Commentary for Genesis 3:32

והנחש היה ערום AND THE SERPENT WAS MORE SUBTLE — What connection is there between the following narrative and the statement just made? The latter should have been followed by: “and He [the Lord God] made for Adam and his wife garments of skin and clothed them” (3:21), but Scripture informs you with what plan the serpent assailed them: he saw them naked and unashamed and he coveted her (Eve) (Genesis Rabbah 18:6).

Did God really say, "You shall not eat from any tree of the Garden": There is a big question in this matter: If the woman added the command of, "do not touch," by herself; behold, she knew the truth that God did not command about touching. And if so, how was the woman seduced by these empty words, saying that in the same way as there is no death penalty from touching, so too is there no death penalty from eating? From a quick [survey], it appears that it can be explained that the woman did not hear the commandment from the mouth of the Mighty One, but rather from the mouth of her husband. And that is [the meaning of] what is written (Genesis 2:16), "And the Lord God commanded to (or about) the man, saying." What is [the meaning of] "saying?" Rather that he should tell his wife that this eating is dangerous. As it is for this reason that it is stated, "about (al)"; and not, "to (el)" - meaning, regarding, such that he not bring himself into danger. And the man saw in his [own] intellect to make a fence and to add upon the command; to forbid even touching to his wife, so that she should not come to eating. And Chava reasoned that everything he said to her was from the mouth of the Almighty. Therefore this mistake came to her; as the snake found it, [in order] to deceive her. And with this [explanation], we do not need the explanation of Rashi, who explained that is for the [following] reason that the snake did not come to the first man (Adam) - because women are weak-willed to be seduced. As [even] without this, there is no difficulty; as behold, the snake wanted to prove from touching, that there is no death penalty with eating [either]. And with the first man, he would not have been able to prove anything, since Adam knew the truth: That God did not command about touching and that he added it on his own.

והנחש, another word for Satan, which itself is a way of describing the evil urge. (Baba Batra 16). The reason why this evil urge is compared to a serpent is that just like a serpent which makes itself as invisible as possible, blending in with its environment, and yet causes more damage than the most prominently visible obstacles, so the evil urge lurks where one does not suspect to find it. It is a common practice to name phenomena according to other well known phenomena, such as calling the king “lion,” to show what is expected of a king, i.e. strength, fearlessness, etc. (compare Jeremiah 4,7 “the lion has come up from his thicket,” a reference to King Nevuchadnezzar) Also in Jeremiah 8,17 Israel’s enemies are referred to as נחשים צפעונים אשר אין להם לחש, “adders which cannot be charmed.” G’d, using a metaphor, calls the evil urge נחש, in our verse. Anything or anybody who leads Israel into sin is termed נחש. The reason why a serpent has been chosen for such a metaphor is that it is a creature whose potential harm is huge, whereas its potential benefit to man is minimal. Moreover, seeing that its visibility is minimal, it is similar to the evil urge who never attacks frontally, and often poses as friend rather than as enemy. Our sages in Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 13 already enlarged on this metaphor by describing Samael as riding the serpent, meaning “taking advantage of this power of imagination.” The insidious nature of the evil urge consists of the fact that it conjures up in our imagination something desirable, which because of its desirability we rationalize into considering as harmless, harbouring no physical or spiritual danger for us. Greed, lust, combined with one’s imagination is a powerful tool for leading man into sin. Unless man is able to harness the power of reason against such insidious attempts to trick him into disobedience against G’d by giving in to his desire for gratification of his senses, he will fall victim to the evil urge’s machinations. When our sages (Jerusalem Talmud Berachot 1.8) said עינא ולבא סרסורי דחטאה, “the eyes and the heart are agents of sin,” they referred to the warning against the evil urge we recite twice daily in the last section of the keriyat shema. (Numbers 15,39).

והנחש היה ערום. The serpent was sly. First we must understand why the Torah told us that the serpent was so sly.

והנחש היה ערום מכל חית ה שדה אשר עשה ה' אלוקים, It is in order to ask in what fashion the serpent conversed with Chavah. If G’d had opened the serpent’s mouth by means of a miracle, as He did when Bileam’s ass started speaking to him (Numbers 22,28), why did the Torah not report, as it did in that verse that “G’d opened the mouth of the serpent?” If, on the other hand, if, as in the view of Rabbi Saadyah gaon, the conversations reported in the Torah between both the ass and Bileam and the serpent and Chavah were conducted by an angel on their behalf, why was the serpent punished and cursed for all times? Besides, how is it possible that G’d assigned to an angel the task to seduce Chavah to sin against G’d? Furthermore, what reason was there to introduce the serpent into the story at this point? Why did the Torah have to write: “and the serpent was the wiliest of all the beasts of the field, etc.?” If the serpent was unable to speak, i.e. to communicate with Chavah in his own right, how do we know that it was such a clever creature? If we are to assume that the angel was dispatched to subject the woman to a test of her faith and obedience, how was the serpent to blame for the outcome? Besides, it would have been so much more appropriate for the angel to test Adam himself, seeing it was he who had been commanded by G’d not to eat from the tree of knowledge? Chavah had heard of this only second hand from her husband!
The whole subject is extremely confusing, when we look only at what has been revealed to us by the text. We need to resort to the writings of the Kabbalists to make better sense of this whole episode.(Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 13)[in that chapter’s introduction, the point is made that jealousy and envy, some of the most destructive character traits, exist also in the celestial regions, and that when the angels who had not been delighted at man’s creation in the first place, saw how clever Adam was, and how he had named the animals immediately upon looking at them, they became afraid that their dominant role in G’d’s entourage would be jeopardized now. They therefore schemed to seduce man into sinning against His Creator in order to safeguard their role as being closest to G’d. Thereupon, Samael, the most powerful angel, the one who had 12 wings whereas all the others had only 6 wings, took his underlings with him to take a closer look at what went on in the terrestrial regions. He found that in those regions the serpent was by far the most intelligent of the beasts, and he could not find another beast as capable and willing to fall in with his wicked plans. We are informed there that the serpent was huge, and looked like a camel and Samael was riding on it. The sages, with their insight into then hidden aspects of the Torah, wanted to illustrate how G’d sometimes amuses Himself to make playful use both of the “camel,” i.e. the serpent, and its rider, i.e. Samael.
Another comment offered by the sages (Shabbat 146) is that after the serpent had engaged in sexual relations with Chavah, it had left behind within her some of the spiritually poisonous residue, which had contaminated her personality. This was so pervasive that until the Jewish people accepted the Torah at Mount Sinai they had not been able to totally cleanse themselves of that poison. The other nations of the world never cleansed themselves of this spiritually poisonous material. Students of such mystical aspects of the Torah will understand what I refer to, but I have no intention to use my commentary to dwell on such matters, having been warned by my teachers not to reveal what the Torah clearly had not seen fit to reveal to one and all. We will relate to such allusions only in the same way as the sages have seen fit to do themselves. Hopefully, those who are attuned will understand what the sages had in mind to convey to us. Some commentators, cited by Ibn Ezra, say that the serpent did not speak at all, but managed to convey its meaning to Chavah by whistling, hissing to her. Chavah was clever enough, according to that view, to understand what the serpent was trying to communicate to her. It seems very far fetched to credit Chavah with understanding what the serpent tried to hint to her in such a fashion. It is even more far fetched to credit the serpent with understanding what Chavah answered her in Hebrew.
The scholar Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes that the serpent did indeed speak, and it used to walk upright, just like man. Originally, G’d had equipped the serpent with superior knowledge and intelligence, i.e. “more crafty than any of the beasts of the field, but not as crafty as man.” this was also the opinion of our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 20,5) This is what they write: At the time G’d punished the serpent, He said to it: “here I had made you so that you are king of the all the beasts, something that you had not been satisfied with. I enabled you to walk upright just like man. You were not satisfied with this either. Now you will have to crawl on your belly and eat dust.” We must ask ourselves that if all this is so, why the Torah had not mentioned that the serpent had enjoyed such distinctions, that the Torah’s report of G’d’s creative activities makes no mention of this, as it did in Genesis 1,26 when man’s distinction over the other creatures is introduced by G’d saying “we will make him in our image, etc?” Furthermore, when G’d cursed the serpent, mention is meant of it having to crawl and having to eat dust. Why did the Torah not also mention that G’d deprived it of its superior intellect? This would have been the most severe part of the punishment and the Torah does not mention it at all? The most likely answer to all the points that we have raised is that the serpent was enabled, -miraculously,- on that occasion, to speak in a voice and language Chavah could understand, even though the Torah did not write specifically that “G’d opened its mouth,” as it did in connection with Bileam. seeing that this represented something far more extraordinary [Bileam’s ass speaking, which occurred in a world that was post Gan Eden, as opposed to an idyllic world where such miracles were not out of the ordinary. Besides, Bileam’s ass had saved her master from death by opening her mouth, whereas the serpent’s speaking had led to Chavah’s and her husband’s eventual death. Ed.]
Still. The question remains why the serpent was punished if G’d Himself had put these words in its mouth? We need to answer that the serpent had already planned its craftiness how to set a trap for man to discredit it in the eyes of G’d so that it would replace man as the superior creature on earth. G’d was aware of all this, and all He did was to follow the principle in Shabbat 104 of בא לטמא פותחים לו, “when someone is bent on defiling something, one facilitates this for him.” Furthermore, G’d had to make sure that Adam (mankind) knew that the serpent had been punished with good cause. [this editor is astounded by the use of Kimchi of the quote in Shabbat 104 as it is my understanding that whereas when planning to do good one enjoys heavenly assists, when planning to do evil one is merely not interfered with. Besides, this saying applies to human beings who have freedom of choice; whoever heard of this saying applying to animals? Ed.]
היה ערום, clever. Seeing that the word refers to intelligence, it is spelled with the vowel shuruk to distinguish it from the adjective arum naked, which is spelled with the vowel cholam. [in our editions of the Torah both words are spelled with the letter shuruk representing the vowel shuruk. Ed.] Seeing the word occurs in the plural, the letter מ does not have a dagesh, compare מחשבות ערומים in Job 5,12 where it means :“the designs of the crafty ones.” When the word is used to described nudity, the letter מ is written with a dagesh. Compare Job 22,6 ובגדי ערומים תפשיט, “You leave them stripped of their clothing.” When the Torah wrote here היה ערום, it meant that the serpent possessed extraordinary powers of imagination, totally superior to other animals in this respect. Our sages generally describe the fox as crafty, able to scheme, something other animals are not credited with doing. (Berachot 61) This is not the same as possessing didactic intelligence, something reserved for man. When the Torah adds the words מכל חית השדה, it excludes the domestic animals, בהמות as not possessing even a modicum of such powers of imagination, The serpent at that time was superior to the fox in its ability to scheme. אשר עשה ה' אלוקים, even though all these creatures had been constructed out of the same raw material, G’d had given added an advantage to different ones of these creatures. Some had been granted greater physical prowess, others greater power to scheme.
ויאמר אל האשה, the serpent deliberately avoided speaking to Adam, but spoke to the woman. It knew that it would be easier to seduce the woman because women’s minds are more easily swayed. (Shabbat 33) אף כי אמר אלוקים, the fact that the Torah commences its report of this conversation with the word אף is proof that there had been an exchange of words between the serpent and Chavah prior to this already. It is likely that Chavah had told the serpent about the great honour G’d had bestowed on them to place them within the Garden of Eden. To this the serpent had replied that it did not view this as proof that G’d loved them especially, but as proof of the contrary, that G’d hated them. Granted that G’d had elevated the human species as compared to the animals, but He had not elevated them to the status of becoming potential competitors of His by forbidding them to eat from all the good trees in the garden. The Torah decided to omit the introduction to the dialogue between the two and to concentrate on its essence. This is a style the Torah employs on a number of occasions. One example is the spies telling Joshua that they had heard while in Jericho clear evidence that G’d had as good as given the country into the hands of the Israelites already. They are not quoted as telling Joshua about their personal experiences during that mission. No doubt they had reported this. (Joshua 2,23) The meaning of the word אף here appears to b: “on the contrary, even more so.” We have a number of parallel verses in which the word אף is used in this sense, for instance Job 4,19 אף שכני בתי חמר, “how much less those who dwell in house made of clay.” Or, Kings I 8,27 אף כי הבית הזה אשר בניתי, “how much less this House which I have built.” The serpent did not refer to G’d’s holy name. Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes that this was because the serpent did not know G’d’s name Hashem. According to our explanations of the serpent’s sudden ability to speak in a manner comprehensible to Chavah being an ad hoc miracle, G’d did not allow the serpent to use His holy name. It is beyond our imagination to assume that G’d would allow a beast to bandy about His sacred name, something that is His exclusively. A careful reading of the text will reveal that even Chavah did not use the holy name of G’d. The bald-faced lie of the serpent was its claim that G’d had said מכל עץ הנן, that man had been forbidden to eat of any of the trees of the garden, this was part of its shrewdness, pretending as if Chavah had told her this, though the serpent was perfectly aware that Chavah had said no such thing. He wanted to challenge Chavah by saying “what good is your being in Gan Eden, seeing you cannot enjoy any of its fruit?”

And the serpent was more cunning, etc.: Rashi explained in the name of Midrash Rabbah that it was jealous of them, in that it saw them copulating together and desired her. But this is a wonder! As behold, every creature only desires its species, as it is found in Tractate Bava Metzia 91b: "Its species - it is drawn after its species." And behold the serpent was not lacking its female. And if it was on account of their having intercourse before the eyes of all, the serpent also did not know shame. Rather the matter is that it sensed that the clinging of the women to her husband was not like its female to it, which only occurred at the time of arousal for copulation. And that is only by happenstance and preparation for the thing. Which was not the case with the woman, who constantly clung to him: Given that she was the bone of his bones, the clinging was even more than a brother and sister. For they too are one flesh. However they are nevertheless not truly so like the first woman to Adam, who was like a limb to the head. And it was jealous of this. And behold the matter is understood that the serpent never spoke. For if it had originally spoken but was cursed to be dumb and silent, why is this curse not mentioned? Moreover, speech depends on intelligence, and as per Rashi's explanation of, "and so man became a living soul" Genesis 2:7) - with speech and intelligence. And likewise did Onkelos translate, "With a speaking spirit." Behold man was unique in this virtue. However it was the constellation of the serpent that clothed himself with jealousy and spoke at that time from the throat of the serpent. As every species from all that was created - even the botanic - has a constellation; and that is the angel that is appointed upon that species to protect it and grow it, so that it not cease from the world. And this is like the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said, "You have no [blade of] grass below without its constellation above striking it and saying to it, 'Grow!'" And the constellation of the serpent was like [the serpent]; as it was jealous of man's clinging to his Creator, may He be blessed. And it is just as we explained in the previous section, that Adam clung so greatly to God, like a portion that always yearns for its source; which is not the case with an angel. It is just separated and it is not clinging and yearning for His light, may He be blessed, except for at the time designated for song and that which is similar. And the angel was jealous about Adam; and the physical serpent about his wife. And [about] that which all of this is not explained in Scripture, the Ramban has already written, in Parashat Bechukotai - and we brought it earlier (Haamek Davar on Bereishit 1:1) - that regarding things that are not grasped by everyone, the Torah only spoke about it by hinting.

Why is this incident inserted here? Re’m asks: How does Rashi know that the coats were made right at Adam and Chavah’s creation, to protect from cold and heat, giving rise to the question: “Why is this incident inserted here?” Perhaps the coats were made only after they sinned by eating from the tree, to cover their shame of being naked! This way, the verses are in proper sequence [and Rashi’s question does not arise]. It seems that Rashi knew it because it is written (v. 20), “The man called his wife’s name Chavah,” and subsequently, (v. 21) “And Hashem Elokim made for Adam and his wife leather coats.” Rashi explains that this verse “And man gave names...,” returns to the earlier narrative. As the naming of Chavah was before the sin, and is connected to “And Hashem made... leather coats,” we can conclude that right at their creation Hashem made them coats [to protect from cold and heat]. Thus, the coats were not made to cover their shame after they sinned. An alternative answer is: [Rashi knew it] because it is written, “Hashem made... leather coats and He clothed them.” Why, because they sinned, would Hashem have to clothe them Himself?! They should clothe themselves, just as they made for themselves loincloths. It should have written, “Hashem made... leather coats for clothing.” Perforce, Hashem made them coats right at their creation to protect from cold and heat. Re’m asks: [If they had coats from the beginning,] why were they “naked” (v. 25)? The answer is: According to the opinion (Bereishis Rabba 20:12) that כתנות עור means fingernail-like garments, smooth [and transparent], which cleaved to their skin, they were as naked. Although it was attached to their skin, their entire body was revealed, including the loins. And even according to the opinion (ibid) that the garments were of rabbit fur, to protect from cold and heat, still they were naked — for Adam was created in Tishrei (according to Rabbi Eliezer), or in Nisan (according to Rabbi Yehoshua), when it is neither cold nor hot; [thus they were not dressed.] They were not embarrassed to be naked since they did not yet eat from the tree. The serpent “saw them unclothed, indulging in marital relations unashamedly, and he coveted her.” We need not ask: If so, why did they take fig leaves to make loincloths? They should have worn the coats! [The answer is:] Indeed they could have. But just then the coats were not available to them and they did not want to stand naked for even a moment. In any case, this point [of when the garments were created] seems to be disputed. For it says in Pesachim 54a: “Ten things were created at twilight on Erev Shabbos... and some say: ‘Also Adam’s garments.’” The second view holds that the garments were created after they sinned, for they sinned in the tenth hour of the day, which is before twilight. But the first view could hold that the garments were created before the sin. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Der Gegensatz zum Tier ist der Probirstein und die Klippe, an welcher die Sittlichkeit des Menschen sich erprobt oder scheitert. Es war die Tierweisheit, die den ersten Menschen seiner Pflicht entlockte; es ist noch heute dieselbe Tierweisheit, die jeder Sünde als Hebamme dient. Die Geschichte des ersten Fehltritts ist die Geschichte aller Verirrungen. Das Tier ist wirklich כאלדי׳ יודע טוב ורע. Ihm wohnt der Instinkt inne, und dieser Instinkt ist die Gottesstimme, der Gotteswille für es. Was es demnach, dieser in ihm waltenden göttlichen Fürsehung gemäß, tut — und anderes tut es nicht, kann es nicht tun — ist gut, und alles, wovon dieser Instinkt es zurückhält, ist das Böse. Das Tier geht nicht fehl, es hat nur Eine Natur, der es folgen kann, folgen soll. Nicht also der Mensch. Er soll aus freier Wahl und aus PflichtBewusstsein sich für das Gute entschließen und das Böse meiden; er soll auch seiner sinnlichen Natur nicht aus Sinnesreiz, sondern aus Pflichtgefühl gerecht werden. Auch sein sinnlichster Genuss soll freie sittliche Tat, er soll nie und nirgends und in keiner Beziehung Tier sein. Darum trägt er das Sinnliche und das Göttliche in sich; es muß das Gute seiner Sinnlichkeit oft widerstehen, das Böse ihm oft reizend erscheinen, damit er um seines hohen göttlichen Berufes willen, mit der freien Energie seiner göttlichen Natur, trotz seiner Sinnlichkeit und nie aus Sinnlichkeit das Gute übe und das Böse meide. Darum spricht nicht in ihm, sondern zu ihm die Gottesstimme, was gut ist und bös, und diese zu ihm redende Gottesstimme findet Widerspruch an der in ihm laut werdenden Sinnlichkeit, sobald diese Sinnlichkeit selbständig sich ausspricht, unergriffen und ungeleitet von seiner göttlichen Natur. Die dem Menschen eingehauchte Gottesstimme das Gewissen, als dessen Boten wir die Scham erkannt — mahnt nur den Menschen allgemein, gut zu sein und das Böse zu meiden; was aber für den Menschen das Gute sei und das Böse, hat er nur aus Gottes Mund zu vernehmen. Das Tier hat nur seine sinnliche Natur zu entfalten, und sein Verstand steht nur im Dienste dieser Natur. Der Mensch ward nicht in das Paradies der Erde gesetzt, um an den dort dargebotenen Genüssen seine sinnliche Natur zu befriedigen; לעבדה ולשמרה, in den Dienst Gottes und seiner Welt ward er dorthin berufen; dieser Dienst ist seine Aufgabe und nur für diesen Dienst ward ihm auch der Genuß von den Paradiesesfrüchten gestattet. Das Tier mag daher alles nur an seiner individuellen Natur prüfen, es ist nur für sich da. Der Mensch aber ist für Gott und Welt da, und soll auch seine individuelle Natur freudig dieser höheren Bestimmung opfern. Nicht daher aus seiner individuellen Natur heraus, sondern aus den Beziehungen dieser seiner höheren Bestimmung hat er zu erfahren, was gut ist und bös für ihn. Dazu stand ihm der Baum im Schmuck aller sinnlichen Reize, seine ganze individuelle Natur mußte ihm sagen: das ist "gut", und Gottes Wort an ihn hatte ihm den Genuß als "bös" verpönt. Das war ihm das Muster und das Regulativ für alles menschlich Gute und Böse, das war ihm der Baum der Erkenntnis des Guten und Bösen; wie denn ja auch die Weisen in dem auf ihn gerichteten Gottesausspruch die Offenbarung aller allgemeinen Menschenpflichten erkannten. Da tritt die Weisheit der Tierwelt, in ihrem klügsten Repräsentanten, der Schlange, an ihn heran. Dem Tiere, auch dem klügsten, ist es unbegreiflich, wie der Mensch an dem schönsten, reizendsten, besten Genuß unempfindlich vorübergeht. — אף כי אמר אלקים, "und selbst wenn es Gott gesagt hat" dieser Beginn der Rede zeigt uns bereits den Menschen in Unterhaltung mit dem Tiere. Es hatte bereits der Mensch das Gottesverbot als Grund des Nichtgenusses hervorgehoben. "Und wenn es nun Gott gesagt hat?! Müsset ihr darum folgen? Ist nicht auch der Trieb in euch Gottes Stimme? Wenn der Genuß für euch schlecht ist, warum gab er dem Genuß den Reiz und euch den Trieb, hat er damit nicht euch selber deutlich gesagt, dass dieser Genuß und ihr für einander da seid? Ist diese Stimme nicht seine frühere, deutlichere Stimme? Erst schafft Gott die Genüsse und euch mit dem Verlangen nach ihnen, und dann — sollte er euch alles verbieten?"

The serpent was more cunning: It spoke to the woman with wisdom and slyness.

והנחש היה ערום, we must assume that the serpent per chance had already eaten from the tree of knowledge, as the warning not to eat from it was issued not only to man.

ערום מכל MORE SUBTLE THAN ALL — Corresponding with his subtleness and his greatness was his downfall; “more subtle than all” — “more cursed than all” (see 3:14). (Genesis Rabbah 19:1).

And it appears that it can also be explained that Chava was in doubt if the intent of the serpent was for their good, in order that they be like gods, knowing good and evil; or perhaps its intent was in order that Adam die, and it itself could marry Chava. And it spoke to Chava because women are weak-willed to be seduced; and it knew that she would certainly give it to her husband first. Hence Chava said, "The thought of the serpent will be tested with this." So she added the command of, "do not touch," in order that all of the back and forth between them be about touching. As regarding touching, there is no logic that she would put her husband first, like with eating. So when the serpent pushed Chava into the tree, Chava then said, "Now I know that the serpent is right. For if its intent was so that the man would die, why did it push me? And what benefit would my death be to it? Rather [the truth] is like its words, to become like gods." Hence she made space for its words. And see a precious explanation about the story of the serpent on the verse, "trees that make fruit according to their species" (Kli Yakar on Genesis 1:11:3).

היה ערום מכל חית השדה, for the power of imagination which dangles before our mental eye all sorts of visions designed to stir our desire is more powerful within man than within any other creature This is what the sages meant when they said: (Sukkah 52) “anyone who is of greater stature than his fellow also has to contend with a more powerful evil urge than his fellow.”

Even though God said, "You shall surely eat from every tree of the Garden" (Genesis 2:16), nevertheless...

Indulging in marital relations. You might ask: Where does the verse allude to marital relations? The answer is: The verse could just say, “The two of them were naked.” Why does it add, “The man and his wife”? This implies that besides being naked, they acted as man and wife. (Ab’a)

I have also tried to find what precise slyness the serpent demonstrated in this episode and have only been able to find elements of רשעות, wickedness.

So sprach die Schlange und so spricht die Tierweisheit, nackt oder im philosophischsten Gewande, noch heute zu uns, wo uns ein ausdrückliches Gottesverbot von einem reizenden Sinnengenuß fern hält, und sie übertreibt noch heute wie damals, übersieht über dem wenigen Verbotenen die Summe des sittlich Gestatteten, und stellt das göttliche Sittengesetz als Feind aller sinnlichen Genüsse dar.

Did God really say, etc.: Meaning to say, "Even though this garden is so beloved before the Holy One, blessed be He, such that He brought rivers to water it and commanded Adam to guard it - did He really say not to eat from its fruit?" The woman said to it, "'From the fruit of the trees of the Garden we may eat' (Genesis 3:2), and He did us [another] goodness: For he only prevented us from the tree of knowledge for our [own] good, lest we die. As He did not want to hurt us, since it is poison." He said to her, "Fool! He did not intend it for your good, it is not poison and you will not surely die if you eat from it. Rather He intended it for your detriment. As it is so good that He does not want you to eat from it. For if you eat from it, you will become wise and sly and you will become like the angels, to distinguish between good and evil, to be wise and sly and no mystery will baffle you. But He does not want you to reach the category of angels."

ויאמר אל האשה, “it said to the woman;” G-d had given the serpent the power of speech, just as He had given that power to Bileam’s ass (Numbers 22,28).

‘אף כי אמר וגו ALTHOUGH GOD HATH SAID — The meaning is, “Perhaps He has said unto you” ‘לא תאכלו מכל וגו YE SHALL NOT EAT OF EVERY TREE OF THE GARDEN — And although he saw them eating of the other fruits yet he entered into a long conversation with her so that she should answer him, and so that he might then have an opportunity to talk about that particular tree.

You will not eat from all the trees of the Garden: And the intent is that, in truth, Adam and Chavah had still not eaten anything. And that is because Adam - even though he was at that time in a place that it was necessary to use his senses for eating and for sex, according to the need of the creation which was created to be settled - nevertheless, they were like Moshe, our teacher, after he descended from the mountain. As he also had use of his senses for eating like all of Israel. And even regarding sex, had the Holy One, blessed be He, not warned him, "and you, stand with Me," he would not have separated himself from [his wife]. But he was nevertheless very close, to be clinging to the Divine Presence anytime he wanted. And at the time that he was clinging to the Divine Presence, he did not desire to eat at all. And likewise was it with Adam, so he no longer desired to eat. And so too was the woman clinging to Adam, the life of her spirit. So they were satiated from love. Hence the serpent came with a temptation: That, behold, the world and its fullness was not created for nothing; and it is not the will of God that they not need the pleasures of the world. And if so, it is not fitting that they be engrossed in the love of God and in clinging. As it reduces and disturbs all the physical pleasures and it is against God's will. As behold, He said, "You shall surely eat from every tree of the Garden." And the temptation of the evil impulse is like this in every generation, as is well known. At first, it removes the clinging to the Torah through [the fulfillment] of some commandment or something else which is truly correct for other people. And after it drags him from the study hall, it continues to proceed and tempt.

אף כי אמר אלוקים, “did G-d really say, etc.?” The very first word the serpent uttered was the word אף. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 19,2 commented on this: “four people began their remarks with the word אף, and all four of them perished through אף, divine anger. The four are: the serpent, the chief of the bakers (Genesis 40,16), the community who partook in Korach’s uprising (Numbers 16,14) and Haman (Esther 5,12).

More cunning... Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say, “More... than any”? Because being “More cunning than any” led to becoming “More cursed than any.”

The matter becomes clearer, however, when one examines what the serpent intended to achieve with the words אף כי אמר אלוקים לא תאכלו מכל עץ הגן, "even though G'd said not to eat from any of the trees of the garden." Since we know that these words were totally untrue, we would have considered the serpent as feeble-minded. The Torah therefore has to preface the account by pointing out that these words were carefully calculated, that the serpent was exceedingly sly. Any creature which is not exceedingly sly would most certainly not have succeeded in seducing a G'd-fearing woman such as Eve.

ויאמר אל האשה, her relatively weak intellect was too lazy to understand that the images dangled before her eyes were a fatah morgana, illusion. אף כי אמר אלוקים, even though G’d has said not to eat from the tree of knowledge פן תמותון, in order that you do not die, this is not true, you will not die. Once the “serpent,” i.e. her power of imagination had sown the seed of doubt in her mind, so that her intelligence had already been undermined, she said:

אף כי אמר אלוקים, “even though G-d has said, etc.;” the word אף implies that the serpent was aware that only eating had been forbidden not touching.

Did He perhaps tell. [Rashi explained אף as “perhaps”] because it cannot mean “even more so,” coming as it does at the beginning of the serpent’s statement.

The serpent concentrated on three subjects and by combining them achieved its purpose.

And, although he saw them... The Torah does not recount [that he saw them eat], but it must be so: otherwise, what did they eat? (Re’m) But this is no proof — perhaps they ate herbs and legumes! Rather, Rashi knows [that he saw them eat] because the serpent said, “You should not eat from all the trees of the Garden?” If he saw that they were eating only herbs and legumes, he should have said simply, “You should not eat from the trees of the Garden?” Since he said “all the trees,” he must have seen them eating other fruits. But he saw them eating sporadically: they would eat figs but not grapes, and then eat from another nearby tree. Since he saw them eating some fruits and leaving others, there was room for his question: Are you doing this out of choice, because the other fruits are not as good, or is it because Hashem commanded you not to eat from all the trees of the Garden — and therefore you eat only some of them?

1) The serpent told Eve that by not eating from the tree of knowledge she would remain for all intents and purposes as if she had not eaten either from any of the other trees. The serpent indicated that the fruits of the other trees were totally inferior when compared to the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The word אף was to indicate that Eve was to view the situation as if G'd had also forbidden all the other trees. The serpent's intent was to heighten Eve's desire to taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The more its virtues were extolled, the more intense the curiosity to test that statement. At the same time the serpent hoped to diminish Eve's interest in the other trees. It is characteristic of the workings of the evil urge to exaggerate one's expectations of the forbidden and to denigrate the value of that which is permitted.

2) The serpent pretended to teach Eve a halachah, thus creating the impression that it was very knowledgeable and on G'd's wavelength. It told Eve that G'd had first planted the tree of knowledge and had then used its shoots to plant all the other trees in the garden. This was part of the seduction. Once the original tree is out of bounds the other trees are automatically forbidden inasmuch as they are "earthed" branches of the original tree (compare Orlah chapter 1,5 where it is taught that such a branch is considered as a new plant for the purpose of calculating the three years of the ערלה prohibition). The serpent's argument therefore was that though G'd had specifically prohibited only the fruit of the tree of knowledge, the fruit of the other trees were out of bounds by reason of the laws governing "earthed" branches. [The author supplies additional halachic sources, which I do not feel are relevant. Ed.] At any rate the meaning of אף כי אמר אלוקים would have to be translated as though G'd said: "if you accept that commandment" you must automatically also accept its extension as far as the other trees are concerned because the three years required until the new trees are considered as no longer drawing on the original tree have not yet expired.

3) The word אף referred to the fact that G'd had not commanded Eve anything directly, He had only commanded her husband. The serpent said that it was a witness to the fact that G'd had indeed forbidden the eating of the fruit of any of the trees. The serpent had two things in mind by making that statement. A) If Eve were to believe it, the serpent could then point to the illogical nature of such a prohibition which would deny man everything to be found in the garden. The way for rebellion against G'd would then have been paved. B) To provoke a confrontation with Adam who had told Eve that G'd had only forbidden the fruit of the tree of knowledge. The serpent wanted that Adam's testimony be considered as having been refuted. We find an interesting statement by the school of Shammai in Ediyot 4,11. When two pairs of witnesses testify against an individual, the first pair claiming he had made a vow comprising two periods of abstention from wine, etc, whereas the other pair testfied that the vow involved five such periods, the school of Shammai considers this as an example of conflicting testimony. As a result the individual would not be held liable for anything on the basis of this testimony. The school of Hillel holds that inasmuch as both pairs of witnesses are agreed concerning at least two periods of נזירות, abstention from wine, etc., the person testified against is guilty if he failed to honour that part of his vow. A similar disagreement is discussed in the Talmud Sanhedrin except that there only one pair of witnesses testified, one of them testifying to a vow concerning two periods, the other claiming that the vow comprised five periods. The serpent reasoned that since there were only two witnesses, i.e. Adam and the serpent, Adam having testified to a single tree being forbidden whereas the serpent testified that all trees were forbidden the halachah should be based on the school of Shammai, i.e. the testimony was void, and as a result Eve could not be held culpable for eating from the tree of knowledge. After having written this down, I found that the author of Tikkuney HaZohar section 59 agrees with me. The author states that the serpent violated the commandment not to testify falsely by saying that G'd had forbidden all the fruit of all the trees in the garden. It is characteristic of Satan to plant lies in the minds of people, thus creating false images and beliefs in their hearts. Sometimes Satan convinces man that the sin he is planning is inevitable so that he might as well not feel badly about committing it. This is the slyest way of all to seduce people into committing a sin.

The reason that G'd created such a seducer in this world seeing He has our best interests at heart is to increase the reward we will qualify for if we made a successful effort to resist all forms of temptation.

ויאמר אל האשה, he said to Eve, etc. The serpent spoke in the kind of hissing that is characteristic of its species. The Torah does not mean to give the impression that the serpent was able to speak like humans do. Prior to the sin, man was able to comprehend the language of the animals, even the conversation carried on by the inert parts of nature. Every creature G'd created was equipped with a means of expressing itself to enable it to praise its Creator. Our sages base this on Proverbs 16,6: כל פעל השם למענהו, "G'd has made everything for His sake." Some of our sages have composed books in which they translate the songs of the animals and birds. Some of our greatest scholars were able to to understand the various sounds made by the animals, especially a man such as Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai. If the latter was able to understand the parables of the foxes (compare Sukkah 25), Adam, who was a direct creation of G'd, was certainly able to.

ותאמר האשה. Eve said, etc. Eve answered the serpent very intelligently, addressing all the three points which we described the serpent as having made. Concerning the first argument that all the trees were forbidden, Eve said that this was not so, that only the tree in the centre of the garden was prohibited. Concerning the argument that all the other trees were really earthed branches of the tree of knowledge she argued that this was quite irrelevant. It might have been relevant if G'd had not specifically permitted the fruit of all the other trees. There was therefore absolutely no sense in denying oneself something G'd had specifically permitted. She refused to accept the testimony of the serpent because it contradicted the testimony of her own husband. She argued along the lines of the school of Hillel, i.e. the common denominator between what the serpent had declared as out of bounds and what her husband had declared as out of bounds was only the tree of knowledge. Therefore, that tree and its fruit was forbidden; the other trees were permitted since no valid testimony existed that would deny them to her.

