Genesis · Chapter 3

Now the serpent was more cunning than all the beasts of the field that Hashem God had made. And it said to the woman: Is it truly so that Hashem said, You shall not eat from any tree of the garden?

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). 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). ‘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.

"Now the serpent" — Some say that the woman could understand and know the language of animals, and they explain "the serpent said" as meaning by gesture. Others said that it was Satan. But why do they not look at the end of the passage? For how would Satan go on his belly? And how would he eat dust? And what is the point of the curse, "he shall bruise your head"? Many have gone astray in wondering why the serpent was cursed, and whether it had full knowledge, or whether it was commanded not to seduce the woman. Rav Saadia Gaon said: since it has been established that speech and reason belong to man alone, we are compelled to say that the serpent and the donkey did not actually speak — rather an angel spoke on their behalf. Rav Shmuel ben Hofni responded to him. And then Rabbi Shlomo the Spaniard, the author of the measured poems — who was a great sage — replied to Rav Shmuel. What seems correct to me is that the words are to be taken at face value: the serpent spoke, and it walked upright, and the One who placed intellect in man placed it in the serpent as well. Indeed the verse testifies that it was more shrewd than all the beasts of the field — but not like man. The meaning of "shrewd" (ʿarum) is "wise" — that it would accomplish its ends through cunning. Do not be troubled that "ʿarum" follows "ʿarumim" [the two being different in meaning], for they carry two distinct senses; such wordplay is a feature of elegant language, as in: "With the jawbone of a donkey — a donkey's load, two donkey-loads" (Judg. 15:16), and likewise: "on thirty young donkeys, and thirty settlements for them" (Judg. 10:4). Furthermore, if it were an angel speaking through the serpent's mouth, the serpent would bear no guilt. Nor could this angel be a messenger of Hashem, since an angel does not defy Hashem's word. Those who ask how the serpent found the woman — this is not a real question. The force of the word "af ki" ("indeed even") indicates that the serpent had already said other things and concluded with a kal va-ḥomer: since He told you "you shall not eat of any fruit of a tree" — as a general prohibition. Note that the serpent did not mention the glorious and awesome Name, because it did not know it. The woman also added to Hashem's commandment: "and you shall not touch it" — just as Manoah's wife added: "until the day of his death" (Judg. 13:7).

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). 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.” 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.

והנחש היה ערום. The serpent was sly. First we must understand why the Torah told us that the serpent was so sly. 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. 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. The serpent concentrated on three subjects and by combining them achieved its purpose. 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 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.

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. 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 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.

והנחש היה ערום, “and the serpent had been sly, etc.” The reason that the words ואשתו in the last verse and the word והנחש in this verse appear side by side is that Satan had been created together with woman. Woman may be perceived as the body, the personification of the evil urge. [the evil urge is an abstract concept. In order for it to become effective it needs a “body.” Woman, or better the first woman, became that “body.” Ed.] Woman proved “easy” to mislead into sin. The numerical value of the letters in the word הנחש is 364 after allowing 1 for the whole word, whereas the letters in the word השטן add up to 364. Midrash Vayikra Rabbah 26,2 quotes Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmeni as saying that when the serpent was asked: “why are you always found near the fences?” It answered: “because I was the one that breached the fences of the universe.” When asked further: “why are you constantly sticking out your tongue?”, It answered: “He makes me do it.” When asked: “why is the bite of any other free roaming beast not lethal whereas your bite is lethal?” The serpent answered: “do you suppose that I do anything of my own free will which has not been ordained for me from above?” The latter question is reflected in Kohelet 10,11 אם ישך נחש בלא לחש ואין יתרון לבעל הלשון, “if there were to be found a snake which bites without being provoked (from above), what purpose is there to the art of the snake-charmers?” When the serpent was asked further: “why is it that when you bite a single organ all other organs are affected by that bite?” The serpent answered (angrily) “why are you asking me instead of asking why the people who merely speak evil are able to kill without biting? Such people open their mouths here (Palestine) and the lethal effect of what they said is felt as far away as Rome!” 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).

