Difference between revisions of "Lemekh's Monologue/2/en"
m |
|||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>Why did Lemekh bother to tell his wives?</b><ul> | <point><b>Why did Lemekh bother to tell his wives?</b><ul> | ||
− | <li>According to Tanchuma and those who follow its lead, Lemekh's words | + | <li><b>Refused to have relations</b> – 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.</li> |
− | <li>R. D"Z Hoffmann | + | <li><b>Apology</b> – R. D"Z Hoffmann points out more simply that if Lemekh killed his son (or other close relative), his wives were understandably upset and and thus Lemekh felt the need to explain and apologize.</li> |
− | <li>Alternatively, as the Neziv suggests, regardless of whom Lemekh killed, he was upset and wanted his wives to comfort him.</li> | + | <li><b>Need for comfort</b> – Alternatively, as the Neziv suggests, regardless of whom Lemekh killed, he was upset and wanted his wives to comfort him.</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> | + | <li><b>Kayin and Tuval Kayin</b> – Rashi, Abarbanel and Seforno follow the Tanchuma in suggesting that Lemekh killed Kayin (the אִישׁ) and 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, but that they were not necessarily Kayin or Tuval Kayin.</fn></li> |
− | <li><b>Anonymous</b> | + | <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> | + | <li><b>Lemekh's wife and potential future progeny</b> –The HaKetav VeHaKabbalah explains that Lemekh accidentally 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 who was now barren (and considered as if dead) and any future children.<fn>According to this approach, Lemekh should have used the feminine form "אשה" rather than "איש".</fn></li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>What is "לְפִצְעִי" and "לְחַבֻּרָתִי"?<br/></b><ul> | <point><b>What is "לְפִצְעִי" and "לְחַבֻּרָתִי"?<br/></b><ul> | ||
− | <li><b>Cause of death</b> – R. Hoffmann asserts that Lemekh was defending himself that he intended only to wound the people and not to kill them.</li> | + | <li><b>Cause of death</b> – R. Hoffmann 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 only he will suffer the punishment for killing the people, not them.<fn>Lemekh tells them, "The wound is my wound, (not yours.)"</fn> Seforno alternatively asserts that Lemekh cries that that by killing his ancestor and son, he wounded himself.  Both would translate the verse "I killed a man, and it is a wound to me."</li> | <li><b>Punishment of Lemekh</b> –  Abarbanel posits that Lemekh is emphasizing to his wives that only he will suffer the punishment for killing the people, not them.<fn>Lemekh tells them, "The wound is my wound, (not yours.)"</fn> Seforno alternatively asserts that Lemekh cries that that by killing his ancestor and son, he wounded himself.  Both would translate the verse "I killed a man, and it is a wound to me."</li> | ||
<li><b>Lemekh's Blindness</b> – J. Kugel<fn>See "Why was Lemekh Blind?" in " <i>In Potiphar's House</i> (Massachusetts, 1994):159-172.</fn> explains that the story in the midrash might be understanding the wound to refer to Lemekh's blindness which caused the unintentional murder. Lemekh defends himself to his wives by claiming that he killed a man only due to his own blemish.<fn>This would not work with the wording of the Tanchuma itself which suggests that the sentence is a rhetorical question.  Rashi suggests that the midrash is reading 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></li> | <li><b>Lemekh's Blindness</b> – J. Kugel<fn>See "Why was Lemekh Blind?" in " <i>In Potiphar's House</i> (Massachusetts, 1994):159-172.</fn> explains that the story in the midrash might be understanding the wound to refer to Lemekh's blindness which caused the unintentional murder. Lemekh defends himself to his wives by claiming that he killed a man only due to his own blemish.<fn>This would not work with the wording of the Tanchuma itself which suggests that the sentence is a rhetorical question.  Rashi suggests that the midrash is reading 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></li> | ||
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
− | <point><b>Comparison to Kayin</b></point> | + | <point><b>Comparison to Kayin</b> – These commentaors disagree whether the comparison was meant o minimize or maximize Lemekh's fault:<br/> |
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li><b>Minimize fault</b></li> | ||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li><b>Suspended punishment</b> – Tanchuma and Rashi assert that Lemekh was drawing a comparison to Kayin to show that if Kayin was given a suspended sentence after intentional murder, Lemekh would surely be granted an even longer stay since his actions were unintentional. </li> | ||
