Dominance vs Acceptance and Lamekh’s Song

After a soul-replenishing walk the other day, I walked out of the bush onto a path where I saw a little dog ahead. From the dog’s perspective, a strange man was approaching and this was a problem. A few loud barks did not persuade the man to back off  ̶  he continued to approach. This required an escalation: first circling the stranger and barking even more menacingly and then a warning bite! The bite through my clothing didn’t pierce the skin, but the dog had asserted itself!  

Unlike that dog, humans have choices. Situations that at first may feel adversarial can be resolved through conversations that uncover misunderstandings or alternative solutions. I have been working on acceptance of how things are, and letting go of expectations about how others “should” be or behave. We have a choice about how we react to anxiety either by seeking to control others, or by letting go (1), with trust in God and respect for others’ right to choose what they wish to do or give.  

In Genesis, we read about Cain, whose name means “acquisition” (2). When his brother Abel’s offering was favoured by God, while his was rejected (3), Cain failed to “acquire” the approval he craved. His “face fell (4) ”. In his status anxiety, Cain failed to follow God’s guidance to improve himself and manage his drives or impulses (5). Instead, in an outburst of violence, he murdered his brother. The anger he felt was so overwhelming that he thought – in error – that he had no choice in the matter (6) .

Worse than crimes of passion are acts of violence and ways of unethical domination that are not impulsive but premeditated (7). When some people see the ways that intimidating others can allow them to take what they want, they either inflict violence or threaten to do so to get their way (8).

Cain’s descendant Lemekh embraced violence. He had contempt for the “respectable people” of his time, descendants of Adam and Eve’s other son Seth, who shunned the Cainites because of their murderous and condemned ancestor (9). Lemekh tried to revise history, creating myths to recast Cain as a hero. “Our father Cain did not wimpishly relinquish his status as the firstborn son of Adam and Eve. When he was insulted by Abel and God, Cain defended his honour (10)”. In this way, Lemekh thought that Cain had been rehabilitated, and the Cainites had restored their past glory.

Lemekh was wrong. Rather than him changing the past, the past was a strong influence on him and his family. Wicked ways that are deeply embedded in people’s hearts, such as Cain’s embrace of murder, anger and dominance, can be perpetuated in families (11), an example of “visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children's children… (12)”. Indeed, Tuval Cain, one of Lemekh’s sons, built on his ancestor’s murderous legacy (13) by being the first to create weapons (14).

Tuval Cain’s siblings were all pioneers, one in developing agri-business (15) and the accumulation of wealth (16), another in the arts, the “father” of all musicians (17), and their sister Naama was a talented singer (18). The siblings complemented Lemekh’s repair of the past by creating a glorious future (19).

After the description of Lemekh’s talented family in the Tanach, there is a plot twist. Lemekh tells his wives that he killed a man and a boy (20) in retaliation (21) for some kind of wound and a bruise. Lemekh’s story about these killings is in the form of a song (22), a war song, as Biblical songs tend to be (23). It is a dramatic warning to his wives that he is far tougher than Cain and if they dare defy his wishes, such defiance will be met with violent vengeance and him killing them. This was his way of dominating his wives as if they were slaves, or property, for him to do with as he pleased (24).

      
An alternative interpretation identifies the slain man and boy as Lemekh’s ancestor Cain and his own son Tuval Cain, killed in a series of accidents, rather than acts of vengeance (25). Lemekh’s song is seen as a bitter “last testament of a Cainite seer. (26)” Instead of the pride and joy in his family’s accomplishments, Lemekh sees the symbolism of his killing his ancestor and son as representing the failure of the Cainite approach. “Alas, I have not rehabilitated my ancestor, I killed him! I murdered the youth! And in doing so, I inflicted the deepest wound on myself! We have destroyed the past and the future and gained no present.” Lemekh recognised that he was morally damaged, “bruised and wounded (27) ” by the legacy of anger and murder that he inherited from Cain and that shaped him and his weapons-manufacturing son, Tuval-Cain (28).  Lemekh declared: “Cain-ism must be repudiated!”

Lemekh’s lament is a call for us to reject dominance in favour of humble acceptance of that which we cannot control.  His song is about the ultimate painful cost of coercion and threats that far exceed any short-term benefits.  Inflicting or threatening “punishments” can destroy family ties and friendships (29), often with great harm to the perpetrator. Instead, let us affirm the dignity and rights of all people, with assertiveness, forgiveness, patience, tolerance, curiosity and compassion.   

---

[1]Jeffers, S. (2012), Feel The Fear And Do It Anyway, Revised, Vermilion, London, p. 232-233

[2] Genesis 4:1

[3] Genesis 4:3-5

[4] Genesis 4:5-6

[5] Genesis 4:7

[6] Leiner, J, the son of the Ishbitzer, in Beis Yaakov al Hatora, Bereshit, 70, on Sefaria https://www.sefaria.org/Genesis.4.23?lang=he&with=Beit%20Yaakov%20on%20Torah&lang2=he  

[7] Liebovitz, N, New Studies In Bereshit Genesis, 6, p. 46, I use the term unethical domination to exclude cases where legitimate authority is exercised eg. by the parent of a young child about to cause harm to themselves or others, or a police officer protecting a vulnerable person from someone seeking to harm them.  