ותאמר, not so, said Chavah; G’d did not deny us the fruit of more than one single tree which is בתוך הגן שאמר לנו לא תאכלו מממנו ולא תגעו בו פן תמותון in the middle of the garden of which He has forbidden us to eat on pain of death. Perhaps it is in the nature of that tree that its fruit causes death to anyone eating from it. The meaning of the word פן in that verse is the same as אולי or שמא , “maybe.” G’d told Adam that he would certainly die if he ate from it, as the Torah wrote literally in 2,17 “on the day you will eat from it you will certainly die.” Seeing that she had not quoted the prohibition correctly as G’d had not said anything about maybe dying as a result of eating from the tree, we must assume that Chavah had invented this word meaning for it to apply to touching the tree, an addition which had been altogether her own. She meant to say that G’d so loves us that He denied us to touch the tree as a safeguard against eating from it.
An alternate way of explaining the words פן תמותון is similar to פן תשיב את בני שמה which Avraham warned Eliezer about (Genesis 24,6) which meant “do not bring back!” or Genesis 30,24) פן תדבר עם יעקב, “do not speak to Yaakov, etc.,” G’d warning Lavan.

From the fruit of the trees of the Garden we may/shall eat: In truth, the clinging of the woman to Adam was only at the time that she stood with him, as is the nature of a portion that yearns for the group at the time it sees it. And at that time that the serpent spoke with her, Adam had gone away from her. So she felt a desire to eat, and said that she would eat. And regarding the clinging of Adam to his Maker, she did not feel it. Therefore she said, "'Certainly 'we shall eat.'" And she said, "From the fruit of the tree of the Garden"; and not like the language of God, "from every tree of the Garden" (Genesis 2:16) - which implies even the benefit from the wood, as I wrote above (Haamek Davar on Genesis 2:16). And that is since Adam told her that she only eat the fruit; given that she did not know to be careful with the destruction of the tree, since she did not have human knowledge.

עץ הגן נאכלת, “we can eat from the trees of the garden and do not need to endanger our lives by eating from the tree that G’d has prohibited us to eat from on pain of death.” Having said this, however, her power of imagination kept nagging at her weighing the possibility that G’d might indeed be jealous of competition from his creature. Her doubt, i.e. the voice of the evil urge, was expressed in the words

3. Die Antwort spricht sich noch rein aus: keineswegs ist uns alles verboten, vielmehr hat dieselbe Stimme, die uns die so reichen Genüsse des Gartens gestattet, diesen einen untersagt. — Es ist jedoch in dieser Antwort ein Moment enthalten, das wir nicht übersehen dürfen und auf welches bereits die Weisen uns aufmerksam machen. Wir haben bereits gesehen, wie dieses erste Gottesgesetz und seine Geschichte alle die wesentlichen Momente enthält, welche die künftige Gesetzgebung für Israel charakterisieren, und an welchen die nichtjüdische Welt und der nichtjüdische Sinn von jeher Ärgernis genommen. Es ist ein חוק, gehört zu מאכלות אסורות, und war dem ersten Übertreter nur durch תשב"פ bekannt. In dieser Antwort tritt nun noch ein viertes Moment hervor, das die Summe der den Oberflächlichen und Leichtsinnigen so vielen Anstoß gebenden Momente voll macht. Es ist hier auch sofort der Anfang eines סייג, eines "Zaungesetzes", einer מצוה דרבנן. Gott hatte nur das Essen von den Früchten des Baumes verboten, die Antwort der Frau giebt selbst das Berühren des Baumes als verboten an. Es war dies ein Umzäunungsgesetz, das Adams Gewissenhaftigkeit, um sich vor Übertretung zu schützen, dem göttlichen Gebote hinzugefügt. Wir sehen daraus, wie diese סייגים und גזרות sich von selbst aus der natürlichsten Gewissenhaftigkeit ergeben, die die Erfüllung göttlicher Gesetze von uns erwartet. Allein die Weisen warnen zugleich hierbei: שלא תעשה את הגדר יותר על העיקר שלא יפול ויקצץ את הנטיעת כך הב״ה אמר ביום אכלך ממנו ועמדה והעירה עדות שקר לא תגעו בו פן תמותון כיון שראה שכזבה דחפה עליו א״ל כמה דלא דמכת במקרובתיה אף לא במיכליה. Sie warnen, den Zaun nicht wahrheitswidrig zu hoch zu stellen, damit er nicht einfalle und die Pflanzungen, zu deren Schutz er gezogen worden, verderbe. Gott hatte gesprochen: sobald ihr davon esset, werdet ihr sterben, sie aber sagte wahrheitswidrig: berührt ihn nicht, sonst werdet ihr sterben. An dieser Wahrheitswidrigkeit fasste sie die Schlange. Sie brachte die Frau in Berührung mit dem Baume und sprach dann: wie du an der Berührung nicht gestorben, so wirst du auch am Essen nicht sterben. (ביר ייט und אבות דיר נתן). Sie warnen, den Ursprung und die Bedeutung dieser von der jüdischen Gewissenhaftigkeit gebotenen Zaungesetze nie aus den Augen zu verlieren, sich hinsichtlich ihrer stets bewußt zu bleiben, dass sie nicht göttliches Gebot, nicht דאוריתא seien; nur so lange dienen sie uns zur Warnung und zum Schutze. Vergessen wir diesen ihren Charakter, halten wir sie für das ursprüngliche Gottesgebot, so wird gerade ihre Übertretung um so leichter zur Übertretung auch des wirklichen Gottesgesetzes führen. Eine Warnung, die eben die Weisen auch stets innehalten, und immer sorgfältig bemüht sind, ihre סייגים und גזרות als solche, als מצות דרבנן solche erscheinen zu lassen und sie kenntlich von dem דאוריתא zu unterscheiden. Adam hatte es darin versehen, dass er das Berühren wie das Essen als von Gott verboten der Eva überliefert hatte.

As to the argument that the tree was so far superior to all the other trees etc., Eve said she thought differently. The tree was inferior; G'd had forbidden it because eating from it would bring on death, the clearest proof that it was inferior to the other trees. Eve told the serpent that all of G'd's commandments were intended for man's benefit, not in order to cause him harm or damage. All the many fruit trees in the garden were proof that G'd had laboured to present man with a beautiful and enjoyable universe. As far as the forbidden tree of knowledge was concerned, G'd had only forbidden its harmful part, i.e. its fruit. Eve argued correctly. This is the meaning of her words: "from the trees of the garden we may eat. She claimed that this was proof that G'd has our best interests at heart. She reasoned that this in turn proved that G'd was concerned to protect man against harmful influences. Eve added that G'd said: "do not touch it," although G'd is not on record as having said this. She considered the prohibition to touch the tree a logical extension of G'd's concern that His creatures should not come to any harm. It is also possible that at the time Adam had told her not to eat from that tree he had added the warning not to touch it as an additional safeguard because he realised that its fruit contained a deadly poison.

She told the serpent further that even if it were true that the tree of knowledge was the most superior of all the trees, the fact remained that G'd had said not to eat from it on pain of death. How could one ignore such a warning?! Perhaps she added that the tree was not to be touched for fear that some oil on the outside of the fruit would serve as nutrient for her skin if it came into contact with it. Such bodily contact might be just as forbidden as oiling one's skin is prohibited on the Day of Atonement as part of denying oneself food and drink (based on Pessachim 21). Eve tried to point out that the advantages the tree seemed to offer were outweighed by its disadvantages. As a result the tree was actually the most inferior of all the trees in the garden.

At this point Eve completely rejected the serpent's attempt to convince her to eat from the fruit of that tree. She decided that it was her and her husband's duty to keep their distance from that tree.

ולא תגעו בו NEITHER SHALL YE TOUCH IT — She added to God’s command (which did not forbid touching the tree, but only eating of its fruit) therefore she was led to diminish from it. It is to this that the text refers (Proverbs 30:6): “Add thou not unto His words” (Genesis Rabbah 19:3).

But of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the Garden: And she did not specify it - "But from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" - since Adam had not explained to her that it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. As he was concerned, lest she pine to eat it. For only Adam, who clung to God with love, did not desire to do good for itself, since God's will was that he not know good and evil. But Adam had to concern himself about revealing the cause and the reason to the woman, who did not know about the love of God. Hence he simply said to her, "of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the Garden." And do not ask, "If so, the tree of life is also included in this." As, in truth, with this, we can understand that which Onkelos translated above (Onkelos Genesis on Genesis 2:9), "and the tree of life was in the middle of the Garden; and the tree from which the fruit, if eaten, gives knowledge (to differentiate) between good and evil"; and he did not explain about eating the fruit of the tree of life. However it is shown from this that the tree of life does not [have] fruit at all, but rather leaves for medicine. [This is] like the way of [the true] purpose, which is not pleasurable to the palate, but is rather pleasure and enjoyment of God. That is not the case with the tree of knowledge of good and evil - the purpose brings physical enjoyment. Because of that, when Adam said, "But from the fruit of the tree," she understood through it, that she was only prohibited from the tree that had fruit in it. But it appears to me that Adam was not concerned about this - that she not also eat from the tree of life. However it was worthwhile to distance her from that place. And because of that, he also said, "and do not touch it." And we have already explained that this is hinted to in the word of God, that He forbade [the tree] also for benefit. But [Adam] explicitly warned about this, and said, "lest you die." As he could not say, "since you will die" certainly, as they would not die for the touching alone, but rather lest they would come from this to eating. And all the more so [is this the case] according to our words - that he warned her about the two trees, lest she eat from the tree of knowledge and die. But she did not know the intent, as to why he used an expression of doubt (lest). So she just said that Adam told her, "lest you die." And from this, the serpent found room to deny [it]. And note that Adam said to her, "But of the fruit," because only from them is there a concern about death .

You certainly will not die. If Chavah had not ascribed a rational explanation to the prohibition (“lest you die”) but merely said that Hashem had commanded it, the serpent could not have lured her into sin by challenging her explanation.

ולא תגעו, neither must you touch it. This is the plain meaning of the verse. We find that the Torah does forbid something that is forbidden to eat, i.e. a carcass that did not die through ritual slaughter. (Compare Leviticus 11,8, where the halachic meaning is that it must not be touched when the purpose is to eat it.) The truth is that when one adds a restriction to G-d’s commandment, instead of improving it, one causes harm to it, makes it less effective instead of more effective. Seeing that the additional restriction had not been issued by G-d directly, it is less than useless. (Compare Sanhedrin 29).

לא מות תמתון YE SHALL NOT SURELY DIE — He pushed her until she touched it. He then said to her, “Just as there is no death in touching it, so there is no death in eating it” (Genesis Rabbah 19:3).

לא מות תמותון “you will sure not die, כי יודע אלוקים כי בים אכלכם ממנו ונפקחו עיניכם, G’d did not forbid this fruit because it is lethal, but because He knows that through eating it you will attain additional knowledge so that you will be just like G’d, possessing total knowledge.

ויאמר הנחש…לא מות תמותון. The serpent said: "You will most certainly not die." The reason the serpent repeated the reference to death was to counter Eve's fears that the tree itself was lethal, or that even if it were not harmful at all, G'd would punish them with death for disobeyimg Him. The serpent claimed that neither natural nor judicial death would result from contact with the tree or its fruit. Assuming that the serpent was right, this in turn raises the question of why G'd had forbidden the fruit of that tree? The serpent had to make such a prohibition sound plausible. This is why it continued that G'd was aware that as soon as man ate from that tree he would become a real competitor to G'd, i.e. knowing what is good and what is harmful. This argument was pure blasphemy. The only reason that the wicked serpent was able to employ such an argument was that its creation had preceded that of man. The serpent was able to use its senior status in the history of creation to claim that it was privy to matters that Adam and Eve could not have been privy to. He also argued that the reason he (the serpent) had been denied entry to גן עדן was that entry had been permitted only to those who were not privy to the secret of the tree of knowledge and what it represented. It claimed that by preventing the serpent from entering the garden G'd had wanted to preserve the secret of the power that tree would impart to those who ate from it. According to the serpent, once Eve would eat from that tree she would no longer be afraid of G'd, and G'd would no longer exercise any control over her. The use of such an argument was idolatrous. According to our halachah idolatry is punishable even when it is merely an intellectual conviction (Berachot 12).

ויאמר, the serpent in its craftiness, said: לא מות תמותון, not as you say that G’d loves you so much that He forbade eating you to protect you from dying, but the reason is that not only will you not die from eating, but He made you more afraid so that you will not acquire the additional advantage by eating from it,

You certainly will not die: How is it possible that there is a doubt for the Creator? Hence He is only being like someone intimidating and threatening because he does not want [it]. And such is the temptation of the evil impulse at all times - that the punishments will not be so great.

ויאמר הנחש אל האשה לא מות תמותון, “the serpent said to the woman: ”you will surely not die.” According to Rashi the serpent had pushed Chavah against the tree first, thus demonstrating to her that touching the tree did not result in any harm to her, contrary to what she had said in the name of G’d. The most common criticism of Rashi’s commentary is that Chavah simply had to reply that seeing the day was not yet over, the fact that she had not died as yet was no proof of anything, and that this was the reason that she had not died as a result of touching the tree. The defenders of Rashi’s commentary are forced to respond that the serpent challenged her by saying that since, according to her own words, she was going to die by the end of the day on account of having touched the tree, she might as well eat of it, seeing she could only die once. The basic objection to Rashi’s commentary is totally invalid, as Chavah had never said a word about dying on that day, but about dying as a result of eating or touching, i.e. immediately.

He pushed her... If it were not so, why did she believe him when he said, “You certainly will not die,” and not contradict him?

5. Nachdem die Schlange vergebens einen Zweifel an der ausnahmslosen Verpflichtungskraft angeregt, weckte sie einen Zweifel an dem Ernst des Gebotes. "Ihr werdet nicht sterben! Man stirbt nicht sobald! Nur um euch in unmündiger Abhängigkeit von sich zu halten, hat er euch diesen Genuß verboten. Esset davon, so werden euch die Augen aufgehen, ihr werdet zur Einsicht gelangen, selbst zu wissen, was gut und nicht gut ist, und diese Einsicht wird euch Gott gleich und unabhängig von ihm machen. Eine göttergleiche Einsicht, die das kleinste Tier neben euch besitzt?. — פקה, verwandt mit פקע ,בקע, klaffen, aufspringen.

לא מות תמותון, according to Rashi, this expression means that the serpent had first pushed the woman against the tree to demonstrate that though she had touched it, she had not died. Neither would she die by eating from it. If you were to ask how did the serpent know that the woman would not die by touching that tree? G-d had threatened that anyone eating from that tree would die on that day, and the day had not come to an end yet?We must not ask such questions when examining the exegesis of our sages! Actually, this question has been asked, and answered as the serpent having convinced the woman that death would follow instantaneously if she would violate G-d’s commandment. In order to answer the doubters or deniers of the truth of the Torah, this dialogue was not completed until the next morning when the previous day had already passed without any harm befalling the woman. [Some commentators claim that the serpent had eaten herself and demonstrated that she had not suffered any harm. In that case we must assume that the animals had not been forbidden to eat from that tree. Ed.] A different interpretation of the words: לא מות תמותון: the serpent told the woman that she now risked nothing by eating, as if she had said that also touching had been forbidden, she could not die more than once anyways, so what did she have to lose by also tasting the fruit of that tree? The literal meaning of the words: לא מות תמותון, would therefore be: “you cannot die twice.”

So. too, there is no death in eating. This [the serpent’s argument] is puzzling: she might still die, for Hashem said, “On the day you eat from it you will certainly die,” and there is plenty of time left in the day! Another question: If [she thought] they would die for touching, then it goes without saying for eating. For one cannot eat without touching. If so, why does she [mention both and] say, “You shall not eat from it, neither shall you touch it”? It seems the answer is: [She thought that] for eating from it they would die, and for touching it they would fall sick immediately, and then grow more sick until they would die on that same day. When she saw that she did not fall sick from touching it, [she thought that] she surely would not die either. Some ask: What did the serpent prove by making her touch the tree and not die? In truth she was forbidden only on eating, not on touching, and she knew this herself! Why was she not afraid for her life [to eat]? Furthermore, why did she add to Hashem’s command? The answer is: The command was made to Adam, not to Chavah. But when Adam taught it to Chavah he warned her not to touch it either, for he knew that women are light-minded. Whereas she thought that Hashem actually forbade touching. Although Rashi says that she added, and in fact she added nothing to what Adam had told her in Hashem’s Name, nonetheless she should not have replied to the serpent more than what he asked her. [And in this way, she added.] He asked only about eating, not about touching! So when she saw that she did not die from touching — which she should have, according to her understanding of her husband’s command — she took of its fruit as well and ate. And some ask further: How does touching prove that for eating [she will not die]? She was forced to touch, since he pushed her. But she will eat willingly! The answer is: She thought that the tree was like a deadly poison. Anyone who eats from it will die, similar to the Tree of Life whose very fruit bestows life. Thus she said, “Neither shall you touch it.” She considered it like a very potent poison which, as is known, can be lethal upon touch. So the serpent pushed her and told her, “Just as there is no death in touching...” (source unknown) There is a famous question: Why did Chavah fool herself? She knew that she herself added the prohibition against touching, and that is why she did not die! The answer is: Chavah understood that Hashem’s prohibition against eating also included touching. This is similar to the verse (Vayikra 12:4), “She shall not touch anything holy,” which means, “She shall not eat...” (Nachalas Yaakov)

According to Bereshit Rabbah 19,3 there is another reason that the serpent used the expression מות תמות. The serpent pushed Eve against the tree and "proved" that touching the tree was not lethal- as Eve had claimed. It argued that just as touching the tree had not resulted in death, neither would eating from its fruit. We must examine this so-called "proof." If we accept that Eve had convinced herself that contact with the tree would have fatal consequences because of its very nature, the fact that her contact with the tree had proved harmless should have convinced her of the tree's harmlessness. There was therefore no reason to be afraid to eat from it. Alternatively, if Eve's fear of touching the tree were based on her belief that G'd had outlawed both eating from the tree and touching it, she now had "proof" that this was not so because nothing had happened to her after she had touched the tree. We do not consider this in the nature of any "proof," seeing that G'd's punishment did not have to be meted out immediately. We therefore prefer the explanation we offered previously that the serpent wanted to "prove" to Eve that the tree itself was quite harmless.

עין: iAuge und Quell. Quell ist dasjenige, wodurch das Verborgene ans Licht tritt. So heißt הקר erforschen und aus der Tiefe heben, ebenso הפר. Auch בְאֵר Brunnen und בַאֵר klar, hell machen. So auch עין: Quell und Auge. Jedoch nicht so, als ob durch das Auge der Geist des Menschen sich ausspräche; vielmehr umgekehrt, das Auge ist der Quell, wodurch die Außenwelt in den Geist des Menschen einströmt. Das Universum strömt zusammen und nimmt durch das enge Auge den Weg zum Geiste. So וכסה את עין הארץ: es deckt die Erde so, dass es ihr den Weg zu ihrem Quell, dem Auge, sperrt, dass sie den Weg zum Auge und durch dasselbe zur Wahrnehmung des Menschen nicht findet. (אַיִן ist der Ausdruck des unbefriedigten Auges.)

If you were to ask why G'd would have created a tree that was poisonous at all, the answer is -as in many such instances- that the greater the physical and spiritual effort to overcome such potential impediments to our faith, the greater the reward which is stored up in heaven for such acts of faith, a reward to be consumed by us in the Hereafter. This concept is phrased in Avot 5,26: לפום צערא אגרא, as "the reward is commensurate with the effort expended." Had G'd imposed strict limits on the power of the seducer to entice us, overcoming him would not have amounted to much. The Zohar illustrates this principle by the example of a father who wanted to test his son's moral fibre and who instructed a beautiful harlot to use all her wiles to seduce him. At the same time he had instructed the son to keep his distance from the harlot in question.

כי ידע FOR [GOD] KNOWS — Every artisan detests his fellow-artisans (“Two of a trade never agree”). The serpent suggested to her: God ate of the tree and created the world (Genesis Rabbah 19:4) so if you eat ...

כי יודע...ונפקחו עיניכם He knows that your mental eyes will be opened to be like angel יודע טוב ורע, who know good and evil. The serpent had heard these words only from Chavah herself in her previous words. (verse 1)

And the eyes of both of them were opened: To see what is fit to be the way of the world, and what is not fit. Since even though the love of God wizens greatly, it nevertheless diverts the eye from the way of the world. And that is as it is found in Eruvin 54b, "They said of Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat that he would sit and engage in Torah study in the lower marketplace while his cloak was lying in the upper marketplace." And because of that, the man did not understand that it was not proper to stand naked in front of God. And all the more so did the woman not have [understanding of this] at all, but rather only [acted out of] love for her husband.

Every craftsman... Rashi is answering the question: On the contrary, why did Hashem not feed them the fruit so they will become wise and know of good and evil? Rashi answers: “Every craftsman resents his fellowcraftsman.”

והייתם כאלוקים, “and you will wind up being just like G-d;” the word as used by the serpent means: “like angels.” We have confirmation for this from the translation of Onkelos, i.e. כרברמין חכמין, “of superior intelligence;” (according toMaimonides in his moreh nevuchim, this is not the only time that the word; elohim is used to describe angels.

והייתם כאלהים YE WILL BE AS GOD — Creators of worlds.

And you will become as gods, knowing good and evil: Like the angels who intend [to act] in the name of God, but are separate. And their service of the Creator, may He be blessed, is because they know that their mission is [the source of] their existence in the world, but after they do their mission, they are nullified. And you shall also be knowing [what is] good for yourselves and evil (bad) for yourselves.

ותרא האשה AND THE WOMAN SAW — She approved the words of the serpent — they pleased her and she believed him (Genesis Rabbah 19:3).

THAT THE TREE WAS GOOD FOR FOOD. She [Eve] had thought that the fruit of the tree was bitter and poisonous and this was why He admonished them against eating thereof, but now she saw that it was good and sweet food.

And that it was desirable to the eyes: Since, with every sin, the good impulse has a debate with the evil impulse: For the good impulse promises [a person] spiritual reward in the world to come, whereas the evil impulse responds and claims that it is better to go after the desires which are perceivable to the eyes of the seer - for the desires of this world are visible to the eyes of everyone - rather than going after the delights of the world to come, 'which no eye has beheld.' That is why it states, "And the woman saw" the words of the serpent, and the arguments of the serpent were correct in her eyes - "that the tree was good for food and that it was desirable to the eyes" - that the desires of this world are visible, 'eye to eye.' This is to exclude the delights of the world to come - 'no eye has beheld' [them]. "And one who wants to lie will distance his witnesses" (Rosh on Shevuot 6, Paragraph 13).

ותרא האשה כי טוב העץ למאכל, she realized that the tree was good to eat due to its location, its nature and the pleasant fragrance of its fruit.

ותרא האשה כי טוב העץ. Eve saw that the tree was good. The first problem is how could one judge what is good to eat by merely looking at it? Another question is why the Torah describes a feeling of the mouth before describing the effect on the eye? The verse should have read: "she saw that the tree was a beautiful sight and that it was good as food," in that order. Furthermore, whence did Eve know that the tree was apt to add to her perceptive powers, i.e. להשכיל? If the Torah merely intended to tell us that the serpents's description of the tree had been accurate, why describe the woman as seeing something that she did not see? Also why did the Torah add two superfluous words הוא, and העץ a second time? If the repetition of the word is justified, why did the Torah not also write the word העץ after the word תאוה?

ותרא האשה, she believed the words of the serpent and saw with her heart כי טוב העץ למאכל וכי תאוה הוא לעינים, as the Torah had already described this tree in its own words in 2,9 when we were told that all “the trees of the garden were pleasant to look at and good to eat.” The tree of knowledge did not distinguish itself in external appearance from the other trees of the garden. Therefore, Chavah argued, there is no reason to believe that we will die if we eat from it. She agreed that the serpent had spoken the truth when it said that the distinction of this tree must lie in the spiritual benefits its fruit bestow on us not in the taste of its fruit. The serpent must be right when saying that we will become G’d-like (verse 5). ותקח מפריו ותאכל, and afterwards she gave to her husband who at that time had been in some other location inside the garden; she brought him some of the fruit and told him what the serpent had said to her and why she had eaten from the fruit. They then ate from the fruit jointly. This is the meaning of the additional word עמה. In other words, Chavah ate from the fruit twice, whereas Adam ate from it only once. It is important to understand this. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 19,5) explained that the word גם which is supposed to add something means that she fed the fruit also to the animals and the birds. We need to reflect on this statement by our sages.

That the tree was good for food: Given that she was only warned by Adam about the fruit, she permitted herself to take from the tree (bark) and tasted its good taste. And from that, she understood how great was the taste of the fruit.

כי טוב העץ למאכל , “for the tree is good as food.” She had thought originally that the reason why G’d had forbidden the tree was because its fruit was bitter, and the poison of the fruit would result in death to those who ate it. Now she had convinced herself that its fruit was sweet.

She “saw”... Rashi is answering the question: What did she see now that she did not see before, as she did not yet eat from the tree? [The answer is: Here,] “seeing” means “contemplating.”

תאזה rad. אזה verwandt mit עזה krumm, von der geraden Richtung abweichend. (Vielleicht auch mit חוה, wovon chald. חויא, die Schlange). In Beziehung auf das Gemüt des Menschen ist ישר (Vergl. גשר ,קשר ,כשר) das physisch oder sittlich von mir Erreichbare, innerhalb meines geraden Weges Liegende. Erstrebe ich jedoch etwas außerhalb desselben Liegendes, so bin ich מתאוה, suche eine Bogenlinie um mich zu beschreiben, suche die Grenzen meines Gebietes zu erweitern, mich zum Mittelpunkt eines größeren Kreises zu machen.

The woman saw that the tree was good for food: She began to observe it. She said, "How beautiful is this fruit; how sweet is its smell - it is certainly not like poison. Yet the Holy One did not command us not to eat from it for nothing." And the tree was desirable to her to contemplate; as she desired it, in order to contemplate. She said, "It appears that the serpent is speaking truth." So she ate it and gave it to her husband. And immediately slyness, pride, coarseness, jealousy, competition, covetousness and malice entered into them; to entrap and flatter, and to carry on in the dark, to rob and to steal. And they quickly began to say, "It is a disgrace for creatures like us to be 'baring buttocks' and revealing our nakedness." They made loincloths for themselves to cover their nakedness and they went out of the Garden to the breeze of the day, a place that there were no trees blocking the wind. As this is the way of thieves, to distance themselves from the the place in which they stole; meaning to say, "I was not even there." But while they were there sitting in the breeze of the day, they heard the 'voice of the Lord marching in the tops of the baca trees.' They said, "Behold the Master of the Garden has come"; so they were afraid and trembling - as is the way of a thief - and they hid. And that is the meaning of (Genesis 3:8), They heard the voice of the Lord God moving in the Garden to the breeze of the day - as they were there. Know that "to the breeze of the day," is referring to Adam. As it is written after it, and the man and his wife hid themselves [...] among the trees of the Garden - implying that at first, they were not in the Garden.

ותרא האשה, “the woman saw,” with her mental eye; as in Kohelet 1,17 ולבי ראה הרבה חכמה, “and with my heart I saw a great deal of wisdom.”A different exegesis of these words: the verse must be rephrased as: “the woman took from the fruit and ate; as a result she realised that the tree (its fruit) was good to eat, and she also gave to her husband to share it and he ate.” [The problem was that one can taste that something is good, but one cannot know by looking at it that something tastes good. Ed.]

כי טוב העץ THAT THE TREE WAS GOOD to make her become like God.

AND THAT IT WAS A DELIGHT TO THE EYES, i.e., that by means of its fruit, one attains desire and goes about after his own eyes.

And she also gave it to her husband with her: The commentators explained the word, "with her" - so that he would always be with her, and not marry another when she herself would die. But it could be that she gave it to him when he was literally with her. As she pressured him then, in the way that it says about Shimshon (Judges 16:16), "and she pressed him." For at another time, maybe he would not listen to her, to transgress the word of the Lord. So he said about this in his apology, "'The woman that You gave to be with me' (Genesis 3:12) - she defeated me at the time that she was literally with me." As according to its straightforward understanding, there is no logic to this apology. And [regarding] that which He claimed, "she gave me from the tree" - maybe he intended to say, by way of an apology, "It was since it was not stated in the commandment, 'You shall not eat from the fruit of the tree of knowledge.' It was [rather] stated (Genesis 2:17), 'from the tree of knowledge [...] you shall not eat.' I reasoned that the intent was that I am not allowed to pluck the fruit from the tree. But I thought, if the fruit is already plucked, it is permissible for me to eat it. So now, she gave it to me from the tree, and it was not me who took it from the tree."

ונחמד העץ להשכיל, seeing that G’d Himself had already described the tree as being the tree of knowledge.

And that it was desirable to the eyes: They explained in [Bereishit] Rabbah, Chapter 19:5, "From here, [we understand] that it was good for the eyes." It added to the understanding of these words - that they do not have a straightforward meaning, since desire is rooted in the heart and not in the eyes. Rather the explanation is, for the sake of the eyes. So it is desirable for the sake of the eyes, since it is good for the eyes, like its literal meaning - that the eyes would see more brightly than they did [before]. And this is also included in the statement of the serpent, "your eyes will be opened" - that the eyes would be opened to see from further.

וכי תאוה לעינים, “and that its appearance caused one to desire it.” We learn that man’s desires are activated by his eyes, by what he sees.

To be... You might ask: Why does Rashi not interpret [the phrases of our verse] in the same order that the serpent spoke to her? First he said, “Your eyes will open,” and then, “To be like a god.” The answer is: Since in the second phrase it is clearly written: “Tempting to the eyes,” this must refer to: “Your eyes will open.” And “Appealing as a means of wisdom” clearly refers to: “Knowers of good and evil.” Perforce, “The tree was good for food” refers to, “To be like a god.”

The verse describes the way in which Eve was snared, and how she eventually became willing to listen to her seducer. When you examine Eve's earlier words, you will find that she said: "and from the fruit of the tree in the center of the garden, G'd' said "do not eat." She had expressed her conviction that only the fruit of the tree was forbidden, that the trunk, the branches, etc., were permitted. She may have arrived at that conviction for one of two reasons. 1) Adam had commanded her in those very words. 2) Though Adam had mentioned only the tree without specifying its fruit, etc., she reasoned that there would have been no point in forbidding something that anyways was not food, such as the trunk, the branches, and the leaves. We have pointed out earlier that whereas the other trees did not taste similar to their fruit, the tree of knowledge was the exception, its trunk, etc. being just as edible as its fruit. We must therefore assume that Eve had already tasted the tree itself, not having considered it as forbidden. She also applied the prohibition to touch it as applicable only to its fruit, not to the trunk, etc. At any rate, Eve had already experienced the taste of the tree's trunk and nothing had happened. Alternatively, she may have discounted the prohibition to touch the tree knowing that this was not a direct command from G'd Himself and would not lead to death.

.נחמר rad. חמד verwandt mit אמר, ischätzen. Während תאוה den Gegenstand nur in Bezug auf die eigene Persönlichkeit schätzt und ihn herbei wünscht, weil er ihr angenehm ist, betrachtet ihn המד mehr objektiRaw Hirsch on Genesis 3: Möglich, dass das zwischen אמר und חמד stehende עמד aus demselben Begriff fließt. עמד bezeichnet den Zustand, in welchem wir die zu nehmende Richtung noch erst überlegen.

גם לאישה, “also to her husband;” this included her twins who had already been born by that time, as we have been taught in Sanhedrin 38. [The Talmud there describes that no more than an hour elapsed between Adam and Chavah mating and Kayin and Hevel, their twins having being born, Ed.]

וכי תאוה היא לעינים AND THAT IT WAS A DELIGHT TO THE EYES — even as he had said to her: “then your eyes shall be opened”.

AND THAT THE TREE WAS TO BE DESIRED TO MAKE ONE WISE for by means of its fruit, one becomes wise to desire. Now she ascribed “delight” to the eyes and “desire” to the mind. The principle is that [by eating the fruit of the tree], one can will and desire a thing or its opposite.

And some say, that he said, "Since He gave me the woman with me, to cook and prepare all the needs of the house, I thought that there was an assumption about her that she does not feed me anything prohibited. That is why I thought that this fruit was from another tree."

גם לאישה עמה, his heart was open to her words because he was her husband, and because he was by her side.

And that the tree was enticing to contemplate: As she acquired intellect from it. And it is as it is found in [Bereishit] Rabbah (19:5), "From here, [we understand] that it added wisdom." And the matter is like its literal meaning, that human knowledge was added to her by eating from the tree. And it is as I wrote adjacently, that the amazing wisdom that Adam had until now was not natural human intellect. Rather it was because he clung to his God that he grasped everything though the holy spirit; but he did not have human wisdom. It follows that the woman - who did not at all know from clinging to, and love of, God - did not have human knowledge. Because of that, they did not know embarrassment from walking around naked. But she saw that human intellect was added to her from the tree of knowledge.

So that she will not die... Rashi knows this because it is written, “with her”.

Having tasted from the tree itself, and having experienced that its nature was different from all the other trees, she decided to take a closer look at the fruit of that tree. It was then that she discovered that the fruit exerted a powerful visual attraction; the word הוא refers back to the word פרי, fruit. It could not refer to the word העץ, the tree, as this would be unnecessary. It would have sufficed to say וכי תאוה לעינים, if it were merely a reference to the tree. The word העץ is needed in the sequence ונחמד העץ לעינים because the subject matter had changed from the fruit to the tree. The knowledge of the nature of the tree had been based on her sense of taste, whereas her perception of the nature of the fruit was based only on her sense of sight. The Torah explains that Eve's purpose in eating of the fruit was to broaden her powers of perception. At this point Eve believed that the serpent had spoken truthfully when it claimed that as a result of eating from the fruit of that tree she would gain greater insights, and that G'd had forbidden the fruit only in order to prevent her from gaining the insight which would make her equal to G'd. The Torah emphasises that "she took from its fruit," as she had already tasted the trunk. We have now completed answering the various questions we raised about this verse. Eve gave to her husband from this fruit out of her love for him; she wanted him to share her new insights so that he too would become G'd-like.

השכל rad. שכל, verwandt mit סגולה .סגל: das was jemandem ausschließlich angeeignet ist. שכל ist diejenige Kraft im Menschen, welche durch das Auge einströmende Bilder der Dinge zum Begriff bringt und als solchen sich aneignet. סכל ist derjenige, dessen Erkenntnis zu subjektiv ist, der die Meinung, die er sich einmal von den Dingen gebildet hat, fest hält, ohne sie an der Wirklichkeit der Dinge außerhalb zu prüfen. השכל heißt: den Verstand auf etwas richten, verständig sein und handeln, auch den Verstand eines andern auf etwas richten: belehren. Es heißt aber nie: glücklich sein.

ותאכל, “she was the first one to eat;” she had assumed eating had not been included in the prohibition. According to Rashi, she reasoned that if she had to die G-d would surely provide Adam with another wife. In order to forestall this, she gave her husband to eat so that they would both die. Alternately, they would both continue to live. (Rashi may have used the word: לאשה, “to her husband,” instead of “to Adam,” as the inspiration for this insight.) Moreover, she thought that by her survival her husband would be able to fulfill G-d’s commandment to become fruitful and to multiply by means of her surviving.

ונחמד להשכיל AND IT WAS TO BE DESIRED TO MAKE ONE WISE — even as he had said to her: “knowing good and evil”.

And she took of its fruit and she ate: And she could not strengthen herself over the enticement to attain these three things, and also ate from the fruit.

Comes to include animal and beast. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why was death imposed upon the animals? But her intention was not that they should die.

I have seen it said in defence of Eve that her sin was not so serious as she could not imagine that G'd had created a being whose sole purpose it was to test man's love for G'd by having Satan masquerade within it to try and mislead man. If such a thought had even occurred to Eve she would never have engaged in a dialogue with the serpent. She would have acted just like the righteous nowadays who do not listen to or engage in disputes with tempters however slick-tongued they may be in making something sinful look desirable. The righteous of our time are not so naive; this is why they can withstand the wiles of Satan. Poor innocent Eve did not have their advantage and that is why she fell victim to the seductive tactics of the serpent (Satan). She had furthermore been mislead by the taste of the tree itself, something she thought of as permitted. She also did not possess as analytical a mind as that of a man, else she would have been able to resist the lure to eat from the fruit of that tree. Had she not first erred in believing that the tree itself was pemitted to eat from, she never would have considered eating from the fruit as well.

ותתן גם לאשה AND SHE GAVE ALSO TO HER HUSBAND so that she should not die and he remain alive to take another wife (Genesis Rabbah 19:5).

And she also gave it to her husband with her: Since at the time of her eating, her husband was not with her, as I wrote above. For had he been with her, he would not have allowed her to get into this at all - on account of his clinging to God. But he was not there then, and she did what she did. And with his coming, she gave it to her husband with her as well.

Another reason that may have accounted for Eve falling an easy victim to Satan's lure was that she considered it to have been a mistake to accept the prohibition not to eat from the tree. When she accepted the commandment she had not thought that it would be so difficult to observe. Originally the tree had not appeared to her as sufficiently desirable to pose a threat to her obedience to G'd's command. We find a parallel to such considerations when we consider how many covenants G'd concluded with the Jewish people to ensure that they would not go back on their commitment to observe the Torah. G'd did not consider it sufficient to just give the commandments to the Jewish people without creating a legal device to make the commitment irrevocable. Our sages (Shabbat 85 based on Exodus 19,17) tell us that at Mount Sinai G'd had threatened to kill the Jewish people unless they embraced the Torah. He subsequently reinforced the validity of their acceptance by making them swear an oath. Our rabbis go so far as to describe the renewed acceptance by the Jewish people of the Torah at the time of Mordechai as the only free acceptance of G'd's laws, describing the original acceptance as having occcurred under conditions of duress and therefore legally not valid (Shabbat 88). Inasmuch as Eve had not been sworn to observe the commandment not to eat from the tree she was not really obligated to do so. Even though she had orally accepted the commandment and such acceptance is comparable to the uttering of a vow, it is in the category of a vow erroneously entered into, something that can be annulled retroactively (compare Nedarim 66). The exact text in the Talmud is as follows: If someone undertakes not to drink wine because the wine is bad for his digestion, and he is informed that aged wine is good for his digestion, his vow is annulled and he may drink any kind of wine. We face a similar situation here. When Eve had accepted G'd's commandment prior to having become conscious of the powerful attraction exerted on her by this tree she had been quite sincere. However, once she noticed the powerful pull which the fruit of that tree exerted on her she regretted having undertaken to honour the commandment not to eat from it.

The word גם, also, may be understood to include cattle and beasts (that is, that she gave to these and also to her husband) (Genesis Rabbah 19:5).

We therefore have two causes that helped to mislead Eve. The reason she may have thought that only the fruit of the tree was forbidden was because her husband had not given her precise instructions. Had her husband told her that G'd had said: "You may eat from all the trees of the garden, but from the tree of knowledge in the centre of the garden you must not eat," she would never have considered the trunk as permissible, and the fact that neither eating from it nor touching it had resulted in any harm to her would not have served as a verification of the serpent's argument. Eve's not having been aware of the attractive nature of the tree was also Adam's fault. He had not told her that G'd had described the tree as the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He had only told her not to eat from the tree in the middle of the garden, without a reference to its special nature. Had Eve been aware that the tree was of such special significance the serpent could not have tricked her, and she herself would have been unable to invoke her lack of knowledge as a reason to revoke her acceptance of G'd's command not to eat from it.

None of the causes of the sin can be attributed to G'd, all were due to man's inadequacy, i.e. both Adam's and Eve's.

For all we know, Adam may not have been aware that the trunk of the tree of knowledge was edible. He had only tasted the other trees and found invariably that their trunks were not edible. He did not realise that the earth had conformed with G'd's instructions to the letter when it produced the tree of knowledge. The manner in which the Torah describes Eve's realisation of the tree's properties suggests that she did not have an inkling previously that this tree had such special features.

‘ותפקחנה וגו [AND THE EYES OF BOTH OF THEM] WERE UNCLOSED — Scripture speaks here with reference to intelligence (the mind’s eye) and not with reference to actual seeing; the end of the verse proves this for it states,

AND THE EYES OF THEM BOTH WERE OPENED. Scripture speaks here with reference to intelligence, and not with reference to actual seeing. The end of the verse proves this: and they knew they were naked. [Even a blind person knows when he is naked! It must therefore refer to intelligence], as [explained in] the words of Rashi. In a similar sense is the verse, Open thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy law.³⁷⁵Psalms 119:18. Here too “the opening of eyes” has reference to understanding.

ותפקחנה עיני שניהם, they compared mentally, the advantages they had gained through the pleasant sensation of eating from the fruit of the tree, and the harm they had caused themselves thereby. The expression פקח implies weighing something carefully with both heart and mind. We find an example of this expression in such a sense in Job 14,3 אף על זה פקחת עינים, “Do you fix your gaze even on such a one?” [Job referring to the transient nature of man and if he is worth G’d’s attention. Ed.]

ותפקחנה עיני שניהם. The eyes of both of them were opened. We have explained on 2,25 that sin caused man to become aware of his nudity, and that the awareness in turn results in a feeling of shame. This is what this verse is all about. Each of them was ashamed, one of the other. The use of the words ותפקחנה עיני…reflects the teaching of our sages that "one does not commit a sin unless one's mental eyes had first been blinded." Isaiah 42, 18 speaks about והעורים הביטו לראות, "blind ones, look up and see!" Surely the prophet must have referred to the wicked whose mental eyes had been blinded. Once the temporary mental blindness caused by the decision to sin had passed and the seducer had departed, they became aware of their nudity. Satan is also referred to as personifying darkness, someone who blinds people's eyes. The nudity referred to here is not merely lack of ordinary clothing, but the removal of an aura of holiness which had served them thus far in lieu of clothing in the accepted sense of the word. It is characteristic of a wicked person that after he has committed an abominable act he becomes aware that what he did was an abomination.

ותפקחנה עיני שניהם, their mental eyes. This is why the Torah continues with וידעו, “they knew,” and not with ויראו, “they saw.” They “saw” the same objects they had seen previously. However, after having eaten from the fruit of the tree of knowledge they experienced a biological urge to engage in sexual relations with one another. Adam’s organ stiffened as a result of this feeling of desire. This became a source of shame for them as it meant that one his organs was out of his control. The punishment in this instance fitted the crime. They had removed themselves from the control of their Creator by ignoring His instructions. As a result, an organ of theirs had removed itself from its owner’s control. Furthermore, engaging in sexual relations other than for the purpose of reproduction is a shameful activity. This is why they felt shame now. They felt ashamed to be seen in such a state by G’d and this is why they hid themselves.

And the eyes of both of them were opened: He also acquired strong physical sight. Also...

Refers to wisdom... I.e., the wisdom is that of knowing. Now they knew what they had lost — the mitzvah of not eating from the Tree of Knowledge. (Re’m) It seems that this is referring to the wisdom of distinguishing between good and evil, as Rashi wrote earlier (2:25) that although Adam had the wisdom to give names, he did not have an evil inclination [and could not distinguish between good and evil] until he ate from the tree. When Rashi says, “As evidenced by the end of the verse,” he means that it does not say, “And they saw they were naked,” rather, “they knew.” I.e., they acquired knowledge. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Die Schlange hatte vollkommen Recht. Es gingen ihnen die Augen auf, sie wurden aufgeklärte Menschen — ihre erste Erkenntnis aber war — dass sie nackt seien! Das Bewusstsein nackt zu sein, ist aber das Bewusstsein, dass an uns sichtbar sei, was es nicht sein sollte. Es ist dies das schon oben angedeutete Gefühl der Scham, das in dem Bewusstsein des Menschen von seiner eigentlichen Bestimmung wurzelt. So lange der Mensch im Dienste seines Gottes ganz steht, hat er sich auch seines leiblichen Teiles nicht zu schämen. Auch die leiblichen Reize sind göttlich und rein, so lange sie sich als Mittel zu Gott heiligen Zwecken unterordnen. Sobald aber dieses Verhältnis sich umkehrt, haben wir uns allerdings ihrer zu schämen; es erwacht dann die Stimme in uns, die mit dem Gewissen in innigem Zusammenhange steht und uns erinnert, dass wir eben nicht Tiere sein sollten.

ותפקחנה עיני שניהם “and the eyes of both of them were opened;” had they then been blind before? The meaning of the expression is that only now did they realise how many generations each of them had lost through eating from the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Furthermore

וידעו כי ערומים הם AND THEY KNEW THAT THEY WERE NAKED — Even a blind person knows when he is naked! What then does “and they knew that they were naked” signify? One charge had been entrusted to them and they now knew they had stripped themselves of it (Genesis Rabbah 19:6).

וידעו כי ערומים הם, they realized that they needed to cover their genitals which in future would serve mainly as organs designed to gratify their physical urges.

And they realized that they were naked: Natural human intellect was added to them, without clinging. For, in truth, from that moment, he lost his clinging to God and become like a person [today]. However he was a great sage, according to the nature of this tree that adds human intellect. So he understood that it is not honorable to walk around naked. And they also knew how to sew fig leaves with human intellect. But it was all from human intellect and knowledge. And hence both of them were on one level: He descended from his level of wisdom of the holy spirit and [descended to the level of] natural wisdom with human knowledge; whereas she ascended to human knowledge. In fact, she became smart [before] the man. And that is like the nature of a woman throughout the generations - that she arrives at her complete intelligence more quickly than a man. Because of that, she becomes an adult at twelve, and a man at thirteen. However the man became wiser than the woman with human knowledge, since he [drank] the wine which is the essence of the fruit; whereas she ate the grapes.

עירומים, the word is spelled with the letter י here to make the syllable sound longer.

That is the tree... Rashi knows this because it is written: “Fig leaves,” when the Torah could simply have written: “They sewed together leaves...” Rashi is also answering the question: Why did Adam take leaves from the tree he sinned with? He should have taken them from a different tree, so people will not know with which tree he sinned! For it is wrong to publicize the way in which one sinned, as it says in Berachos 34b: “It is impudent to publicize one’s sin.” Rashi answers: “The other trees prevented them...”

וידעו, they recognised that

עלה תאנה FIG LEAVES — This was the tree of which they had eaten; by the very thing through which their ruin had been caused was some improvement effected in their condition (Sanhedrin 70b). The other trees however prevented them from taking of their leaves. And why is not the name of the tree clearly mentioned? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, never wishes to grieve anything He has created: hence its name is not mentioned in order that it might not be put to shame by people saying, “This is the tree through which the world suffered” (Midrash R. Tanchuma 1:4:14).

ויתפרו עלה תאנה, they sewed a fig leaf. They used this leaf as fig leaves are wider than those of other trees. They sewed one to another until they had enough to make aprons out of them to cover their genitals. Some of our sages (Berachot 40) say that the tree they ate from was a fig tree. They wanted to rehabilitate themselves with the very material with which they had sinned. Other scholars maintain that the tree they ate from was the wheat tree. They base themselves on the fact that infants do not display any signs of intelligence until they have graduated to eating cereals. Still other scholars believe that the tree was the etrog tree, as the Torah wrote ותאכל מן העץ, “she ate from the tree.” Clearly, she ate fruit. The words from “the tree” therefore allude to the fact that the trunk of the tree was as edible as its fruit, and only the etrog tree was known to have edible wood. (2,17)
Rabbi Yehudah ben Simon, quoting Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, says there can be no question that G’d has not revealed the type of tree it was in the past, nor will He do so in the future. Consider what it says in Leviticus 20,16, והרגת את האשה ואת הבהמה, “you are to execute both the woman and the beast” (who engaged in sexual relations with one another). Granted that the woman sinned, but why does the beast have to die if the woman sinned? The Torah decrees this in order that people seeing the beast should not be able to point at it, saying: “here is the beast that caused her mistress to be stoned to death.” G’d would not want the tree which innocently became a passive partner in Chavah’s sin to be stigmatized throughout human history, forever more. Hence the identity of the tree has never been revealed. If G’d was concerned with the reputation of one of creation’s derivatives, how much more so would He be concerned with the reputation of a tree which was a direct creation of His. [consider the fact that G’d, personally, is credited with having planted all the trees in the garden 2,9] The scholar Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra wrote (verse 6) that the two trees, i.e. the tree of life and the tree of knowledge, were situated in the middle of the garden and were not ever found anywhere else on earth. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 19,6) explain the matter as a parable, the fig tree serving as metaphor, just as in Judges 14,4.

Why is the name of the tree not... Rashi means: Since it is written, “They sewed together fig leaves,” in order to tell us with what he sinned, why does it not state expressly which tree it was? Why only allude to it?

ערומים הם, that their being nude was something they have to be ashamed of. The word עירומים is sometimes spelled with the letter י after the letter ע and sometimes not. The author offers no reason for why it is sometimes one way and sometimes another. According to Minchas Shay, the text in our author’s manuscript should read that when spelled with the letter י after the letter ע, the word as both meanings, i.e. “naked” as well as “crafty.”

ויתפרו עלה תאנה, “they sewed a fig leaf, as a temporary device to cover their private parts. They used this as a device to atone for their sin, by making it into some type of loincloth.

We find the expression לחגור, as describing a device to prevent a garment from falling, in connection with David in Samuel II 6,14.

וישמעו AND THEY HEARD — There are many Midrashic explanations and our Teachers have already collected them in their appropriate places in Genesis Rabbah and in other Midrashim. I, however, am only concerned with the plain sense of Scripture and with such Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture in a manner that fits in with them. וישמעו AND THEY HEARD — What did they hear? They heard the sound of the Holy One, blessed be He, as He walked in the garden (see Genesis Rabbah 19:12).

וישמעו את קול ה' אלוקים מתהלך בגן לרוח היום, referring to the author’s commentary on Exodus 14,30, it appears that he understands the word מתהלך, as does Rabbi Chalfan in Bereshit Rabbah 19,7 where that Rabbi says that the word מתהלך modifies the word קול.

AND THEY HEARD THE VOICE OF THE ETERNAL G-D WALKING IN THE GARDEN. The Rabbis have said in Bereshith Rabbah:³⁷⁶19:12. “Rabbi Chilfi said that from here we may learn that a voice ‘walks,’ for it is said, And they heard the voice of the Eternal G-d walking.” And so did the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] write in Moreh Nebuchim.³⁷⁷I, 24: “It is the voice that is modified by walking.” And so is the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra that “walking” refers to “the voice,” just as in the verse: The sound thereof shall go like the serpent’s.³⁷⁸Jeremiah 46:22. And Ibn Ezra further says that the meaning of toward the cool of the day is that they heard the voice towards evening. And he mentioned in the name of Rabbi Jonah ibn Ganach³⁷⁹Also known as Jonah ibn Janach (990-1050), considered the greatest Hebrew grammarian. He is the author of the Rikmah (Many Colored Web) and the Book of Roots, a lexicon. that the meaning of the verse is: “and man was walking in the garden toward the cool of the day,” [the sense of the verse thus being that while man was walking in the garden, he heard the voice of G-d].
In my opinion, the sense of walking in the garden of Eden is similar to that of the verses: And I will walk among you;³⁸⁰Leviticus 26:12. And the Eternal went as soon as He had finished speaking with Abraham;³⁸¹Genesis 18:33. I will go and return to My place.³⁸²Hosea 5:15. All these verses indicate a revelation of the Divine Presence in that place or the departure from the place wherein He was revealed. The sense of the expression, toward the cool of the day, is that with the revelation of the Divine Presence comes a great and strong wind, even as it says, And, behold, the Eternal passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the Eternal.³⁸³I Kings 19:11. Similarly we find: Yea, He did swoop down upon the wings of the wind;³⁸⁴Psalms 18:11. and in the book of Job it is written, Then the Eternal answered Job out of the whirlwind.³⁸⁵Job 38:1. Therefore Scripture says here that they heard the voice of G-d as the Divine Presence was revealed in the garden approaching them in the wind of the day, because the breath of the Eternal blew upon it,³⁸⁶Isaiah 40:7. that is, in the garden, like the wind of ordinary days, not a great and strong wind as in the vision of other prophecies, in order that they should not be frightened or terrified. Yet Scripture says that in spite of this they hid themselves on account of their nakedness. In Bereshith Rabbah³⁸⁷19:13. we find that the Rabbis also said: “Said Rabbi Aba the son of Kahana: ‘Mehalech (walking) is not written here but mith’halech (meaning “it leaped and ascended).”³⁸⁸This means that when Adam sinned, the Divine Presence went from the earth to the first heaven, and then with every successive generation of sinners it departed to yet another higher heaven. This is so clearly explained in Bereshith Rabbah there (19:12). Rabbi Aba thus interpreted the word mith’halech similarly to that of And the Eternal went,³⁸¹Genesis 18:33. as we have explained the term “walking,” except that he explained the verse before us as referring to the withdrawal of the Divine Presence that dwelt in the garden of Eden and its retiring therefrom on account of the sin of Adam, even as it says, I will go and return to My place.³⁸²Hosea 5:15. We interpret it to mean the revelation of the Divine Presence in that place, which is the correct and fitting explanation of the verse.

מתהלך בגן, back and forth, in accordance with the requirements of their purpose. The word is similar in meaning to Genesis 13,17 where Avraham is instructed by G’d התהלך to “crisscross the land of Canaan, in order to symbolically lay claim to it.” The same construction is also found in Psalms 105,13 ויתהלכו מגוי אל גוי, “they wandered from nation to nation.”

וישמעו את קול השם They heard the voice of G'd. The reason the Torah describes the direction G'd's voice took, i.e. לרוח היום, was to enable them to find a place to "hide" from G'd. In this instance G'd's voice travelled westwards, parallel to the sun, whereas Adam and Eve were in the centre of the garden.

וישמעו, some commentators explain what happened not as G’d’s voice “walking,” but as Adam and Chavah walking and hearing the voice of G’d while going for a walk. If that were correct, the word “they heard” should have been written after our being informed that they had been walking in the garden. Besides, the word מתהלך should have been in the plural mode. The correct interpretation of the verse is: while Adam and Chavah went for a walk they heard the voice of G’d “going for a walk.” We have a precedent for this, i.e. the “voice” of the serpent being described as “walking” in Jeremiah 46,22.

And they heard the voice: The rule is that in a place where, relative to the recipient, it is not fit for there to be a revelation of the Divine Presence, but the time nevertheless necessitates a revelation of the Divine presence, there is a sounding of a [loud] voice. It is like the metaphor of the Sages, may their memory be blessed, "A coin in an [otherwise empty] barrel calls, 'Kish, kish' (makes much noise)." And for that reason, they said in Sotah 9b concerning Shimshon, that the Divine Presence was beating in front of him like a [bell] clapper. And that is because he was not properly prepared - regarding the separation from desire for a woman - for the attainment of the holy spirit; but he attained the holy spirit nevertheless. So behold, up until now, Adam was clinging to the Divine Presence; and the woman did not see or know what the revelation of the Divine Presence was at all, but was rather like a monkey. However, from the time they ate from the tree of knowledge, both of them understood the greatness of that thing.

וישמעו את קול ה' אלוקים מתהלך בגן, “they heard the voice of the Lord G’d strolling trough the garden.” This is not the only time that we find the word הילוך, walking, associated with קול, a voice. We read in Jeremiah 46,22 קולה כנחש ילך, “She will rustle (sound) away like a snake.” Nachmanides understands the word מתהלך as a metaphor for a form of revelation of G’d’s Presence. We have a similar verse in Leviticus 26,12 והתהלכתי בתוככם, “I reveal Myself in your midst,” although in that context it is as a result of Israel obeying all of G’d’s commandments. The meaning of the word לרוח, in the expression לרוח היום, is that prior to a revelation of G’d’s Presence, one of the advance notices is a strong wind such as when Elijah experienced such a revelation at Mount Sinai. (Kings I 19,11) In this instance the wind was not powerful and frightening, but רוח היום of the same force as it was daily when a breeze is blowing. G’d had not intended to frighten Adam and his wife. There are some commentators who understand the line as indicating that Adam and his wife were indeed frightened upon hearing G’d’s voice, and that is why they tried to hide.

They heard the voice. Before the sin they were able to communicate with Hashem directly, as Moshe did, without the assistance of the imagination. Therefore their prophecies were accompanied by no sensory perceptions, either audible or visual. That is why they experienced no fright, unlike later prophets. Now, however, their physical natures had become dominant and their prophecies were cloaked in more tangible garb.

As He was walking. [The verse says only מתהלך but] Rashi added the word היה before it, since otherwise it is present tense, [whereas past tense is called for]. And Rashi added also a ש, שהיה, since מתהלך calls for a ש. (Re’m) The reason [that Hashem was walking through the Garden] is: Hashem did not want to punish him hastily, but after deliberation, as it says in Avos 1:1, “Be slow and deliberate in judgment.” (Divrei Dovid)

Die Weisen bemerken zu dieser Stelle: "עיקר שכינה בתחתונים, ursprünglich wollte die göttliche Nähe auf Erden weilen." Wir pflegen die Fälle von dem innig nahen Verkehr Gottes mit Menschen als Ausnahmszustände, als außerhalb der gewöhnlichen Verhältnisse stehend zu betrachten; darum werden sie auch vielfach angezweifelt und als unmöglich betrachtet. Dem gegenüber steht der große Satz: Nicht die spätere Sendung der Propheten, nicht das Sprechen Gottes mit den Vätern, mit Moses und Israel sind Ausnahmszustände; vielmehr die sechstausendjährige Entfernung des Menschen von Gott ist das Unnatürliche; עיקר שכינה בתחתונים das ursprüngliche Verhältnis ist jenes. Nicht jenseits, hienieden — zeigt uns diese Geschichte — sei ein Zustand für den Menschen möglich, in welchem — Friede in seiner Brust, Friede mit der Natur um ihn, Friede mit seinem Gotte über ihm — alles in Harmonie mit ihm zusammenstimmend, sich ihm harmonisch anschmiegt. Die Natur — ein blühender Garten, Tiergeschlechter ihm zu Füßen, selbst die jetzt fernen, scheuen Amphibien sich ihm freundlich anschmiegend — und unter allen der Mensch aufrechtstehend, Gottes Ebenbild, sich erhebend zu seinem Gotte und Gott ihm nah, mit ihm sprechend, ihn unterweisend und leitend — alles dies aber abhängig davon, dass der Mensch sich mit all dieser Herrlichkeit Gott unterordne, "Gott frage, was gut sei und bös!" Aber "der Mensch bleibt auch nicht eine Nacht in seiner Herrlichkeit, sobald er im Tier sein Vorbild erblickt und der Unterschied zwischen Tier und Mensch verschwindet." Die Pforten des Paradieses wieder zu öffnen, wiederherzustellen den Frieden auf Erden, den Frieden von dem wilden Tiere an bis hinauf zum Menschen, und Gottes Herrlichkeit der Erde wieder zu bringen, das ist auf allen Blättern des Gotteswortes als Folge und Ziel der תורה ausgesprochen. Es ist nicht unwichtig, diese Wahrheit aus diesem Anfang der Menschengeschichte festzuhalten, damit, wenn uns nun später einzelne Momente entgegentreten, wie die Sendung der Propheten, oder gar jener Moment, in welchem das ganze Volk gehobene Propheten wurden, wir solche Momente nicht als übernatürliche Ausnahmszustände betrachten, sie uns vielmehr als das erscheinen, was sie waren: durch die Kraft der תורה bewirkte momentane Rückkehr zu dem ursprünglichen natürlichen Zustande.

מתהלך בגן, “the sound of G-d’s voice appeared to take a walk in the garden” This expression describing the movement of sound, occurs elsewhere also. Examples are: Exodus 19,19, קול השופר הולך, “as the sound of the shofar became progressively stronger;” it also occurs in Jeremiah 46,22, קולה כנחש ילך, “she rustles like a snake.”

לרוח היום IN THE WIND OF THE DAY — (רוח is used also in the meaning of direction,— north, east, — etc.) in that direction to which the sun travels (באה לשם) which is the west, for towards evening the sun is in the west, and they committed the sin in the tenth hour (Sanhedrin 38b).

לרוח היום, according to His pleasure on that day. The word רוח is used in the abstract, spiritual sense, not referring to a breeze. This is no different that what G’d had also done during the other days of creation, and as He had been doing on this same day (sixth day of creation) prior to Adam’s sin.

Moving in the Garden at the breeze/to the direction of the day: It is like the explanation of Rashi, to the side of the sun. The explanation is that the sun is called, day - like the language of the Gemara, Pesachim 12, "the sixth hour, the day, stands at the meridian." And Rashi explained, [day, as] the sun. And that is Scripture's explantion in I Chronicles 26:17, "north of the day, four" - meaning north of the rising of the sun. And see what I wrote in the Book of Numbers 28:3, according to the Sages, may their memory blessed - that it is to the side of the sun. And the movement of the Divine Presence was exactly towards the direction of the day, to teach him knowledge. Not like the man was until then, as Adam's practices in the world were above the governance of the sun, like those of Moshe and Israel in the wilderness. But now he was under the sun, and like the language of Scripture in Ecclesiastes 1:3, "What profit has a man of all his toil wherein he toils under the sun." However the providence of the Holy One, blessed be He, is nevertheless over nature itself, that it should be according to the acts of people - as I wrote earlier concerning the making of the firmament on the second day. And that is why it is written, "moving" (mithalech), and not, "going" (holech). It is in fact because the acts of people direct the providence of God over the day, which is the governance over nature. And this is referred to with the mitpael [verb structure], as it is written in Parashat Bechukotai (Leviticus 26:12), "And I will move (hithalachti) among you" - and it is explained there. And in the Book of Samuel (I Samuel 12:2) the explanation of, "behold, the king moves (mithalech) before you," is also that the knowledge of the people is what draws the king to walk in front of them to the place that they are [moving].

לרוח היום, towards evening, when the day becomes cooler and the breeze blows. He recognized at once that the voice belonged to G’d, and that G’d had come to speak to them about their sin. As a result, they hid among the trees of the garden out of shame over the fact that their genitals were exposed. Even though they had made these חגורות for themselves by sewing together the fig leaves, these were not enough to hide the areas of their bodies they felt ashamed of. They were perfectly aware, of course, that it is impossible to “hide” from G’d, else their entire intelligence would not have amounted to much. The Torah merely describes that they reacted in the time honoured human fashion when one is ashamed and wishes to hide the source of one’s shame.
The reason why the Torah informs us that they heard G’d’s “voice” before they heard what He had to say, is that the Torah wishes to teach us something about good manners. 1) G’d wanted to give them an opportunity to hide; 2) one should not frighten people by addressing them suddenly without a person having had a chance to compose himself first in order to receive a visitor and to meet such a visitor after preparing for his visit. One should either knock on the door, or try and make voice contact by inquiring if the person is at home, etc. (Massechet Derech Eretz ) The reason why the Torah had to mention the expression רוח היום is that the wind carried the sound of the voice to them.

מתהלך, während הלך in der Regel die Bewegung zu einem Ziele hin bedeutet, drückt התהלך die sich mit Absicht innerhalb eines beschränkten Gebietes haltende Bewegung aus. Daher: der Wandel des Menschen innerhalb der von Gott angewiesenen Wege: התהלך לפני ד׳. Der התפעל drückt dabei ebensowohl das bewusst- und energievolle Sichzurückziehen von den anderen Kreisen, als das positive Sichhalten in der angewiesenen Spur aus. Die Weisen erblicken in diesem מתהלך daher סילוק שכינה, das Fürsichgehen, das Sichzurückziehen der Gottesherrlichkeit. (So später כי ד׳ אלריך מתהלך בקרב מחנך, während überall auf Erden die Gottesnähe vermißt wird, ist sie in Israels Läger vorhanden, dorthin zieht sie sich zurück.) Denn Gott und seine Stimme sucht nur so lange den Menschen auf, als der Mensch in seiner Reinheit aufrecht steht über dem Tier. (Und so auch später an die Bedingung geknüpft: והיה מחניך קדוש! Das כזחניך zeigt, dass diese Gottesnähe nicht in Extase, in Verzückung, Schwärmerei und Verrücktheit zu suchen sei, sondern "mitten in unserem irdischen, auf der Erde sich gestaltenden, vielseitigen Menschenleben in allen seinen Entfaltungen will Gott uns nahe sein, will Gott zu uns kommen; nur sei dies irdische Leben, dieser menschliche Kreis auf Erden קדוש, ein heiliger!") Sie hörten also die Stimme Gottes sich im Garten לרוח היום zurückziehen.

לרוח היום, as if accompanying the prevailing wind; it did not cause the wind to blow harder so as not to give Adam the excuse that he had to hide in order to escape the force of the wind. An alternate exegesis of this expression: Adam and his wife had been sitting in a position where they could take advantage of the cooling effect of that wind. As soon as they heard G-d’s voice, they fled from their position to escape G-d’s voice.

ויתחבא, as the Torah wrote in Deuteronomy 23,15 ולא יראה בך ערות דבר, “no exposure of genitals (or other shameful matters) shall be visible on you.”

And the man and his wife hid themselves (lit., himself): It should have been, "hid themselves!" Moreover, the words, "in front of the Lord, God," are superfluous. So it comes to teach us that each one hid on their own, in order to protect their nakedness with branches and leaves of the trees, so that their nakedness not be seen at the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, would stand with them. But if they would sit together, it is impossible that the leaves would cover so much that her flesh would not be seen, since it is nakedness also for Adam. Hence they distanced themselves from one another and only needed that they not be truly naked, revealing their [essential] nakedness. And that is the meaning of, "in front of the Lord, God": Since they understood that they would would meet Him. However they did not flee and run away because of fear of the punishment, but rather because of the fear of God and the awe of His glory, to stand in front of Him while revealing nakedness.

עץ הגן, the word עץ here does not refer to a specific tree, but to the category of “trees,” as opposed to other, smaller plants. They took refuge due to their feeling of shame.

לרוח היום entweder zur Seite, woher der Tag kommt: Osten, oder wo die Sonne damals stand: Westen. Nach dieser letzteren Ansicht, die auch die natürlichste scheint, und welcher auch אונקלס folgt, nach welcher somit das erste סילוק שכינה gegen Sonnenuntergang im Westen war, dürfte noch eine andere Bestimmung und Überlieferung eine tiefe Bedeutung haben. קדש הקדשים, das Allerheiligste war im Westen. שכינה ist nach Ansicht der Weisen im Westen. Das ewige Licht an der מנורה, dieser Darstellung des עץ החיים, war das נר מערבי, das dem Westen zugewandte. Ist es wahr, dass der letzte Abschiedsgruß der שכינה im Westen war, so stehen wir nach Westen gewandt und schauen ihr nach und warten. Seitdem mit dem ersten irdischen Sonnenuntergang dem Menschen auch sein geistig-göttlicher Sonnenuntergang geschehen, seitdem stehen wir dorthin blickend und harren seiner Wiederkehr, und die ganze עבודה im מקרש ist nichts als Vermittlung, um die Rückkehr dieser Zeit anzubahnen.

According to Rashi, this was a westerly wind. This sounds logical as the seat of G-d’s Presence is always perceived as being in the West. [not the Rashi on our verse; perhaps the author refers to the Rashi on Song of Songs 4,6. In the Temple the holiest section was at its western end. Ed.]

ויתהבא, es verkroch sich der Mensch und sein Weib. Sie standen nicht mehr scheuten seine Nähe. Sie fühlten fortan lauter ,מפני aufrecht vor Gott, sondern ,לפני ד׳ Gegensätze. Den ersten Gegensatz hatten sie schon gefühlt, zwischen ihrem Leib und Geist, hatten sich schon Schürzen gemacht. Sofort werden sie auch des zweiten inne, zwischen sich, den nicht mehr über den Körper Herrschenden, an Leib und Geist Reinen, und Gott. Fühlten sich ihrer Menschenwürde verlustig, und verkrochen sich unter die übrigen Wesen.

איכה WHERE ART THOU — He knew where he was, but He asked this in order to open up a conversation with him that he should not become confused in his reply, if He were to pronounce punishment against him all of a sudden. Similarly in the case of Cain, He said to him, (4:9) “where is Abel thy brother?” Similarly with Balaam, (Numbers 22:9) “what men are these with thee?” — to open up a conversation with them; so, also, in the case of Hezekiah with reference to the messengers of Merodach-baladan (Isaiah 39:3).

Where are you. Why do you not show yourselves openly as before?

ויאמר לו איכה? He said to him: "Where are you?" The meaning is: Why do you hide yourself and do not appear before Me? Adam replied that he was afraid because he considered himself naked, and as it is forbidden to stand naked in front of a Torah scroll it certainly is unseemly to appear before G'd in such a state. According to our exegesis, he meant they had become aware of their reduced stature. Their sin had made them aware of the loss of their aura of holiness, hence their nakedness. They could not have referred to actual nudity as the Torah already reported that they sewed together fig-leaves to serve as clothing.

ויקרא..איכה, He called out “where are you?” G’d used these words as an opener for the conversation, not because He was unaware of their whereabouts. We find a repeat of this when G’d opened His conversation with Kayin (Genesis 4,9) or with Moses (Exodus 4,2).

And He called: Every, "and He called," is an expression of love - as it is taught at the beginning of Torat Cohanim. (And see what I wrote on the book of Exodus 8:21.) And it is found explicitly in Vayikra Rabbah, Chapter 1:9, "'And He called to Moshe' (Leviticus 1:1) - and is it not also written about Adam, 'And the Lord God, called to Adam?'" It is clear from this that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not punish [Adam] as someone volitional and transgressing contemptuously. For behold, God knew that it was on account of the woman. So it is from this reason that He did not punish him with death on that day as He had warned him, but rather judged him as [someone] inadvertent. And that which He said to him (Genesis 3:19), "until your return to the ground" - He did not say it as a punishment. As behold, [even] without a punishment, man returns to the dirt by nature - except by way of the supernatural power of the tree of life; or [with] one who is above nature, like Chanoch or Eliyahu. But the nature of man is to return to his dirt (and as I wrote above 2:9); and the punishment was only, "on the day that you eat from it, etc." (Genesis 2:17) - which only implies if he ate [it] volitionally. This is the straightforward understanding of the matter, even though it is known that there are other opinions about this. But the opinion of our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, about the understanding of, "and He called," is as I have written.

Where are you. That is, where are you spiritually? See how you have fallen!

He knew... that he not be bewildered. In other words, Hashem wanted him to say, “I have sinned,” and repent in his heart. For Hashem wants [the wicked] to repent, not that they die. You might ask: Here Rashi says that Hashem spoke to Bilam for a similar reason. So why does Rashi explain in Parshas Balak that Hashem’s intent was to mislead him? The answer is: There as well, Hashem wished to enter into conversation, but [with a different intent:] He increased His speech with Bilam and said, “Who are these people with you?” to mislead him. (Re’m)

ויקרא, rief ihm zu, aus der Ferne, im Zurückziehen. אִי) איכה, ein ab- geschlossener, isolierter Raum, Insel und auch א"י wegen seiner besonderen und isolierenden Bestimmung, איה die Frage nach dem Orte.) Wo bist du? Welche Stellung hast du eingenommen? Auf welcher Stufe befindest du dich?

He said to him, "Where are you?" For this is the way of the Holy One, to speak like people to [other] people.

ואירא, this feeling of fear is similar to that experienced by the Jewish people in Exodus 34,30 when, because of the sin of the golden calf, the people were afraid to face him after his face radiated light when he returned from Mount Sinai.

ויאמר..כי עירום אנכי, the word עירום is again spelled with the letter י serving to elongate the syllable commencing with the letter ע.

And I was afraid because I was naked: He explained that he did not run away because of fear that he would be punished, but rather because he was naked and it is not respectful to the Divine Presence. And that is awe of the sublime.

כי עירום אנכי, “for I am naked.” The fig leaf which they had used to cover themselves only covered their private parts. Although, according to the Midrash, G’d, personally, provided them with no fewer than 24 kinds of ornaments, they had to remove these at the time when they engaged in marital relations.

Ich fühlte, nicht vor dich hintreten zu können, weil eine Seite an mir hervorgetreten war, deren ich mich vor mir selber, geschweige denn vor dir zu fürchten habe. Dieses fürchten, nicht schämen, beweist, dass dieses Bewusstsein nackt zu sein, nach seinem sittlichen Grunde zu fassen ist, wie oben Raw Hirsch on Genesis 3: 7 erläutert. Nicht weil sein Leib nackt war, sondern weil er seinen nackten Leib nicht mehr sehen lassen durfte, fürchtete er sich.

He said, "It was since, I heard Your voice in the Garden, and I was afraid because I was naked, etc.": He was afraid, lest He would ask him, "Why did you hide to escape," and He would become aware about his theft. Hence he gave Him a reason beforehand.

כי עירום אנכי, because I am nude;” although they wore the fig leaf. Perhaps that leaf only covered their private parts.

מי הגיד לך WHO TOLD THEE? — Whence has the knowledge come to you what shame there is in standing naked?

המן העץ the prefix ה in the word המן introduces a question which keeps troubling the questioner. (Compare Arugat habossem, Auerbach edition page 36)

מי הגיד לך, who revealed to you the difference between good and evil?

ויאמר מי הגיד לך כי עירום אתה, He said: "Who has told you that you are naked?" G'd meant: "what is different now? You stood before Me previously without feeling naked?" The new knowledge you display cannot have originated within you. It must have been provided by an external source. G'd therefore wanted to know: "Who has told you?" According to our exegesis that the feeling was generated internally, i.e. a result of the sin and the loss of the aura of holiness, we must understand the question as merely rhetorical. G'd did not want to shame man too much, therefore He Himself supplied the answer that Adam might have eaten from the forbidden tree, and the act of eating revealed this knowledge to him.

ויאמר...המן העץ, the letter ה in the word המן is like the letter ה in Kings I 29,19 הרצחת וגם ירשת, “did you really expect to get away with murder and inheriting (the murdered man)?” The question is merely rhetorical, it does not require an answer.

From the tree whereof I commanded you: And He did not say, "From the tree of knowledge." As in truth there is nothing in the tree of knowledge to cause him to sin, and that it have impure properties in it, like in all the types of non-kosher food, orlah (fruit from a three less than three years old) and that which is similar. Rather it is that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded man to be on that level of clinging to Him, which is impossible when he attains human knowledge - unless it is with great exertion, like [with] the few people of great stature. And, if so, the impropriety is that he transgressed a command.

From where... You might ask: Why did Rashi not explain as he did earlier (v. 7), that [“naked’ means that] Adam was stripped of the command? The answer is: Hashem’s question, “Who told you that you are naked?” related to Adam’s statement of, “I was afraid because I was naked.” Adam’s nakedness caused his fear. And he could not mean “stripped of the command,” [i.e., that the command was no longer relevant to him,] since a man who has no command need not fear. A man must fulfill only what he is commanded, and will not be punished for transgressing what he has not been commanded! And if Adam was afraid because he transgressed his [original] command, he should have said clearly: “I was afraid because I transgressed the command.” Thus Rashi explains it here as the shame of being unclothed. Another answer is: The verse cannot mean, “Who told you that you are stripped of the command?” since Adam obviously was aware that he had transgressed. (Re’m) I heard a different explanation. The verse should be read: “Who told you, ‘Are you naked?’” In other words, Hashem is saying: I did not ask why you are naked, so why do you answer Me about more than what I had asked? When I said, “Where are you?” I was only asking whether you sinned by eating from the tree! (Tzeidah L’Derech)

הגיד rad. נגד, vergegenwärtigen. Wie ist dir das Bewusstsein gekommen, dass du dich deines nackten Leibes zu schämen hast? — ׳אשר צויתיך לבלתי וגו. Es gibt im Hebräischen keine spezielle Bezeichnung für verbieten. Alle Gesetze sind מצות, Gottesanweisungen, was jeder von uns auf seinem Posten zu leisten habe; מצות עשה und מצות לא תעשה, Anweisungen, was wir zu tun und zu lassen haben. Auch die Verbote sind מצות. Alle Gottesgesetze sind im tiefen Grunde positiRaw Hirsch on Genesis 3: Auch die Verbote lassen uns nicht untätig, fordern vielmehr unsere wärmste Energie, unsere positivste Thätigkeit auf, uns zu zügeln, Neigungen, Triebe und Leidenschaften zu überwinden. Es ist das eine energievolle Tätigkeit, die oft eine bei weitem größere Kraftentfaltung fordert, als die Ausübung einer guten Tat, die Erfüllung eines עשה. Darum sollen wir uns zu einer ebenso freudigen Tätigkeit angespornt fühlen, wenn Gott uns etwas verbietet, als wenn Gott uns etwas gebietet. Es liegt diese Anschauung wohl dem Ausspruche R. Akiba׳s zu Grunde, dass Israel bei der Offenbarung am Sinai nicht nur על הן הן, sondern auch על לאו הן, nicht nur die Gebote, sondern auch die Verbote mit "Jal" zu empfangen hatte.

המן העץ אשר צויתיך לבלתי אכול ממנו, אכלת? “Did you eat from the tree which I had commanded you not to eat from?” [this is the plain meaning of that line. Ed.] [Our author claims that there is a Midrash (Esther Rabbah 92) according to which the peculiar positioning of the word: ה-מ-ן, where we would have expected the word האכלת, “did you eat?” at the outset, conveys an additional meaning, i.e. a hint that the tree Haman would be hanged from is already alluded to here, as the words: המן העץ could be understood as meaning “Ha-m an, the tree” would be hanged from that tree,” i.e. Adam’s sin also had a positive result, that tree had now become a source of potential disaster for the Antisemites. Our author adds the words: “G–d said to Eve that He had meant to hang her,” something that I have found no source for. Wherever I have found a reference to it, the statement in this book is quoted as the source. Ed.]

The Holy One said to him, "From your words, you are caught! How many times did I come to you and you were not concerned that you were naked." As it is written above (Genesis 2:25), "The two of them were naked." "But now you are concerned? Who told you that you were naked?" As only something that is fit for clothing, but does not have any, is called naked. It is not customary to say that a beast is naked, since it is not fit for clothing. For it is covered with the covering that is fit for it. And even great people who wear inferior clothing call themselves naked, because they do not have clothes that are fit for them. "And you also call yourself, naked" - meaning to say, that you are fit for clothes. "Who told you that you are fit for clothes? From the tree whereof, etc."

המן העץ HAST THOU EATEN OF THE TREE — The ' ה of the word המן expresses a question.

כי עירום אתה, that on account of familiarity with evil you felt the need to cover your genitals.

With wonder. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise Adam should have simply answered, “Yes” to Hashem’s question. But since the question expressed wonder and astonishment, Adam responded to this by saying, “The woman... gave me of the tree and I ate.”

By the reference to the tree as opposed to the fruit, the verse once more stresses that the trunk too was forbidden.

אשר נתת עמדי WHOM THOU GAVEST TO BE WITH ME — Here he showed his ingratitude (Avodah Zarah 5b).

THE WOMAN WHOM THOU GAVEST TO BE WITH ME. The sense of it is to say: “The woman whom Thy Honor Himself gave me for a help, she gave me of the tree, and I thought that whatever she says to me is a help and benefit to me.” This is why He said when meting out his punishment, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife,³⁸⁹Further, Verse 17. meaning “You should not have transgressed My commandment on account of her advice.” Our Rabbis have called Adam “ungrateful” for this remark.³⁹⁰Avodah Zarah 5b. By this they mean to explain that the sense of his answer was: “Thou caused me this stumbling for Thou gavest me a woman as a help, and she counselled me to do evil.”³⁹¹He thus ascribed his sin to G-d’s giving him Eve as a help. (Rashi, ibid.) In this he spoke ungratefully.

היא, she, who was meant to be an assistant to me has turned out to be the opposite.

ויאמר האדם האשה אשר נתת עמדי. Adam said: "The woman You put with me." The manner of Adam's reply was so unseemly that one would not expect him to use it vis-a-vis the least important human being, certainly not when addressing the King of Kings. Besides, when Adam said: "she gave me from the tree, and I ate," why did he add the unnecessary words "from the tree?" We would all have understood that he referred to said tree without his repeating this. Eve did not bother to say that it was the tree she ate from.

ויאמר...האשה אשר נתת עמדי, he meant to say that “You G’d are the cause of my sin, seeing that You have given me such a woman who seduced me to eat from the tree.”

And I ate: This is like a confession; as if he is saying, "I sinned, as I ate." And it is like Shaul said (I Samuel 15:24), "I have sinned, as I have transgressed, etc. for I feared the people." Behold he intermingled the apology and the confession together. So too did Adam apologize - that he did not, God forbid, eat [it] contemptuously, but nevertheless, "Behold I sinned and I ate." And likewise is the explanation about the statement of the woman, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate" (Genesis 3:13).

האשה אשר נתת עמדי, “the woman You have given me as my companion, etc.” According to Nachmanides Adam’s excuse was that seeing that G’d had given him Chavah as an עזר, helpmate, everything she would ask or advise him to do would be of benefit and use to him. It had not therefore occurred to him that her advice could be harmful if followed. When G’d punished him, He made plain that Adam’s argument was flawed as how could he ignore G’d’s command and accept a contrary command by one of G’d’s creatures? My sainted father the רא'ש explained that the only reason why Adam could use the excuse he offered was because he had already eaten from the fruit of the tree and had become aware of the difference between good and evil. He accused his wife of having tricked him.

אשר נתתָה, die du mir zur Seite gesetzt, die mir völlig ebenbürtig nach deinem Willen sein sollte, die wir zusammen nicht nur ein לב und נפש, sondern ein בשר, einen die Bestrebungen des Geistes und Willens vollbringenden Leib bilden, eins sein sollen in Wille und Tat, die hat mir gegeben, ihr Wille war auch für mich entscheidend. Indem Adam sich nicht mit einem verlockenden Reiz, auch nicht mit einer vom Weibe geübten Verführung, sondern einfach mit dem Anschluss an ihren Willen entschuldigte, ist hier die ursprüngliche, völlig harmonische Gleichheit in der Bestimmung des Mannes und Weibes offenbar.

Once he saw that one cannot cover up before the One that knows all secrets, he confessed against his will and said, "The iniquity is not upon me, but rather upon the woman." The woman said, "The iniquity is upon the serpent." As this is the way of thieves - when they are caught, they give away one another. The serpent did not find an answer, for we do not [allow] an inciter to make a claim - as our Rabbis said (Sanhedrin 29a): As even though they should not have listened to him - for [in a case of] the words of the teacher and the words of the student, to whom does one listen - nevertheless, he should not have entrapped [them], as they transgressed the commandment of the Creator. And they all confessed that they transgressed - as the Holy One said to Adam, "Because you listened to the voice of your wife, (Genesis 3:17) more than [to] My voice." And all the more so, the woman should not have listened to the serpent, who was not her friend and advisor. Hence Scripture said to Adam, "Because you listened to the voice of your wife"; whereas it did not say to the woman, "Because you listened to the voice of the serpent." As it an a fortiori argument, so there is no need [to say it]. And the Holy One, blessed be He, began to curse them in the way that they did the transgression: The snake that started was cursed first, and Adam afterwards.

האשה אשר נתתה עמדי, “the woman You have given me to be my companion;” Adam complains that this woman who had been meant to be his helper, assistant, had instead turned out to be his seducer. He had assumed that he could trust her implicitly. He claimed that he had not known from which tree she had taken the fruit she offered him. The Torah had not mentioned which fruit she had asked him to share, i.e. the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Adam implied that if he had known that this was the fruit of the tree of knowledge he would not have eaten from it. Had he refused her offer of the fruit, he would have appeared as ungrateful, for how could he refuse something that G-d had provided, seeing that only good things emanate from G-d. (Compare Avodah Zarah, 5)

נתנה לי מן העץ, and has become a hindrance instead of a help. By saying these words, Adam tried to blame his Creator for having committed a sin. Adam, instead of being defensive by repenting, apologizing, admitting his guilt, as did David when the prophet Natan had called him to order over his conduct with Bat Sheva, (Samuel II 12,13)

Apparently Adam did not know exactly what happened except that Eve had placed something before him and he had eaten without examining it. He had not felt the need to ask her what it was she had placed before him seeing that the whole earth was his to enjoy. He added "which You put with me" in justification for not having enquired where the fruit had come from. It was as if he had said to G'd that since G'd had supplied the woman, he, Adam, had no reason to be suspicious about her motives. After all, nothing evil originates in Heaven! Our sages have said: אין בודקין מן המזבח ולמעלה, "once something (a slaughtered animal) has arrived on the altar (having passed several stages of inspection on the way) there is no need to again check its suitability as a sacrifice." Adam argued that if the חזקה, the presumption of fitness of such an animal, is acceptable, then surely a woman supplied by G'd Himself need not be examined for blemishes.

When Adam said: "from the tree," he referred to a tree planted within the garden seeing all those trees had been planted by G'd Himself (2,8-9). When Adam spoke of "the tree," he did not refer to the tree of knowledge which G'd had referred to. He described his situation before he had eaten from the fruit Eve gave him. At that time he thought the fruit was from any of a number of trees. It was only after he had tasted the fruit that he became aware that this fruit must have been from the tree of knowledge. Adam's argument then was not nearly as outrageous as it appears at first glance. Although one might even argue that Adam said he ate merely from the tree and not from its fruit, and that eating from the tree had not been forbidden, such an argument is not tenable for a number of reasons.

As a result, Adam was merely a שוגג, an unintentional sinner. One might go further and claim that he was an innocent victim and thus not guilty at all. This would explain why G'd' did not curse Adam but only the earth. The truth is, however, that Adam acted carelessly in not accurately repeating G'd's command to Eve. He had mentioned only the fruit of the tree to Eve, not the prohibition of the tree itself. This inaccuracy paved the way for all the subsequent events.

השיאני means HE DECEIVED ME; — we find the word in the same meaning in (2 Chronicles 32:15), “Now therefore let not Hezekiah beguile you” (Genesis Rabbah 19).

WHAT IS THIS THOU HAST DONE to transgress My commandment? For the woman was included in the admonition given to Adam since at that time she was yet bone of his bones, and similarly she was included in his punishment. The reason why G-d did not say to the woman, “and thou hast eaten of the tree,” is that she was punished for both her eating and her advice, just as the serpent was punished for the advice. This is why she said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat,³⁹²In the verse before us. Thus she mentioned both the eating and the advice. as the punishment for the beguiling was greater than that for the eating. [Hence as soon as she mentioned that the serpent beguiled her, G-d meted out his punishment immediately, as is stated in the following two verses.] Thus we may derive from here the principle of punishment for those that cause people to sin in any matter, just as our Rabbis have derived it from the verse, Thou shalt not put a stumbling-block before the blind.³⁹³Leviticus 19:14. In Pesachim 22 b, the verse is interpreted to mean: do not give a person who is “blind” in a matter advice which is improper for him. Advising or causing one to sin is thus included in this prohibition. Ramban is here suggesting that while the admonition against causing people to sin is derived from the verse in Leviticus, the principle of punishment for such advice is derived from here.

What is this that you have done. Hashem said this to arouse her to repent.

ויאמר השם אלוקים אל האשה. The Lord G'd said to the woman. The only reason G'd asked Eve what she had done was to give her an opportunity to confess her sin against G'd. The confession would act as the cure for her newly contracted sickness. When she said that the serpent had seduced her this was both a confession and an explanation that her sin had not been intentional. I have explained earlier that Eve had been under the impression that it was permitted to eat from the trunk of the tree. She had also not realised that the serpent was a seducer. She confessed her error to her Creator.

ותאמר...הנחש השיאני, “if I did indeed seduce Adam it was only because the serpent seduced me first. You have created my seducer.”

מה זאת עשית, “what is this you have done?” How could you have violated My commandment, even though it had not been addressed to you directly but to your husband? Seeing that you are made of his bone, surely you must have realized that My commandment also included you?

נשא (vervandt mit נשה), einen unbefriedigten Anspruch haben, die Erfüllung eines Versprechens von jemandem zu fordern haben. הַשִיא jemandem unerfüllt bleibende Versprechungen machen. So ׳אל ישיא לכם חזקי, daher auch מַשואות: Trost- und hoffnungslose Zustände. Hier: Die Schlange hat mir täuschende Vorstellungen gemacht.

ויאמר ה' אלוקים לאשה, “The Lord G-d said to the woman: where was Adam? Abba Chalfi ben Karchi said that after having engaged in marital relations with his wife he was tired and had gone to sleep.

כי עשית זאת BECAUSE THOU HAST DONE THIS — From here we infer that we should not occupy ourselves with what may be in favour of one who seduces people to idolatry, for had He asked it, “Why hast thou done this?”, it could have answered Him, “When the words of the teacher and those of the pupil are contradictory, whose orders should be obeyed?” (Sanhedrin 29a). (i. e. if You told them one thing and I another, should they not have obeyed You?).

FROM AMONG ALL CATTLE, AND FROM AMONG ALL BEASTS OF THE FIELD. From a study of this verse, Rabbi Yehoshua the son of Chananya derived the fact that a serpent gives birth once in seven years;³⁹⁴Bechoroth 8a. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 41. this they investigated and found to be so.³⁹⁵See Bereshith Rabbah 20:7. For the Midrashic interpretations of Scripture and their allusions are all traditional, and they found in them profound secrets on procreation and all matters, as I mentioned in my introduction.

Cursed be you from all the beasts and from all the animals of the field: This is according to the opinion that our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Taanit 8a), "In the future, all the animals will gather together and come to the snake and say to him, 'A lion mauls its prey and eats it, etc. But you, what pleasure do you have, etc.'" That is why it is stated that it will be more cursed than all the beasts and animals. As they all have an aspect of pleasure from that which they maul and prey upon, whereas the snake has no pleasure, since 'the master of the tongue has no benefit.' Hence it will have no pleasure from its preying [upon other animals], as said. And if you want to say the mem of mikol (from all) is not a superlative mem, but rather explain it like this - that it will be cursed from the mouth of all - it is since all of the animals will gather together and disgrace it. And they will proclaim its evil to its face, saying, "What pleasure do you have."

ארור אתה מכל. The serpent was condemned henceforth to attain its needs as well as its desires only through experiencing more pain and greater lack of pleasure than all the other creatures. Compare Kidushin 82 ראית חיה ועוף שהם בני אומנות והם מתפרנסים שלא בצער, “Did you ever see a beast or bird practicing a vocation, and yet they find their livelihood without pain?” [the scholar makes the point that our parnassah lies in the hands of G’d and is not due to our professional level. Ed.] G’d’s curse is explained in detail by the words על גחונך תלך, “you will have to crawl on your belly.” This means that the serpent will find its sustenance only laboriously, experiencing frustration in doing so. Our sages (Berachot 58) mention how many laborious stages the kernel of wheat had to undergo until Adam finally was able to eat the bread that he made out of it.

ויאמר השם אלוקים אל הנחש. The Lord G'd said to the serpent. The serpent had caused three kinds of harm by its words. 1) It caused the withdrawal of the glory of G'd's light which had hovered over Adam and Eve as we explained previously. This is the real meaning of the כתנות אור, the garments of light. [this spelling is reported to have been found in the Torah scroll of Rabbi Meir. Ed.]. 2) It resulted in Adam and Eve both becoming mortal, losing their immortality in this world. This was the punishment G'd had threatened would result from eating of the tree of knowledge. 3) The serpent caused even man's limited life on this earth to be of an inferior quality, outside the confines of גן עדן.

ויאמר כי עשית זאת, he did not have an answer to this, no excuse whatsoever. Adam and Chavah, though their excuse was indeed feeble, at least had some sort of an excuse, whereas the serpent had no excuse whatsoever. This is why G’d immediately proceeded to curse the serpent, without even waiting if the serpent would try and come up with an excuse. This is what Solomon had in mind when he said in Kohelet 10,11: ואין יתרון לבעל הלשון, “a slanderer (the serpent) has nothing going for him at all (having bitten without provocation).” (compare Taanit 8) Our sages (Sanhedrin 29) say that the serpent did have an answer ready but that G’d did not give it a chance to use it seeing it had initiated this seduction. (The Talmud, quoting one of the possible excuses of the serpent, cites the well known phrase: “if the words of the student are at variance with those of the teacher, whose words does one have to heed?” Whatever excuse the serpent could have used, it had no answer to the accusation why it had engaged in seduction.)

To the serpent: God did not speak to the serpent but rather to his constellation; and that is like [talking to] the serpent itself.

From here. You might ask: Why cannot every מסית exonerate himself with this claim? The answer is: The serpent was not forbidden to entice others to sin. He was punished only because of the sin that the others committed, due to him. Thus he could answer, “The words of the master...” But a מסית who is forbidden by the Torah to entice others to sin is transgressing Hashem’s command. This helps to answer Re’m’s question. (From my father’s manuscript. And Maharshal is quoted as saying the same.) You might ask: [Why was the serpent called a מסית?] It is stated in Sanhedrin 67a that a מסית is only someone who incites to idolatry! The answer is: The serpent said to Chavah, “You will become as gods,” — this is idolatry. (Chizkuni)

The serpent deceived (hishi) me. See Rashi. Hishi cannot be understood here in its usual meaning of “incited” because that would not have been an excuse for sinning.

15. ׳ד׳ א sprach zur Schlange, nicht nur als ׳אלקי, Schöpfer und Richter, sondern als die den Menschen zu seiner Bestimmung erziehende Waltung. Nicht daher als Strafe für die Schlange, sondern aus dem Gesichtspunkt der Menschenerziehung ist das über die Schlange Ausgesprochene zu erfassen. — ארר, (verwandt mit ערר, ver- einsamt, verödet, nicht in Gemeinsamkeit mit Andern, und ohne Verbindung mit der Zukunft: kinderlos) also: freudelos und blütelos, Gegensatz zu ברכה, dem Begriff der Ausbreitung und der Blüte. Zweifelhaft scheint das Verständnis des ארור מכל הבהמה ומכל חית השרה. Man versteht es gewöhnlich in der Bedeutung des Komparativs, du bist mehr als alles Vieh und alles Tier verflucht. Dies setzt aber einen das Vieh und das Tier treffenden Fluch voraus, der dem Anschein nach nicht motiviert ist. Möglich, dass es ebenso wie das ארור אתה מן האדמה Kap.4, 11 zu verstehen ist: dir wird von allem Vieh und allem Tier geflucht. So auch: מנשים באוהל תברך ,תברך מנשים יעל, alle Frauen segnen Jael (Richter 5, 24). — Wahrscheinlich ist es jedoch komparativ und steht dies in Zusammenhang mit einer Bemerkung, die wir zu Raw Hirsch on Genesis 3: 16 und 17 zu machen haben. Beide lauten nicht: ויאמר אל האדם ,ויאמר אל האשה, sondern: ,ולאדם אמר אל האשה אמר, und zeigt dies, dass der Anrede an die Schlange die Anrede an die Frau, und dieser die Anrede an den Mann vorangegangen war. Es war also bereits gesprochen: ארורה האדמה בעברך, somit die Erde bereits um des Menschen willen vom Fluche getroffen. Die ganze Erdwelt, also auch Vieh und Tier, hatten durch die Verirrung des Menschen um seinetwillen, d h. zu seiner Besserung, zu leiden, die Schlange aber am meisten. בהמה, das sich dem Menschen unterordnende Vieh, obgleich es mehr noch als das freie Waldtier an dem auf dem Menschen lastenden Unsegen Teil nimmt und in seinem Kampfe um die Existenz von ihm und durch ihn zu leiden hat, nimmt aber auch Teil an seinem Wirken, wird — vom Standpunkt des Menschen aus betrachtet — gehoben, veredelt und gewinnt gewissermaßen auch an Geist, an Verständigkeit. Das freie Waldtier genießt seine Freiheit und Kräftigkeit in ungebundener Freudigkeit. Beides ist der Schlange versagt. Dem freien Waldtier gegenüber schleicht sie auf ihrem Bauche und isst Erde. — גחון von גוח (wie זדון von זור) die am Boden sich hinwindende Bewegung von Flüssen יגיח ירדן (Hiob 40), daher auch wohl der גיחון; die sich windende Schmerzbewegung חולי וגוחי (Micha 4) und die der Schlange, die nur eine seitliche Bewegung hat und sich nicht aufrichten kann. Auch die Bewegung, in welcher die Kindesgeburt fortschreitet, ist eine Seitenbewegung; sie heißt auch speziell: ,גוח כי אתה גוחי מבטן (Ps 22, Raw Hirsch on Genesis 3: 10). — Dunkel ist das Staubessen. Die Schlange isst faktisch nicht Erde, vielmehr nichts als lebendige Tiere. Es scheint nur ein figürliches Ausmalen des auf dem Bauche Kriechens zu sein, wie ואויביו עפר ילחכו (Ps. 71, 9) und ילחכו עפר כנחש seine Feinde lecken, lecken Staub wie die Schlange ,(Micha 7, 17). Oder sollte vielleicht der Schlange, deren Zunge sich wenig zum Schmecken eignet, der Geschmacksinn versagt, ihr Essen daher nur ein Hungerstillen sein, ohne ihr Genuss zu gewähren, und darin die Erklärung der Weisen, "dass ihr die köstlichsten Speisen nur wie Erde schmecken" (Joma 75, 2.) ihre physiologische Wahrheit finden? — Dem sich dem Menschen anfügenden Vieh gegenüber ist Feindschaft zwischen ihr und dem Menschen. In der Tat ist unter den vier höheren Klassen nur das Amphibiengeschlecht, deren Repräsentant die Schlange ist, dem Menschen völlig fremd und feind, und durch die dem Menschen innewohnende Scheu und Widerwillen von ihm völlig getrennt.

On your belly shall you crawl: It is the way for people that give evil counsel to each other, to have them separated from one another. Hence He said to the serpent, "'On your belly shall you crawl' - such that your mouth be placed on the land, whereas she will be erect, so that you will not have a place in which to take counsel with her. And dust shall you eat all the days of your life: Given that your mouth will be on the land, you will eat it against your will. And enmity will I put (Genesis 3:15):" This too is a distancing.

כי עשית זאת, (G-d speaking to the serpent) “because this is what you have done, etc;” Rashi comments that we learn from here that seducers are not given an opportunity to defend their actions, as if G-d had asked the serpent why it had acted as it did, the serpent would have answered: ”since when does one follow the instructions of the pupil when they contradict the instructions of the teacher, i.e. G-d?” Since the Torah had expressly forbidden the seducer to practice his trade, this will never be accepted as his excuse, i.e. that he only wanted to “test” the victim of his seduction. If the seducer himself does not use this argument, we (the court) certainly must not use it on his behalf. If you were to ask: the Torah’s legislation about this subject only deals with someone who seduces others to commit idolatry, not other sins!? (Compare Deuteronomy 13,712) The answer is that the serpent had held out the hope to the woman that by eating from the tree of knowledge they would be just as great as G-d, והייתם כאלוהים, i.e. the seduction was based on leading them into worshipping themselves as deities.

מכל הבהמה ומכל חית השדה FROM AMONG (or, MORE THAN) ALL CATTLE AND ALL THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD — If it was cursed more than the cattle whose period of gestation is longer than that of beasts does it not necessarily follow that it was cursed more than the beasts? Our Rabbis have definitely established the correctness of the following deduction in treatise Bekhorot 8a, that it (viz., the use of these apparently superfluous words “and more than all the beasts of the field”) teaches that the period of gestation of the serpent is seven years.

ועפר תאכל, you will not enjoy the food (or other earthly pleasures) previously enjoyable. The Talmud Sotah 49 describes something similar happening to the Jewish people as a whole after the destruction of the Temple, saying: הטהרה נטלה את הטעם ואת הריח, והמעשרות נטלו את שומן הדגן, [the subject being the negative fallout for the entire nation of the destruction of the Temple, Ed.] “previously pleasant tasting and fragrant foods no longer tasted as well with the exception of food which needed to be consumed in a state of ritual purity, and the tithes now assumed the richness of cereals.”

From all the beasts and from all the animals of the field: As a beast, which is domesticated; and an animal, which is wild - are different in their sustenance: What is good for this type is lacking for that type, and what is good for that type is lacking for this type. The food of domesticated beasts is the responsibility of its owners, so the owners prepare everything that is tasty and useful for it. Whereas the main pleasures of the animals are prey and meat, which it only scarcely and occasionally attains And when it does not have [such food], it perforce nourishes itself with that which is disagreeable to it. In exchange for this, the animal moves with its head raised, according to its worth. For it does not have a yoke upon it, which is not the case with a beast - its head is bent and subservient to man. So the Holy One, blessed be He, cursed the serpent - that it should have both of the disadvantages together; and even the disadvantage itself be worse than with the two of them. So the explanation of, on your belly you shall crawl, is that it is the disadvantage in the beast, but much worse than with the beast. And dust you shall eat all the days of your life. The serpent also has a food it desires. As it is found in Avodah Zarah 29a - that it is prepared to give its life for wine, water and milk. But it does not attain this pleasure, so its food is perforce only dirt. So it is worse than the animal, because when [an animal] does not attain prey, it eats grasses and leaves - as I wrote above 1:30 - whereas the serpent's default food is dirt. This is the straightforward meaning of the thing. But in the Gemara, Yoma 75a, the Sages, may their memory be blessed, additionally explained what is included from, all the days of your life - since it is superfluous. So they explained that even when it does attain its delicacies, it tastes the taste of dirt, which spoils the taste of the food that is most tasty to it. And another [opinion there is] that it is not satisfied until it eats dirt. And with this, it is worse than an animal - for if it has prey, it is not forced to eat something that is not tasty to it.

ארור אתה, the serpent would be deprived of the legs with which it had been created. The meaning of the words על גחונך תלך is that this will be the practical result of this curse. Whenever the Torah speaks of a curse it involves the loss of something, being deprived of something. On the other hand, every time a blessing is mentioned in the Torah it implies that the recipient will experience additional goodness, spiritually or materially. G’d cursed the serpent first, seeing it had been the cause for Adam and Chavah being punished. Our sages (Berachot 61) learn from here that one always begins with cursing the least important party deserving to be cursed, for instance the sages in Bereshit Rabbah 20,4 point out that the period of gestation of a large pure animal, such as a cow, one fit for consumption by Jews lasts 9 months, whereas their impure counterparts require 12 months before they are born after the mother animal has been fertilized. Smaller mammals require 5 months in the case of pure animals and dogs 50 days, cats 52 days, pigs 60 days, marten 70 days, deer and fox 6 months, whereas all the other creeping animals require 6 months before their embryos are ready for birth. Lions, elephants, cougars, etc., require 3 years, whereas the serpent requires 4 years to reproduce. Some animals require even 70 years according to that text.
Furthermore, in the same section of Bereshit Rabbah we are told that the dog in line with other impure animals requires 50 days whereas the larger impure mammals require 12 months. Basing ourselves on the wordingארור אתה מכל הבהמה ומכל חית השדה would mean therefore that the snake’s disadvantage vis a vis other impure animals will be proportionate to that of other impure animals vis a vis the pure beasts. [the ratio supposedly is 7 to 1. If an impure large mammal requires a gestation period of 12 months, then the snake being cursed requires a period of 7 years, i.e. seven times 12 months. There are inconsistencies in that Midrash, as well as inaccuracies which I cannot account for. Ed.]

If he was cursed more than the animal... [The curse refers to] the length of the serpent’s gestation period, that it be longer than the gestation period of domesticated animals. The gestation period of domesticated animals is longer than the gestation period of wild beasts.

