Skip To Content

Support the Forward

Funded by readers like you DonateSubscribe

Reacting to Rejection: A Parable

This week is the beginning of the annual cycle of readings from the Torah. How are we to turn this material around in our minds, and assimilate it, in a manner that does not compromise either our respect for tradition or our contemporary sense of reason and morality? One traditional method of understanding the relevance of the ancient texts is to explain them by means of a parable couched in contemporary terms and images.

Genesis 4:3-7 is one of the most profound passages in the Torah. It reads, in the Jewish Publication Society’s 1982 translation:

In the course of time, Cain brought an offering to the Lord from the fruit of the soil; and Abel, for his part, brought the choicest of the firstlings of his flock. The Lord paid heed to Abel and his offering, but to Cain and his offering He paid no heed. Cain was much distressed and his face fell. And the Lord said to Cain:Why are you so distressed,And why is your face fallen?Surely, if you do right,There is uplift.But if you do not do rightSin crouches at the door;Its urge is toward you,Yet you can be its master.

Ignoring the fact that Cain and Abel have different livelihoods, our text has the following logical structure. Offerings are made by two different people; one offering is described in a way that indicates it is superior. God attends to one person and his superior offering, and ignores the other. The person whose offering is ignored is distressed. In response, God provides no explanation of His motives or reasons and does not offer the rejected person the opportunity to argue against the Divine decision. Instead He says, “You have control over your response to My rejection. If you choose to control your distress there will be a positive effect, and if you choose not to there will be a negative effect.”

I’ll give an interpretation of this passage by means of a parable with the logical structure I’ve indicated, starting with the standard rabbinic introductory formula.

“But for Cain’s offering God did not have regard and Cain’s face fell.” To what may this be compared? A parable:

Harry and Jake are 30. They are close friends, and both are artists. They brought their portfolios of slides to the owner of a well-known gallery exhibiting contemporary art. The owner looked over Jake’s portfolio and said: “Yes, I like your work a lot. I’ve been following your career for a couple of years now, and it’s time you had a one-man show. Let’s have lunch tomorrow to start discussing the details.” But after looking over Harry’s portfolio, the owner said, “These are not for us.” And Harry’s face fell, and the owner said: “Surely you know by now that you aren’t Picasso. You want to be an artist, so keep producing your works and dedicate yourself to your art. If nothing else your art will give you a life that has a sense of purpose. And let me give you some serious advice. I’m twice your age, and I’ve seen what happens to many artists in their 40s, 50s and 60s. Despair and rage are latent in all of us, and if you give them a chance, they’re crouching at the door, to use the biblical image, and if you open the door to them, they’ll act in you as though they were independent forces, demons of sin waiting to tear you to pieces. They’ll destroy you, and you won’t be the first to slip from depression to insanity or suicide. Facing up to limitations and persevering in spite of them is no joke. But you have the capacity to keep the evil impulses at bay; most of us can manage that much.”

It’s obvious from the parable that my interpretative application of God’s rejection of Cain’s offering can be applied to any and all “God-given” aspects of life that are inequitably distributed, and all are: looks, health, intelligence, place and decade of birth, family of birth.

But even within the realm of artistic talent, the issue examined here has nothing to do with absolute level of talent. Shakespeare himself is on record, in Sonnet 29, as

Wishing me like to one more rich in hope, Featur’d like him, like him with friends possess’d, Desiring this man’s art and that man’s scope, With what I have the most contented least…

Assuming we can take this as autobiographical, and written early in his career when there was a vogue for sonnet sequences, then Shakespeare is telling us he wished he was more like those who had better prospects, were better looking, had more friends and, amazingly, had greater talent. The man with greater scope could have been Christopher Marlowe, and the man with greater art Sir Philip Sydney. No doubt, as Borges says in one of his essays, “he died as unjustified as any.” But let’s hope Shakespeare learned later in his career to be content with the level of talent he was given. Let’s hope that he came to understand the lesson implicit in Genesis 4:3-7 and that, after accepting the limitations of his scope and art, and the limitations of the offerings he made with them, he experienced uplift.

David Curzon is a contributing editor of the Forward.


Republish This Story

Please read before republishing

We’re happy to make this story available to republish for free, unless it originated with JTA, Haaretz or another publication (as indicated on the article) and as long as you follow our guidelines. You must credit the Forward, retain our pixel and preserve our canonical link in Google search.  See our full guidelines for more information, and this guide for detail about canonical URLs.

To republish, copy the HTML by clicking on the yellow button to the right; it includes our tracking pixel, all paragraph styles and hyperlinks, the author byline and credit to the Forward. It does not include images; to avoid copyright violations, you must add them manually, following our guidelines. Please email us at [email protected], subject line “republish,” with any questions or to let us know what stories you’re picking up.

We don't support Internet Explorer

Please use Chrome, Safari, Firefox, or Edge to view this site.