+ | <li><b>Retribution for Lemekh's killle</b>r – Netziv and R. Hoffmann reach the same basic conclusion but understand the verse differently.  According to them, Lemekj says that if Kayin's killer deserved a seven-fold punishment despite the fact that Kayin was guilty, Lemekh's murderer would deserve an even greater punishment for Lemekh was less culpable.</li> | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | <li><b>Maximize fault</b></li> | ||
+ | <ul> | ||
+ | <li><b>Lemekh's guilt</b> – R. Saadia Gaon and HaKetav VeHaKabbalah suggests that Lemekh, in his regret, was emphasizing how much of a  punishment he deserved. If the person who killed Kayin, who was guilty for having killed Hevel anyway, was nonetheless to be punished seven fold, Lemekh who killed an innocent child would be deserving of a much worse punishment.</li> | ||
+ | <li><b>Lemekh's suffering</b> – Seforno suggests that Lemekh is saying that he will be plagued all his life for his misdeed, suffering for his action much more than Kayin did for his.<fn>This is consistent with Seforno's read of Lemekh as one who is full of remorse for his actions.</fn> </li> | ||
+ | </ul> | ||
+ | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>"לָכֵן כָּל הֹרֵג קַיִן שִׁבְעָתַיִם יֻקָּם"</b></point> | <point><b>"לָכֵן כָּל הֹרֵג קַיִן שִׁבְעָתַיִם יֻקָּם"</b></point> | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
Line 58: | Line 70: | ||
<li><b>Reassuring</b> - According to most of these commentators Lemekh's tone is placating, trying to calm his wives' fears and accusations.  The exegetes disagree, though, regarding what the wives were worried about:</li> | <li><b>Reassuring</b> - According to most of these commentators Lemekh's tone is placating, trying to calm his wives' fears and accusations.  The exegetes disagree, though, regarding what the wives were worried about:</li> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
− | <li><b>Offspring to die</b> - According to Bereshit Rabbah, Rashi and R"Y Bekhor Shor, Lemekh's wives feared that any offspring they were to bear would perish in the upcoming flood and thus refused to have relations.<fn>R"Y Bekhor Shor notes there were astrologers who knew that there will be a flood.</fn> Ralbag assumes instead 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".</li> | + | <li><b>Offspring to die</b> - According to Bereshit Rabbah, Rashi and R"Y Bekhor Shor, Lemekh's wives feared that any offspring they were to bear would perish in the upcoming flood and thus refused to have relations.<fn>R"Y Bekhor Shor notes there were astrologers who knew that there will be a flood.</fn> Ralbag assumes instead 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".<fn>See also <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBereshit4-151623" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshit4-151623" data-aht="source">Bereshit 4:15,16,23</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> who also suggests this but reads the rest of Lemekh's words, not as a claim of innocence, but as a threat.  He presents Lemekh telling his wives that he (rather than his children) is the seventh generation from Kayin, and that if anyone dare to harm him because of this, he will kill them.</fn></li> |
<li><b>Lemekh to be punished</b> - Ramban maintains that Lemekh's wives feared that Lemekh would be punished for inventing weapons, and thus bringing bloodshed and death to the world.<fn>The discussion between Lemekh and his wives raises an interesting philosophical question; to what extent should the inventor of materials of destruction be held responsible for the blood shed by others who use them.</fn></li> | <li><b>Lemekh to be punished</b> - Ramban maintains that Lemekh's wives feared that Lemekh would be punished for inventing weapons, and thus bringing bloodshed and death to the world.<fn>The discussion between Lemekh and his wives raises an interesting philosophical question; to what extent should the inventor of materials of destruction be held responsible for the blood shed by others who use them.</fn></li> | ||
</ul> | </ul> | ||
Line 79: | Line 91: | ||
<opinion name="">Defense of Family | <opinion name="">Defense of Family | ||
<p>Lemekh's oration is a boast to his wives that he no longer needs to fear the surrounding violence.  With his son's inventions of weapons, he is now capable of defending against anyone who attempts to wound him.</p> | <p>Lemekh's oration is a boast to his wives that he no longer needs to fear the surrounding violence.  With his son's inventions of weapons, he is now capable of defending against anyone who attempts to wound him.</p> | ||
