It is significant that the Torah itself makes no mention of any particular argument between the two brothers. Whatever the cause of Kayin’s violent rage, it was not valid. The consequences of his hatred were not worth any purpose Kayin hoped to achieve.
Many commentators have noted the ambiguity in the Torah’s description of Hevel’s murder at the hands of his brother: “Kayin said to his brother Hevel, and when they were in the field Kayin rose against his brother Hevel and killed him” (Bereishit 4:8). The Torah tells us that Kayin spoke to his brother, without specifying what he said.
The Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 22:16) famously cites three different opinions among the Sages in identifying the content of Kayin’s speech. One view claims that Kayin and Hevel argued over the division of the earth’s assets. They initially decided that one brother would receive the territory and the other would have rights over moveable objects. But once they realized that they both need land and they both need clothing and food, a fight broke out and Kayin murdered his brother. A second view claimed that the brothers fought over the privilege of having the Beit Ha-mikdash constructed in their territory, and according to a third view, they fought over their sister. It is commonly understood that the Midrash here refers to the three reasons why individuals and nations wage war against one another – land/resources, religion, and romance.
Nevertheless, it is significant that the Torah itself makes no mention of any particular argument between the two brothers. Regardless of which position we accept, the fact remains that the Torah is silent in this regard and did not find it important to identify the issue over which Kayin and Hevel fought. And it has been suggested that this is precisely the point the Torah seeks to convey – that it does not matter. Whatever the cause of Kayin’s violent rage, it was not valid. The consequences of his hatred were not worth any purpose Kayin hoped to achieve. The Torah may have omitted the details of Kayin and Havel’s altercation precisely to convey the message that matters we view as vital and worthy of struggle are, more often than not, hardly worth the fight. When friends, neighbors and family members fight with one another, they repeat the mistake of Kayin, allowing envy and ego to cloud reason, and producing results which are assuredly not a price any of us should be willing to pay for the sake of proving ourselves right.
Kayin’s punishment was that of “na va-nad tiheyeh ba-aretz” – he would forever be a wanderer, incapable of permanent settlement in one place. We might suggest a homiletic connection between this curse and Kayin’s crime. A person who stubbornly refuses to yield, who insists on obtaining what he feels he deserves at any cost, and who feels the need to protest even the minor injustices committed against him, will find it difficult to enjoy stability. If we feel impelled to respond to every unkind remark, and to wage a battle for every morsel and every bit of recognition we think we deserve, we will find ourselves in a state of “na va-nad tiheyeh ba-aretz,” of constant struggle for what we feel we need but do not have. The story of Kayin teaches us of the need to accept our imperfect reality and consider yielding for the benefit of ourselves and the people around us. If we want to avoid the situation of “na va-nad,” if we want to enjoy stability and contentment, then we must be prepared to tolerate a degree of adversity. Otherwise, we will be forced to be constantly on the move, and to engage in a never-ending struggle against people and conditions in the futile pursuit of the perfect life.