G'd therefore punished the serpent separately concerning each one of these losses it had caused man. 1) G'd cursed the serpent because it deprived man of his blessing, i.e. the presence of G'd's glorious light. 2) G'd deprived the serpent of the legs it used to walk on because the serpent had deprived man of eternal life on earth. Prior to the sin the serpent possessed the kind of stature that enabled it to share all the advantages of the world with Adam. It would have been an honoured houseguest at Adam's all its life. As a result of its sin, co-existence of man and the serpent in this world became almost impossible. 3) The serpent was condemned to eat dust for having deprived Adam and Eve of the enjoyment of life in גן עדן. Our sages explain this to mean that the serpent does not enjoy any of its food, just as one does not enjoy eating dust (Yuma 75). G'd's words: כי עשית זאת, "because you have done this," which introduces the serpent's punishment, are a reminder that the serpent's words were considered its deeds.

Aus dem Gesichtspunkt der erziehenden Fürsorge für den Menschen dürfte die איבה, die feste, dem Menschen eingepflanzte Antipathie und Feindschaft zur Schlange, ihm, den die Tierweisheit verführt hatte, doch die Kluft vergegenwärtigen, die den Menschen vom Tiere scheidet, zugleich aber auch in einem konkreten Beispiele stets die Wahrheit vor Augen halten, dass es denn doch einen anderen Maßstab für Gut und Bös, als das Diktat des blinden Triebes geben müsse. Die Schlange beißt in Folge ihres Triebes, und doch ist dem Menschen der Schlangenbiss ein Übel. So kann auch das sittlich Schlechte der Sinnlichkeit des Menschen Befriedigung gewähren, und doch für höhere und andere Beziehungen verderblich sein; das bloße Diktat seiner Sinnlichkeit darf daher dem Menschen nicht sagen, was gut und böse ist. Dürfen wir annehmen, dass fortan der Anblick der Schlange den Menschen an die von ihm zu bekämpfende Begierde erinnern soll, so wäre das: הוא ישופך ראש ואתה תשופנו עקב, bedeutsam: dem Menschen ist mehr Macht über die Begierde als dieser über ihn eingeräumt. Der Mensch kann der Begierde auf den Kopf treten, sie soll ihn höchstens nur an die Ferse treffen. Ferner שוף (— rabb.: von der Stelle rücken — scheint das rasche Hervorspringen, Heraushuschen der Schlangen, das Kriechen usw. zu bedeuten, daher שפן und unversehens treffen, wenn der Andere sorglos ist. Nur wenn der Mensch — (שפיפון nicht auf seiner Hut ist, fasst ihn die Schlange und die Begierde an der Ferse. Durch stete Wach- und Achtsamkeit kann er beiden entgehen. Und eben so, nur wenn der Mensch die Begierde nicht wach werden, nicht Leidenschaft werden lässt, so lange Schlangen und Begierden noch schlummern, kann er beiden aufs Haupt treten, nicht aber, wenn er sie erst weckt und reizt.

ארור אתה, “you are cursed;” G-d began the series of curses, in the same sequence as the seduction had begun, i.e. the serpent was punished first. The woman was punished next, and Adam was punished last.

על גחנך תלך UPON THY BELLY SHALT THOU GO — It had feet but they were cut off (Genesis Rabbah 20:5).

על גחונך¸ as the Targum says, i,e. “on your belly.” This is also the way the Targum renders Leviticus 11,42 הולך על גחון. This is all very similar to the Talmud Baba Metzia 59. Basically, the curse consisted of the serpent which had been the most superior of the animals, haughty because of its height and its ability to walk upright, was now reduced to move in the way lowly worms move on earth. The fact that the serpent had bragged about its superior status, caused it to be dealt with especially harshly, seeing it had exploited its position by plotting to cause havoc.

The gestation period of a snake [lasts] seven years. The calculation is as follows: The gestation period of a [wild] cat is fifty-two days, and that of a [domesticated] donkey is one year. Thus, animals are cursed seven times more than beasts [7 x 52 days = 364 days.] Thus the snake, was cursed seven times more than animals, and has a gestation period of seven years. But “From all the beasts” cannot mean more than a lion or viper, whose gestation is three years and seventy years, for if so the Torah should have written: “From all the beasts,” and not mention, “From all the animals.” [Since it mentions both, it means as explained.] (Re’m)

מכל הבהמה ומכל חית השדה, “more than any mammal or beast of the field;” Rashi asks the rhetorical question: “if G-d punished the serpent more than any mammal, is it not understood that it also punished it more than any beast of the field?” The sages in Bechorot 8 explain that a female cat gives birth after 52 days of pregnancy, whereas domesticated mammals such as donkeys require 49 weeks, i.e. about seven times as long. The serpent was condemned to a pregnancy of seven years instead. The Torah had only used this opportunity to inform us that the pregnancy of large mammals had already been longer than that of smaller mammals. The duration of a snake’s pregnancy would be so much longer.[This editor may be forgiven when he fails to understand that snakes which do not produce live young, but lay eggs, like birds, “suffer” pregnancy pains at all. I have found in Google that there are some snakes which reside in cool climates that do produce live young. This still does not mean that they have carried them for seven years? Ed.] A different exegesis: seeing that there is no other beast that is forced to crawl on its belly, not even having many short legs, it is quite obvious that the snake, in order to secure its food, labours under greater difficulties than any other type of living creature. Besides, the manner in which a snake has to eat the grass of the field makes it impossible that its mouth does not also swallow some of the earth that the grass grew out of.

ועפר תאכל כל ימי חייך, the punishment fitted the crime. “You, the serpent were jealous of the human beings seeing they were allowed to eat the fruit of the trees in Gan Eden, and you schemed in order to seduce the woman into eating something forbidden; as a result you yourself will feed on the lowest kind of nutrient and the least tasty food on earth, i.e. dust.” If you were to argue that the very curse with which the serpent had now been afflicted was, in fact, a blessing in disguise, seeing that its food supply could be found all over, and it would never have to go hungry, Rabbi Chilfai in Bereshit Rabbah 20,5 has already explained that this is not as simple as it appears. The supply of earth is quite limited, what appears on the surface of the earth as a sort of powder is so only superficially, whereas lower down there are many ingredients which are quite inedible even for snakes. In fact, due to its ignorance of this, the snakes may inadvertently eat things which are harmful to their intestines.

He had legs... For if he never had legs, why is crawling on his belly a curse? (Re’m)

ועפר תאכל, “and you will be forced to eat dust.” The reference is to virgin earth. The meaning of the whole verse is: ”as long as you live you will search for virgin earth from which to secure your food; this is the penalty that has been decreed for you.”

כל ימיך, these apparently superfluous words teach that even in the Messianic era this curse will not be lifted. This is what Isaiah 65,25 had in mind when he described that future and mentioned that the snake will eat dust as its bread. As long as the species snakes, serpents, will not become extinct this will be its diet.

כל ימי חייך, ”all the days of your life.” The Torah tells us here that this curse would continue throughout the serpent’s lifetime. It would continue even during the messianic era when the enmity between man and beast would subside and, according to Isaiah 11,8 “an infant would play over a viper’s hole”, the serpent would still not become rehabilitated. The punishment of having to eat dust also continues beyond the messianic era as we read in Isaiah 65,25 זאב וטלה ירעו כאחד ואריה כבקר יאכל תבן ונחש עפר לחמו, “the wolf and the lamb shall graze together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; but the serpent’s food shall be earth.” This is the reason the Torah stresses here that the serpent will eat dust כל ימי חייך, “for all the days of your life.” This expression alludes to messianic times. It is similar to Deut 16,3 למען תזכור את יום צאתך ממצרים כל ימי חייך, “in order that you may remember the day that you went out of Egypt all the days of your life.” Our sages interpreted that expression as also applicable to the time of the arrival of the Messiah and beyond, by stressing that if the Torah had not included the word כל “all,” the messianic period would not have been included (Berachot 12).

על גחונך תלך, “you will have to move by using your belly.” This part of the penalty would commence forthwith and would continue indefinitely.

ואיבה אשית AND I WILL SET ENMITY — Your sole intention was that Adam should die by eating it first and that you should then take Eve for yourself (Genesis Rabbah 20:5), and you came to speak to Eve first only because women are easily influenced and know how to influence their husbands; therefore “I shall put enmity [between thee and the woman]”.

AND THOU SHALT BRUISE THEIR HEEL. This means man will have an advantage over you [the serpent] in the enmity between him and you for he will bruise your head but you will bruise him only in his heel, with which he will crush your brain.

ואיבה אשית, woman would henceforth be an object of disgust even in her own estimation, as described in the Talmud (Shabbat 152) “although a woman is a vessel full of excrement and her orifice full of blood,” (men run after her as if she was the most desirable creature) This was going to be the relationship between males and females in the future, not only that between Adam and Chavah [who apparently could not bring himself to have intercourse with her for the next 130 years. Ed.]

ואיבה אשית בינך ובין האשה. And l shall place hatred between you and the woman. G'd applied the principle of גואל הדם, a relative avenging a killing who is permitted to kill the slayer without trial. This is so because the serpent's deed brought death to all of Eve's descendants. The nature of the revenge matches what the serpent had done. Humans will strike at the head of the serpents, seeing that the original serpent had initiated man's downfall and the head is the beginning of life, it is the area which is smitten by the angel of death. Whenever it attacks man, the serpent will aim at the heel because man in the end trailed, i.e. followed the advice of the serpent when sinning. The word "heel" may also simply be an allusion to the serpent's having lost its legs, being forced to move on its belly.

ואיבה אשית, you, the serpent, made the woman feel as if you had her best interests at heart, as if you loved her; and as if your advice to her was motivated by love; I, G’d, will turn this love into hostility. בין זרעך ובין זרעה, between your offspring and between her offspring. The hostility between the serpent and the human species will not be an unalterable condition of life, seeing that in the Messianic era this enmity will be resolved and as we know from Isaiah 11,8 in those days an infant will suckle at its mother’s breast next to a snake’s lair without worrying.
הוא ישופך ראש, when he finds you he will smash your head whenever he is able to, whereas ואתה תשופנו עקב, when you slither along the ground on your belly and are unable to harm him higher up, you will bite his heel. The words ישופך and תשופנו describe inflicting of injury and smashing respectively, as we know from Job 9,17 אשר בשערה ישופני, “for he crushes me for a hair.” [with minimal provocation. Ed.] All of these verses are dealt with by the kabbalah, the interpretation of the text along mystical lines.

And I will put enmity between you and the woman: It should be, "There shall be!" But it is since the serpent is actually found among women, as it is found in Bereishit Rabbah, Chapter 98:14 - and also in her sleep, it loves to suckle her milk and does not hurt her - however when she awakens, she runs away from it; and it also runs away, as if he became her enemy. And this is the metaphor, "I will put": After it loved her and was used to being with her, it became her enemy.

ואיבה אשית, “and I will put enmity, etc.” Actually, we do not hate the serpent more than any of the other reptiles and creepers. The verse only hints that the body [the very existence, Ed.] of the serpent was already predestined to harbour within it calamity for man, as we indicated in our commentary on the previous verse. This manifested itself when the serpent seduced Chavah and through her death was decreed on the whole species of mankind. This is the deeper reason of the ongoing enmity between human beings and the serpent. We see in the serpent the cause for our eventual death. This is also alluded to by the fact that on another occasion the Torah called the serpent שרף, a name also applicable to the angel of death who is referred to as the angel שרף, in Isaiah 6,6. Another verse where the serpent is referred to as שרף is in Numbers 21,6 את הנחשים השרפים. The reason the snakes were called by that name was that they were direct descendants of the original serpent about which we read here.
Therefore the verse continues: הוא ישופך ראש ואתה תשופנה עקב, “he will strike your head, and you will strike at the heel.” In this instance the Torah permits man to attack the animal even if it did not pose an immediate threat to him. The word עקב need not be understood literally, but is an allusion to man’s final day, his death. You are already familiar with what we learned in Baba Batra 16 that serpent-Satan and death are merely different sides of the same coin.

Your intention... You might ask: Why was the serpent not concerned that Chavah would eat first, as he gave to her first? The answer is: The way of women is to honor their husbands by giving to them first, so the serpent reasoned that Chavah would do so — and once she sees him die, she will not eat! Alternatively, the serpent thought he would stop her from eating. Another answer: The serpent reasoned that Adam, who was commanded not to eat from the tree, would die. But the woman was not commanded, and would not die even if she ate. For it was to Adam that Hashem said: “But from the Tree of Knowledge... you shall not eat.”

I will put hostility. See Rashi. The serpent assumed that Chavah would offer the fruit to her husband first, and when she saw that he died she would refrain from eating.

ואיבה אשית, “and I will set enmity, etc.” Rashi’s comment, printed in our chumashim as belonging to this verse, although appearing at the end of G-d’s speaking to the serpent, refers to the original intention of the serpent to cause Adam’s death as a result from eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge; the reason it had not tried to seduce Adam, G-d was well aware of, was that it is easier to deceive women, so that the woman was used as the serpent’s tool in seducing Adam. The Torah adds this line in order to show how much the punishment fitted the crime, the ultimate objective of the serpent having been (according to Rashi’s source (B’reshit Rabbah,20,5 ) that it would marry the woman.

הוא ישופך HE WILL BRUISE (or, POUND) THEE— Like (Deuteronomy 9:21), “And I beat in pieces” which Onkelos translates by ושפית “I pounded it.”

ובין זרעך ובין זרעה, not only between Adam and Chavah, but also between their respective male and female offspring.

He shall strike you on the head: First he will try to strike you.

And you would marry Chavah. [Rashi knows this] because “I will put hostility” implies that Hashem was punishing the serpent for loving her.

You may well ask how could the Torah in the same breath as allowing man to avenge himself on the serpent permit it to attack man's heel? What kind of penalty is it for the serpent to be allowed to continue harassing man? The answer is simply that the serpent could have retorted that no one forced Eve to listen to its advice. Our sages (Kidushin 42) have formulated this by asking rhetorically: "When the instructions of the teacher conflict with those of the disciple, whose instructions is one to follow?" If Eve had followed this simple piece of logic there would not have been any unfortunate developments as a result of the serpent's argument. The serpent therefore felt aggrieved that Eve's lack of logic had caused it permanent harm. There is an allusion as to how long this condition of enmity between man and the serpent will continue. As long as man, i.e. Israel, is ראש, deserving of the title "head" by performing G'd's commandments, it will prevail over the tempter called serpent and smash it. On the other hand, when Israel ignores G'd's commandments, the serpent will bite it because Israel has itself become like a heel instead of like a head.

הוא ישופך ראש, “he will strike your head,” seeing that you are crawling on the ground,

ואתה תשופנו עקב AND THOU SHALT BRUISE HIS HEEL — As you will have no height (not stand erect) you will be able to bite him only on the heel, but even at that spot you will kill him. The word תשופנו is of the same import as the verb in (Isaiah 40:24). נשף בהם “It bloweth upon them.” When a serpent comes to bite, it blows with a kind of hissing sound. Although the words ישופך and תשופנו have different meanings, since they constitute “a play upon words” by sounding similar, they are both used here.

הוא ישופך ראש, these thoughts crossing man’s mind will reduce the satisfaction he obtains already in the early stages of sexual intercourse, a feeling gradually reinforced when he considers the potential harm he may cause himself by indulging in copulation, diminishing both the qualitative and quantitative enjoyment of it.

And you shall strike him on the heel: In the end, you will also attempt to strike him. But without that, a serpent does not hurt without a "charm" from above.

You will be unable to... We could say that Rashi is answering the question: Hashem cursed man separately. So why is man’s curse mixed here with the serpent’s curse? Rashi answers: It is entirely the serpent’s curse and disgrace, as it conveys that the serpent will be unable to stand upright. But Re’m explains that [Rashi is answering the question:] Why is, “And you [the serpent] shall strike him...” mentioned in the serpent’s curse? It is no curse! [Rashi answers that it conveys, “You will be unable to stand upright.”] And this point cannot be learned from, “On your belly you shall crawl,” since that teaches merely that his legs were cut off — but if he wanted to stand upright, perhaps he could. Thus the Torah says: “You shall strike him on the heel,” [to convey that he cannot stand upright].

ואתה תשופנו עקב, “whereas you will only be able to attack the heel.”

ואתה תשופנו עקב, he who initially derives pleasure from his superiority will eventually cause himself harm at the end of the pleasure cycle.

But, even from there... Rashi is answering the question: It is written, “He shall strike you on the head, and you shall strike him on the heel,” implying that the only difference between man and snake is where they strike. What about the other difference? The man kills the snake but the snake does not kill the man! Therefore Rashi explains, “Even from there you will kill him.” (Re’m) Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: It is written, “He shall strike you on the head,” i.e., a blow which surely kills. And then it is written, “You shall strike him on the heel,” using the same word. But if the snake strikes the man’s heel, he will not die. Why does the same word connote death here, but not there? Thus Rashi explains, “Even from there you will kill him.”

The form נשיפה is used. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it not say expressly, “You shall bite him (תשכנו)”? (Gur Aryeh) But Re’m explains: ישופך is an expression that connotes crushing [a blow] to the [snake’s] head. However, תשופנו is an expression that connotes the hissing of a snake. Nevertheless, for the sake of eloquence, the Torah often equates words [that sound alike] even though their meanings differ.

עצבנך THY PAIN — viz., the trouble of rearing children (Eruvin 100b).

‘T’SHUKATHECH’ (AND THY DESIRE) SHALL BE TO THY HUSBAND, meaning for cohabitation. Yet you will not have the boldness to demand it by word, rather he shall rule over thee. It will all be from him and not from you. Thus are the words of Rashi. But this is not correct, for modesty is praiseworthy in a woman, just as the Rabbis have said:³⁹⁶Eruvin 100b. “This is a good quality in women.”
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said: “And thy desire shall be to thy husband, meaning your obedience.” This means you will obey whatever he commands you for you are under his authority to do his desire. However, I have found the expression t’shukah used only in connection with desire and lust.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that He punished her that her desire for her husband be exceedingly great and that she should not be deterred by the pain of pregnancy and birth or that he keeps her as a maid-servant. Now it is not customary for a servant to desire to acquire a master over himself, rather his desire is to flee from him. Thus her punishment is measure for measure; she gave [the fruit of the tree of knowledge] also to her husband and he ate at her command, and He punished her that she should no longer command him, but instead he should command her entirely at his will.

He shall strike you on the head, and you shall strike him on the heel: Most of the commentators said that the evil impulse draws its strength from the primordial serpent; and that the evil impulse is comparable at first to the thread of a spider, but afterwards to the ropes of a wagon. That is why it is stated, "He shall strike you on the head": As if he is alacritous and goes out and fights against his evil impulse at the head - meaning, at first, immediately when it comes upon him - then [the man attacked] will "strike you." For a person can easily defeat and remove it from upon him, like one who removes the thread of a spider. However, if at the head of its words, he makes room for his impulse and goes after its advice one day after another, until it becomes strong like the ropes of a wagon - then it is difficult to defeat it. And it is just the opposite, it defeats you. That is why it is said to the serpent, "and you shall strike him on the heel." For the heel is the end. And what it wants with this is that if he wants to fight you (the evil impulse) at the end, then you will strike him and defeat him - since it will be difficult for a person to remove the ropes of a wagon from upon himself. As the evil impulse is already tied to him with ropes of love for pleasures. So it becomes 'difficult to separate one engaged in intercourse with this uncircumcised and impure one.' And it is also a metaphor for repentance: That a person who does it in his youth - that is at the head of the days of his [youth] - it is easy for him to change his path. However at the heel, at the end, when he has already become used to his actions, 'even when he will age, he will not veer from it,' and then "you will strike him." And this is also said about the stringent transgressions - idolatry, sexual immorality, murder and that which is similar to them: Your impulse cannot make you transgress them so easily. Who is foolish [enough] to veer there; who will listen to it for this thing, to transgress these central transgressions? Rather with the heel - meaning the light commandments that a person tramples with his heels - "you will strike him." For it will be easy for you to make him transgress these. As this is the way of the evil impulse, since it begins with the heel and goes and spreads to the head; like the poison of a snake, which begins in the heel and goes and spreads to the head. So too does the evil impulse begin with the easy commandments that people trample with their heel; and afterwards, one transgression drags along another transgression. So it rises from the light ones to the stringent ones, as it stated (Psalms 38:5), "For my iniquities have gone over my head." And this is a metaphor for the sins that are the head of all the sins. That is why it is stated (Lamentations 1:9), "Her uncleanness clings to her skirts; she gave no thought to her end." For the understanding person will pay attention to when the evil impulse comes to defile him in his skirts - meaning in the lowest place, like the heel. Then it will rise from there and spread, and his end will be bitter. For it will raise him from the light ones to the stringent ones. And the evil ones will not understand, however the intelligent ones will understand.

הרבה ארבה עצבונך, the menstrual blood, known in the Torah and Talmud as נדת דותה (Niddah 9 and Leviticus 12,2) The prophet Jeremiah in Lamentations 1,13 describes the state of the Jewish people after the destruction of the Temple as כל היום דוה, as if she lost menstrual blood all day long.

אל האשה אמר. He (G'd) had said to the woman. G'd intended to make it clear that Eve would suffer three curses as retribution for the three features of the tree of knowledge she had wanted to enjoy. She had seen that the tree a) was good as food; b) a temptation for the eyes; and c) desirable to make one perceptive. G'd decreed that instead of enjoying the fruit of the tree she would suffer pains when producing her own fruit, i.e. her children. Regarding the temptation for her eyes Eve wanted to enjoy, G'd decreed that she would henceforth pine for her husband as a passive partner, her husband deciding if and when to indulge her desire. Her husband would always derive satisfaction from the mating process without a guarantee that her desire would be satisfied during union with her husband. Finally, instead of satisfying her desire to be G'd-like, she would be dominated not only by G'd but also by her husband.

אל האשה...הרבה, the word הרבה here is in the infinitive mode.

Your itzabon: Its explanation is not that it is an expression of pain, but rather an expression of toil - as in, "From all toil (etzev) there is some gain" (Proverbs 14:23). As even though they explained it in the Gemara, Berakhot (30b), Chapter 4, as an expression of lowly spirit - nevertheless the Sages, may their memory be blessed, explained in Bereishit Rabbah, Chapter 89:2, that it is an expression of toil. So the explanation of, your itzabon, is your toil - that you should toil and labor. This is as it is written with Adam (Genesis 3:17), "with itzabon shall you eat of it." However with the woman, the labor is not for sustenance, since it is surely the husband that sustains her. Rather it is in her nature to serve her husband, or to labor in order to attain jewelry and that which is similar.

אל האשה אמר, “to the woman He had said, etc.” G’d did not mention the woman’s eating from the tree as the cause of her punishment as He had done when He announced Adam’s punishment in verse 17. The reason is that she was punished both for the eating and for suggesting that her husband become her partner in crime. The serpent too, had been punished for giving criminal advice to the woman.

The pain of rearing children. Why was she cursed first with the pain of rearing children and then with the pain of pregnancy, which is chronologically out of sequence? Because at that time, they [already] had children, as it says in Sanhedrin 38b: “Two people entered the bed, and four left it.” And it says (4:1), “The man knew his wife,” on which Rashi comments: “This had already occurred before the previous narrative.” (See Divrei Dovid)

עצבון: nur ein geistiger und im Gemüte zu empfindender Schmerz. Wenn es einmal von einem körperlichen Schmerz vorkommt, so ist es auf die in Geist und Gemüt übergehende Folge zu beziehen. Rad: עצב, das durch צ modifizierte עזב, verlassen, also ein mit Widerwillen, durch Zwang, Härte, Gewalt geschehendes Lassen. עצב daher das Gefühl, wenn wir etwas aufgeben müssen, das wir gerne behalten oder erlangt hätten: Entsagung, Verzichtleistung. ולא עצבו אביו מימיו (Kön. I. 1, 6). David hatte seinen Sohn nie an eine Entsagung gewöhnt, nie eine Entsagung von ihm gefordert. ויתעצב אל לבו. ( I. B. M. 6, 6): Gott fühlte — menschlich gesprochen — dass er das Menschengeschlecht aufgeben, ihm entsagen müsse. — Zu Adam hatte Gott schon gesprochen: בעצבון תאכלנה. Mit dem Worte עצבון tritt der Mensch für eine geraume Zeit in eine ganz neue Stellung. Bis dahin hatte der Mensch Entsagung nicht gekannt. Außer dem Menschen kennt auch kein Wesen עצבון, kein Geschöpf stellt seine Ansprüche weiter als sie befriedigt werden können. Für den Menschen stimmt aber jetzt die Natur nicht mehr wie früher mit seinen Wünschen überein, er muss ihr alles abringen und nur durch Entsagung, durch Einsetzung eines Gutes, einer Freude kann er das andere erlangen. — Merkwürdiger Weise werden auch Götzen durch ein Wort von dieser rad. bezeichnet: עצבים. Die Menschen, die ja eigentlich nur sich selbst die Nötigung zur Entsagung verdanken, vergaßen den im Menschen liegenden Ursprung und glaubten sich von feindlichen Mächten umgeben, die ihnen den Schmerz der Entsagung auferlegten und Freude an der Qual der Menschen hätten; diese Mächte heißen deshalb עצבים, Versagende, und אלילים, Verneinende, immer "nein!" sagende Götter. — Also: "zum Weibe aber hatte er gesprochen, deine Entsagung und deine Empfängnis werde ich noch größer sein lassen". Schon dass die Anrede an die Frau nicht mit כי עשית זאת eingeleitet ist, beweist, dass es bloß eine Fortsetzung des zuvor an Adam Gerichteten ist. Von dem עצבון des Mannes ist das Weib größtenteils frei. Nicht es hat im Schweiße des Angesichts Brot zu erwerben. Gleichwohl wird seine Entsagung eine noch größere. Das ganze weibliche Leben vom frühesten Mädchenalter an, ist ein Leben voller Aufopferung. Entsagung für andere, und nun noch gar הרונך, wo das Weib mit der Aufopferung seiner eigenen Existenz mit seinem eigenen Fleisch und Blut Beitrag wird für eine neue Menschensprosse! בעצב תלדי בנים, es gibt keine größere Glückseligkeit für das Weib als Kinder zu haben, und diese höchste Glückseligkeit ist nur mit der höchsten Entsagung zu erkaufen.

אל האשה אמר, “to the woman He had said, etc.” Rabbi Shlomoh son of Rabbi Moshe interpreted the various clauses in this verse as meaning that woman’s life as a result of having seduced her husband into sin would from now on be a never ending experience of pain and travail. As far as her delegating her physical chores to maidservants etc., was concerned, G–d added that the pains associated with pregnancy were something that she could not delegate. She reasoned that at least the act of giving birth would then be a relief from such pain; G–d disabused her of that also. She then reasoned that her hope lay in abstaining from marital intercourse and thus not become pregnant again. G–d told her that she would undergo a psychological change by feeling desirous for marital intercourse with her husband. To the suggestion that she would control her urges for sexual release, G–d retorted that her husband would force her to engage in marital relations with her.

And to the woman He said, "How many evils have you caused yourself! Until now you didn't need to bear children, because you were not [destined] to die. But from now on, you will need to bear children, because you will surely die. If you don't give birth, the world will dissolve, since you will die. So therefore, 'I will increase [...] your pregnancy' - and that is 'your pain' - because 'in pain will you bear children.' For how much pain is there with children: The pain of pregnancy, the pain of birth and the pain of raising [them]. And don't fool yourself to say, 'I'll nullify the commandment of being fruitful, just as I nullified the commandment of the tree of knowledge, such that I won't sleep with my husband.'" That is why it is written, your longing will be for your husband - that you will desire him. And if you say, "I will conquer my impulse because of the pain" - it is hence stated and he will rule over you, so he will take you against your will.

אל האשה אמר, “to the woman He had said:” the gentiles asked Rabbi Joshua why the woman was punished for eating from a tree, seeing that she had not even been created yet when G-d issued the prohibition to eat from it to Adam. He replied that the Torah did not write that G-d forbade eating from the tree “to” Adam, but that it worded it as a general prohibition including the human species, by writing: על האדם, “concerning all his limbs and sinews,” or “the human species,” i.e. himself and all his offspring. (Compare 2,16) Woman, after all, had been constructed from what had been part of his body. A different exegesis: the woman had included herself in the prohibition when she had told the serpent that G-d had forbidden, quoting Him in the plural mode: לא תאכלו ממנו, “you (pl) must not eat from it.” (3,4).

והרונך AND THY CONCEPTION— viz., the pain of pregnancy.

והרונך, her pregnancy will be exactly the opposite of what it had been before she sinned. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 22,22) describe that at that time Adam and Chavah were created, copulated, and produced offspring, all on the same day. This is also what things will be like in the future according to Shabbat 30 “in the future woman will be able to give birth every day.” Such a situation will occur when the Jewish people once more regain G’d’s favour, as had been the case prior to the original sin.

You will give birth to children with etzev: Both birth and the toil of raising [children] most of the time are included in this. And so did the Sforno explain.

עצבונך והרונך, the word עצבון appears again in connection with man eating bread, (verse 17), both words describe the pain and discomfort associated when woman as well as man try to achieve their major tasks, woman to have children, man to produce food from the soil. Everything will be achieved only with toil and wearing oneself out in the process. Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra explained that the pain referred to is the pain involved in a virgin losing her hymen. The word הרונך, on the other hand, refers to her subsequent experience when pregnant and carrying a fetus in her womb.
My own father, of blessed memory, explained the word עצבונך as applying to the discomfort experienced during pregnancy, and the word הרונך as applying to the long period the pregnancy lasts. [as opposed to the almost immediate birth after fertilization which occurred in Gan Eden when Chavah bore Kayin and Hevel. Ed.] Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 20,6) understand both words in a figurative manner, i.e. the frustrations experienced by the parents in raising their children in their image. They interpret the word תלדי as referring to the physical pain involved in giving birth, and the word בנים as referring to the mental anguish involved in raising these children.

עצבונך, “your severe discomfort.” According to Rashi this is not physical discomfort, but the mental anguish which is part of raising children. This seems difficult, for if this were the true meaning of the verse, why did the Torah not write the word הרונך, “your pregnancy,” before speaking about raising as yet unborn children? It appears more appropriate therefore to understand the word עצבונך as referring to the monthly discomfort of menstruating, something even women who do not bear children have to contend with.

You will not have the audacity... Although the Gemara calls this a praiseworthy trait for women, we could say that this means she is praiseworthy for not transgressing Hashem’s command, as she was cursed by Hashem not to demand relations. (Maharshal)

שוק .ואל אישך תשוקתך, Markt, שוק, Schenkel, שוקק eine starke Massen- bewegung von Heuschrecken und Rossen, also Grundbedingung: sich stark nach einer Seite hin bewegen; daher תשוקה: die Richtung des Gemütes und der übrigen Bestrebungen nach einem Ziele, das Streben, die Sehnsucht. Es liegt in der Natur des Weibes, dass es seine Lebenserfüllung nur in der Verbindung mit dem Manne fühlt — und doch wird der Mann ihr wieder neue Entsagung auferlegen: והוא ימשל בך! Schon durch die veränderte Stellung der Erde zum Menschen, die fortan nur immer der harten Arbeit des Mannes das Brot gewährt, ward das Weib in größere Abhängigkeit vom Manne, dem eigentlichen Ernährer, gebracht, und die ursprüngliche Gleichheit gefährdet. So gestaltet es sich in großem Ganzen, wo nicht die תורה die Erlösung und den Frieden in alles dieses bringt, Mann und Weib wieder in gleichen, Gott dienenden Priesterberuf einsetzt, und da wieder das Weib zur "Krone des Mannes" und zur "unschätzbaren Perle" seines Daseins macht (ProRaw Hirsch on Genesis 3: 12, 4. 31, 10).

והוא ימשל בך, “he shall rule over you.” We find a statement in B’reyshit Rabbah 20,7 by Rabbi Yossi Ha-g’leelee, (the Galilean) according to which this statement is supposed to be restrictive, -i.e. the husband not having complete control of his wife; he bases himself on an interesting comparison between the upper and lower millstones in Deuteronomy 24,6. He views the prohibition of a lender taking both of these millstones as security for an overdue loan, and the previous verse ordering a husband to please his wife for a whole year after they get married, and the Torah describing taking both millstones as equivalent to robbing the lender of his life, נפש, as proof that the husband–wife relationship must at all times remain one in which the wife continues to love her husband to the point of seeking physical union with him. He adds that we know that a woman is compared to the lower of the two millstones by citing a verse from Job 31,10: תטחן ואחר אשתי, “may my wife grind for another.” According to the Talmud tractate Sotah, Judges 16,21, where Samson’s suffering at the hands of the Philistines is described with the words: ויהי טוחן בבית האסירים, “he had to act as a grindstone in the jail,” which Rabbi Yossi understands as a chore that a husband must not impose on his wife, even so he is described as “ruling over her.” The Jerusalem Talmud interprets Deut. 24,6 as referring to anything that is a basic necessity for a person’s economic survival as being prohibited to be taken as a pledge, a millstone serving as an example of such necessities. The Jerusalem Targum also considers letting a woman to whom one is betrothed to be married wait for more than a year before the wedding is performed as a violation of the commandment discussed in this verse.

הרבה ארבה, “you will be in a state of retardation, held back throughout your life.” You will always be in a position of trying to catch up. If you were to ask that she could console herself by arguing that she would assign her household duties to her paid servants, G-d added that there were duties, such as her carrying a fetus in her womb which she could not outsource, i.e. הרונך, your pregnancy and the pain associated with her giving birth; if she were to respond that she would forego having marital relations with her husband, G-d added that it would become her second nature to long for the physical union with her husband, ואל אישך תשוקתך. If she would respond that she would learn to control such urges, G-d added that והוא ימשול בך, “he would exercise control over her.”

בעצב תלדי בנים IN PAIN THOU SHALT BEAR CHILDREN — This refers to the pangs of childbirth (Eruvin 100b).

בעצב תלדי בנים, you will experience anguish while engaged in raising them, by comparison to the other creatures on earth who do not experience such prolonged periods during which they have to look after all the needs of their young. The word לידה does appear in the context of raising children (not even one’s own) such as in the case of Michal, daughter of King Sha-ul, wife of David of whom we are told (Samuel II 21,8) חמשת בני מיכל בת שאול אשר ילדה לעדריאל בן ברזילי המחולתי“the five sons of Michal, daughter of Sha-ul whom she had born to Adriel son of Barzilai the Mecholti.” [Michal had not given birth to these five sons, but her older sister Merav, who had died very young so that Michal, her sister, had raised her nephews. Ed.]

Your longing will be for your husband: According to the straightforward understanding, the woman always yearns to find favor in the eyes of her husband. And this is the exact explanation of the term, "to your husband." And so did the Sages, may their memory be blessed, explain in Bereishit Rabbah 20:7: "There are four longings. The longing of a woman is only for her husband. The longing of the evil impulse is only for Kayin and his friends." And the explanation about this is that it yearns that they follow it. "The longing of rain is only for the land." The explanation is that the land benefit and be saturated from the rain. "And the longing of the Holy One, blessed be He, is only for Israel" - that they should follow Him. In this way, man is distinct from woman: The man does not concern himself that he should find favor in the eyes of his wife, but all of the woman's [energy] is that the man should be pleased with her. And if so, she is auxiliary to him.

