">Bereshit 4:23</a><a href="R. Yaakov Mecklenburg (HaKetav VeHaKabbalah)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="NetzivBereshit4-23-24" data-aht="source">Netziv</a><a href="NetzivBereshit4-23-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 4:23-24</a><a href="R. Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (Netziv)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Naftali Z"Y Berlin</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RDZHoffmannBereshit4-23-24" data-aht="source">R. D"Z Hoffmann</a><a href="RDZHoffmannBereshit4-19-22" data-aht="source">Bereshit 4:19-22</a><a href="RDZHoffmannBereshit4-23-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 4:23-24</a><a href="R. David Zvi Hoffmann" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Zvi Hoffmann</a></multilink></mekorot> |
<point><b>Lemekh's tone</b><ul> | <point><b>Lemekh's tone</b><ul> | ||
− | <li><b>Sincere regret</b> – R. Saadia, | + | <li><b>Sincere regret</b> – R. Saadia, Sforno, and HaKetav VeHaKabbalah assume that Lemekh's cry "כִּי אִישׁ הָרַגְתִּי לְפִצְעִי" is a sincere expression of regret over his unintentional killing.</li> |
<li><b>Self justification</b> – Tanchuma and Rashi assert that Lemekh is defending his actions and attempting to explain to his wives why he does not deserve a punishment.  According to this position, Lemekh's words are actually a rhetorical question:<fn>See below that this is also the position of Bereshit Rabbah and others who follow in its footsteps.</fn> "Did I kill a man and a child intentionally (that I deserve punishment)?"<fn>Abarbanel also presents Lemekh as defending his actions, but he does not read his words as a rhetorical question.  Instead, he suggests that Lemekh tells his wives that if he killed a man, it is he who will be punished and not them, so they have no reason to be upset at him.</fn></li> | <li><b>Self justification</b> – Tanchuma and Rashi assert that Lemekh is defending his actions and attempting to explain to his wives why he does not deserve a punishment.  According to this position, Lemekh's words are actually a rhetorical question:<fn>See below that this is also the position of Bereshit Rabbah and others who follow in its footsteps.</fn> "Did I kill a man and a child intentionally (that I deserve punishment)?"<fn>Abarbanel also presents Lemekh as defending his actions, but he does not read his words as a rhetorical question.  Instead, he suggests that Lemekh tells his wives that if he killed a man, it is he who will be punished and not them, so they have no reason to be upset at him.</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Who are the "אִישׁ" and "יֶלֶד"?</b><ul> | <point><b>Who are the "אִישׁ" and "יֶלֶד"?</b><ul> | ||
− | <li><b>Kayin and Tuval Kayin</b> – Rashi, Abarbanel, and | + | <li><b>Kayin and Tuval Kayin</b> – Rashi, Abarbanel, and Sforno all follow the Tanchuma in suggesting that Lemekh killed his ancestor Kayin (the "אִישׁ") and his son Tuval Kayin (the "‎‏‏יֶלֶד‏‎").<fn>R. D"Z Hoffmann suggests that those killed were closely related to Lemekh's wives, which explains why he felt a need to apologize to them.  However, they were not necessarily Kayin or Tuval Kayin.</fn></li> |
<li><b>Anonymous</b> – According to R. Saadia, Netziv, and R. D"Z Hoffmann, Lemekh killed an unidentified man and child.<fn>R. Saadia Gaon explains that Lemekh specified that one of those killed was a child  because he had greater regrets over killing an innocent child.</fn></li> | <li><b>Anonymous</b> – According to R. Saadia, Netziv, and R. D"Z Hoffmann, Lemekh killed an unidentified man and child.<fn>R. Saadia Gaon explains that Lemekh specified that one of those killed was a child  because he had greater regrets over killing an innocent child.</fn></li> | ||
