Commento su Genesi 3:1
וְהַנָּחָשׁ֙ הָיָ֣ה עָר֔וּם מִכֹּל֙ חַיַּ֣ת הַשָּׂדֶ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשָׂ֖ה יְהוָ֣ה אֱלֹהִ֑ים וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ אֶל־הָ֣אִשָּׁ֔ה אַ֚ף כִּֽי־אָמַ֣ר אֱלֹהִ֔ים לֹ֣א תֹֽאכְל֔וּ מִכֹּ֖ל עֵ֥ץ הַגָּֽן׃
Il serpente era scaltro, più di tutte le bestie selvagge che fatte aveva il Signore Iddio; e disse alla donna: C’è forse anche, che Dio abbia detto: “Non dovete mangiare d’alcun albero del giardino”?
Rashi on Genesis
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).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Kli Yakar on Genesis
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.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Sforno on Genesis
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).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy