Komentarz do Rodzaju 3:1

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.