<li><b>Lemekh's wife and potential future progeny</b> – HaKetav VeHaKabbalah explains that Lemekh gave his wife a potion which rendered her unable to have children.  By doing so, it was as if he had killed off both his wife (the "אִישׁ‎")‏‎<fn>According to this approach, Lemekh should have used the feminine form "אשה" rather than "אִישׁ".</fn> who was now barren (and considered as if dead) and any future children (the ‎‏‏יֶלֶד"‏‎").</li> | <li><b>Lemekh's wife and potential future progeny</b> – HaKetav VeHaKabbalah explains that Lemekh gave his wife a potion which rendered her unable to have children.  By doing so, it was as if he had killed off both his wife (the "אִישׁ‎")‏‎<fn>According to this approach, Lemekh should have used the feminine form "אשה" rather than "אִישׁ".</fn> who was now barren (and considered as if dead) and any future children (the ‎‏‏יֶלֶד"‏‎").</li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Purpose and context</b><ul> | <point><b>Purpose and context</b><ul> | ||
− | <li><b>Conclusion to Kayin narrative </b>– According to those who assume that Kayin was the person killed by Lemekh,<fn>See Tanchuma, Rashi, Abarbanel, and | + | <li><b>Conclusion to Kayin narrative </b>– According to those who assume that Kayin was the person killed by Lemekh,<fn>See Tanchuma, Rashi, Abarbanel, and Sforno.</fn> the story might be coming to show how in the end justice was done and Kayin was ultimately punished for his murder.<fn>However, if this was the story's purpose, we might have expected the Torah to identify the victim as Kayin.</fn></li> |
<li><b>Introduction to violence of Flood generation </b>– According to R. D"Z Hoffmann, the incident introduces the corruption of Kayin's descendants and their gradual movement away from Hashem. Although the people are not yet described as completely violent, they are heading in that direction, as evidenced by even an unintentional murder.<fn>Abarbanel also connects the story to the Flood, suggesting that Lemekh's words "כִּי שִׁבְעָתַיִם יֻקַּם קָיִן וְלֶמֶךְ שִׁבְעִים וְשִׁבְעָה" refer to the fact that when he is punished, many others will perish as well, in the destruction wrought by the Flood.  This, though, would not explain the import of the story and why it is included in the Torah.</fn></li> | <li><b>Introduction to violence of Flood generation </b>– According to R. D"Z Hoffmann, the incident introduces the corruption of Kayin's descendants and their gradual movement away from Hashem. Although the people are not yet described as completely violent, they are heading in that direction, as evidenced by even an unintentional murder.<fn>Abarbanel also connects the story to the Flood, suggesting that Lemekh's words "כִּי שִׁבְעָתַיִם יֻקַּם קָיִן וְלֶמֶךְ שִׁבְעִים וְשִׁבְעָה" refer to the fact that when he is punished, many others will perish as well, in the destruction wrought by the Flood.  This, though, would not explain the import of the story and why it is included in the Torah.</fn></li> | ||
<li><b>Power of repentance</b> – HaKetav VeHaKabbalah learns from the story the virtue of repenting for one's bad deeds.   Since Lemekh regretted what he did, he merited having sons who invented tools for many constructive purposes.</li> | <li><b>Power of repentance</b> – HaKetav VeHaKabbalah learns from the story the virtue of repenting for one's bad deeds.   Since Lemekh regretted what he did, he merited having sons who invented tools for many constructive purposes.</li> | ||
Line 48: | Line 46: | ||
<point><b>What are "לְפִצְעִי" and "לְחַבֻּרָתִי"?</b><ul> | <point><b>What are "לְפִצְעִי" and "לְחַבֻּרָתִי"?</b><ul> | ||
<li><b>Cause of death</b> – R. Hoffmann explains the phrase to mean "due to a wound".  He asserts that Lemekh was defending himself, claiming that he intended only to wound the people and not to kill them.</li> | <li><b>Cause of death</b> – R. Hoffmann explains the phrase to mean "due to a wound".  He asserts that Lemekh was defending himself, claiming that he intended only to wound the people and not to kill them.</li> | ||
− | <li><b>Punishment of Lemekh</b> –  Abarbanel posits that Lemekh is emphasizing to his wives that he is the only one who will suffer the punishment for killing the people, not them.<fn>Lemekh tells them, "The wound is my (not your) wound."</fn>  | + | <li><b>Punishment of Lemekh</b> –  Abarbanel posits that Lemekh is emphasizing to his wives that he is the only one who will suffer the punishment for killing the people, not them.<fn>Lemekh tells them, "The wound is my (not your) wound."</fn> Sforno alternatively asserts that Lemekh cries out that by killing his ancestor and son, he wounded himself.  Both would translate the verse as: "I killed a man, and it is a wound to me."</li> |