“Did God really say you shall not eat from any tree in the garden?” There is a major difficulty with this matter: If the woman added the prohibition of touching [the tree] on her own accord, then she knew the truth that God did not command about touching. If so, how was she persuaded by these meaningless words to say “just as there is no death from touching, so too there is no death from eating”? At first glance, it appears we can explain that the woman did not hear the command directly from God, but rather from her husband. This is what is meant by [the verse] (verse 16) And the Lord God commanded the man saying — what is meant by saying? Rather, that he should also tell his wife that this eating is dangerous. This is why it says commanded upon [al] the man and not “to [el] the man” — meaning regarding/concerning not bringing himself into danger. The man, using his intellect, decided to make a protective fence and add to the command by prohibiting his wife even from touching [the tree], so that she would not come to eat from it. Eve thought that everything was commanded directly by God, and therefore this mistake came to her, as the serpent found a way to deceive her. With this explanation, we don’t need Rashi’s interpretation that the serpent didn’t approach Adam because women are light-minded and easily persuaded. For in any case, this is not a difficulty, since the serpent wanted to prove from touching that there would be no death from eating. With Adam, he couldn’t prove anything, because Adam knew the truth that God had not commanded about touching, and that he had added it on his own. It seems appropriate to further explain that Eve was uncertain whether the serpent’s intention was for their benefit — that they should become like God knowing good and evil — or perhaps his intention was that Adam should die so that he could marry Eve. And he spoke to Eve because women are of lighter mind and easily persuaded, and he knew that she would certainly give [the fruit] to her husband first. Therefore, Eve said that this would be the test of the serpent’s intentions, and she added the prohibition of do not touch so that all their interaction would be about touching [the tree], because with touching, there was no reason she would put her husband first as there was with eating. And when the serpent pushed Eve against the tree, Eve then said “Now I know that the serpent is correct, because if his intention was for Adam to die, then why did he push me? What would he gain from my death? Rather, it must certainly be as he says — to become like God,” and therefore she gave credence to his words. And see above for a precious explanation about the serpent’s conversation with Eve in the verse a tree bearing fruit according to its kind.

The woman said to the serpent: From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat;

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.

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. 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.

but from the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, Hashem said: You shall not eat of it, and you shall not come near it, lest you die.

ולא תגעו בו NEITHER SHALL YE TOUCH IT — She added to God’s command (which did not forbid touching the tree, but only eating of its fruit) therefore she was led to diminish from it. It is to this that the text refers (Proverbs 30:6): “Add thou not unto His words” (Genesis Rabbah 19:3).

ולא תגעו, neither must you touch it. This is the plain meaning of the verse. We find that the Torah does forbid something that is forbidden to eat, i.e. a carcass that did not die through ritual slaughter. (Compare Leviticus 11,8, where the halachic meaning is that it must not be touched when the purpose is to eat it.) The truth is that when one adds a restriction to G-d’s commandment, instead of improving it, one causes harm to it, makes it less effective instead of more effective. Seeing that the additional restriction had not been issued by G-d directly, it is less than useless. (Compare Sanhedrin 29).

The serpent said to the woman: You shall certainly not die.

לא מות תמתון YE SHALL NOT SURELY DIE — He pushed her until she touched it. He then said to her, “Just as there is no death in touching it, so there is no death in eating it” (Genesis Rabbah 19:3).

לא מות תמותון “you will sure not die, כי יודע אלוקים כי בים אכלכם ממנו ונפקחו עיניכם, G’d did not forbid this fruit because it is lethal, but because He knows that through eating it you will attain additional knowledge so that you will be just like G’d, possessing total knowledge.

