창세기 3:2의 주석

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.