<li><b>Guilt of Lemekh</b> – Rashi, following Tanchuma,<fn>Tanchuma itself is somewhat ambiguous as to the exact meaning of the phrase.</fn> understands Lemekh's defense as: "Did I kill a man intentionally, that the wound should be considered mine (i.e. that I should be held accountable)?"<fn>For an alternative understanding of the role the phrase might play in the Midrashic read of the story, see J. Kugel, In Potiphar's House (Cambridge, MA, 1994): 159-172.  In his chapter there on "Why was Lemekh Blind?", Kugel notes that the Midrash incorporates a somewhat superfluous detail in the account of the unintentional killing of Kayin, the fact that Lemekh was blind.  He suggests that the motif made its way into the Midrash as an attempt to understand the term "לְפִצְעִי", and that Lemekh is telling his wives that he killed due to his own wound (his blindness).  [This hypothesis does not work with the concluding section of the Tanchuma itself which suggests that Lemekh's comment is merely a rhetorical question.]</fn></li> | <li><b>Guilt of Lemekh</b> – Rashi, following Tanchuma,<fn>Tanchuma itself is somewhat ambiguous as to the exact meaning of the phrase.</fn> understands Lemekh's defense as: "Did I kill a man intentionally, that the wound should be considered mine (i.e. that I should be held accountable)?"<fn>For an alternative understanding of the role the phrase might play in the Midrashic read of the story, see J. Kugel, In Potiphar's House (Cambridge, MA, 1994): 159-172.  In his chapter there on "Why was Lemekh Blind?", Kugel notes that the Midrash incorporates a somewhat superfluous detail in the account of the unintentional killing of Kayin, the fact that Lemekh was blind.  He suggests that the motif made its way into the Midrash as an attempt to understand the term "לְפִצְעִי", and that Lemekh is telling his wives that he killed due to his own wound (his blindness).  [This hypothesis does not work with the concluding section of the Tanchuma itself which suggests that Lemekh's comment is merely a rhetorical question.]</fn></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
Line 60: | Line 58: | ||
<li><b>Maximize guilt</b></li> | <li><b>Maximize guilt</b></li> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li><b>Greater conscience pangs than Kayin</b> – | + | <li><b>Greater conscience pangs than Kayin</b> – Sforno suggests that Lemekh is saying that his conscience will be plagued by his misdeed forever, suffering for his action much more than Kayin did for his.<fn>This is consistent with Sforno's read of Lemekh as one who is full of remorse for his actions.</fn></li> |
<li><b>More innocent victim than Kayin's killer</b> – R. Saadia Gaon and HaKetav VeHaKabbalah contend that Lemekh, in his display of regret, is emphasizing the severity of the punishment he deserves. If a person who killed an intentional murderer such as Kayin was punished sevenfold, Lemekh who killed an innocent child would be deserving of an even worse punishment.</li> | <li><b>More innocent victim than Kayin's killer</b> – R. Saadia Gaon and HaKetav VeHaKabbalah contend that Lemekh, in his display of regret, is emphasizing the severity of the punishment he deserves. If a person who killed an intentional murderer such as Kayin was punished sevenfold, Lemekh who killed an innocent child would be deserving of an even worse punishment.</li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> |
Latest revision as of 11:53, 28 January 2023
Lemekh's Monologue
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
The ambiguity of Lemekh's words allows for a wide spectrum of opinions with regard to both Lemekh's character and the purpose of the story as a whole. Cassuto reads Lemekh as a negative figure who is so degenerate that he brags about an act of murder. The story is thus seen as exemplifying society's deterioration and the sweeping violence that necessitated its obliteration via the Flood. In contrast, Tanchuma and others present Lemekh as the unintentional killer of Kayin. The story thus serves as closure to the Kayin narratives and proof that justice is ultimately served. Finally, others suggest that Lemekh was not a killer at all, but rather simply a frustrated husband (R. Yosef Kara) or a father ready to protect himself and his family from violence.