ויאמר הנחש…לא מות תמותון. The serpent said: "You will most certainly not die." The reason the serpent repeated the reference to death was to counter Eve's fears that the tree itself was lethal, or that even if it were not harmful at all, G'd would punish them with death for disobeyimg Him. The serpent claimed that neither natural nor judicial death would result from contact with the tree or its fruit. Assuming that the serpent was right, this in turn raises the question of why G'd had forbidden the fruit of that tree? The serpent had to make such a prohibition sound plausible. This is why it continued that G'd was aware that as soon as man ate from that tree he would become a real competitor to G'd, i.e. knowing what is good and what is harmful. This argument was pure blasphemy. The only reason that the wicked serpent was able to employ such an argument was that its creation had preceded that of man. The serpent was able to use its senior status in the history of creation to claim that it was privy to matters that Adam and Eve could not have been privy to. He also argued that the reason he (the serpent) had been denied entry to גן עדן was that entry had been permitted only to those who were not privy to the secret of the tree of knowledge and what it represented. It claimed that by preventing the serpent from entering the garden G'd had wanted to preserve the secret of the power that tree would impart to those who ate from it. According to the serpent, once Eve would eat from that tree she would no longer be afraid of G'd, and G'd would no longer exercise any control over her. The use of such an argument was idolatrous. According to our halachah idolatry is punishable even when it is merely an intellectual conviction (Berachot 12). According to Bereshit Rabbah 19,3 there is another reason that the serpent used the expression מות תמות. The serpent pushed Eve against the tree and "proved" that touching the tree was not lethal- as Eve had claimed. It argued that just as touching the tree had not resulted in death, neither would eating from its fruit. We must examine this so-called "proof." If we accept that Eve had convinced herself that contact with the tree would have fatal consequences because of its very nature, the fact that her contact with the tree had proved harmless should have convinced her of the tree's harmlessness. There was therefore no reason to be afraid to eat from it. Alternatively, if Eve's fear of touching the tree were based on her belief that G'd had outlawed both eating from the tree and touching it, she now had "proof" that this was not so because nothing had happened to her after she had touched the tree. We do not consider this in the nature of any "proof," seeing that G'd's punishment did not have to be meted out immediately. We therefore prefer the explanation we offered previously that the serpent wanted to "prove" to Eve that the tree itself was quite harmless. If you were to ask why G'd would have created a tree that was poisonous at all, the answer is -as in many such instances- that the greater the physical and spiritual effort to overcome such potential impediments to our faith, the greater the reward which is stored up in heaven for such acts of faith, a reward to be consumed by us in the Hereafter. This concept is phrased in Avot 5,26: לפום צערא אגרא, as "the reward is commensurate with the effort expended." Had G'd imposed strict limits on the power of the seducer to entice us, overcoming him would not have amounted to much. The Zohar illustrates this principle by the example of a father who wanted to test his son's moral fibre and who instructed a beautiful harlot to use all her wiles to seduce him. At the same time he had instructed the son to keep his distance from the harlot in question.

לא מות תמותון, according to Rashi, this expression means that the serpent had first pushed the woman against the tree to demonstrate that though she had touched it, she had not died. Neither would she die by eating from it. If you were to ask how did the serpent know that the woman would not die by touching that tree? G-d had threatened that anyone eating from that tree would die on that day, and the day had not come to an end yet? We must not ask such questions when examining the exegesis of our sages! Actually, this question has been asked, and answered as the serpent having convinced the woman that death would follow instantaneously if she would violate G-d’s commandment. In order to answer the doubters or deniers of the truth of the Torah, this dialogue was not completed until the next morning when the previous day had already passed without any harm befalling the woman. [Some commentators claim that the serpent had eaten herself and demonstrated that she had not suffered any harm. In that case we must assume that the animals had not been forbidden to eat from that tree. Ed.] A different interpretation of the words: לא מות תמותון: the serpent told the woman that she now risked nothing by eating, as if she had said that also touching had been forbidden, she could not die more than once anyways, so what did she have to lose by also tasting the fruit of that tree? The literal meaning of the words: לא מות תמותון, would therefore be: “you cannot die twice.”

ויאמר הנחש אל האשה לא מות תמותון, “the serpent said to the woman: ”you will surely not die.” According to Rashi the serpent had pushed Chavah against the tree first, thus demonstrating to her that touching the tree did not result in any harm to her, contrary to what she had said in the name of G’d. The most common criticism of Rashi’s commentary is that Chavah simply had to reply that seeing the day was not yet over, the fact that she had not died as yet was no proof of anything, and that this was the reason that she had not died as a result of touching the tree. The defenders of Rashi’s commentary are forced to respond that the serpent challenged her by saying that since, according to her own words, she was going to die by the end of the day on account of having touched the tree, she might as well eat of it, seeing she could only die once. The basic objection to Rashi’s commentary is totally invalid, as Chavah had never said a word about dying on that day, but about dying as a result of eating or touching, i.e. immediately.

For it is revealed before Hashem that on the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like great ones, knowing good and evil.

