Lemekh's Monologue/2/he

נאומו של למך

גישות פרשניות

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.

מקורות:R. Yosef ibn KaspiTirat Kesef 1Bereshit 4:23-24About R. Yosef ibn Kaspi, U. CassutoBereshit 4:23,24About Prof. Umberto Cassuto¹

Lemekh's tone – According to this approach, Lemekh is boastful.  Rather than hiding the fact that he killed, he is proud of his deed.

Purpose and context – Cassuto asserts that the story follows the description of the material inventions of Kayin's descendants to highlight how, despite the technological advances, civilization had not progressed on an ethical plane.  The story thus serves to introduce the Flood narrative and explain Hashem's decision to destroy the world.  Lemekh was a living proof of the continued deterioration of a society² which prided itself on its violence and a symbol of the need for the renewal of civilization.

Why did Lemekh bother to tell his wives? Lemekh was so debased that he was not ashamed of his act, but was rather so pleased with his capabilities that he wanted to share his feat with his wives.

Who are the "אִישׁ" and "יֶלֶד"? Cassuto asserts that the victim is not named because the specific individual killed was not important, but only the fact that he was an "אִישׁ" or "יֶלֶד".  He suggests that both terms connote a man full of vigor³ and that Lemekh was priding himself on his ability to kill a man of strength.

What are "לְפִצְעִי" and "לְחַבֻּרָתִי"?

• 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.

Comparison to Kayin / Kayin's killer – According to Cassuto, Lemekh is bragging that while Hashem promised to avenge the killer of Kayin sevenfold, Lemekh himself will avenge anyone who attempts to harm him, seventy-seven times.

Unintentional Killing

Lemekh was expressing regret over an unintentional murder and/or attempting to defend himself for his unwitting action.

מקורות:TanchumaBereshit 11About the Tanchuma, R. Saadia Gaon #1Commentary Bereshit 4:16-25Tafsir Bereshit 4:23-24About R. Saadia Gaon,⁵ Rashi #1Bereshit 4:15Bereshit 4:19Bereshit 4:23-24About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki,⁶ AbarbanelBereshit 4:18Bereshit 4:13-14Bereshit 4:23-24About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel, SefornoBereshit 4:15,23-24About R. Ovadyah Seforno, HaKetav VeHaKabbalahBereshit 4:23About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg, NetzivBereshit 4:23-24About R. Naftali Z"Y Berlin, R. D"Z HoffmannBereshit 4:19-22Bereshit 4:23-24About R. David Zvi Hoffmann

Lemekh's tone

• 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 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

Who are the "אִישׁ" and "יֶלֶד"?

• Kayin and Tuval Kayin – Rashi, Abarbanel, and Seforno 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"‏‎").

Purpose and context

• 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.

Why did Lemekh bother to tell his wives?

• 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.

What are "לְפִצְעִי" and "לְחַבֻּרָתִי"?

• 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 Seforno 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

Comparison to Kayin / Kayin's killer – These commentators disagree over whether the comparison was meant to minimize or maximize Lemekh's responsibility,¹⁸ and  whether Lemekh is comparing himself to Kayin or to Kayin's killer

• 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 – Seforno 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)?

מקורות:Bereshit Rabbah23:4About Bereshit Rabbah, R. Saadia Gaon #2Commentary Bereshit 4:16-25Tafsir Bereshit 4:23-24About R. Saadia Gaon, Rashi #2Bereshit 4:15Bereshit 4:19Bereshit 4:23-24About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki,²⁰ R. Yosef KaraBereshit 4:23About R. Yosef Kara, R. Yosef Bekhor ShorBereshit 4:15Bereshit 4:23-24About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, RambanBereshit 4:23About R. Moshe b. Nachman, RalbagBeiur Divrei HaParashah Bereshit 4:15Beiur Divrei HaParashah Bereshit 4:23-24About R. Levi b. Gershom, ShadalBereshit 4:15Bereshit 4:23-24About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto

Lemekh's tone

• 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.