The various reads of the story raise important issues ranging from the power of repentance and the value of human life to the dangers of polygamy. They also lead the reader to question whether technological advances further society and to consider the factors which can lead humanity into cycles of violence.
Intentional Murder
Lemekh was gloating to his wives about his murderous actions.
- Motivation for attack – According to Ibn Kaspi, these terms mean "for a wound/injury". Lemekh is claiming that he had been wounded by his victim and that he killed him in retaliation.4
- Mode of attack – Cassuto, instead, understands that the verse describes the mode of Lemekh's attack. He inflicted a fatal wound on his victim and boasted to his wives that he was able to kill a man with a single punch.
Unintentional Killing
Lemekh was expressing regret over an unintentional murder and/or attempting to defend himself for his unwitting action.
- Sincere regret – R. Saadia, Sforno, and HaKetav VeHaKabbalah assume that Lemekh's cry "כִּי אִישׁ הָרַגְתִּי לְפִצְעִי" is a sincere expression of regret over his unintentional killing.
- Self justification – Tanchuma and Rashi assert that Lemekh is defending his actions and attempting to explain to his wives why he does not deserve a punishment. According to this position, Lemekh's words are actually a rhetorical question:7 "Did I kill a man and a child intentionally (that I deserve punishment)?"8
- Kayin and Tuval Kayin – Rashi, Abarbanel, and Sforno all follow the Tanchuma in suggesting that Lemekh killed his ancestor Kayin (the "אִישׁ") and his son Tuval Kayin (the "יֶלֶד").9
- Anonymous – According to R. Saadia, Netziv, and R. D"Z Hoffmann, Lemekh killed an unidentified man and child.10
- Lemekh's wife and potential future progeny – HaKetav VeHaKabbalah explains that Lemekh gave his wife a potion which rendered her unable to have children. By doing so, it was as if he had killed off both his wife (the "אִישׁ")11 who was now barren (and considered as if dead) and any future children (the יֶלֶד"").
- Conclusion to Kayin narrative – According to those who assume that Kayin was the person killed by Lemekh,12 the story might be coming to show how in the end justice was done and Kayin was ultimately punished for his murder.13
- Introduction to violence of Flood generation – According to R. D"Z Hoffmann, the incident introduces the corruption of Kayin's descendants and their gradual movement away from Hashem. Although the people are not yet described as completely violent, they are heading in that direction, as evidenced by even an unintentional murder.14
- Power of repentance – HaKetav VeHaKabbalah learns from the story the virtue of repenting for one's bad deeds. Since Lemekh regretted what he did, he merited having sons who invented tools for many constructive purposes.
- Refused to have relations – According to Tanchuma and those who follow its lead, Lemekh's words are a reaction to his wives' refusal to have relations with him, due to his inadvertent killing. His speech is an attempt to justify his actions so they can resume marital life.
- Apology – R. D"Z Hoffmann points out more simply that if Lemekh killed his son (or another close relative), his wives were understandably upset and and thus Lemekh felt the need to explain and apologize.
- Need for comfort – Alternatively, as the Netziv suggests, regardless of whom Lemekh killed, he was upset and wanted his wives to comfort him.
- Cause of death – R. Hoffmann explains the phrase to mean "due to a wound". He asserts that Lemekh was defending himself, claiming that he intended only to wound the people and not to kill them.
