Comentario sobre Génesis 3:7

‘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.