תשוקתך, the meaning of the word is equivalent to תאותך, “your physical desire.

ואל אישך תשוקתך, “and your longing will be for your husband.” Rashi interprets this as the woman’s desire for marital relations with her husband, something that she does not express openly, by words of mouth, but has to wait for passively, seeing that her husband is the initiator, “rules over her.” Nachmanides takes exception to Rashi’s interpretation, saying that on the contrary, a woman’s natural reticence in these matters is praiseworthy, hardly a punishment. Ibn Ezra understands the word תשוקתך as “your obedience,” saying that the wife has to be obedient to the demands of her husband. She requires his permission to carry out plans of her own design, seeing that she is basically under his control. It would appear that seeing G’d said to the woman: הרבה ארבה עצבונך והרונך, “I will greatly increase your discomfort, etc.,” including that during pregnancy, that even if the woman takes care to minimize the incidence of marital relations in order to not become pregnant, her natural tendency to engage in marital relations will overcome her unwillingness to become pregnant again and again. In fact her husband, seeing that he rules over her, may force her to submit to having marital relations even against her will.

ואל אישך תשוקתך, ”and your craving will be for your husband.” The unusual thing here is that normally, when someone is in a subordinate position such as a slave to a master, the slave tends to use every opportunity to flee from the master. G-d decreed here that the natural orientation of a woman would be the reverse. She would pine for her husband, seek out his presence and nearness. She would be his willing subordinate.

All will come from him and not from you. Why does Rashi explain at such length, when he already said, “You will not have the audacity...”? It is to say that all depends on the husband. If she does not want [relations] and he does, he can compel her. But if he does not want and she does, she cannot compel him. Thus Rashi explained: “All [the initiative] will come from him and not from you.”

והוא ימשול בך, according to Rashi, [as understood by our author, Ed.] the meaning of this phrase is that her husband will be the driving force in all matters of marital union, and that seeing you do not experience the desire for such physical intercourse, unless he has been aroused, you will not be able to arouse him, but on the other hand, he can force marital union on you;”Our sages state in B’reshit Rabbah 20,18, “you might have thought from this phrase that her husband dominates her in every respect;” to prevent you from thinking thus, the Torah in Deuteronomy 24,6 wrote: לא יחבול רחים ורכב, “he must not inflict injury upon her by overburdening her.” [It is clear that the Torah there refers to the woman, as in the previous verse it had ordered the husband to provide his new bride with joy for the first year of the marriage. Ed.] Furthermore, that verse has been translated by the Jerusalem Talmud as meaning: “you must not take the upper millstone as pawn for overdue debts, as the livelihood of the debtor depends upon it.” Our author accepts a different exegesis which understands the verse to mean that a man who has become engaged to a woman, must not allow undue delay before the actual marriage, as his “bride” would then be considered as if her groom had abandoned her. [The word כי יקח in the previous verse refers to engagement not actual consummation, Ed.]

ואל אישך תשוקתך AND TO YOUR HUSBAND WILL BE YOUR DESIRE — for sexual relations. And, nonetheless, you will not have the temerity to proposition him with [your] mouth, but rather HE WILL RULE OVER YOU — everything will come from him and not from you.

And he will rule over you: Even though she subjugates herself for free, he nevertheless rules.

והוא ימשול בך, but he will rule over you, as a master over a slave telling him what to do. In Bereshit Rabbah 20,6 we are told that the numerical value of the word הרבה, i.e. 210 is an allusion that a fetus carried by its mother for 212 days before being born, is a viable baby.” [Each of the words הרבה ארבה, apparently counts as 1 also, in addition to the letters in the word הרבה. Ed.] This is the kind of baby born after 7 months pregnancy. Concerning babies born after 9 months of pregnancy, the Talmud Niddah 38 (also the same Midrash) states that a woman gives birth (normally) after 271, 272, or 273 days of pregnancy. Concerning impure large mammals the sages say that birth occurs 12 months after fertilization.
Chiyah bar Ada, who attended the lecture of Rav and failed to comprehend what Rav explained to him. Upon trying again to explain the matter to him, Chiyah bar Abbah still did not understand it Upon being asked by Rav why he had such trouble understanding the matter, he said that his ass was in labour trying to give birth and he was nervous, fearing that the ass would die due to complications. Rav told him that an ass being overdue or giving birth a few days prematurely was nothing to worry about, seeing we do not know the precise day it is anyways beyond our power to arrange for the birth to occur on that precise date.. If she gives birth prematurely, she would not give birth in fewer days than corresponded to the respective lunar months. If she gave birth late, she would still not exceed the number of days in a solar year. Thereupon Chiyah bar Ada quoted the verse in Job 39,1 “do you know the precise season when the mountain goats give birth? Can you mind the time when the hinds calve?” [he meant that how can I be unconcerned?. Ed.] Rav answered him by quoting the very next verse in Job 39,2: “Do you know the season they give birth, when they couch to bring forth their offspring? He replied: “The one verse refers to smaller mammals, [whose period of gestation is shorter] the other verse refers to larger mammals, whose pregnancy is lengthier.

תשוקתך THY DESIRE — Similar to (Isaiah 29:8), ונפשו שוקקה “and his soul hath appetite”, (desires).

ארורה האדמה בעבורך CURSED BE THE GROUND FOR THY SAKE — It will produce to you cursed objects such as flies, fleas and ants; it may be compared to the case of one who gets into depraved ways, and people curse the breasts at which he was suckled (Genesis Rabbah 5:9).

כי שמעת לקול אשתך, by attributing to G’d such negative characteristics as lying and jealousy.

ולאדם אמר. And G'd had said to Adam. We need to understand why G'd mentioned Adam's "listening to the voice of his wife;" It would have sufficed to say: "because you ate from the tree, etc.;" Besides, why did the Torah add the word "to the voice?" Could the Torah not simply have said "because you listened to your wife, etc.?" Having in mind that we explained that Adam had not been aware at the time he ate that the fruit he ate was from the tree of knowledge, it would not have been appropriate for the Torah to simply say: "because you ate from the tree, etc." since in fact he did not eat from the tree knowingly but inadvertently. The Torah therefore had to spell out that Adam's sin was accepting the words of his wife without checking them. As a result of his failure to investigate his wife's words more closely, he "ate from the tree." The reason the Torah refers to the "voice" of Adam's wife is to alert us to the fact that Adam was satisfied that it was his wife talking; he did not bother to analyse what she was saying. When she told him: "take and eat," this is what he did. He did not ask where the fruit came from. The Torah alludes once more to Adam's error in not giving Eve precise instructions when it says: "from the tree which I told you not to eat from." Adam had only told Eve not to eat from the fruit of the tree. The lack of adequate information at the time Adam relayed G'd's command to Eve was a major cause of the tragedy.

ולאדם אמר..מן העץ, the words מן העץ must be understood as “from the fruit of the tree.”

Because you listened to your wife, etc.: He did not begin [by] saying, "Because you ate from the tree, etc." Rather, because He did not punish him like He said - "for on the day you eat from it, you will surely die" (Genesis 2:17) - hence God explained to him that if he had eaten contemptuously, it certainly would have been fit to punish him immediately. And this is like the way of Scripture with Nadav and Avihu, "when they came close before the Lord and died" (Leviticus 16:1). Such that it was their coming close before the Lord that caused them to die immediately for their sin, since they brought a strange fire; and it is explained there. If so, also with Adam who was then standing there close in front of the Lord - if he had sinned volitionally, it would have been fit that he would die immediately. Hence God said to him, "Because you listened to your wife, etc." - and that is only inadvertent - your punishment is only that which is required according to your status now.

אשר צויתיך לאמר, ”which I had commanded you to say, etc.” The addition of the word לאמר is a reminder to Adam that he was supposed to also have cautioned the animals against eating from that tree.

Comparable to one who adopts... The text of Rashi should read: “A second explanation: This is comparable to one who adopts evil ways...” [This correction must be made] because the first view holds that the curse was on man, by means of the soil, whereas the analogy conveys that the curse was on the soil, since man was created from it. A question arises: Here Rashi says that the earth was cursed because of [man’s sin], but earlier (1:11) Rashi said that it was because the earth disobeyed Hashem’s command. The answer is: Both sins caused the earth to be cursed. (If for its own sin alone, the earth would be cursed to give one-third of its regular produce. But [the curse of] thorns and thistles were for both their sins.) (Devek Tov)

Adam, dem das Gesetz, das er selbst empfangen, zum Schutze anvertraut worden, hätte seinem Weibe entgegentreten sollen. אדמה ,ארורה האדמה בעבורך, der Menschenboden, die Erde, insofern sie Schauplatz und Bühne des Menschen ist. Was sie an sich, als kosmischer Körper ist, steht hier ganz außer Frage. Weil aber die Oberfläche allerdings für den Menschen geschaffen, so stehen sie in inniger Wechselwirkung zu einander. — בעבור, wörtlich: im Hinübergehen zu einem Zweck, ähnlich בגלל: in Herbeiführung. In den meisten Stellen wird mit בעבור der Zweck, mit בגלל die Ursache, das Mittel angegeben. למען ייטב לי בעבורך וחיתה נפשי בגללך, um deinetwillen, wörtlich: um zu dir zu gelangen, um deine Gunst zu erhalten, wird man mir Gutes tun und in deiner Veranlassung werde ich leben bleiben. Also hier: nicht weil du gesündigt hast, sondern zu deiner Besserung, zu deinem Heile ׳ארורה וגו wird die Erde in ihrer Entwickelung gehemmt, wird sich ferner nicht frei entfalten können um deiner Besserung willen, zu deinem Besten; wird dir nicht mehr lächeln, nicht mehr aus freien Stücken dir ihre Früchte bieten; nur mit Entsagung von vielem wirst du etwas genießen, בעצבון תאכלנה. Den Menschen in diesem עצבון zu üben ist der Zweck des Unsegens, der die Erde trifft. "בכל עצב יהי׳ מותר, in jeder Entsagung liegt Gewinn" ist Prinzip der Erziehung noch heute. Entsagung macht den Menschen frei, kehrt das Bessere, Edlere, Gottzugewandte in ihm heraus, macht ihn unabhängig von der Außenwelt, von dem, was die Erde bietet und versagt, und lässt ihn den eigentlichen Wert seines Selbst in der Pflichttreue gegen Gott, und darin auch zugleich seine nimmer zu trübende Seligkeit finden. In die Schule dieser Entsagung wird der Mensch geführt. Indem jeder Genuß, das "Gute" durch Entsagung, Arbeit und Schmerz erkauft werden muß, so führt ihm schon sein sinnliches Leben immer die Wahrheit vor die Augen, dass nicht immer das Bittere bös und das Gute nicht immer das Süße sei, und diese Vorschule der Entsagung erhebt ihn endlich zu der Meisterschaft des Lebens, die leicht und froh dem sinnlich Süßen um des sittlich Guten willen entsagt. Alle מתנות טובות, das Herrlichste, was Gott uns verleiht, ist nur auf dem Wege der יסורין zu gewinnen, lehren die Weisen.

ארורה האדמה בעבורך, “the earth will henceforth be cursed on your account.” [Seeing that the expression בעבור is usually understood as introducing a positive result, our author wanted to justify its use here. Ed.] He understands the earth being cursed as the result of Adam not having been able to resist his powerful craving to taste the forbidden fruit. He cites the use of the expression עבור as being used in a similar sense when the Israelites for the first time, instead of eating bread that descended from heaven. i.e. manna, eating bread that had originated from earth, something that they had on occasion longed for even in the desert. (Numbers chapter 11 and 21) Compare Joshua 8,11-12 where the Israelites eating normally grown food is described as עבור הארץ, according to our author as something they craved as having grown from the earth. The fact that G–d tells Adam that the earth will bring forth thorns and thistles instead of “bread,” shows that the punishment fits the crime, as thorns and thistles are certainly not what Adam craves in response to his working the soil.

And to Adam he said, "Given that you have eaten from the tree and the evil impulse has entered so greatly into you, there is no protection [from you] besides the knife." As if man was not afraid of death, he would rob, extort, abuse and destroy the world because of the evil impulse. Therefore He penalized him with death; and also [with] exertion, which 'causes iniquity to be forgotten.'

ולאדם, Rabbi Yehudah, son of Rabbi Shimon points out that the word for G-d appears a total of 71 times before this word. This is an allusion to the number of judges that comprise the Jewish Supreme Court, known as Sanhedrin. The verse is a hint that G-d convened the Supreme Court in the celestial regions to decree the death penalty on Adam. If, after making your own count you found that G-d’s name had already appeared 73 times, you must remember that in the expression: בצלם אלוהים or in והייתם כאלוהים, the word ”elohim, is not sacred, as it does not mean “G-d,” but “angel.” Our author had drawn attention to this already in his commentary of Genesis 1,27.

ותאכל מן העץ, thereby rebelling and causing yourself death as you had been warned about. Because you listened and accepted the argument to think of G’d as imperfect, ארורה האדמה, the earth will not continue to put its potential at your disposal without your having to exert yourself by hard labour. Furthermore, also because you rebelled and violated My command,

The ground will be cursed for your sake (beavurkha): The literal meaning of every, "for the sake of (beavur)," is for his good, so that it be like this. And it is like in, "for the sake of your blessing me" (Genesis 27:19). And here too, its literal meaning is, for your good. For after the love of God left you, the best thing before you is that the ground be cursed, and you come to, "with toil you shall eat from it" - with labor and with much work.

ארורה האדמה, the earth would be deprived pf part of its goodness. It would not respond to Adam’s efforts to cultivate it in full measure, i.e. many of the seeds he would plant would fail to germinate and grow. Bereshit Rabbah,20,8, quoted by Rashi, writes that instead of producing useful plants, the earth would henceforth also produce weeds and harmful plants. Not only that, but that these plants would germinate certain parasites.

The reason G'd cursed both the earth and Eve but not Adam is due to the earth's failure on the third day of creation to produce trees exactly as G'd had commanded. Had the earth produced only trees whose trunk were edible, or only trees whose trunks were not edible, Eve could not have made the error she made. It was only because the tree of knowledge was different in this respect that made Adam's failure to warn her not to eat from this tree result in tragic consequences. G'd therefore cursed the earth as the cause of all that had happened. Since G'd expelled Adam from the garden and made him toil the unresponsive earth, Adam was punished for having accepted his wife's urgings without checking. He had greedily indulged his desire, and as a result he would forever more remain in a state of sadness that he could not earn his livelihood without hard work. He would now eat grass of the field in lieu of the fruit of the trees of the garden for which he did not have to toil. In future when he would have to labour to secure his food supply he would know exactly where it came from.

And that blessing that He blessed them on the sixth day, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply" (Genesis 1:28), was after they were corrupted, such that reproduction was necessary. Know [that it is so], as it is written [there], "fill the earth and subdue it." And if it was before they were corrupted, He should have said, "fill the Garden," since that is where they resided before [this]. Rather that blessing was after they were corrupted, but it was written with the creation [earlier nevertheless].

ולאדם אמר, ”and to Adam He had said:” B’reshit Rabbah, 20,3 in commenting on the words: “and He had said to Man,” writes that of all creatures only three perform sexual union while facing one another’s face; they are: the human beings, the snake and the fish. They enjoy this distinction because in the Holy Scriptures we read that each of these species had been spoken to by G-d, directly. Man had been addressed by G-d in our chapter. The snake had been addressed by G-d also in our chapter. The fish that had swallowed and spat outJonah had also been addressed by G-d directly, as we read in Jonah: 2,11.

All the days of your life: That you should not think that there only be a need for the working of the land the first time. About this, He said, "all the days of your life." And all of this is for man's good, that he should not go away from the paths of God. And it is like they said (Avot 2:2), "Toil in both of them causes iniquity to be forgotten." And it is like I wrote in Parashat Shelach on the verse, "the Land is very very good" (Numbers 14:7), see there.

בעצבון תאכלנה, you will have to work the soil until you will be able, finally, to eat its produce, whereas up until now you did not have to toil in order to assure yourself of your food supply. All you had to do was to pluck the fruit from the trees in Gan Eden. When the Torah had spoken of Adam’s task in Gan Eden being לעבדה ולשמרה, (2,15) the amount of physical work required to attend to that task was minimal. Now he would have to work intensively, as illustrated by the metaphor “you will eat your bread in the sweat of your brow” (3,19).

כי שמעת לקול אשתך, “because you (preferred) to listen to the voice of your wife, etc.;” instead of to My voice. She had revealed the secret to you that the serpent had revealed to her, you cannot claim to have been ignorant, and that is why you have to be punished.

תאכלנה, a reference to the harvest. We have similar constructions, where at first glance one might think that the text refers to eating what is inedible. Adam was not meant to eat אדמה, soil, anymore that the people who sat at King Solomon’s table were meant to eat the table. (Kings I 2,7) באוכלי שולחנך, refers to the people mentioned in that verse, eating from the food served on the king’s table. We find more such examples, such as Isaiah 36,16,ואכלו איש גפנו ואיש תאנתו, where the reference is not to people consuming their vineyard and their fig tree, but the fruit of their vineyard and the fruit of their fig tree, although the prophet mentions only the source of that fruit. We have elaborated on this in our volume on Hebrew grammar מכלל in the first section of that book.

ארורה האדמה, “the soil has become cursed;” the earth had been guilty on its own account, as G-d had commanded it in Genesis 1,11: תדשא הארץ עץ פרי עושה פרי, “to produce edible trees bearing edible fruit;” however the earth had failed to produce edible trees (compare 1,12) The curse on the earth lasted only as long as Adam would live on it, i.e. כל ימי חייך, “as long as you are alive.” If you will make a careful count, you will find that from the day Adam died until Noach was born, no one had been born, and with Noach’s birth the original blessing returned to the earth. Noach’s father, Lemech, was aware of this, this is why he exclaimed at the birth of his son (Genesis,29) זה ינחמנו ממעשי ידינו ומעצבון ידינו מן האדמה אשר אררה ה'. “this one is destined to comfort us for the hard work we had to do and the disappointments we have experienced as the result of G-d having cursed the soil.”The Torah, after the deluge, testifies that Noach became an outstanding farmer, איש האדמה, who also planted a vineyard. (Genesis 9,20)

כל ימי חייך, as long as the human species will exist on earth.

בעבורך, not “on account of you,” but “relative to your harvest.” We find the word עבור meaning: “harvest,” in Joshua 5,11, where the Israelites are described as for the first time eating from the produce of the Holy Land (instead of manna). The Torah had told us that subsequent to the earth’s having been cursed it would (not exclusively) produce thorns and thistles although it had been sowed with perfectly good seeds. (3,18)

כל ימי חייך, “all the days of your life.” If you were to ask that if the earth only produced thorns and thistles how was Adam able to live on it for 930 years as testified by the Torah? (Genesis 5,5) Besides, had the Torah not warned him that he would die on the day he ate from the tree of knowledge? He was allowed to continue living for a while as part of his excuse had been perfectly logical, namely his argument that he had thought that G-d had given him a wife only for his benefit not as someone who would seduce him into sinning.

וקוץ ודרדר תצמיח לך THORNS ALSO AND THISTLES SHALL IT BRING FORTH TO THEE— תצמיח has for subject the earth; when you sow it with various kinds of grain, it shall bring forth thorns and thistles — artichokes and cardoon — which are fit for food only after special preparation (Genesis Rabbah 20:10).

וקוץ ודרדר, in lieu of the seed you plant beginning to sprout, the earth will produce thorns and thistles, which are not only useless, but which harm the plants your seed will produce, so that you will have to engage in eradicating them

And thorns: There will be times when the toil will not benefit you. However you will not die of hunger, but rather, "you will eat, etc."

Kundes and thistles. The Aruch explains that these are bitter vegetables which are prepared [i.e., made edible] by stewing. And kundes is called kardi.

קוץ ודרדר. Wie סנה, der Dorn, von שנא hassen, feindlich, abwehrend, "berühr׳ mich nicht" spricht, so קוץ, der Stachel, von קוץ, Ekel, Widerwillen haben. Davon auch קיץ: die Sommerzeit, eigentlich die Sommerfrucht. Die Frucht ist reif (גמל) wenn sie von dem Nahrungssafte des Baumes "entwöhnt" wird. ויגמל שקדים der Baum entwöhnt die Frucht wie die Mutter das Kind. Ahnlich vielleicht קיץ = קוץ, wenn die Frucht überreif ist, so, dass der Nahrungssaft ihr nicht nur nicht mehr notwendig, sondern sogar schädlich ist, so dass sie gleichsam einen Widerwillen dagegen hat. קוץ ist somit der Dorn, der Stachel, der abweist, die Berührung hindert. — ירדר das aber nicht sowohl Freiheit, als Heimkehr, Rückkehr ,דרור nur noch in דרר .rad bedeutet. Daher צפור דרור, die Schwalbe, der immer in die alte Wohnung wiederkehrende Vogel. דרר scheint daher das Zurückhalten, Festhalten zu bedeuten, Gielleicht davon auch das rabbinische דררא דטומאה ,דררא דממונא, es haftet eine Geldfrage, eine טומאה-Beziehung daran) demgemäß dürfte דרדר die Klette, der Krummdorn, sein, der uns festhält; und wäre dann דרדר der Gegensatz von קוץ. Die Erde bietet dir nur Stachel und Klette, sie weist dich zurück wo du nahen willst, und hält dich auf wo du fort möchtest. — תצמיח לך, dir bietet sie nichts anderes, während allen übrigen Geschöpfen die Erde noch heute alles bietet, dessen sie bedürfen. Nur der Mensch, wenn er nichts Anstrengendes tun will, findet nur נקוץ ודרדר; "wolltest du fortleben wie im Paradiese, würdest du Gras essen müssen."

קוץ ודרדר תצמיח לך, “it will grow thorns and thistles for you.” Until this moment the decree of Genesis 1,26 according to which the human species would rule in an unrestricted manner over all the creatures on earth had been in effect. There had been no need to guard the garden against invasion of wild beasts. From this moment on the negative phenomena on earth would be in effect, but would be directed only against the human species, לך, “against you.” The animal kingdom would not experience thorns and thistles as an impediment of their life on earth.

ואכלת את עשב השדה AND THOU SHALT EAT THE HERB OF THE FIELD — What curse is involved here? Was he not told as a blessing, (1:29) “Behold I have given unto you every herb yielding seed”? But what is stated here at the beginning of this passage? “Cursed be the ground etc.… in toil shalt thou eat of it.” And after all your toil “thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee”. This means when you sow it with cereals and vegetables it shall bring forth for you thorns and thistles and other weeds, and you will perforce have to eat them for lack of other food (Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 14).

ואכלת את עשב השדה, you will eat the grass of the field instead of the fruit of the garden.

Which require special preparation to be eaten. Rashi says this because afterwards it says, “And you will eat the herbs of the field.” I.e., you will have to subsist on these, since whatever seeds you sow, only these will sprout. Thus we must say that these are edible after preparation. The verse cannot not mean thorns and thistles exclusively, for it is written afterwards, “And you will eat the herbs of the field.” [How are there herbs,] if only thorns and thistles sprout?

Does it not state in his blessing... In the blessing it is written (1:29): “I have given you all seed-yielding herbs,” which are food for man. But here it says, “You will eat the herbs of the field.” I.e., even if you sow your garden with legumes and vegetables — food for man — it will sprout for you herbs of the field which are animal fodder. And you will be forced to eat them. (Nachalas Yaakov)

בזעת אפיך IN THE SWEAT OF THY FACE — after you have taken all this great trouble.

By the sweat of your face, you shall eat bread: There is support from here for the words of the physicians who say that before eating anything, a person should engage in some work that warms up [the eater], since this helps digestion. And it is as it is written (Psalms 128:2), "For you shall eat the labor of your hands; happy shall you be, and it shall be well with you." That which Scripture states (Genesis 13:17), "With itzavon you shall eat from it all the days of your life," is because itzavon is an expression of work, as it is stated in Job (10:8), "Your hands have made me (itzvoni) and fashioned me." And its saying, "all the days of your life," is to teach that he should eat uniquely for the sake of his life, and not seek luxuries. As what is the benefit of working for emptiness?

אל עפר תשוב, you will revert to dust, just as I had told you “on the day you eat from it you will surely become mortal.” (not that he would actually die on that same day).

עד שובך אל האדמה, Until you will return to the soil, etc. The Torah gives two reasons why man would have to die. It would not have sufficed to explain the need for man to die, i.e. return to the folds of the earth merely because that had been his origin. After all, he had originated from earth before the sin and was not bound to return to it. Since man is made of dust, i.e. earth, he is part of it, or rather, he has made himself part of it through his sin. Had he not sinned, the holiness acquired by triumphing over temptation would have guaranteed that he did not have to return to his lowly origin. His body would have become so refined that it no longer would have been considered as part of the earth. Now, even the part of Adam that was spiritual had been severely tainted through his sin. G'd explained to Adam that although it is normal for things to return to their origin; he, Adam, had forfeited his opportunity to defy that norm through non-observance of G'd's commandment.

בזעת אפיך תאכל לחם, if you prefer to eat bread to eating grass, herbs, you will have to toil in the sweat of your brow in order to produce cereal grain which can be turned into bread. Even though the whole body will perspire, not just the brow, the Torah mentions the face especially, seeing that this is where his perspiration will be most visible. Furthermore, a face does not begin to perspire until one has exerted oneself considerably. Man will have to be fatigued by a variety of strenuous activities before finally being able to consume bread. He has to plough, to sow , to remove weeds, to cut the grain, to thresh the kernels in their husks, to winnow, to grind the kernels into flour, to knead the dough and to bake it.

By the sweat of your face, etc.: Until here, He was speaking about the labor until the wheat berries form. But now, He is adding that also from the time of harvesting until [it becomes] bread, it comes with sweat. For baking is included as a type of work, and it causes much sweat.

אל עפר תשוב, “and to dust you shall return.” The deeper meaning of this verse is reflected in the words of Elihu to Job in Job 34,36. The intelligent reader will understand what I mean. [Rabbi Chavell, in his annotations, understands the whole return to dust as a preliminary for man’s total rehabilitation from sin, a popular concept in all kabbalistic literature. Ed.]
Bereshit Rabbah 20,26 emphasizes that instead of the Torah writing תבא, “you will come,” it wrote תשוב, “you will return.” This is a reference to the eventual resurrection seeing that the words עד שובך אל האדמה already mentioned the first return to dust, original death. We may also see in this wording an allusion to Avraham who had said of himself that he was עפר ואפר, “dust and ashes,” and to whom Adam bequeathed seventy years of his allocated time on earth.

After you will toil... It does not mean that you will eat bread mixed with sweat.

זעה .בזעת אפיך תאכל לחם. rad. זוע, bewegen. Schweiß ist daher nur Ausdruck der Bewegung, Anstrengung, also eigentlich: in heftiger Bewegung deines Angesichtes. (Schweiß heißt auch יֶזַע verwandt mit יצא, Hinaustreten, also das Hervortretende, Ausdünstende, und עֶזַג der aus der Erde hervorragende Stamm.) Und zwar אפיך, nicht פניך. Wie schon oben (Kap.2,7) bemerkt, hat אפים eine viel bezeichnendere, höhere Beziehung, als פנים .פנים wird von allen Wesen und Dingen zur Bezeichnung der zugewandten Seite gebraucht. Nicht so אפים, von אפף, dem Streben etwas in sich aufzunehmen, der gesteigerten Energie etwas zu überwältigen. Mit אפים strebt der Mensch die Dinge um sich zu beherrschen, überschaut er sein Reich. Also nicht im Schweiße deines Körpers, deiner Hand, auch nicht פניך, nein, בזעת אפיך wirst du Brot genießen. Dein göttliches Antlitz, das der Sitz des Geistes, der Einsicht, alles göttlichen Lichtes ist, worin sich deine Herrschaft auf Erden ausdrücken soll, wirst du in den Dienst des Brotes geben müssen. — Die ganze trübselige Gestaltung des in עצבון zu fristenden Lebens spricht sich in dem Wörtchen לחם aus. טרף heißt die Nahrung, insofern sie im Kampfe mit der Natur erjagt ist, לחם (rad. von מלחמה) indem sie zugleich den sozialen Kampf, den Kampf aller gegen alle zu bestehen hat. Hätten wir unseren Geist auf anderes zu richten, als aufs tägliche Brot, es würde auch nicht also der Streit des Menschen mit dem Menschen hervortreten, und wenig schwer würde der Begriff des Eigentums in die Schale fallen. Nachdem aber an jedem Stückchen Brot ein Teil des Menschenwesens hängt, der es בעצבון, mit Opfer gewinnen musste, so tritt sofort, nachdem er es kämpfend der Natur abgewonnen, er in den Kampf mit dem Menschen, um die Erhaltung des Gewonnenen, oder auch schon früher, um das Zuvorkommen an der Quelle der Natur abzugewinnen.

בזעת אפך, by the sweat of your brow;” Rabbi Yehudah hachassid draws our attention to the fact that this curse is one that affects only farmers who physically till the earth, but not people of a different vocation, especially the socially higher ranking people. The curse decreed for women concerning the pains endured during pregnancy and giving birth however, afflicts high ranking women no less than the lowliest servant maid. He attributes the distinction to the fact that the woman not only sinned but also seduced man to sin.

בזיעת אפיך, “in the sweat of your face; etc.;” the word אף in this verse refers to the protrusion called “nose,” which is the first organ beginning to perspire when one engages in physically strenuous activity. This particular curse affects only farmers, people working the soil. The second curse, that of enduring pain and hardship during the process of giving birth, affects only women. This was because Chavah had not only sinned but had also caused others, i.e. her husband, to sin. As a result she had been cursed more severely.

For you are dust: We have already explained that this is not a punishment. And, just the opposite, God is explaining to him that He is not punishing him with death, since he did not eat volitionally. Rather, death is natural, since you are surely dust, etc.

עד שובך אל האדמה, seeing that you have chosen to prefer your close connection to earth rather than that to the celestial regions in which your soul originated, כי עפר אתה ואל עפר תשוב, when you die, no part of your heavenly origin will remain behind on earth. The reason why the Torah emphasized the physical element earth rather than any of then other elements which are part of the human body, is that earth, including the bones which are cold and hard and man’s basic skeleton, and are the element predominates in the human body.

In dem לֻקחת liegt ein Zwang. Sich selbst überlassen gehört der Mensch der Erde an: כי עפר אתה ואל עפר תשוב. Aber Gottes Allmacht hatte den Menschen ent- nommen der Erde, aus der er geschaffen, und ihn in das Paradies gesetzt. In Gottes Händen ist selbst das an ihm dem Staube Entnommene ewig, kannte keinen Tod, so lange er in Gottes Händen war. Seitdem jedoch der Mensch sich den Händen Gottes entzog und sich der eigenen Führung übergab, fällt er wieder zurück und geht den Weg der Vergänglichkeit. "Das Brot, לחם, das du der Natur und den Mitmenschen abringst, restauriert dich nicht vollständig, ist nicht vom עץ החיים, es erhält dich nur zeitweilig עד שובך אל האדמה, bis du zur Erde zurückkehrst, כי ממנה לֻקחת, denn nur durch Gott bist du ihr entnommen."

עד שובך אל האדמה, “until you return to the soil.” As soon as man had died the decree cursing the earth became null and void, as we explained. (verse 17) [Our author appears anxious to counter the Christian doctrine that all of mankind, forever suffers from the consequences of Adam and Chavah’s sin, especially woman which is considered as having brought hereditary sin into the world. Ed.]

In diesem ארורה האדמה בעבורך, in diesem Unsegen, der die Erde um des Menschen willen zu seinem Besten trifft, begegnen wir dem ersten Beispiele von dem parallelen Gange der Blüte der Erde nicht etwa bloß mit Sonnenschein und Regen und rationeller Bewirtschaftung, sondern mit der Gesetzestreue des Menschen gegen Gott. Mit der תורה sollte ein Anfang der wiederum harmonischen Gestaltung der Erde eintreten. stets schon תורה sollte wieder ein kleines Paradies sein, deshalb giebt die ארץ ישראל -zur Erfüllung im Diesseits bestimmte Verheißungen. Der Weg, der zum Paradiese zurück führt, ist so wie er in der תורה gezeichnet und gegeben ist. Daher tritt dieser Parallelis- mus des Bodens zum Menschen am meisten in ארץ ישראל und seinem in בחקתי enthülltem Geschicke hervor.

Eine Betrachtung erscheint uns jedoch von der höchsten Bedeutung. In diesem ganzen Gottesurteil ist der Unsegen nur über die Erde und über Ein Tier, mit nichten aber über den Menschen ausgesprochen. Der Mensch ist seitdem mit nichten unter den Fluch gestellt. Vielmehr ist mit diesem Ganzen an der hohen Bestimmung des Menschen, und an seiner Fähigkeit, diese Be- stimmung zu lösen, mit keiner Silbe auch nur ein Haarbreit geändert. Die Bühne, auf welcher, die äußeren Bedingungen, unter welchen er seine Aufgabe zu lösen hat. sind zu seinem Heile geändert. Die Aufgabe selbst, sein göttlicher Beruf und seine göttlich reine Befähigung dazu bleiben ungetrübt. Noch heute tritt jedes Menschenkind wie einst Adam rein aus Gottes Hand, noch heute wird jedes Kind als Engel zum Menschen geboren. Es ist dies einer der Kardinalpunkte des jüdischen Wesens und Lebens. Welch eine trostlose, die ganze sittliche Zukunft des Menschen untergrabende Lüge hat man nicht aus dieser Geschichte geschmiedet! Das Dogma der Erbsünde hat man daraus entnommen und darauf ein Gebäude aufgeführt, gegen welches, wenn gegen irgend etwas, der Jude seinem ganzen Wesen nach den entschiedensten Protest einzulegen hat. Allerdings hat durch diese Sünde die ganze Nachkommenschaft Adams die Aufgabe geerbt, inmitten einer ihnen nicht mehr wie einst harmonisch zulächelnden Erde zu leben, weil ja eben dieselbe Sünde sich stets wiederholt, und eben durch jenen Gegensatz der Erdwelt zum Menschen und die daraus bedingte "Entsagungsschule" das Menschengeschlecht zu jener sittlichen Vollkommenheit heranerzogen werden soll, die den Weg wieder zum irdischen Paradiese bahnt. Aber, dass nun deshalb der Mensch "sündhaft" geworden, die Fähigkeit gut zu sein verloren habe, nun sündigen müsse, — und dass der einzelne Mensch und die Menschheit im ganzen zur Rückkehr zu Gott und zur Zurückführung des Paradieses auf Erden irgend etwas anderen bedürfe, als des jedem möglichen Aufschwungs zur Pflichttreue, dagegen legt das Judentum den entschiedensten Protest ein. Es bedarf dazu keines gestorbenen und keines auferstandenen Mittlers. Das lehrt die ganze jüdische Geschichte. Diese zeigt, wie den reinen Menschen Gott wieder so nahe, wie dem ersten Menschen vor dessen Verirrung trat. Ein Abraham, ein Moses, ein Jesaias, ein Jirmia usw. usw. gewannen die Gottesnähe durch nichts, als durch ein reines pflichtgetreues Streben. Nächst dem ersten Angelpunkte, dem einen freien Gott, steht dem jüdischen Bewusstsein als zweiter: der reine freie Mensch. Die Lehre von der Erbsünde und dem dadurch über den Menschen gekommenen Fluche der Sündhaftigkeit, der nur durch den Glauben an ein gewisses Faktum genommen werden könne, ist der bedauerlichste Irrtum. Wie unsere Geschichte keinen Fluch über den Menschen ausspricht, so tritt auch noch heute jeder Jude mit dem Bekenntnis vor Gott hin: "Die Seele, die du mir gegeben, ist rein, נשמה שנתת בי טהורה היא", und an mir liegt es, sie dir rein zu bewahren und sie dir rein wieder zu geben, und אין דור שאין בו כאברהם ,es giebt keine Zeit (ב״ר נ״ו) lehren die Weisen אין דור שאין בו כיעקב כמשה כשמואל in der nicht Abraham, Jakob, Moses, Samuel gleiche Männer lebten; jeder Zeit, jedem Geschlechte ist das geistig und sittlich Höchste möglich.