- Punishment of Lemekh – Abarbanel posits that Lemekh is emphasizing to his wives that he is the only one who will suffer the punishment for killing the people, not them.15 Sforno alternatively asserts that Lemekh cries out that by killing his ancestor and son, he wounded himself. Both would translate the verse as: "I killed a man, and it is a wound to me."
- Guilt of Lemekh – Rashi, following Tanchuma,16 understands Lemekh's defense as: "Did I kill a man intentionally, that the wound should be considered mine (i.e. that I should be held accountable)?"17
- Minimize guilt
- Suspended sentence even for Kayin – Tanchuma and Rashi assert that Lemekh was drawing a comparison to Kayin himself to show that if Kayin was given only a suspended punishment after intentional murder, Lemekh would surely be granted an even longer stay since his actions were unintentional.
- Punishment even for Kayin's killer – According to Netziv and R. Hoffmann, Lemekh is saying that if Kayin's killer deserved a sevenfold punishment despite the fact that his victim (Kayin) had committed homicide, Lemekh's murderer would deserve even greater retribution as Lemekh was less culpable.
- Maximize guilt
- Greater conscience pangs than Kayin – Sforno suggests that Lemekh is saying that his conscience will be plagued by his misdeed forever, suffering for his action much more than Kayin did for his.19
- More innocent victim than Kayin's killer – R. Saadia Gaon and HaKetav VeHaKabbalah contend that Lemekh, in his display of regret, is emphasizing the severity of the punishment he deserves. If a person who killed an intentional murderer such as Kayin was punished sevenfold, Lemekh who killed an innocent child would be deserving of an even worse punishment.
Nobody was Killed
Lemekh did not kill anyone. This position subdivides in its explanations of why his ditty nonetheless makes reference to the killing of people:
Rhetorical Question
Lemekh's mention of murder is actually a rhetorical question, and he is professing his innocence of any such deed. In response to either his wives' fears that he deserves punishment or to their behavior which he views as a punishment, he asks them, "Did I kill a man or child (that I deserve such a fate)?
- Reassuring – According to most of these commentators, Lemekh's tone is placating, trying to allay his wives' fears and accusations. The exegetes disagree, though, regarding about what the wives were worried:
- Offspring to die – According to Bereshit Rabbah, Rashi, and R"Y Bekhor Shor, Lemekh's wives feared that their offspring would perish in the upcoming flood and thus refused to have relations.21 Alternatively, Ralbag suggests that they thought that any future children, being the seventh generation from Kayin, would be killed as a result of Hashem's words "לָכֵן כָּל הֹרֵג קַיִן שִׁבְעָתַיִם יֻקָּם".22
- Lemekh to be punished – Ramban maintains that Lemekh's wives feared that Lemekh would be punished for inventing weapons and thereby bringing bloodshed to the world.23
- Frustrated – R. Yosef Kara and Shadal24 assume that Lemekh's tone is one of exasperation; he is irritated either by the noisy quarrels of his wives or by their general unruly behavior.
- The consequence of killing – Bereshit Rabbah asserts that Lemekh is asking if he killed a person that he deserves to be wounded for doing so.
- The method of killing – Ramban and Ralbag maintain that Lemekh is claiming that he did not kill a person via a wound as Kayin did, and thus should not be punished.30
- Threat that Lemekh's distress will be avenged – R. Yosef Kara and Shadal understand this verse as a warning to Lemekh's wives. He tells them that if Hashem promised to take revenge on the killer of Kayin who had been guilty, all the more so that Hashem would take revenge on those (Adah and Tzillah) who distress the innocent Lemekh.
- Proof that Lemekh won't be punished – The other commentators maintain that Lemekh is making an a fortiori argument from Kayin. If Kayin, who killed, was nonetheless granted a reprieve for seven generations, Lemekh, who did not kill, will surely not be punished.
Future Self Defense
Lemekh is boasting not of what he has done, but what he can do. He tells his wives that he no longer needs to fear the surrounding violence since he is now capable of defending himself. With his son Tuval Kayin's newly invented weapons, he will be capable of killing anyone who attempts to harm him.