[8] Genesis, 6:2, “the sons of the powerful saw the daughters of man, that they were good and they took women from all that they chose”

[9] R Ephrayim, based on a lost midrash, cited in Azulai, C. Y. D. Chidoh, in Torat Hachido, p. 38- 115 

[10] Medan, Y. The Song of Lemekh – The First Song in the Bible, https://etzion.org.il/en/tanakh/torah/sefer-bereishit/parashat-bereishit/bereishit-song-lemekh-%E2%80%93-first-song-bible

[11] Talmud, Berakhot 7a, as interpreted by Medan, Y. following the approach of Ralbag on the Torah, Shemot 20:1:3, and Leiner,

[12] Exodus 34:7

[13] Rashi, on Genesis 4:22

[14] Genesis 4:22

[15] Hirsch, S.R. on Genesis 4:21

[16] Malbim on Genesis 4:21

[17] Genesis 4:21

[18] Me’am Loez

[19] Hirsch, S.R. on Genesis 4:21

[20] Genesis 4:23

[21] Malbim’s commentary to 4:23, C. Y. D. Chidoh, in Torat Hachido, p. 38- 115, Medan, Y.

[22] Hirsch, S.R. on Genesis 4:23

[23] Medan, Y.

[24] Malbim

[25] Midrash Tanchuma

[26] Hirsch

[27] Genesis 4:23

[28] Leiner, Y, 71

[29] Perhaps there is a difference where relationships fail because people cannot bear to be in the presence of someone and continuing to be together will cause distress or emotional harm, and other situations where such differences can likely be tolerated but the effort is not made due to either a sense – perhaps sub-conscious - that the other person deserves to be punished or of righteous indignation. 

Humans Gone Ape? Affirming our Essential Humanity and a Beauty Named Naama Beresheet

This work by Jonas Malmo, Sweden 2010,  is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 License.

“Look at what they are doing to each other!” say some people , referring to Arabs or Muslims or both as a collective “they”, when they see the images or hear of the horror that is being perpetrated in Syria. This came up in a discussion about a Jewish teaching that people had descended to the level of Apes. The horrible murder and mayhem in Kenya led one participant to comment that  people like the Al-Shabab murderers are indeed apes, followed by the problematic comment about Syria. While people certainly do horrific, evil deeds, influenced by evil thoughts and speech, I think it is wrong to dehumanize them. Beasts kill for food, following their natural instincts without malice or evil intent; humans, on the other hand, make choices and carry out evil plans. It is the humanity of every human community, rather than the evil choices made by  some of their members,  that we should recognise. 

One important concept  about the nature of prejudice is the process of “essentialising”. This involves taking a negative characteristic or perspective about a member or several members of a group and reducing the group as a whole to that one characteristic and nothing else (1).  I heard of a chilling anecdote from Kenya  that one of the murderers responded to a 4 year old child’s assertion that he was a “very bad man” by offering him a Mars bar and telling the child that “we are not monsters” (2).  This interaction suggests to me that the killer, despite his evil side, is, in one sense, a person like me, rather than a demon. He wants to be perceived as a “good person”; he must think that he is making a “tough” decision that seems entirely justified in his twisted understanding of religion and morality.

I wish to explore the theme of essential humanity through the complicated case of a woman named Naama. This woman’s story carries a redemptive message about the enduring human spirit, regardless of ancestry or even after going through a “demonic” phase.

Naama’s birth is the result of an unwanted pregnancy. Her father Lemech, a descendant of the murderer Cain, married two women (3). One wife, Ada, was married for the purpose of child bearing; having served her purpose, she was   to spend the rest of her life “like a widow”, ignored by Lemech. The other wife, Tzila, whose name means “shade” because she was always in Lemechs “shadow”, was for sex. She was given a contraceptive drink and was “adorned like a prostitute” (4). Thwarting Lemech’s intentions, God ensures that Tzila becomes pregnant (5) and gives birth to a son named Tuval Cain and a daughter Naama. 

Unsurprisingly, Lemech’s two wives were jealous of each other and quarrelled.  Lemech finds it unbearable and cries out, “How are my sins worse than those of all people? that I have no quiet in my home, not when eating, not when drinking, not when going to sleep or waking up, did I kill a man(6)? Or choke little children to deserve this?! (7).