Auch die Bemerkung dürfte nicht überflüssig sein, wie die Stellung und Entwicklung der Erde um des Menschen willen getrübt worden, und diese Trübung, wie das Gotteswort uns lehrt, mit der fortschreitenden Sittenverderbnis des Menschengeschlechtes, diesem parallel immer zugenommen. Die Erdwelt, wie sie jetzt um uns ist, ist also nicht mehr dieselbe, wie sie ursprünglich war und einst wieder sein wird. Ein jeder Schluss daher von der Erde in ihrer jetzigen Gestalt und Beschaffenheit auf ihren einstigen Zustand, in welchem sie zuerst aus des Schöpfers Händen hervorgegangen, ist mindestens ein gewagter, und leidet an einer unwahren Voraussetzung. Ebenso ungerechtfertigt ist aber auch der Schluss von dem Menschen in seinem jetzigen Zustande, wo er im Kampfe mit einer feindlichen Natur בזעת אפו seine Existenz erringen muß, auf den Menschen in seinem einstigen harmonischen Zustande, und auf denjenigen unter Verhältnissen, die diesen ursprünglichen annähernd ähnlich gestaltet waren. Als in Israels Lande, unter dem Einfluß des göttlichen Gesetzes, dem Paradiese in verjüngtem Maßstabe ähnliche Zustände den Menschen umgaben, sahen wir auch Männer wie Elias und Jesaias, und die ganze Reihe leuchtender Männer hervorgehen, die Gott schauten und an welche Gott sein Wort gelangen ließ und es waren dies Menschen wie wir, sterbliche Menschen von sterblichen Eltern geboren. Verklärung und Erhebung des irdischen Lebens zu Gott und dem Göttlichen durch die jedem Menschen unverlierbar mitgegebene sittliche Kraft, das ist die Summe des göttlichen Buches und der göttlichen Waltung.

ויקרא האדם AND THE MAN CALLED — Scripture now reverts to its previous topic (Genesis 2:20) beginning with “and the man gave names”. It broke it off (that is, interpolated the story of the serpent) only to tell you that through the giving of names Eve became his mate, as it is written (Genesis 2:20) “but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him,” and that therefore “the [Lord God] caused to fall a deep sleep upon him” and formed Eve. But because Scripture writes at the end of the story of creation of Eve (Genesis 5:25), “and they were both naked”, it therefore follows on with the passage dealing with the serpent, to inform you that because he saw her nakedness and that they displayed no feeling of shame in their actions, he desired her, and he came upon them with his evil plan and with deceit.

For she was the mother of all the living: Why did he give her a name [only] now, after the sin? And also, he should have called her חיה/Chaya? So it seems that before the sin, she was called חיה/Chaya, corresponding to the "mother of all the חי/living." But after the sin, when she had caused death for generations, her name was changed from חיה/Chaya to חוה/Chava. For חוה/Chava is formed from the term, חויא/snake. And Scripture is coming to explain why he did not call her נחש/snake explicitly: It is however because before this, she was the mother of all the living and called חיה/Chaya. So when he changed her name, it was unnecessary to change more than the yod to a vav, such that some remnant of the original name remain intact.

חוה, she is a necessary requirement for the human species to continue life on earth.

ויקרא אדם שם אשתו חוה. Adam called the name of his wife Chavah. We must understand why Adam had not named his wife immediately after he met her, before any of the happenings described by the Torah.

ויקרא האדם, when Chavah had originally been placed before him, he had named her just as he had named all the animals, the name חוה, however, was her individual name, not the name of the female of the human species. It is possible to explain that after Adam and his wife had eaten from the tree of knowledge, Adam gave her this name, seeing that due to having eaten from that tree, their libido had been awakened, and they knew that they would reproduce themselves. This is why Adam added: אם כל חי, the meaning of the word חי here referring to the kind of living creatures who possessed the power of speech. Generic names for human beings such as חי here, are also found in Psalms 145,21 ויברך כל בשר, where David does not refer to the animals blessing the name of G’d, but only to the human species doing this. The same applies to Isaiah 66,23 יבא כל בשר, where the prophet predicts that all of humanity in those days will come once a month to Jerusalem or even weekly, to pay their respects to the Lord in Jerusalem. [probably those living near Jerusalem will come once a week, whereas those living farther away will come only once a month. Ed.] The letter ו in the word חוה instead of the letter י was to distinguish her from the beasts of the field.

And the man, etc.: Now, after he had sensed about her that her nature had changed. As she had [previously] been clinging only to him, but now she had her own sense of good and evil. Hence, he called her Chavah.

A play on the word חיה [alive]. Rashi is answering the question: Why did he not name her חיה? Thus he explained, “A play on the word...”

חוה: Pielform von חיה, die Leben spendende. Es war dem Adam zuvor klar geworden, dass er nicht ewig leben, dass er sterben werde, es war ihm ferner gesagt worden, dass die Frau ihm Kinder gebären werde; da nannte der Mann seine Frau: die Leben gebende. Der einzelne stirbt, die Menschheit lebt, und es ist das Weib, durch welches auch der Mann fortlebt in den Kindern. Adam hätte zürnen dürfen über den Verlust des Paradieses durch sein Weib, und er nennt sie nach der schönsten Bestimmung des Weibes! Dem Manne war Entsagung beschieden, dem Weibe war Entsagung beschieden; aber das Ziel, das dem Weibe für ihre Entsagung gegeben ward, ist das Höhere, sie ist die Retterin vom Tode geworden, die Lebenspenderin, in sie flüchtet sich die ewige Unsterblichkeit der Menschen. Und bedeutsam heißt sie nicht חַיָה, sondern . חוה finden wir immer für die geistige Belebung. אֳחַוֶךָ ,יְחַוֶה רעת Es ist somit das Weib in jeder Beziehung als אם, als die conditio sine qua non, nicht nur auf das leibliche Leben begriffen, sondern auch in Beziehung auf Geist und Gemüt der den Menschenberuf forttragenden Geschlechter. — Das היתה kann nur die ihr gewordene Bestimmung ausdrücken.

Because she was the mother of all the living: And even though she was not the mother of the animals and the beasts, "mother" implies an expression of [being] a matron, as in (Judges 5:7), "I arose, a mother in Israel." And "father" is likewise an expression of lordship and authority, as in (Genesis 4:21), "the father of all who handle the lyre."

חוה, a variant of the word חיות, “life.” It is a derivative of the root: .הוה היה

חוה EVE — חוה has the same sound as חיה (and similar meaning “life”) — she was so called because she gives life (birth) to her children; the interchange of ‘י and ‘ו is similar to that in (Ecclesiastes 2:22), מה הוה לאדם “for what hath a man”, where הוה is used in the sense of היה “to be.”

כי היא היתה אם כל חי, even though the function of the female of the species listed here also applies to all women after Chavah, she is used as the role model and therefore accorded this name. The reason is that she was the first woman ever to fulfill this role.

Because she was the mother of all the living (chai): If we will explain [it as], "the mother of all people, the expression, "living," is not exact; and is only man called living? Moreover, why did he call her this name after she ate from the tree of knowledge. Rather the explanation of, "all the living," is like that which the Rosh wrote (on Berakhot, Chapter 6, Paragraph 8) in explanation of the blessing, "Who blessed souls, etc. to give life with them to the soul of all the living" - that its meaning is that it is not the essence and necessity of man's life, but rather that which comes as a delight. And similar to this did we explain the meaning of, living, a few times earlier (on Genesis 2:10) - that its meaning is joy and the fulfillment of desire. And behold until the woman had human knowledge, she only wanted what was necessary to live, like a beast. Now that she attained human intellect, "she was" - the explanation of which is, she became - "the mother of all the living," [meaning] she brought forth all the delights of people. And because of that, she is called, "Chavah," and not, Chayah - since it is closer to the words of the reason: That is because most of the time, that delight changes into an obstacle and something that causes damage to people. And they said similarly to this in Bereshit Rabbah (20:11) - that it is [related] to the expression chiviya, meaning a snake that bites the heel.

Know therefore that G'd had already given the woman a name reflecting her distinction when He named both the man and the woman ADAM. We know from Ezekiel 34,31 that the name ADAM is a great distinction. The prophet proclaims: אדם אתם, "you are Adam" (referring to Israel). Our sages (Yevamot 61) have stated about Israel: "you have been called ADAM, whereas the Gentiles have not been called ADAM." There was therefore no reason for Adam to have named Eve previously. Now that his wife had been seduced by the serpent she had suffered a spiritual decline and no longer qualified for the name ADAM. In fact it is generally accepted that when a person violates G'd's law knowingly he forfeits his original name. This is what Solomon (Proverbs 10,7) meant when he said: ושם רשעים ירקב, that the "name" i.e. the original name of the wicked, will rot. Adam now had to give his wife a name which reflected her function in life, namely that she became the "mother" of all human beings. True, Adam had sinned too, but his sin had been unintentional as already pointed out. He did not forfeit his name on that account.

אם כל חיה, “mother of all living human beings.” According to Rabbi Simmon, in B’reshit Rabbah 20,11, what is meant is the “mother of all living creatures.” According to his view during all the 130 years that Adam lived apart from his wife, male disembodied spirits used her body warmth to produce living creatures that emanated from her womb. Female spirits also used her body as the means to reproduce. Our author directs the reader to a Midrash on Samuel II 7,14 where the words: והוכחתיו בשבט אנשים ובנגעי בני אדם, “I will chastise him with the rod of men and the affliction of mortals,” are explained in the manner he had described. The 130 years of which the Torah speaks are explained in the Talmud Eyruvin 18. A different exegesis: the words אם כל חי, are a compliment to Chavah who is the human mother of the human species. Devorah refers to herself in similar terms at the beginning of her famous song thanking G-d for her and Barak’s victory in Judges 5,7, where she refers to herself as “the mother of Israel.”

As a matter of fact Adam too experienced a diminution of status as expressed by his name. The Torah here calls him suddenly האדם, three or four times instead of אדם as previously. You must appreciate that the category of person called האדם is inferior to the one called אדם without the letter ה. Sifri 143 quotes Rabbi Yirmiyah on Leviticus 18,5: אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם, that האדם should perform these commandments in order to live by them, as including Gentiles. This is so because whenever the letter ה before the word אדם does not signify a definite article it refers to the human species as such. [I have condensed the proof presented by the author. Ed.] Although Adam declined in spiritual stature and forfeited the full extent of his name, this was a temporary phenomenon. The Torah again accords him his full name when it describes that he became the father of Sheth (4,25). He regained his stature having only sinned inadvertently.

There is another reason for the name חוה. First we must understand why "life" is attributed to Eve and not to Adam. After all, Adam was the "father" of all human beings! Besides, if the reason we have given for Adam calling חוה is that she is the "mother" of all human beings, he should have called her חיה, not חוה! Her name was to reflect two new developments. 1) She had listened to the urgings of the seducer. Adam called her by the name of the seducer, the word חוה being the same as חויא the aramaic for serpent. This is the reason given in the Zohar. The second new development was that she was condemned to bear children in pain. She alone deserved to be called "mother" of all human beings because it was only she who had to endure pain in connection with procreation. The Torah did not want to spell out the other reason, seeing that it is already alluded to in the name חוה.

כתנות עור GARMENTS FOR THE SKIN — There are Agadoth which say that they were smooth as fingernails, cleaving to their skin; whereas some say that they were made of material that comes from skin, as for example, the hair of hares which is soft and warm, and of this He made garments for them (Genesis Rabbah 20:12).

כתנות עור וילבישם, coats, long enough to cover the whole body.

ויעש ...כתנות עור, without any input by man, similar to a description of the Talmud of what the earth will produce without human input in idyllic times when ready made bread rolls will be produced by the earth (Shabbat 30)

ויעש ה' אלוקים לאדם ולאשתו כתנות עור, seeing that they had been naked, but had made themselves the aprons made from fig leaves, to cover only their genitals, G’d now provided them with protective clothing for their entire bodies, probably also having in mind different climatic conditions outside the garden. ולבישם, “He dressed them in those coats. There is no point in asking how G’d made these coats. Surely, by comparison to the entire universe which G’d had created, making leather coats was a very insignificant accomplishment by comparison.
When we find a sage saying in the Midrash (Torah Shleymah by Rabbi Menachem Kasher items 176,and 186 on our chapter) that these garments were made of skin, i.e. that man had consisted of bones and flesh without an outer layer of skin. G’d now provided the skin as a protective cover. (attributed to Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 20) [the Talmud Niddah 25, discussing when an aborted fetus is to be treated as a human being in some respects, states hat the fetus is not covered with a skin until it is fully formed inside the mother’s womb. Ed.] We do not understand how this solves any problem at all. They would have been worse off than before, even their genitals having remained exposed, as these too are covered by skin. Some scholars claim that the skin was skin of the serpent which G’d had removed from it and clothed Adam and Chavah in it. Yet other scholars claim that G’d commanded one or two of the larger mammals to remove their skin, and that Adam and Chavah then proceeded to dress themselves in those skins.
There is no need for all these fancy explanations, i.e. speculations. G’d simply issued a directive and the tunics came into existence, just as the material from which the first set of Tablets was made by G’d had to come into existence by miraculous means. Our sages (Sotah 14) record the opinions of the great scholars Rav and Shmuel, the former saying that the meaning of כתנות עור is “coats, tunics, made from material removed from skins.” Shmuel said it refers to raw material from which the skin (man’s) derives pleasure. To be specific, it refers to cotton. Our sages also say (Midrash hagadol on this verse) that these garments belonged to the things that were created in the twilight zone of the 6th day of creation, immediately before the onset of the Sabbath. Rabbi Simlai (Sotah) uses the opportunity to tell us that the Torah commenced with acts of personal kindness by G’d for His creatures, and ends in the same vein. Here, in Bereshit, we are told about G’d, personally, providing clothing for Adam and Chavah, whereas at the end of the Torah we read of G’d, personally, burying Moses. (Deut. 34,6)

Garments of skins and clothed them: The explanation of the verse is that the garments were not made in such a way that they would dress themselves. Rather the Holy One, blessed be He, dressed them. Meaning, they were made on their flesh, so that they would not come to revealing nakedness at the time that they were dressing themselves and would not be able to cover themselves among the leaves of the trees, as was the case at that time - as I wrote above (Haamek Davar on Genesis 3:8).

Smooth. חלקים is from the same root as חלוק, robe. In other words, cloaks of fingernail-like material cleaving to their skin.

Wir sehen hier zum zweiten Male Kleidung als letzten Gruß aus dem Paradiese und zwar in vollendeterer Weise. Früher bloß חגורה, Bedeckung des Unterkörpers. Inzwischen war ein Ausspruch ergangen, der das Bedürfnis der Kleidung gesteigert, denn ארורה האדמה, die Natur war rauher geworden, und das Kleid erhält hier die doppelte Bedeutung, als Bedürfnis der Scham und als Schutz gegen die rauhe Natur. Indem aber dem Menschen das Kleid aus Gottes, ׳ד׳א, Händen wird, gewinnt es eine heilige Bedeutung, und steht in seiner doppelten Beziehung im Dienst der Erziehung des Menschen zur Wiedergewinnung des ursprünglichen Zustandes. Als Ver- hüllung der tierischen Blöße erinnert es an die höhere als tierische Bestimmung des Menschen, eine Erinnerung, die um so notwendiger geworden, als der Geist selbst jetzt in den Dienst der Bedürfnisse des Leibes getreten, בזעת אפך תאכל לחם. Als Schutz gegen den Einfluss der rauheren Natur erinnert es ebenfalls den Menschen, dass er nicht mehr und noch nicht wieder das ist, was er ursprünglich sein soll. Ohne Hülle geschaffen, sollte die ihn umgebende Natur ihm paradiesisch zulächeln, und so lange er der Kleidung bedarf, ist sie ihm Mahnung, dass wir noch nicht im Paradiese leben und der Fluch von der Erde nicht weicht, so lange wir uns des Tieres in uns noch zu schämen haben. Von diesem Standpunkte aus dürfte es begreiflich sein, wie ב׳ר כי) ר׳ מאיר) dieses Gewand כתנות אור "Lichtgewand" nennen konnte, und es von anderen als ein "priesterliches Gewand" bezeichnet wird, שעשה לו הב"ה בגדי כהונה, eben wegen der erleuchtenden und heiligenden Bestimmung des Kleides. Begreiflich ferner, wie der Begriff Kleid in der Sprache des תנ"ך so bedeutungsvoll, מעיל צרקה, בגדי ישע und sonst, und symbolisch werden konnte wie in den בגדי כהונה. Ferner, wie gerade מצות ציצת, diejenige מצוה, die uns erinnern soll, den Schlangeneinflüsterungen unserer sinnlichen Spekulation: "Gott hat dir ja selbst Lichter und Leiter gegeben: Auge und Herz!" nicht zu folgen, an das Gewand geknüpft ist. Vergl. ותרא האשה כי טוב העץ למאכל וכי תאוה וגו׳ und ׳ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם וגו. "Sagt dir das Kleid. dass du Mensch bist und nicht das Tier in dir herrschen soll, sagt es dir, dass die Welt um dich, trotz aller Erfindungen noch nicht wieder zum Paradiese geworden ist: nun so lasse ציץ, die Blüte deines Gewandes das heilige jüdische Leben sein, das das Göttlichmenschliche in dir herauskehrt, und die Welt wieder dem Paradiese näher bringt." Also dürfte das Ziezithgewand in seinem offenbaren Zusammenhange mit dem hier vorliegenden Ursprunge des Kleides sich aussprechen. — Die Weisen erinnern ferner an dieser Stelle, wie hier die erste Spur von גמילות חסד hervortritt, wie Gott hier גמילות הסד, die tätige Menschenliebe geübt. Die תורה beginnt und schließt mit von Gott geübter תחלתה וסופה ג״ח ,גמילות הסד, sie zeigt uns im Anbeginn, wie Gott den ersten nackten Menschen bekleidet, und zeigt uns am Schlusse, wie Gott den edelsten Menschen begraben, קבורת מתים — מלביש ערומים. Wenn wir bis jetzt das getrübte Verhältnis der Natur zum Menschen als einen gesunkenen Zustand, und mit Recht, betrachtet, so hat dieser Zustand doch auch eine andere Seite. Gerade diese Erniedrigung ist auf anderer Seite der Boden geworden, auf welchem der Mensch sich am gottähnlichsten zeigen kann. Alles, was, wenn für uns geübt, selbstsüchtig, erniedrigend ist, wird göttlich groß, wenn es für andere geschieht. בזעת אפו die Kräfte anstrengen, um Brot und Heil für andere zu schaffen, ist nach jüdischem Begriffe die größte Ebenbildlichkeit Gottes. "Wie Gott dir gezeigt, dass er den Nackten kleidet, die Kranken heilt, den Leidtragenden tröstet, den Toten begräbt, so kleide auch du die Nackten, heile die Kranken, tröste die Leidtragenden, begrabe die Todten usw.", das ist Begriff und Grundsatz der jüdischen Menschenliebe, der jüdischen גמילות הסדים, und dieser Gedanke hat zum ältesten Verein für die Menschlichkeit, zum ältesten Kongreß für die Wohlthätigkeit, der seine Mitglieder über die weite Erde hin zählt, den jüdischen Kreis gemacht. So ist die Hülfsbedürftigkeit des Menschen der Boden, auf dem sich jeder, der will, zur gottähnlichsten Höhe erheben kann, und dass die Übung dieser uneigennützigen, aufopferungsvollen, persönlichen Dahingebung der eigenen Kräfte für das Wohl anderer, dass die Übung dieser jüdischen Menschenliebe so viele opferfreudige Gemüter gefunden und findet, ist die sprechendste Widerlegung jener trübseligen Lüge, als sei mit der ersten Sünde der Fluch über den Menschen gekommen und habe ihn der Göttlichkeit seines reinen Wesens für alle Folgegeschlechter beraubt. Es ist daher eine tiefe Weisheit unserer Weisen, die eben hier an den Ausgang aus dem Paradiese die hohe n׳a-Lehre knüpfen, da ohne die damit beginnende Hülfsbedürftigkeit des Menschen wir kaum wüssten, wo zur Ausübung der ג"ח Gelegenheit wäre.

Garments of skins: That is to say, garments for the skin of their flesh; as no beast had yet been flayed. And likewise did Onkelos translate [it].

כתנות עור, according to Rashi, “tunics made of skin/leather.” This “leather” was smooth as nails, no hair ever having been on it. Rashi contradicts commentators who explained the term as referring to the skins of hares which are completely covered with hair. (Compare B’reshit Rabbah 20,20)

וילבישם, in order that He would not have to expel them from Gan Eden while they were naked. Not only that, but if they would dress themselves in these coats after having been expelled, they might delude themselves that they had improved on G’d’s handiwork.

כתנות עור, the term כתונת is familiar to us from the outer garment made for Joseph by his father, and the linen tunic worn by the High Priest, was intended to cover their bodies and their flesh, as described in Job 5,5, the extremities of their bodies, as opposed to the torso. The point is that the material was not taken from the body of a large mammal that had died, as there had not been time as yet for such skin to have been stretched to make it into leather. Compare Onkelos. According to some opinions the material stemmed from the Leviathan, the female of which G-d had killed and whose meat had been salted away by G-d for use to serve to the righteous in the future.

וילבישם, “He dressed them.” First Adam and Chavah had made some kind of aprons that could be tied around their loins.(3,7) Now their entire bodies were covered by these tunics.

The paragraph begins with ויקח ה' אלוקים את האדם ויניחהו בגן עדן לעבדה ולשמרה. “G-d took Adam and placed him in Gan Eden in order to work it and to preserve it.” The words גן עדן are an allusion to the Torah. Just as the garden had its origin in Eden, so the Torah has is origin in the regions of celestial wisdom which is called Eden. The principal reason man was created was in order to preoccupy himself with Torah, i.e. to study it and to observe it.

It follows that the two trees in the centre of the garden, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge, refer to the positive and the negative commandments which are rooted in the Torah. The word האדם is an allusion to intellect an abstract part of man. G-d did not consider it good for this intellect to be alone as it needed an instrument by means of which its achievements could become manifest and which would be his assistant when performing the commandments of the Torah. This instrument would be matter rather than something abstract like the intellect. Seeing that man had been created as a combination of body and spirit it needed a partner in order to ensure the continuity of the species by means of offspring. This is similar to the body being a partner to the intellect in matters pertaining to intellectual pursuits. The helpmate in question was woman. The very name of woman contains an allusion to גוף, body. Solomon compared matter to woman when he said in Proverbs 2,16 להצילך מאשה זרה, “to save you from the alien woman.” He meant that matter by definition is not part of the intellect, but it is necessary in order to become the receptacle of the intellect’s activity. Woman is such an instrument. Matter reflects the form and accepts the shapes the intellect dictates to it. The serpent i.e. נחש, represents an allusion to the evil urge, as we find the word מ-נחש which expresses an attempt to seduce and to put man to a test. The serpent began the dialogue with the woman, i.e. it addressed itself to חומר, matter. It began with the word אף, anger, seeing that anger and wrath are derivatives of the power of Satan.
Now to explain what it was exactly that the serpent was saying: אף כי אמר אלוקים לא תאכלו מכל עץ הגן, “if G-d has said that you must not eat from any of the trees of the garden, this is equivalent to denying you any physical gratification at all. You would not benefit from all the good things to be found in the world. How could G-d have commanded something like this?” This was typical of the tactics of seduction employed by the evil urge, by Satan. The reason that he serpent spoke with woman and not with man is simply that the evil urge always addresses the physical side of man, i.e. the חומר, the material. It never tries to match wits with the power of the שכל, man’s reason.

Woman said to the serpent: “we may eat from the fruit of the trees of the garden.” This was the reply of the material side of man to its potential seducer; in other words: “we have not been denied gratification of the body by means of the senses when this gratification serves the purpose of maintaining our health by eating and drinking.” She continued: “however, G-d warned us concerning some specific gratification which we are to indulge in only in order to assure the continuity of the species. If we were to transgress that commandment both our body and our soul would die.”

ותפקחנה עיני שניהם, “The eyes of both of them were opened, etc.” The Torah simply describes a customary process, involving the intellectual faculties of man, i.e. that after body and soul have sinned they become aware of the wrong they have done, that because of the wrong they have done they have lost stature. They realize that they have allowed their cravings to dominate them. This is the process described here as “their eyes were opened.” This “opening” does not refer to their gaining of additional insights. On the contrary, they now became aware of a failing. When their eyes were “opened,” they realized that they had actually lost something, that instead of achieving something new they had lost something they had previously possessed. They realized how fortunate they had been when they were not enslaved by various physical desires, whereas now they had to struggle to become free of these cravings which had become as indispensable for them as clothing. This is the deeper meaning of the word וידעו, they were drawing on the powers of the עץ הדעת, “the tree which communicated this intimacy with good and evil.” A wealthy man usually does not appreciate all the advantages he enjoys but he takes them for granted. It is only when he is deprived of them that he realizes in retrospect how fortunate he had been while he possessed what is now lost to him. This is precisely what happened to Adam and Chavah. Their “eyes were opened,” they now appreciated what great stature they had possessed prior to their sin.
כי ערומים הם, “that they were naked.” The very power of desire which now “clothed them,” made them condemn a certain state which previously they had not seen fit to condemn. As a result of their sin both their bodies as well as their intellects felt exposed, bereft of the protective cover provided by knowledge that one has lived meritoriously.
At that point they understood that G-d’s warnings had been justified and they felt ashamed for having transgressed it. Their feelings of shame were like those of a thief who has been found out (compare Jeremiah 2,26).Their feeling of shame and embarrassment included the fact that they had not observed the prohibition of the Torah’s commandments, seeing the Torah was comparable to a garden. This is the meaning of “they heard the sound of the Lord G-d moving about in garden in the breeze of the day; and man and his wife hid himself on account of the Lord G-d.”
The word האדם here refers to man’s intellectual powers. The “sound of the voice of the Lord G-d” which the Torah mentions here is a reference to the heavenly tribunal to which all creatures will have to answer after death when they are ordered to appear before the King of Kings. This is the meaning of G-d asking in this verse איכה, “where are you?” G-d referred to the moral level which man had sunk to. In the future, when examining man after his death on earth, He will want to know to what level of Torah study and observance man had risen to during his life on earth. The additional letter ה at the end of the word איכה, is an allusion to the five Books of Moses. We find a similar construction in Psalms 139,8 ואציעה שאול הנך, “and when I descend to Sheol You are there too. The extra letter ה at the end of the word ואציע is a hint that man will be examined for how he related to the five Books of Moses.

When the Torah reports Adam (man) responding את קולך שמעתי בגן, “I have heard the sound of Your voice in the garden,” this was a response by man’s intellectual faculties and is to be understood as if he said “I have understood Your intention when You called out my name and I have heard the warnings which are written in the Torah.” The word ואירא, “I was afraid,” refers to the fear of the Day of Judgment. When Adam added כי עירום אנכי, “for I am naked,” this was an admission that he felt inadequate, had not fulfilled the Torah’s commandments. He had neither Torah study nor Torah-observance which he could cite in defense of his actions. This is the deeper meaning of why he said אנכי instead of אני. [The word is a reference to the first word in the Ten Commandments.] When he added ואחבא, “I hid myself,” it means “I was ashamed.” It is natural for a person who is ashamed of something to hide from the one he is ashamed of. מי הגיד לך
, “who has told you?” G-d wanted to know who was the cause that he felt exposed, bereft of merits.
המן העץ אשר ציויתיך, “Did you by chance eat from the tree which I commanded you?" Did you violate My commandment and did what I prohibited you to do?

Adam answered: “the woman that You have given me, etc.” Adam’s intellectual faculties responded to the question saying: “indeed I did violate Your commandment. As to he reason? It was the woman You gave me, i.e. the חמר, the material part of me which violated Your commandment.” She was supposed to be my helpmate and instead Your intention was foiled. She (the חומר, the material part), is the cause that I have experienced this terrible pain.” The reason the Torah added the letter ה at the end of the word נתתה, “You have given,” is an allusion to the five senses which comprise the perceptive powers of the physical part of man, the חומר. In other words, Adam (man) blamed the addition of powerful physical material for his failure. He (his wife, also part of “man,”) added further that the serpent had seduced him (her, respectively). This simply meant that Adam and Chavah blamed the seductive powers of Satan for having been seduced. Their argument was that חומר, physical material, without the addition of the seductive powers of Satan would not be something harmful at all.
Thereupon G-d first of all cursed the serpent, read “evil urge,” condemning it to henceforth crawl on its belly; this was a tremendous demotion as up until then the serpent (read Satan) had conducted itself like a king, and even Solomon referred to him a מלך גדול in Kohelet 9,14. It is a mark of a king that he walks upright holding his head erect. The serpent now lost this ability. This brought in its wake a greatly reduced ability of the serpent (read evil urge) to seduce man as it could no longer give itself airs fooling man about its true nature.

היה כאחד ממנו IS BECOME LIKE ONE OF US (or, like the Being who is One, Unique amongst us) — Lo, he is unique among the terrestrial ones, even as I am unique among the celestial ones. And in what does his uniqueness consist? In knowing good and evil, which is not so in the case of cattle and beasts (Genesis Rabbah 21:5).

AND NOW, LEST HE PUT FORTH HIS HAND. The Holy One, blessed be He, wanted His decree concerning the death of Adam to be fulfilled, and if he were to eat of the tree of life which was created to give everlasting life to those who ate of its fruit, the decree would be nullified; for either he would not die at all or his day of death would not come at the time it was decreed for him and his descendants to die.³⁹⁷See above, 2:17, where Ramban explained two theories. The teaching of the Rabbis is that man was originally designed to live forever. By having sinned, death was decreed upon him; by eating of the tree of life, he would thus restore himself to his original position of immortality. The opinion of the philosophers, however, is that man was originally destined to die; by having sinned, it was decreed that he die before the time designated at first. By eating of the tree of life he would thus live a long time and not die at the time decreed for him as punishment for his sin. This is the deeper meaning of Ramban’s words here in the text, “for either he would not die at all, etc.” And now that Adam had the power of choice, He therefore guarded this tree from him for at first Adam did only what he was commanded and he did not eat thereof as he did not need it.
Know and believe that the garden of Eden is on this earth³⁹⁸See my Kitvei Haramban, Vol. 1, p. 309, in notes, as to why this point that the Garden of Eden is on this earth is of such vital importance to Ramban that he writes: ‘Know and believe that the garden….’” as are also the tree of life and the tree of knowledge, and from there the river comes forth and is divided into four heads³⁹⁹Above, 2:10. which are visible to us. For the Euphrates⁴⁰⁰Ibid., 2:14. is in our land and within our border,⁴⁰¹Deuteronomy 1:1. and Pishon,⁴⁰²Above, 2:11. according to the words of the former scholars, is the Nile of Egypt.⁴⁰²Above, 2:11. But as these are on earth so are there also in the heavens things similarly named, and those in the heavens are the foundations of these on earth, just as the Rabbis have said:⁴⁰³Midrash Shir Hashirim Zuta, 1:4, (Buber ed., pp. 9-10). “The king hath brought me into his chambers⁴⁰⁴Song of Songs 1:4. — this teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, is destined to show Israel the treasures on high that are chambered in the heavens. Another interpretation of The king hath brought me into his chambers is that these are the chambers of the garden of Eden. It is on the basis of this that they have said: ‘The work of the garden of Eden is like the work of the firmament.’” The rivers correspond to the four camps of angels on high, and it is from there that the power of the kingdoms on earth is derived, just as it is written, The host of the high heaven on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.⁴⁰⁵Isaiah 24:21. Thus the Rabbis said in Bereshith Rabbah,⁴⁰⁶16:7. “Into four heads⁴⁰⁷Above, 2:10. — these are the four kingdoms. The name of the first is Pishon⁴⁰⁸Ibid., 2:11. — this is Babylon, etc.” And the things called the tree of life and the tree of knowledge on high — their secret is high and lofty. Adam sinned with the fruit of the tree of knowledge below and on high, in deed and thought.
Now if the fruit of the tree were good for food and he desired it to become wise, why did He withhold it from him? Indeed, G-d is kind and dealeth kindly; He will withhold no good thing from them that walk uprightly!⁴⁰⁹Psalms 84:12. The serpent, moreover, has today no speaking faculty, and if it did have it at first, He would surely have mentioned in His curse that its mouth become dumb, as this would have been the most grievous curse of all. But all these things are twofold in meaning, the overt and the concealed in them both being true.
In Bereshith Rabbah the Rabbis say:⁴¹⁰16:8. Mentioned also above, 2:8. “Another interpretation of Le’ovdah uleshomrah (to cultivate her and to keep her)⁴¹¹Above, 2:15. is that these words refer to the sacrifices, as it is said, ‘Ta’avdun’ (Ye shall serve) G-d upon this mountain.⁴¹²Exodus 3:12. It is this which Scripture says, ‘Tishm’ru’ (Ye shall keep) to offer unto Me in its appointed season.”⁴¹³Numbers 28:2. By this Midrash, the Rabbis hinted that the sacrifices will cause growth and expansion in the tree of life and the tree of knowledge and all other trees in the garden of Eden. It is this which constitutes their cultivation and care.
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra denies what the scholars have said, namely, that Pishon is the Nile, because they found that the Nile comes from the Mountain of Frankincense [far south of the equator], and therefore it swells during the days of summer.⁴¹⁴For when it is summer time in the northern hemisphere, it is the time of the rainy season in the southern hemisphere. Hence the Nile, the source of which is in the southern hemisphere, swells during the summer time. And “we know that the Garden of Eden is near the equator, where day and night are always equal” (Ibn Ezra), it follows that Pishon is not the Nile, since the Nile originates far south of the equator. This is the opinion of Ibn Ezra. Ramban replies: “But it is already known, etc.” But it is already known that many rivers come from their source and flow for a great distance and enter the bowels of the earth for a journey of many days, and then break forth again, and flow from under one of the mountains in a distant place. [This being the case, it is possible that Pishon is the Nile.]

