Genesis 4:2

‘And again she bore his brother Abel (Hebel). And Abel was a keeper of sheep while Cain was a worker of the ground.'

Abel was a keeper of ‘sheep' (the word strictly means what we might call ‘small cattle' i.e. including goats). We must not read into this the suggestion that he was a shepherd in its later ‘advanced' form. The sheep and goats were there and he took an interest in them and herded them for clothing and milk, and possibly for food. Thus he provided the coats of skins necessary to cover the nakedness of man (Genesis 3:21).

So God in His mercy had made available in the area animals that were not difficult to hunt down and were mainly placid. This raises interesting questions which were of no concern to the writer. Does this mean sheep and goats were eaten at this stage? In view of the fact that Abel offered them in sacrifice it would seem probable.

“Hebel” - ‘Abel' - could mean a ‘breath' or ‘vapour', indicating man's frailty and unconsciously prophetic of the fact that he will have his life cut off before it is fully developed. It is often used to suggest the brevity of human life, see for example Psalms 144:4. But another possibility is that it is from a word similar to Akkadian ‘aplu' and Sumerian ‘ibila' meaning ‘a son'. No significance is given to it in the account.

“Cain was a worker of the ground.” We avoid the word ‘till' as being too advanced, but some kind of primitive assisting of ‘herbs of the field' is in mind, possibly by tearing away the thorns and thistles, although it may only have in mind gathering the plants. Thus man is fulfilling his functions to have dominion over the animals (Genesis 1:28) and to ‘work' the ground (Genesis 3:17), and is having to wrestle with the thorns and the thistles, something unknown in Eden where all the food came from trees which were self-producing. It has been suggested that the story reflects growing ill feeling between one who feeds animals from the ground (shepherd) and one who uses the ground for production (agriculturalist). Later times would see this as a common cause of antagonism, but there is no justification for seeing this as the idea behind the story here. Rather the connections are with Genesis 3.