"אִישׁ הָרַגְתִּי לְפִצְעִי וְיֶלֶד לְחַבֻּרָתִי" – According to all of these commentators, Lemekh's words constitute a rhetorical question, "Did I kill a man or child?"  Lemekh questions whether he deserves a punishment, pointing out that he has not killed anyone to deserve such a fate.²⁵

Purpose and context – Bereshit Rabbah, Rashi, and R. Yosef Bekhor Shor all relate the story to the Flood narrative²⁶ which follows, while Ralbag relates it to the preceding story of Kayin's punishment. Ramban offers a third possibility which connects the story to its immediate context, asserting that it describes the direct aftermath of the invention of weapons.  None of the commentators offer a satisfactory explanation of why the story is included in the Torah.²⁷

Why did Lemekh bother to tell his wives? According to all of these exegetes, Lemekh's words were a direct response to his wives' actions, either a reaction to their noise or their fears.

Who are the "אִישׁ" and "יֶלֶד"? While many of these commentators do not specify the identities of the "אִישׁ" and "יֶלֶד", Rashi, Ramban, and Ralbag²⁸ suggest that the terms allude to Hevel²⁹ and his murder at the hands of Kayin.  According to them, Lemekh is rhetorically asking if he acted like Kayin who killed Hevel.  Ramban understands Lemekh to be referencing Kayin's murder to show how people managed to kill even without weapons, while Ralbag has Lemekh explaining to his wives that he does not deserve to be punished for merely being Kayin's descendant.

What are "לְפִצְעִי" and "לְחַבֻּרָתִי"?

• 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

Comparison to Kayin / Kayin's killer

• 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.

מקורות:J. Herder cited in the BiurBereshit 4:23About Netivot HaShalom and ShadalBereshit 4:15Bereshit 4:23-24About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto.

Lemekh's tone – 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" should be read as a future tense.³¹  Lemekh is boasting not of already having killed a man, but rather of his ability to do so in the future.³²

Purpose and context – This approach views the story as providing the background for the upcoming Flood narrative. The violence which ultimately led to the destruction had begun already 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 finding a tool which was not dependent on strength alone.

Why did Lemekh bother to tell his wives? Lemekh tells his wives so that they will no longer live in fear of the bandits who might attack them.

Who are the "אִישׁ" and "יֶלֶד"? These are anonymous people who might potentially attack Lemekh.  This position understands "יֶלֶד" to refer to a youth rather than a young child.³³  As such, both terms refer to a person of physical strength.

What are "לְפִצְעִי" and "לְחַבֻּרָתִי"? These would be explained as "for an injury/wound".  Lemekh is declaring that he will take revenge for any wound that is inflicted upon him.

Comparison to Kayin / Kayin's killer – Lemekh states that while Hashem promised to punish anyone who killed Kayin, Lemekh will go even further and wreak vengeance merely for bodily harm.

¹ See also Y"M Immanueli who takes a similar approach but suggests that Lemekh is boasting about his ability to kill, rather than the fact that he has already committed the deed.  He reads Lemekh's words "כִּי אִישׁ הָרַגְתִּי" as if they were in the future tense.  Cf. Ibn EzraBereshit 4:15,16,23About R. Avraham ibn Ezra who already notes this possibility. See also Herder's opinion cited in the Biur (elaborated on below) who similarly reads the entire oration as a boast about his ability to kill, but understands Lemekh's motivations to be positive (defense of his family) rather than negative.

² Y"M Immanueli points out that while Lemekh's ancestor, Kayin, killed due to a conflict, Lemekh was ready to kill for a mere bruise.  While Kayin was at least ashamed of his act and denied his role, Lemekh was proud of his deeds and proclaimed them to others.

³ He suggests that "יֶלֶד" refers to a "נער", a youth at the height of his strength, rather than a small child.  Cf. Herder below.  This might be supported by the parallelism to the word "אִישׁ" in the first half of the verse.  In addition, though often in Tanakh the word "יֶלֶד" clearly refers to a baby or child (Shemot 2:3,10 and Shemuel II 12:15), at times it is used to connote a young adult. Thus, Yosef is referred to as a "יֶלֶד" when he is seventeen (Bereshit 37:30) and Rechavam's friends who advise him in the beginning of his reign are also described as "יְלָדִים" (Melakhim II 12:8-14).  For further analysis of the word, see P. Miller, "Yeled in the Song of Lamekh", JBL 85:4 (1966): 477-478.