כאחד ממנו לדעת טוב ורע, he will know good and evil even while continuing to wear “our image.” This would be an intolerable situation, as in spite of his tendency to give in to his evil urge he would live on forever. [the author considers בצלמנו as a reference to the infinite life prevailing among the celestial beings. Ed.] In such circumstances, this Adam whose evil urge was active would continue to chase the material blessings of this world, something which would prevent him from reaching the spiritual aims set for him on earth when G’d made him in the divine image.

ויאמר השם אלוקים, The Lord G'd said: "Here man has become like one of Us, etc." We need to understand why G'd had not commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of life before He forbade them to eat from the tree of knowledge. Had they eaten from it first they would have lived forever!

ויאמר ה' אלוקים...כאחד ממנו, G’d included Himself when speaking about the angels, just as He had done when about to create man in 1,26, when He had saidנעשה אדם בצלמנו, “Let Us make man in Our image.”

ועתה פן ישלח ידו ולקח גם מעץ החיים, “and now, so that he will not attempt to also take from the tree of life, etc.” Before Adam had eaten from the tree of knowledge and had become mortal, there was no concern that he would eat from that tree, as prior to that sin Adam would not be tempted to do anything against the wishes of His Creator. Besides, he had no need for what that tree had to offer, being himself immortal.

הן אדם היה כאחד ממנו, “now that man has become like one of us; etc.” according to the plain meaning of the text the word ממנו, “of Us,” is a reference to the angels. However, if that were the only true explanation the Torah should have written “like one of you.” However, due to G-d’s humility, He wrote “like one of Us.” The real intention of the verse is to say that originally, היה, “he had been,” like one of Us due to his superior intellect and due to this intellect not being hindered by the evil urge. Now, that he had sinned and become possessed of the desires of the flesh, however, he was no longer like “one of Us.”

He is unique in the terrestrial as I am unique in the celestial. Re’m raised a difficulty with this, but it seems that Rashi is saying: Hashem is unique in heaven, for His knowledge includes all: intellect, knowledge (to distinguish between true and false), and knowledge of good and evil (to distinguish between proper and improper). So too with man on earth: his intellect, coming from heaven, enables him to distinguish between true and false, and by eating from the Tree of Knowledge enables him to distinguish between proper and improper. But animals and beasts, although they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, cannot distinguish between right and wrong — only between beneficial and harmful, as they flee from harm and pursue what is beneficial. Thus, man is unique on earth as Hashem is in heaven, for the angels cannot distinguish between right and wrong, only between true and false. Therefore, Adam “must be prevented from reaching out his hand,” as he is “likely to lead people astray after him.”

Die Auffassung des כאחר ממנו ist dunkel. Gewöhnlich wird es: "wie einer von uns" verstanden, welches sprachlich ganz gerechtfertigt ist, wie "ומת אחד מהם אל אחד מבניו usw. Der Plural wird dann auf Engel bezogen, und da, wie wir geglaubt, der Genuss vom Baume dem ersten Menschen keineswegs eine ihm bis dahin fehlende höhere Erkenntnis gebracht hat, so müßten wir es also verstehen: der Mensch hat sich also wie einer von uns benommen, selbst zu wissen was gut ist und bös. Diese Ansicht ist alt. Schon ר׳ פפיס in ב׳ר כ׳א erklärte das כאחד ממלאכי השרת :כאחד ממנו Allein ר׳ עקיבא verwies ihm schon das Unstatthafte, hier in ganz konkreter Weise, hinsichtlich der Einsicht in Gutes und Böses die Engel in gleiche Linie mit הב"ה zu stellen, דייך פפיס. Aufgefordert, seine Ansicht über die Bedeutung des Satzes הן האדם היה כאחר ממנו auszusprechen, erwiderte שנתן לו המקום לפניו שני דרכים דרך החיים :ר"ע ודרך המות ובירר לו דרך המות. (So ist die Lesart im ילקוט) ,Gott habe ihm zwei Wege zur Wahl vorgelegt, den Weg des Lebens und den Weg des Todes, er habe den letzteren gewählt. Diese sich dem Sinne nach so sehr empfehlende Erklärung dürfte denn doch auch wortgerechter sein, als es auf den ersten Blick scheinen möchte. חַאַד bezeichnet überall: eines aus zweien oder mehreren. ממנו heißt ebensowohl: von ihm als von uns, und kann recht wohl wie das rabbinische כל כמיניה den Sinn haben: von ihm, von seiner Entscheidung, seiner Wahl abhängig. אחד ממנו würde demgemäß heißen: das eine oder der eine von den seiner Entscheidung anheim gegebenen zweien, und היה כאחד ממנו: er ist wie der eine seiner Wahl Überlassene geworden. Es hatte ihm Gott die Wahl anheim gegeben, sich in seinem Urteil über das ihm Gute oder Böse dem göttlichen Willen unterzuordnen und damit den Weg des Lebens zu betreten, oder selbst zu entscheiden, was gut und bös sei und damit dem Untergange zu verfallen. Er hat sich nun dafür entschieden, selbst zu wissen was gut sei und bös. Mit dieser Wahl hatte er nun auch über sein äußeres Geschick entschieden. Außerhalb des Paradieses geschaffen, war die Versetzung ins Paradies nur eine Prüfung, ihm die beiden Wege vorzulegen. Im Paradiese wird das Paradies nicht wieder gewonnen; nur in עצבון, in der Schule der Entsagung liegt der Weg zur Wiedergewinnung der reinen menschlichen Größe. ארורה, feindlich sollte ihm die Natur gegenüberstehen, sein Leben ein Leben des Kampfes und der Mühe werden, da ist der Tod ein freundlicher Erlöser aus der Laufbahn des Kampfes und der Mühe, ein ewiges Leben wäre ein ewiges Kämpfen und Ringen, die Barmherzigkeit Gottes lässt ihn nicht in der Nähe des ewig regenerierenden Baumes des Lebens. Ein Verbot würde ihn ja nicht schützen, פן ישלח ידו er würde gleichwohl sich an dem Verbotenen vergreifen. שלח יד ist in der Regel ein ungerechtfertigtes Handanlegen an einen Gegenstand.

ועתה פן ישלח ידו, “and now, lest he stretch out his hand;” this is an abbreviated verse, [reflecting the urgency of the matter? Ed.] The word: ועתה, could have been omitted as it is well known that הכל בידי שמים חוץ מיראת שמים, “everything is subject to control by heaven except matters that depend on one’s degree of awe for heaven.” G-d did not therefore have to “fear” what Adam was about to do, but He knew it beforehand. G-d was perfectly capable to prevent Adam from eating of the tree while he was in the garden. It was His domain also, and He could have denied him access without having to expel him. Why then did the Torah bother to begin our verse with the word: ועתה, “and now?” It was inserted as the attribute of Justice urged G-d to test man’s ability to resist his temptation. G-d was certain that, especially now, Adam would not be able to resist that temptation, therefore G-d put him beyond such temptation. This was going beyond the demands of justice, an act of Mercy by G-d. It gave Adam an opportunity to claim that even if he had remained within the garden he would have resisted the temptation to eat from the tree of Life.

ועתה פן ישלח ידו AND NOW, LEST HE PUT FORTH HIS HAND… [AND EAT AND LIVE FOR EVER] — And if he does live forever he is likely to lead people astray, so that they may say, “He, also, is a god”; there are also Agadic Midrashim, but they are not in keeping with its (the verse’s) plain sense.

לדעת טוב ורע, we already explained that the term לדעת טוב ורע refers to perceptive powers equal to that of the angels in our commentary on 2,17. In Bereshit Rabbah 21,5 Rabbi Pappus explained the words כאחד ממנו to mean “like one of the ministering angels.” Rabbi Akiva violently disagreed with him, saying “you have overstepped the boundaries of permissible interpretation, i.e. דייך פפוס. What then is the meaning of these words? G’d has placed two paths in front of man, one is the path of life. If he chooses the other path, he automatically abandons the path of life.
Rabbi Berechyah, quoting Rabbi Yochanan, said that as long as man was single he was similar to the “One,” i.e. immortal. The moment his one side had been removed he became a split personality, i.e. that is the meaning of “knowing good and evil.” The opinion of the Onkelos sides with that of Rabbi Akiva who interpreted the word כאחד as being similar to the One and only One, having received his knowledge of good and evil directly from Him. In other words, his choice over good and evil stemmed directly from G’d, not from the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

If he would live forever... [You might ask:] Once Adam was given a mate why would people claim that he is a god, according to what Rashi explained on (2:18), “It is not good for the man to be alone”? The answer is: If he had no mate, people would err on their own. But with a mate, he could still mislead people, since he has the knowledge of good and evil and lives forever. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Another peculiarity in our verse is the word היה. G'd was afraid that Adam might live forever, not that he had already achieved that status. The word therefore should have been עוד לא היה, or something to that effect. Furthermore, why would the ability to distinguish between good and evil elevate man to the status of G'd? How can we justify the expression ממנו, "like one of Us?" This would give the impression that there are physical beings in the heavens!

ולקח גם מעץ החיים, “and he will also take from the fruit of the tree of Life.” One reason that would have caused him to eat from that tree is that he had not even been warned not to eat from it. At any rate, after Adam had already sinned once by eating from the tree of knowledge, there was reason to assume that to breach the restrictions once more, especially if the objective was to repair the damage he had caused himself by eating from the tree of knowledge was not far fetched, and G-d took that into consideration by physically preventing him from carrying out such an intention.

כאחד, the word achad spelled with the vowel patach does not necessarily have to be in a construct form. Ibn Ezra does not agree that this is grammatically possible.

In view of the fact that G'd had warned man not to eat from the tree of knowledge He was not worried about his eating from the tree of life. He did not think man would be motivated to do so either of his own volition or as a result of seduction by the serpent. The seducer only urges man to taste what is forbidden; Satan never urges you to do what is perfectly permissible. Man on his own had no desire to eat from that tree in order to secure permanent life, something that was his birthright anyways. It was only after he had forfeited his birthright that he would seek to find an alternative for what he had lost. If G'd had forbidden the tree of life immediately, the serpent might have succeeded to entice even Adam himself into eating from it. Therefore G'd was wise in not including the tree of life in the prohibition immediately. After having eaten from the tree of knowledge with its fateful consequences, Adam's priorities had changed, and G'd now had to be concerned lest man eat from that tree in order to neutralize the mortality that had been decreed on him.

ואכל וחי לעולם, “he will eat and live forever.” If you were to remind us that the Torah had previously written that as a result of, or even on the day of eating from the tree of knowledge man would die, what good would it do him to eat from the tree of Life? We are forced to assume that the tree of Life, i.e. its fruit, was a medication intended to heal people that had been afflicted with a fatal disease. Anyone not so inflicted would not feel the urge to eat from it; [for all we know its fruit did not even look inviting. Ed.] Perhaps the translation of the expression: מות תמות, especially the repetition of the word for “death”: means that after having eaten from the fruit of the tree of knowledge man would be considered as if already legally dead. A different exegesis: G-d said that seeing death had already been decreed for man, and He had decreed that anyone eating from the tree of Life would live forever, how could both decrees exist side by side except by denying those who had eaten from the tree of knowledge access to the tree of Life?A third possible exegesis: if Adam and Chavah would give birth to children while still in the garden, and these had not eaten from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, it would be unfair to decree death for them; and if they were to eat from the tree of Life they would live forever. Therefore they had to be denied access.[Seeing that G-d did not consider uprooting the tree of Life, it is proof that anything in this universe which dies out, or perishes, does not do so as an act of G-d Who had created it for the benefit of His creatures, but must be a result of those creatures having forfeited by their actions the good such a phenomenon could do for them. Ed.]

ועתה פן ישלח ידו,.originally, Adam had not been forbidden to eat from the tree of life, but, on the contrary, had been commanded to eat from it, as we explained on 2,17. This tree was one of the trees of the garden from all of which Adam had been instructed to eat. As long as he would eat from the fruit of that tree, he would lengthen his original life span. However, as soon as he had violated G’d’s commandment by eating from the tree of knowledge, his punishment was premature death, i.e. death before he had attained the life span originally set for him. Therefore, G’d did not want him to remain inside Gan Eden so that he would not now take from the fruit of the tree of life just as he had taken from the fruit of the tree of knowledge. If he were to do that he would live far longer than G’d meant for him to live. It was the nature of that tree to reinforce man’s natural powers and to extend his life span. Seeing that Adam had violated the commandment he would now receive his punishment, i.e. shortening his life span. It was appropriate to expel him from the garden on that account to prevent him from eating the fruit of that tree. The meaning of the words גם מעץ is a reference to the other tree he had eaten from without permission. G’d reasoned that if He allowed man to remain in the garden and commanded him not to eat from the tree of life, he would once again violate His commandment just as he had done previously concerning the tree of knowledge. The meaning of the word לעולם is not to be understood literally as “forever, but describes a long period of time. It is similar to the meaning of the word לעולם in Exodus 21,6 where it cannot possibly mean “forever,” seeing that the servant who is the subject in that verse does not live forever.

The meaning of the word היה then is: "up until now man was alone unto himself," i.e. he was immortal," however, now that he has lost his immortality, he might want to eat from the tree of life. The word אחד ממנו, would refer to the uniqueness of man on earth. He alone of all the creatures on earth was immortal. The knowledge man acquired due to having eaten from the tree of knowledge might prompt him to want to eat from the tree of life to recapture the uniqueness of his former stature of ruling over the creatures of earth. I have found a proof for my interpretation of the word ממנו in Onkelos. Onkelos translates the word as מניה, "from him," i.e. כאחד ממנו, "like the only one of its kind"

There is another way to solve the problems we have raised. On the day G'd commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge He gave two commandments. G'd actually allowed for the possibility that Adam would violate His command by saying: "should you eat from it, your only way to rehabilitate yourself will be through death, through mortality of the body." In halachah we would consider the second commandment, i.e. the need to die as a לאו הניתק לעשה, a negative commandment tied to a positive commandment. The positive commandment is viewed as the תיקון, reparation of the negative commandment that has been violated. We have mentioned earlier that had it not been for the sin, Adam would have become so refined that he would have been considered as at home in the world of the permanent beings, just as the prophet Elijah who departed this world, body intact. It was only due to the sin that Adam's body forfeited the chance to rise with him to such lofty heights. Once deprived of the opportunity to refine his body in the manner described, the very act of separation of the soul from the body becomes the symbol of the inability to achieve the elevation of the body to eternal life. Under such circumstances man would not eat from the tree of life of his own accord. He would be afraid that as a result of eating from it he would forever forfeit potential rehabilitation should he violate the command not to eat from the tree of knowledge. Only death could afford him that chance, and once he had eaten from the tree of life he would not die. The matter was different, however, once he had eaten from the tree of knowledge without having eaten as yet from the tree of life. If he had eaten deliberately from the tree of knowledge, man would certainly be careful not to eat from the tree of life as that would condemn him eternally to a physical existence only. However, as we explained, man's sin had been inadvertent, meaning that he thought he was not bound to die in order to rehabilitate himself. If so, there was no powerful incentive for him to stay clear of the tree of life. Actually, Adam erred; even though his sin was inadvertent it could only be completely atoned for through death of his body at some stage. The principal reason that G'd had commanded man not to eat from the tree of knowledge was to prevent knowledge of evil becoming an integral part of his perceptions. His perceptions were meant to concentrate only on what is good. This is what Solomon meant (Kohelet 7,29) when he said that ישר עשה האלוקים את האדם, that "G'd made man perfectly upright." Evil did not figure as part of man's imagination and fantasies. All of this changed after he ate from the tree of knowledge. The fact that man felt naked and ashamed is proof that his fantasies now included things that were evil. Once man had undergone such a drastic change and the purpose of the prohibition to eat from the tree of knowledge had been irreversibly thwarted, he would no longer consider not eating from the tree of life as his insurance should he need to recapture his original status. He had already lost that status irretrievably. With the incentive not to eat from the tree of life gone, G'd had to forbid man to eat from that tree. In view of the fact that man had ignored a previous command, G'd deemed it safer to place the tree of life out of Adam's reach by expelling him from the garden.

Having said all this we can now understand a difficult passage in Bereshit Rabbah 21,6. Commenting on the words: "and now, lest he reach out and take also from the tree of life and eat thereof and live forever," Rabbi Aba bar Kahane says that the word ועתה, "and now" in this verse teaches that G'd encouraged Adam to repent. This word is used by the Torah to introduce the process of repentance. For instance, we have Deut. 10 where Moses described the sin of the golden calf and his endeavours to obtain forgiveness for the Jewish people. Verse 12 there commences with the words: ועתה ישראל, and goes on to describe what it is that G'd asks of the Jewish people so that they can rehabilitate themselves. The expression פן, always means "not or no." G'd said: "lest he stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and and eat of it and live forever." Thus far Rabbi Aba bar Kahane. This Midrash is extremely puzzling. How could G'd justify encouraging man to do repentance by saying to him "NO!?" Why did G'd only start to worry that Adam would eat from the tree of life after He had said to him "No?" It appears as if G'd would not have been concerned about Adam living forever if he had done תשובה! This cannot be since man had already become mortal on the day he ate from the tree of knowledge!

Actually, keeping in mind our exegesis, the words of Rabbi Ada bar Kahane make sense. G'd wanted Adam to realise that he had sinned by eating from the tree of knowledge. He did this by telling him to repent. Adam answered this invitation to do תשובה by saying that he had not sinned in a manner that required him to repent. He argued that he had been unaware of committing a sin when he ate from the tree. When G'd heard that Adam thought that an inadvertently committed sin does not require repentance, He began to worry that now there was no impediment to Adam eating from the tree of life. This is why G'd had to expel him from the garden to prevent this from happening. Later on Adam did repent and spent 130 years immersing himself in the waters of the river גיחון to atone for his sin [compare Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 20. Ed.].

Although G'd had said that Adam would die "on the day" he would eat from the tree of knowledge, the word "day" could have one of two connotations. It could mean a period of 24 hours, i.e. a day in human terms, or it could refer to a day in G'd's terms, i.e. 1000 years. If it is the latter, the meaning of the warning was that Adam would die before he reached the age of 1000 years. The respective connotation of the word depends on the severity of the sin and the feeling the sinner had at the time he committed the sin. If the sinner intended to anger G'd at the time he sinned, the meaning of the word "day" would be the minimum. The sinner would have to die before that period of 24 hours expired. If, however, the sin was not committed intentionally and the sinner had made it plain that he had not intended to sin, he would be given the maximum period possible, i.e. he would live up to but not including 1000 years.

to work the ground from where he had been taken – It is not for naught that the verse mentions “from where he had been taken.” I also found written in the midrash (Shachar Tov Tehillim 92) that the first man (Adam HaRishon) settled himself on Mount Moriah, and from where did they learn this? I further found in the words of our Sages (Chullin 60a) that Adam HaRishon offered a young bull with horns and hooves, and where did they find support in the Torah for this? It appears to me that the source for these statements is the verse “from where he had been taken.” That is to say, from the place about which it says “an altar of earth you shall make for Me…” (Shemot 20:21) As the Sages said, ‘the Holy One created him from the place of his atonement, if only that it be an atonement for him!’ (Bereshit Rabbah 14:8) This refers to Mount Moriah to which Gd sent him to work the ground, build an earthen altar from it and offer upon it an offering of atonement; he was taken from that earth and it is the gate through which he passed, as it gave him his thick, coarse substance through whose agency he fell into sin - as is explained above on the verse “…a tree which makes fruit.” (Bereshit 1:11) Therefore in the place which caused his sin, his atonement will be found because that place – that is, that earth – caused him to sin and therefore that earth is obligated to help him to attain atonement through working it into an altar upon which to offer a bull with horns and hooves. This is a correct explanation of the commandment ‘“an altar of earth you shall make for Me,’ because the damage will be fixed through that which caused the sin. Even according to the opinion that Gd gathered dust for the first man from the whole earth this is still the explanation, because the place about which it says “an altar of earth you shall make for Me” is the location of the foundation stone, from which the world was founded. Dust taken from the center of the world is like dust gathered from the whole earth. Through this the difficulty presented by the verse “…the land upon which you are lying to you I will give it and to your seed” is resolved. (Bereshit 28:13) Rashi explains the verse that Gd folded the entire land underneath Ya’akov. According to my explanation we do not have to say this, rather we can say that he lay down on the spot which is the navel of the world and its center - therefore it was as if he lay down on all the land in its entirety.

וישלחהו, He expelled him. G’d ordered Adam to leave the garden. The expression is used in the same vein as Exodus 12,33 למהר לשלחם מן הארץ, “hastening to send them out of the country.” (Pharaoh)

וישלחהו , the expression here means “expelled.” It is also used in this sense in Jeremiah 16,6 שלח מעל פני, “expel from my presence.

וישלחהו, “He expelled him.” According to Rabbi Joseph Kimchi, G’d first sent him outside the boundaries of Gan Eden, and subsequently expelled him by positioning the cherubs to prevent him for regaining access to that garden.

Es entsendete ihn ד׳ א׳. Dieselbe göttliche Liebe, die ihn in das ג"ע gesetzt, dieselbe entfernt ihn daraus. Sie hatte den Menschen von vornherein für diese beiden Lebensstellungen gebildet, entweder für die Pflichttreue im Paradiese, oder für die Erziehung zur Pflichttreue außerhalb desselben. Daher auch אשר לקח משם, die außerparadiesische Erde war ihm kein neuer Schauplatz. Es war der Boden, auf welchem und für welchen er geschaffen. Im Paradiese hatte er nur das Ziel kennen gelernt, die Heilesgestaltung auf Erden, für die er in der Schule der Entsagung reifen soll; eine irdische Heilesgestaltung, ein irdisches Paradies, dessen Ahnung sich bei allen Völkern auf Erden erhalten hat.

וישלחהו מגן עדן, “He expelled them from Gan Eden”. He was punished in a manner similar to that of a person killing another person through neglect rather than with intent to kill, i.e. he is exiled to a city of refuge. [the whole earth other than Gan Eden in this instance. Ed.] The reason why this penalty was appropriate was that at the moment when Chavah and Adam had eaten from the tree of knowledge they had not yet possessed the knowledge of good and evil which would have made them deliberate sinners.

האדמה אשר לוקח משם, the place to which Adam was transferred was compatible with the requirements of his constitution, more so than other areas on the globe.

לעבד את האדמה, seeing Adam had not been content with light duties in Gan Eden, while he lived from the fruit of the trees, something which was effortless, and he had preferred to violate G’d’s commandment, he would now have to leave the garden and perform hard work, as already indicated in verse 17. אשר לקח משם, to the same place he had been taken from by G;d when He had brought him to Gan Eden. Alternately, the meaning of these words could be in accordance with Onkelos, “the place from which he had been created;” a reference to the earthly part of him, not the divine part of him.

מקדם לגן עדן AT THE EAST OF THE GARDEN OF EDEN — Not in the eastern part of the Garden but eastward of the garden of Eden and outside the garden.

He banished the man. Neither he nor his offspring would be permitted to return.

ויגרש את האדם, this is not a repetition, but the Torah explained that simultaneously with Adam’s expulsion from the garden G’d had placed the cherubs there as guardians מקדם, in the East. It is possible that the entrance of the garden was in the east, and that is why the cherubs were placed at the entrance. They were beings who appeared to the onlooker just like cherubs, in order to put fear into Adam, to discourage him from attempting to return to Gan Eden, this is why it continues with the words לשמור את דרך עץ החיים ואת להט החרב המתהפכת, the revolving sword blades held by the cherubs were meant to frighten Adam. Seeing that the sword was not real, but only appeared so to Adam, the Torah speaks of the להט החרב, “the blade of the sword,” and not the sword itself. The word להט does not describe something of substance but something imaginary, flashes of the spectacle being what is frightening to behold. When this “fire, flame” keeps revolving around itself, as described here, this increases the fear inspired in the person watching such a spectacle. In Ezekiel 32,10 we have a similar expression עופפי חרבי, when G’d is described as frightening people by “brandishing My sword.”
There is an additional element in this, i.e. the spectacle is meant to inspire feelings of remorse over what he had done in Adam. Once Adam felt remorse, the way would be paved to full repentance. Once he had done תשובה the frightening spectacle would disappear and he would return to the garden from time to time, alternating between performing work there and working the soil outside. (one opinion in Bereshit Rabbah 21,8) All these matters have also been discussed in their mystical dimension in the writings of the Kabbalists. In Bereshit Rabbah 21,9 the word להט is understood as applying to certain angels, as mentioned in Psalms 104,4 עושה מלאכיו רוחות, משרתיו אש לוהט, “He makes the winds His messengers, fiery flames His servants.”
המתהפכת, a reference to G’d’s servants revolving, be they mane, women, or spiritual, disembodied beings such as winds, or even angels.

To the east of Gan Eden. The מ of מקדם causes it to mean “to the eastern side.” Thus it means, “To the east of Gan Eden.” And “Outside the Garden” means that the Cherubim themselves were outside the Garden. If they were inside the Garden, on its eastern side, man could enter the Garden until he came close to them. Since they were outside of the Garden, he could not enter at all.

ויגרש ist wohl nicht die räumliche Entfernung aus dem Paradiese, sondern die größere Scheidung von Gott. Der seiner Sinnlichkeit gehorchende Mensch wird auf eigene Füße gestellt, um erst in der Schule der Entsagung das Bedürfnis der Gottesleitung zu fühlen, und die Sehnsucht nach der Gottesnähe wieder zu empfinden.

להט, “flaming;” ,the expression “flaming sword,” is a metaphor describing hell which is presumed as a domain in which freezing cold and burning heat constantly alternately, inflicting indescribable discomfort on its wicked inhabitants.

ויגרש את האדם; “as soon as He had expelled Adam, etc.;” this verse does not mean to tell us that G-d had expelled Adam and his family, as we have already been told this in the previous verse. We have to understand this verse as follows: “as soon as G-d had expelled Adam and his wife, G-d positioned angels at the entrance to Gan Eden.

את הכרבים THE CHERUBIM — Angels of destruction (Exodus Rabbah 9:11).

He stationed. The Cherubim were stationed to guard the Tree of life even before Adam and Chavah left the Garden to ensure that they would not partake on their way out.

Which had sharpness, to frighten him. להט means a shiny appearance. Since this appearance cannot exist without a sword, Rashi says, “The rotating sword” — which had להט. As if it stated, “A rotating sword which has a להט appearance when it rotates.”

לשמור את דרך עץ החיים kann heißen: den Weg zum Baume des Lebens zu schützen, damit der Mensch ihn nicht finde, kann aber auch heißen: ihn zu schützen und zu bewahren, dass er dem Menschen nicht verloren gehe und er einst auf ihm wieder zurückkehren könne. Andeutungen der Weisen sprechen für letzteres. כרובים erscheinen stets als die Träger der sich dem Menschen offenbarenden, in die Menschenverhältnisse eingreifenden göttlichen Herrlichkeit. כרובים schützen den "Baum des Lebens" in dem verjüngten provisorischen Paradiese, dem מקדש, wie sie hier den Weg zum Baum des Lebens wahren, dass er dem Menschen nicht verloren gehe. כרובים befinden sich hinter den קרשי המשכן, hinter den Wänden der Stiftswohnung. Entsprechend dem Worte הנה הוא עומד אחר כתלנו, sind dort auch die Träger der göttlichen Herrlichkeit, "die Engel, die Er sendet, uns zu helfen auf allen unseren Wegen. Und wenn die Worte unserer Weisen in ihnen die menschliche Jünglingsgestalt, כרביא, erblicken lassen, wie andererseits דמות יעקב das Jakobsideal am Throne der göttlichen Herrlichkeit erscheint, so liegt der Gedanke nicht fern, in כדובים das Ideal der Gesamtmenschheit als Träger der Herrlichkeit Gottes zu erkennen, von dem es ja auch in Beziehung zu Israel heißt, dass er יושב תהלות ישראל, dass er auf den Huldigungen Israels throne. Heißt es doch hier auch הכרובים, die Cherubim, die Israel ja bei der Überantwortung des Gotteswortes bereits aus dem Tempel bekannt waren. — ואת להט החרב המתהפכת, vergleiche Richter 7, 13. צלל לחם שעורים מתהפך מדין, ein sich im Midjanitischen Lager "einherwälzendes" Gerstenbrot. Indem es hier nun nicht die Flamme eines sich umwälzenden, sondern die Flamme des sich umwälzenden Schwertes heißt, so dürfte damit das ewig wiederkehrende Leid, und zwar soziale (חרב) Leid bezeichnet sein, gegen welches die auf sich gestellte Menschheit vergebens ankämpft. Und so dürften denn mit den Cherubim und dem sich umwälzenden Schwerte die beiden Momente gegeben sein, durch welche Gott der Menschheit den Weg zum Baume des Lebens erhält, und sie endlich sich wieder auf diesem Wege zurechtfinden lässt. החרב המתהפכת, das Leid, der Schmerz, die Zerrüttungen im großen, die immer und immer wiederkehren. Sofort, wie wir den Boden des Paradieses verlassen, betreten wir den blutigen Boden der Menschengeschichte. Ihr erster Auftritt heißt Brudermord. Leid, nicht bloß im einzelnen, sondern im großen Ganzen des Menschengeschlechts bahnt die Erkenntnis an, dass nur durch den Blick nach oben und die Gesamtunterordnung unter den Einen, Höchsten, das ewige Leben auf Erden gefunden werden könne. Wäre mit der Sinnlichkeit und dem Eigendünkel des sich selbst genügenden Menschen das ewige Leben und Glück verbunden, wäre nicht über die großen Gänge der Geschichte: הבל! die Nichtigkeit ausgesprochen, der Weg zum Baume des ewigen Lebens wäre für den Menschen verloren. דרך חיים תוכחות מוסר, "der Weg zum Leben geht über Leid." Somit wäre להט החרב המתהפכת das negative Resultat der Weltgeschichte. Das zweite, die Cherubim, wären die von Zeit zu Zeit an die Menschen gesendeten Spuren der göttlichen Offenbarung, jene Fingerzeige und Weckungen Gottes, durch welche der geläuterte Mensch in den Gängen der Geschichte die Hand Gottes ahnet und schaut. Es wären dies die positiven Belehrungsmittel der die Menschheit erziehenden Gotteswaltung. Beide zusammen, das Schwert und die Cherubim, das Leid und die Gottesoffenbarungen, schützen den Weg zum Baume des Lebens. Im Zusammenhange würde es also heißen: Gott schied sich von dem Menschen, allein er bestellte die Cherubim und das Schwert, ihm den Weg zum Baume des Lebens zu be- wahren. Im ויקרא רבה ט׳ 0ח11 תנא דבי אליהו bezeichnen die Weisen diesen Weg, der zum Baume des Lebens führen soll, noch deutlicher als: דרך ארץ, als den Weg der Kultur, als den Weg jener sozialen Weisheit, die sich dem Menschen aus seinem Zusammenleben auf Erden als die erste Hofmeisterin und Erzieherin zur Sitte und Ordnung ergibt. כו׳ דורות lautet das bedeutsame Wort des ,ר׳ ישמעאל בר רב נחמן קדמה דרך ארץ את התורה הה"ד לשמור את דרך עץ החיים ,דרך זו דרך ארץ ואח״כ עץ החיים זו תורה. "Sechsundzwanzig Geschlechter ist דרך ארץ der תורה vorangegangen, denn es heiße, Cherubim und Schwert seien bestellt, den Weg zum Baume des Lebens zu wahren; der Weg sei aber die Kultur, und dann erst gelange man zum Baume des Lebens, zur תורה." Die Kultur beginnt das Erziehungswerk des Menschengeschlechts, und die תורה vollendet es; die תורה ist eben die vollendete Menschenbildung. Das Feigenblatt und die Schürze, dieses erste, welches dem Menschen auf seinem Erziehungswege ward, war das erste Angebinde der Kultur, und die Kultur, die im Dienste der Sittlichkeit steht, ist die erste Stufe der Rückkehr des Menschen zu Gott. Für uns Juden fällt דרך ארץ und תורה zusammen. Der vollendetste Mensch und der vollendetste Jude ist im jüdischen Kreise identisch. Im Entwicklungsgange der Menschheit geht aber die Kultur der תורה voran. Schwert und Cherubim, die Not und die Ahnung eines Höhern, führen das Menschengeschlecht in die Bahn der Kultur, die endlich beim Baume des Lebens mündet. Darum freut sich der Jude, wo nur überall die Kultur den Menschen zur Erkenntnis des Wahren und zur Pflege des Guten erhebt. Wo freilich die Kultur in den Dienst der Sinnlichkeit tritt, da wird die Entartung nur um so größer. Dieser Missbrauch hebt aber den Segen des דרך ארץ nicht auf, אם אין דרך ארץ אין תורה. Darum soll auch der Jude allem Wahren und Guten der Kultur hold sein, und durch die Art und Weise seines Auftretens als der gebildetste Mensch erscheinen und zeigen, dass Judesein nur eine höhere Stufe des Menschseins ist. Auf der anderen Seite freilich auch: אם אין תורה אין דרך ארץ, wenn die Bildung nicht zur תורה führen, sondern ihre Stelle vertreten soll, so ist sie nicht der Weg, der zum Baume des Lebens führt, sondern ein Weg zur Entartung.

הכרובים “the cherubs;” who were these cherubs? They were creatures whose very appearance frightened all those who merely looked at them. They carried gleaming swords in their hands. המתהפכת, “these swords exuded flashes of lightning from either side of the blade.”

החרב המתהפכת THE SWORD TURNING ITSELF — It was a revolving sword and consequently had a להט, a flashing flame for the purpose of frightening him so that he should not enter again into the garden. The Targum of להט, however, is שגן, like (Sanhedrin 82a) שלף שגגא he drew his blade; old French lame. There are Agadic Midrashim, but I come only to explain it according to its plain sense.

לשמור את דרך עץ החיים, to ensure that on the way out they would not take from its fruit and eat thereof.