ציטירנדיקער פּירוש אויף בראשית 3:6

A Midrashic approach (Tanchuma Tazria 9): Why has this paragraph not been introduced by the customary: “speak to the Children of Israel; if a person has such and such symptoms, etc.?” The absence of this introductory formula is to teach you that it is not the Lord who initiates afflictions as we know from Psalms 5,5 כי לא אל חפץ רשע אתה לא יגורך רע, ”for You are not a G’d who desires wickedness, evil cannot abide with You;” David does not belabour the obvious; he speaks about G’d having no desire to make any creature guilty of anything. We have proof of this also in Ezekiel 33,11: “as true as I am alive, says the Lord, G’d, I do not desire the death of the wicked.” On the contrary, what is it that G’d desires? He wants to find an excuse to justify His creatures’ actions as we know from Isaiah 42,21: ה’ חפץ למען צדקו יגדיל תורה ויאדיר, ”The Lord desires His creatures’ vindication, that He may magnify and glorify (His) Teaching.” If our paragraph had commenced in the normal way some people might have misunderstood and thought that G’d derives satisfaction from having to afflict people even though they were guilty of something.
Another comment by the Midrash: the words “evil does not abide with You” which we quoted from Psalms 5,5 mean that the name of G’d is not associated with events of an evil nature but only with things positive. When G’d created light and darkness, He did associate His name with the light but not with the darkness. In Genesis 1,5 the Torah writes: “G’d called the light day, and the darkness He called night.” When G’d blessed the first pair of human beings, His name was associated with the blessing for both of them, as the Torah writes (Genesis 1,28: “G’d blessed them.” On the other hand, when G’d decreed a curse on man, (Genesis 3,16) The Torah writes: “to the woman He had said, etc.,” and we find similar language in connection with the penalty decreed on Adam. The Torah writes (Genesis 3,17): “and to Adam He had said, etc.” You may ask that when G’d cursed the serpent we also find this kind of language, i.e. (Genesis 3,14) “the Lord G’d had said to the serpent, ‘because you have done this, etc.’” Our sages answered this query in Tanchuma Tazria 9 by saying that there are indeed three occasions when G’d did associate His name with something evil, such as a curse. The first instance is the case of the מסית, someone who seduces others to worship idols; the first personification of such a seducer was the serpent who seduced Chavah in Gan Eden saying to her: “G’d knows that on the day you (pl) will eat from the tree your eyes will be opened and you will become just like G’d” (Genesis 3,5). The serpent implied that just as G’d had created worlds so she and Adam would be able to create worlds; the serpent implied that G’d had forbidden eating the fruit because He was jealous of potential competition. The serpent implied that just as a skilled craftsman is anxious not to reveal the secrets of his craft, so G’d wanted to keep the secret of how He had created the universe. Seeing that the serpent had used G’d’s name in its seduction of Chavah, G’d in turn associated His name with the punishment, the curse.
The second instance of G’d’s name being associated with something evil concerns people who deliberately transgress the decrees of the sages whose authority has been given to them by G’d and has been confirmed at Mount Gerizim. The prophet Jeremiah referred to the fact that such people are guilty of death when he wrote in Jeremiah 11,3: “Thus said the Lord: cursed be the man who will not obey the terms of this covenant which I enjoined your fathers when I freed them from Egypt, etc.” The sin of these people is that they place their trust in man instead of in G’d as the prophet said in Jeremiah 17,5: “Thus said the Lord: ‘cursed is he who trusts in man, who makes a mere flesh his strength and turns his thoughts from the Lord.’” In other words, when does the curse mentioned earlier apply? When someone turns his heart away from the Lord. When Noach blessed his sons Shem and Yaphet, he used the name of G’d in his blessing, saying: ברוך ה’ אלו-הי שם, “blessed be the Lord, the G’d of Shem,” etc. When he cursed Canaan (Genesis 9,26) he simply said: ארור כנען, “cursed be Canaan;” he did not mention G’d in that context. When the prophet Elisha prayed to G’d asking for deliverance from the Arameans (enemy of the Israelites at that time, Kings II 6,17) he invoked the name of the Lord in his prayer saying: “Lord open his eyes let him see” (a reference to his attendant who was afraid). When he then turned to cursing the Arameans (verse 18 of the same chapter), Elisha only said: ”please strike these people with a blinding light.” The name of G’d was not invoked in the prayer to bring a curse upon them. Even when the Israelites were sinful, G’d referred to them with respect and honor. When G’d legislated the kind of animals which were to be offered by the Israelites, -when, where and under what circumstances,- the legislation is introduced with the words: “if one of you wishes to offer a sacrifice to the Lord, etc.” When introducing the צרעת legislation, however, the name of G’d does not appear. Clearly, even when the legislation presupposes sins by the afflicted, the Torah still does not wish to involve G’d directly, as the One who initiates the “curse.” This is why the verse starts merely with the words: “when someone develops a white spot on the skin of his flesh, etc.”
What sins cause such afflictions? In retribution for illicit sex. (Tanchuma Tazria 11) This is also what happened in Jerusalem whose inhabitants were struck by this disease because their sexual mores had deteriorated so much (Isaiah 3,16) ”because the daughters of Zion are so vain and walk with their heads thrown back, with roving eyes, and with mincing gait, making a tingling with their feet...the Lord will uncover their heads.” The word used there is שפח which is the equivalent of צרעת as we know from Leviticus 14,5.
The words אדם כי יהיה בעור בשרו שאת או ספחת, are equivalent to what we read n Chabakuk 1,7 איום ונורא ממננו ושפתו ושאתו יצא, “they are terrible and dreadful; they make their own laws and are overbearing.” The prophet speaks about Adam who was the direct creation of G’d, created in His likeness, who was composed of particles from all the corners of the globe and whose dominion before his sin therefore extended over all parts of the globe. At that time Adam was able to see with his eyes from one end of the earth to the other. Adam’s wife, Chavah was created from his very body, she who caused his mortality. Seeing that she gave Adam to eat from the fruit of the tree of knowledge she made him mortal.
Another Midrashic explanation: The words “terrible and dreadful” which we quoted from Chabakuk refer to Pharaoh who ruled over the whole earth as we know from Psalms 105,20. The words: “they make their own laws, etc.” refer to Moses who grew up in the very house of this wicked Pharaoh and eventually deprived him of his rule after bringing ten plagues upon him. Moses used to take a look at his holy staff to see which kind of plague was appropriate to smite Pharaoh with; he would then inflict this plague upon him; hence the prophet speaks about something “terrible and dreadful.”
Yet another interpretation of that verse in Chabakuk relates the adjectives in that verse to the principal characteristics of the four host nations who had control of the Jewish people in exile at different times. [The Midrash broadens its perspective of allegorical meanings; the interested reader is referred to the original text seeing that our author does not contribute to the understanding of this Midrash except quoting its text. Ed.]