− | <mekorot>Opinion cited in Biur and Shadal.</mekorot> | + | <mekorot>Opinion cited in <multilink><a href="BiurBereshit4-23" data-aht="source">Biur</a><a href="BiurBereshit4-23" data-aht="source">Bereshit 4:23</a><a href="Biur" data-aht="parshan">About Netivot HaShalom</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="ShadalBereshit4-23-24" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalBereshit4-15" data-aht="source">Bereshit 4:15</a><a href="ShadalBereshit4-23-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 4:23-24</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink>.</mekorot> |
− | <point><b>Lemekh's tone</b> – Lemekh's tone is one of pride.  He brags to his wives that he is finally able to fight off the violent men who surround them.  According to this position, the word "הָרַגְתִּי" connotes a future tense and Lemekh is not boasting of already having killed a man, but of his ability to do so in the future.</point> | + | <point><b>Lemekh's tone</b> – Lemekh's tone is one of pride.  He brags to his wives that he is finally able to fight off the violent men who surround them.  According to this position, the word "הָרַגְתִּי" connotes a future tense<fn>See <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBereshit4-151623" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra </a><a href="IbnEzraBereshit4-151623" data-aht="source">Bereshit 4:15,16,23</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>who already suggests this.</fn> and Lemekh is not boasting of already having killed a man, but of his ability to do so in the future.<fn>This position points Bereshit 23:13 and 48:22 as examples of other verbs which are similarly phrased in the past tense but connote a future action.</fn></point> |
− | <point><b>Purpose and context</b> – This approach views the story as providing background for the upcoming flood narrative. The violence that led to the destruction already began in Lemekh's time, leading individuals like Lemekh and his family to live in fear.  The power of the mighty led those weaker to search for ingenious methods to fight them off, and with the inventions of weapons, they succeeded | + | <point><b>Purpose and context</b> – This approach views the story as providing background for the upcoming flood narrative. The violence that led to the destruction already began in Lemekh's time, leading individuals like Lemekh and his family to live in fear.  The power of the mighty led those weaker to search for ingenious methods to fight them off, and with the inventions of weapons, they succeeded in find a tool which was not dependent on strength alone.</point> |
<point><b>Why did Lemekh bother to tell his wives?</b> Lemekh tells his wives so they no longer need to fear bandits and the like who might attack them.</point> | <point><b>Why did Lemekh bother to tell his wives?</b> Lemekh tells his wives so they no longer need to fear bandits and the like who might attack them.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Who are the "אִישׁ" and "יֶלֶד"?</b> These are anonymous people.</point> | + | <point><b>Who are the "אִישׁ" and "יֶלֶד"?</b> These are anonymous people who would potentially attack Lemekh.  This position understands "יֶלֶד" to refer to a youth rather than a young child.  As such, both terms refer to a person of physical strength.</point> |
− | <point><b>What is "לְפִצְעִי" and "לְחַבֻּרָתִי"?</b></point> | + | <point><b>What is "לְפִצְעִי" and "לְחַבֻּרָתִי"?</b> These would be defined "for an injury/wound".  Lemekh claimed that he could seek vengeance on any who dared inflict upon him a wound.</point> |
<point><b>Comparison to Kayin</b></point> | <point><b>Comparison to Kayin</b></point> | ||
<point><b>"לָכֵן כָּל הֹרֵג קַיִן שִׁבְעָתַיִם יֻקָּם"</b></point> | <point><b>"לָכֵן כָּל הֹרֵג קַיִן שִׁבְעָתַיִם יֻקָּם"</b></point> |
Version as of 05:55, 11 January 2015
Lemekh's Oration
Exegetical Approaches
Intentional Killer
Lemekh bragged to his wives of murder, proud of his ability to kill.
- Motivation for attack - According to Ibn Kaspi, these terms mean "for a wound/injury". Lemekh is claiming that he killed his victim in retaliation for his having originally wounded Lemekh.
- Mode of attack - Cassuto rejects this possibility, pointing out that, if so, the verse should have read "בפצעי" and not "לְפִצְעִי".4 Instead, he understands that the verse describes the mode of Lemekh's attack. He inflicted a wound on his victim and boasted to his wives that immediately, by wounding alone, he was able to kill.