⁴ Cassuto rejects this possibility, pointing out that, if so, the verse should have read "בפצעי" and not "‏לְפִצְעִי‎".  As evidence he points to Shemuel II 14:7 "וּנְמִתֵהוּ בְּנֶפֶשׁ אָחִיו אֲשֶׁר הָרָג". In addition, he asserts that it is not the way of braggarts to mention that they have been harmed by their enemies

⁵ 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.

⁶ Rashi also brings the position of Bereshit Rabbah below.

⁷ See below that this is also the position of Bereshit Rabbah and others who follow in its footsteps.

⁸ 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.

⁹ 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.

¹⁰ 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.

¹¹ According to this approach, Lemekh should have used the feminine form "אשה" rather than "אִישׁ".

¹² See Tanchuma, Rashi, Abarbanel, and Seforno.

¹³ However, if this was the story's purpose, we might have expected the Torah to identify the victim as Kayin.

¹⁴ 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.

¹⁵ Lemekh tells them, "The wound is my (not your) wound."

¹⁶ Tanchuma itself is somewhat ambiguous as to the exact meaning of the phrase.

¹⁷ 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.]

¹⁸ Their positions are consistent with their respective understandings of Lemekh's tone as one of self justification or regret.

¹⁹ This is consistent with Seforno's read of Lemekh as one who is full of remorse for his actions.

²⁰ See above that Rashi also develops the approach brought by Tanchuma that Lemekh was speaking of his unintentional murderer.

²¹ R"Y Bekhor Shor notes that there were astrologers who knew that a flood was impending.  See Astrology for commentators' positions on its supposed powers.

²² Cf. Ibn EzraBereshit 4:15,16,23About R. Avraham ibn Ezra who also suggests this but reads the rest of Lemekh's words as a threat rather than a claim of innocence.  He presents Lemekh as telling his wives that he (rather than his children) is the seventh generation from Kayin, and that if anyone dares to harm him because of this, he will kill them.

²³ For Ramban, the discussion between Lemekh and his wives thus 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?

²⁴ See also the explanations of RadakBereshit 4:15Bereshit 4:19,23-24About R. David Kimchi and Ma'asei HashemMa'asei Bereshit 21About R. Eliezer Ashkenazi who explain similarly but present Lemekh in a much more negative light.  Their Lemekh is not simply frustrated and defensive, but also violent, threatening to kill his wives for their bickering and refusal to heed his authority.

²⁵ According to most of these sources, Lemekh is reacting to his wives' assumption that he or his sons are to be killed. According to R. Yosef Kara and Shadal, though, he is questioning whether he deserves his fate of a home filled with noisy squabbling.

²⁶ See above that the impeding flood was the reason for Lemekh's wives refusal to have relations with him, and that their refusal was what prompted his oration.

²⁷ Only R. Yosef Kara relates to the issue at all, explaining that it comes to teach that people should not marry two wives as doing so merely causes strife.

²⁸ Though neither Ramban nor Ralbag mention Hevel explicitly, they both understand the sentence to refer to Kayin's murder.

²⁹ Rashi claims that both terms refer to Hevel, since he was a man in stature, though still a child in years.

³⁰ According to Ramban, in this comment, Lemekh is trying to further mitigate his wrongdoing, pointing out that killing via a wound can be worse than killing via a weapon.

³¹ See Ibn Ezra Bereshit 4:15,16,23About R. Avraham ibn Ezrawho already suggests this.

³² The Biur points to Bereshit 23:13 and 48:22 as similar cases in which verbs are phrased in the past tense but refer to a future action.

³³ The Biur points to the use of the term "יְלָדִים" in Melakhim I 12:8 in reference to grown men.  See the extended discussion above in the note on Cassuto's position.