Tuval Cain and his sister Naama (8), raised in this household, are the world’s first iron workers (9) and arms manufacturers (10). Lemech  is unconcerned by the moral cost of creating weapons because he argues, much like gun control opponents do today, that he is not responsible for bringing the sword and murder into the world. He argues (11) that “the sword is not the only way to murder; in fact killing without it by repeatedly inflicting a barrage of wounds and bruises is a much worse death” (12). 

Naama, whose name means pleasant, was exceptionally beautiful (13). Men strayed after her (14), including the “sons of God”, meaning the children of the judges, who saw “the daughters of men, that they were good and they took all women as they pleased” (15).  Even demons fell for her. She is also thought to be the mother of Ashmadai, the king of demons (16). The commentary written by these ancient men is crying out for a feminist critique. Not attempting to offer it myself, I am instead considering this from the perspective of the religious mindset of scholars from between 500-2000 years ago, that describes this woman as one who would seem to be beyond redemption. This, however, is not the case.

Naama lived in a time where the human population became so degenerate that they were described as having their faces changed to those of apes, people became Centaurs, (17) half men, but also “like horses and mules without understanding”(18). Yet, our sages tell us that she was pleasing in the “end of her actions”; the angels sought to stray after her but she ran away from them (19).  She eventually (20) married the righteous Noah (21) and is therefore the mother of us all.

The key point for me here is that, despite the fact that we can behave in ways that might best be described an inhuman, nothing, not ancestry, family influence, personal choice, character or even horrific evil deeds, schemes and thoughts, like those of Al Shaabab, can ever erase the essential humanity of us all.

Also, there has been much discussion on facebook about a Muslim tradition or Hadith regarding Jewish people who sinned and were turned into apes. This can easily be misconstrued by non-Muslims and Muslims themselves as dehumanising. I am afraid this might feed anti-Jewish bigotry for some Muslims as well as generalised hatred of Muslims by some Jews. Yet, for me as a Jew, I find it fascinating that the idea of ‘humans gone ape’ is clearly articulated in my own tradition for a very similar reason. 

Notes
1)    Hall, S. ed. (1997) Representation, Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices, London, Sage. p.245
2)    http://metro.co.uk/2013/09/24/british-boy-4-tells-nairobi-shopping-mall-terrorist-youre-a-very-bad-man-4099859/
3)    Genesis 4:19
4)    Midrash Rabba/Beresheet Rabba chapter 23
5)     Pesikta Zutra, Rashi, Rabbenu Bchaya
6)     Genesis 4:23
7)    Rabbi Yossi Kara, cited in Bchor Shor, An alternative interpretation (Radak) is that he is so enraged by this that he threatens to kill them, boasting of his capacity to do this as if he had already (Ibn Ezra and Radak) “killed a man” and could do the same to his wives if they continue to displease him. Ibn Ezra and Radak, support their view by citing the common usage of the past tense to refer to future events
8)    Midrash Hanealam (literally, the hidden midrash, cited first in the new Zohar 19b, and in Kasher, M. M., in Torah Shlaima (1992), Jerusalem. Beit Torah Shlaima) The text only tells us about Tuval Cain’s occupation but the unusual phrase “and the sister of Tuval Cain” was Naama, is taken to mean that she was like him with the same level of expertise.
9)    Genesis 4:22
10)    Rashi and Ramban. The word Tuval in the name Tuval Cain means spice, which is taken to mean that he extends Cain. Whereas Cain killed with his bare hands, Tuval Cain and his sister enabled killing with greater efficiency and ease (Midrash Rabba/Beresheet Rabba chapter 23)
11)    This is based on yet another interpretation of the phrase “did I kill a man?” in Genesis 4:23,
12)     Ramban, Rabbenu Bchaya
13)    Midrash Rabba
14)     Zohar Chadash Part 1, 55
15)    Genesis 6:2, commentary discusses whether this was consensual as the “sons of God”, according to one commentary, refers to the descendants of Cain who were exceptionally attractive, “beautiful and tall”, leading women to abandon their husbands (Midrash cited in Torah Shlaima); or it might have involved rape, particularly by the sons of the judges, an alternative meaning to the phrase “sons of God”, who grabbed women and raped them in the market place. Their example was followed by ordinary men as well (Sifre/Sifre Zuta). According to one commentary, the verse Genesis 6:4 “the fallen were on the earth”  refers to the Hebrew word for a miscarried foetus, a נפל (Nefel),  and suggests that many of the women who became pregnant were given a type of drink that caused them to miscarry because of their shame, and the earth was filled with aborted foetuses (Tzror Hamor- cited in Meam Loez).    
16)    Midrash Hanealam ibid
17)    Midrash Rabba/Beresheet Rabba chapter 23  
18)     Torah Shlaima citing מו"ע  (not sure who this is).
19)    Midrash Agada, cited in Torah Shlaima  
20)     I am taking the liberty here of compiling a composite image here that includes many different perspectives. I am not suggesting that the original commentators saw it as one narrative, they clearly did not.
21)     Midrash Rabba/Beresheet Rabba chapter 23