Unintentional Killer
Lemekh's oration is an expression of regret over an unintentional murder and/or an attempt to defend himself for his unwitting action.
- Sincere regret – R. Saadia, Seforno, 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, instead, assert that Lemekh is defending his actions trying to justify to his wives why he does not deserve a punishment. According to this position, Lemekh's words are a rhetorical question: "Did I kill a man and a child intentionally (that I deserve punishment)?"5
- Conclusion to Kayin narrative– According to those who assume that the person killed by Lemekh was Kayin,6 the story might be coming to show how in the end justice was done and Kayin was ultimately punished for his murder, seven generations later.
- Introduction to violence of flood generation– According to R. D"Z Hoffmann the incident introduces the corruption of Kayin's descendants and their slow move away from Hashem. Though the people are not yet described as full of violence, they are moving in that direction, as evidenced by even an unintentional murder.7
- 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 to have sons who invented tools for many 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 other close relative), his wives were understandably upset and and thus Lemekh felt the need to explain and apologize.
- Need for comfort – Alternatively, as the Neziv suggests, regardless of whom Lemekh killed, he was upset and wanted his wives to comfort him.
- Kayin and Tuval Kayin – Rashi, Abarbanel and Seforno follow the Tanchuma in suggesting that Lemekh killed Kayin (the אִישׁ) and Tuval Kayin (the יֶלֶד ).8
- Anonymous – According to R. Saadia, Netziv, and R. D"Z Hoffmann, Lemekh killed an unidentified man and child.9
- Lemekh's wife and potential future progeny –The HaKetav VeHaKabbalah explains that Lemekh accidentally 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 who was now barren (and considered as if dead) and any future children.10
- Cause of death – R. Hoffmann 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 only he will suffer the punishment for killing the people, not them.11 Seforno alternatively asserts that Lemekh cries that that by killing his ancestor and son, he wounded himself. Both would translate the verse "I killed a man, and it is a wound to me."
- Lemekh's Blindness – J. Kugel12 explains that the story in the midrash might be understanding the wound to refer to Lemekh's blindness which caused the unintentional murder. Lemekh defends himself to his wives by claiming that he killed a man only due to his own blemish.13
- Minimize fault
- Suspended punishment – Tanchuma and Rashi assert that Lemekh was drawing a comparison to Kayin to show that if Kayin was given a suspended sentence after intentional murder, Lemekh would surely be granted an even longer stay since his actions were unintentional.
- Retribution for Lemekh's killler – Netziv and R. Hoffmann reach the same basic conclusion but understand the verse differently. According to them, Lemekj says that if Kayin's killer deserved a seven-fold punishment despite the fact that Kayin was guilty, Lemekh's murderer would deserve an even greater punishment for Lemekh was less culpable.
- Maximize fault
- Lemekh's guilt – R. Saadia Gaon and HaKetav VeHaKabbalah suggests that Lemekh, in his regret, was emphasizing how much of a punishment he deserved. If the person who killed Kayin, who was guilty for having killed Hevel anyway, was nonetheless to be punished seven fold, Lemekh who killed an innocent child would be deserving of a much worse punishment.
- Lemekh's suffering – Seforno suggests that Lemekh is saying that he will be plagued all his life for his misdeed, suffering for his action much more than Kayin did for his.14
Innocent
Lemekh did not kill anyone. His speech either constitutes a rhetorical question which professes his innocence, or is a show of confidence to his wives of his capability of defending them.
Rhetorical Question
Lemekh's oration is unconnected to any murder, but is rather a response to 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 punishment)?
- Reassuring - According to most of these commentators Lemekh's tone is placating, trying to calm his wives' fears and accusations. The exegetes disagree, though, regarding what the wives were worried about:
- Offspring to die - According to Bereshit Rabbah, Rashi and R"Y Bekhor Shor, Lemekh's wives feared that any offspring they were to bear would perish in the upcoming flood and thus refused to have relations.15 Ralbag assumes instead 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".16
- Lemekh to be punished - Ramban maintains that Lemekh's wives feared that Lemekh would be punished for inventing weapons, and thus bringing bloodshed and death to the world.17
- Frustrated – R. Yosef Kara and Shadal,18 instead, 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 should be wounded for doing so.