The concept that sin often has a positive component may well be the central issue associated with the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. It seems that what ultimately convinced Chava to eat from the tree was its apparent beauty and practical utility as food (Bereshit 3:6). This surprised Chava – her expectation must have been that something forbidden by God would have no redeeming qualities.⁸See Ramban on Bereshit 3:6. This unexpected cognitive dissonance seems to be what made an ostensibly simple test a very sophisticated one indeed. Unfortunately for Chava, however, such an understanding of good and evil is incorrect; or rather, it is only correct as an understanding of pristine, absolute good and evil. It is not an accurate understanding of how evil presents itself in this world.⁹This is also how Sforno on Bereshit 3:7 apparently understands the transformation that occurred in Adam’s and Chava’s perceptions as a result of eating from the tree.

AND G-D SAW THE LIGHT, THAT IT WAS GOOD. Rabbi Shlomo [Rashi] wrote: “Here too⁷⁵A reference to Rashi’s similar comment on the first word of the Torah — bereshith (see above). The difficulty here in the text is twofold: (a) It is first written, and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and then G—d said, Let there be light. Thus there already was a separation between light and darkness. Why then does Scripture continue by stating, and G—d divided the light from the darkness? (b) Concerning all other acts of creation, the expression “And G—d saw that it was good” is found at the completion of the act of creation, while here this phrase is written (in the beginning of Verse 4) before the completion. The Agadah, which Rashi quotes, answers: (a) vayavdel means here that He set apart the light for the righteous in the world to come. (b) ki tov (that it was good) could not have been written after the separation of the light for the righteous from the ordinary light, since the remaining light was no longer perfect. Therefore, ki tov is mentioned before the setting aside of the light. we must depend on the words of the homiletic Agadah G-d saw that the wicked were unworthy of using the light, and so He set it aside for the righteous in the World to Come. But according to the plain meaning of the verse, explain it thus: He saw that the light was good, and that it was not seemly for it and the darkness to function in a confused manner. He therefore assigned the one’s sphere of activity to the daytime and the one’s sphere of activity to the nighttime.”
And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said: “The word vayar (and He saw) has the same meaning here as in Vera’iti ani (And I saw),⁷⁶Daniel 10:7. which refers to the thought in the heart. And He divided refers to His giving them different names.”⁷⁷Ibn Ezra’s opinion is thus that the division was not because it was unseemly that the light and darkness function in a confused manner, but it was for the purpose of assigning each one a separate name.
But the words of both Rashi and Ibn Ezra are incorrect for if they were, it would appear that there was on the part of G-d a change of mind and new counsel, as if to say that after G-d said, ‘Let there be light’ and there was light, He saw that it was good, and therefore He divided between it and darkness just as a human being who does not know the nature of something until it comes into existence! Rather, the order followed in the process of creation is that the bringing forth of things into actual existence is called amirah (saying). Thus: And G-d said, ‘Let there be light;’ And G-d said, ‘Let there be a firmament;’⁷⁸Verse 6. And G-d said, ‘Let the earth put forth grass.’⁷⁹Verse 11. And the permanence of things called forth into existence is called re’iyah (seeing), as And I saw in Ecclesiastes,⁸⁰2:13. and similarly, And the woman saw that the tree was good for food.⁸¹Genesis 3:6. In the language of the Rabbis we also find, “I see the words of Admon.”⁸²Kethuboth 109a. Likewise, And the king said unto Zadok the priest, ‘Seest thou? return into the city in peace.’⁸³II Samuel 15:27. The purport of the word “seeing” is thus to indicate that their continuing existence is at His Will, and if that Will should for a second depart from them, they will turn into nought. Now just as Scripture says in connection with the work of each day, And G-d saw that it was good and on the sixth day when everything was completed it says, And G-d saw everything that He had made, and behold, it was very good,⁸⁴Verse 31. so does it say on the first day when light came into existence, And G-d saw … that it was good, meaning He desired its existence forever. The verse adds “the light” [And G-d saw ‘the light’ that it was good], because had it just said, “And G-d saw that it was good,” it would have referred to the creation of the heaven and the earth, and at that time He had not yet decreed for them permanence, as they did not remain as they were. Instead, from the substance created on the first day, the firmament was made on the second day, and on the third the waters and the dust were separated and the dry land — which He called “earth” — was formed. He then decreed for them permanence, and said concerning them, And G-d saw that it was good.⁸⁵Verse 10.