- The method of killing – Ramban and Ralbag maintain that Lemekh is asking if he killed a person via a wound, just as Kayin had, that he should punished as a consequence. According to Ramban, in this comment Lemekh is trying to further mitigate his wrong-doing, pointing out that killing via a wound can be worse than killing via a weapon.
- Threat that Lemekh's distress will be avenged – R. Yosef Kara and Shadal understand this verse as a threat 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 Zilah) who distress Lemekh who is innocent.
- Proof that Lemekh won't be punished – The others maintain that Lemekh is making an a fortiori argument from Kayin to prove that his punishment, too, will be suspended. If Kayin killed but was nonetheless granted a stay for seven generations, Lemekh, who did not kill, would surely be given an even longer extension.
Defense of Family
Lemekh's oration is a boast to his wives that he no longer needs to fear the surrounding violence. With his son's inventions of weapons, he is now capable of defending against anyone who attempts to wound him.
Response to Killing
Lemekh shares with his wives his feelings about killing others. Commentators disagree whether he is expressing regret or pride.
Regret
Lemekh either regrets having murdered or defends himself by pointing out that it was an accident.
- Lemekh is expressing his sadness to his wives that he killed two people – R. Saadia, Seforno, HaKetav VeHaKabbalah.
- Lemekh is defending his action to his wives, claiming it was an accident or that only he will suffer and not them – Tanchuma, Rashi, Abarbanel, R. D"Z Hoffmann.
- Lemekh is asking his wives to calm him down, because he did not intend to kill a man and child – Netziv.
- The wound was the cause of death of the man and child – Tanchuma and others in its wake. Lemekh is defending himself that he intended only to wound the people rather than kill them.
- The wound is Lemekh's own wound – Abarbanel, Seforno. Abarbanel says Lemekh is telling his wives that only he will suffer the punishment for killing the people, not them. Alternatively, Seforno says that by killing his ancestor and son he wounded himself.
- HaKetav VeHaKabbalah
- Rashi says Lemekh will get a smaller punishment than Kayin. Kayin, Hashem extended for him the wait for seven generation, all the more Lemekh who killed unintentionally Hashem will extend the wait many generations.
- On the other hand, some commentators interpret the verse that Lemekh will get a bigger punishment than Kayin, either because the amount of sorrow Lemekh had for killing Kayin and Tuval Kayin was more than what Kayin grieved for being "נָע וָנָד", like Seforno; or since when Hashem revenges from Lemekh the whole world will be punished in the Flood more than Kayin who was punished alone, like Abarbanel.
- Rashi says simply the purpose is to teach that Hashem kept his word and made sure Kayin will be killed after the seventh generation,31 assuming the person killed was Kayin.
- R. Saadia and Abarbanel note the general story teaches us Lemekh invented weapons, but do not explain the specific song of Lemekh.32
- HaKetav VeHaKabbalah learns from the story the virtue of repenting on one's bad deeds, that Lemekh since he regretted what he did, earned to have sons "יושבי אהל ה'" and who created and invented tools for many purposes.
- R. D"Z Hoffmann says the story is showing the beginning of the process of moving away from Hashem. The people are not yet described as corrupted, but killing even by mistake already shows that they are not good people.33
Boasting
Lemekh is proud of his ability to kill.
- Lemekh is boasting that he is ready to kill any person who hurts him even if the person just wounds him – Ibn Kaspi, opinion cited in Biur and Shadal, Immanueli.
- Lemekh is boasting that he can kill a person just from wounding him – Cassuto.
Allaying of Wives' Fears
Lemekh is calming his wives who fear that he will be killed for either inventing weapons or being the seventh generation from Kayin.
Potential Death of their Children
Punishment of Lemekh for Inventing Weapons
Reaction to Wives' Squabbles
Lemekh is trying to silence his bickering wives.
- Questioning his fate – R"Y Kara, Shadal. Lemekh is asking if he killed someone that he deserves a punishment of never having quiet in his house.
- Threatening his wives – Radak, Ma'asei Hashem. Lemekh is threatening and scaring his wives that if they do not keep quiet he will kill them.