כי ידע FOR [GOD] KNOWS — Every artisan detests his fellow-artisans (“Two of a trade never agree”). The serpent suggested to her: God ate of the tree and created the world (Genesis Rabbah 19:4) so if you eat... והייתם כאלהים YE WILL BE AS GOD — Creators of worlds.

"And you will be like God" — like the angels.

והייתם כאלוקים, “and you will wind up being just like G-d;” the word as used by the serpent means: “like angels.” We have confirmation for this from the translation of Onkelos, i.e. כרברמין חכמין, “of superior intelligence;” (according to Maimonides in his moreh nevuchim, this is not the only time that the word; elohim is used to describe angels.

והייתם כאלוקים יודעי טוב ורע, “and you will be like G-d, knowing good and evil.” From this it would appear that prior to his sin Adam did not possess the ability to distinguish good from evil. If that were true, then what happened here would violate a Talmudic principle, i.e. that a sinner should not be allowed to benefit by his sin. It is clear to me that one must not understand the verse to mean that Adam did not know the difference between right and wrong prior to his sin any more than do the animals. The meaning of the words: “you will be like G-d,” is appropriately translated by Onkelos who renders these words as: ותהון כרברבין חכמין בין טב לביש, “you will become possessed of superior wisdom knowing what is good and what is evil.” There can be no question that at the time G-d created man He had equipped him with a superior intelligence. This is the meaning of Genesis 1,27 “He created him in the image of G-d.” The word צלם in that verse is a reference to intelligence. If G-d commanded man not to eat from the tree of knowledge, the reason He did so was precisely because man was intelligent enough to distinguish between truth and untruth. G-d is not on record as commanding animals what to do as they have no intelligence. The problem is that knowledge of good and evil is not something within the realm of intelligence. When man is asked to define heaven he does not say “heaven is spherical and beautiful;” when asked to define earth he does not say: “earth is flat and ugly.” He would make statements which confirm or deny the truth of something, not its moral potential. Prior to his sin, Adam’s intellect was totally spiritually oriented; it was not concerned with matters of the body. He was not even familiar with such matters. He was completely unaware of the carnal implications of nudity, etc. He considered his genitals as organs no different from all his other organs. Once he had sinned, and suddenly experienced the sex drive as an instrument of physical gratification, i.e. “he saw that the tree was good to eat and a pleasurable experience for the eyes,” he was immediately punished by being stripped of his ability to use his intellect objectively; from that moment on, considerations such as physical desire, appreciation of physical beauty or ugliness clouded his previously pure intellect. This is why the serpent spoke of “you will become intimate (an alternate meaning of ידע) with good and evil.” The serpent had been careful not to say: “you will know truth and falsehood,” or words to that effect. You should pay special attention to the wording of verse seven ותפקחנה עיני שניהם וידעו, “the eyes of both of them were opened, etc.” The Torah deliberately did not write that as a result of this opening of their eyes ויראו, “they saw,” but it wrote וידעו, “they knew” that they were naked. What they suddenly “knew” they had already “seen” previously. The Torah wanted to emphasize that they now “saw” something they had been aware of previously in a totally new light. What had previously not been shameful had suddenly become something shameful. The reason was that they had overstepped the boundaries and displayed a tendency to derive physical pleasure from something G-d had denied them. They had displayed a desire to be more animal-like in their cravings. As a result, their punishment consisted in their being allocated animal-like food as we find in verse 18 “you will eat the grass of the field.” [Previously, as pointed out in connection with 1,29, they had been allocated only the kind of herbs which produced self perpetuating seeds, as distinct from the food allocated to the animals.]

The woman saw that the tree was good for eating, and that it was a remedy for the eyes, and the tree was desirable to gaze upon. She took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave to her husband who was with her, and he ate.

ותרא האשה AND THE WOMAN SAW — She approved the words of the serpent — they pleased her and she believed him (Genesis Rabbah 19:3). כי טוב העץ THAT THE TREE WAS GOOD to make her become like God. וכי תאוה היא לעינים AND THAT IT WAS A DELIGHT TO THE EYES — even as he had said to her: “then your eyes shall be opened”. ונחמד להשכיל AND IT WAS TO BE DESIRED TO MAKE ONE WISE — even as he had said to her: “knowing good and evil”. ותתן גם לאשה AND SHE GAVE ALSO TO HER HUSBAND so that she should not die and he remain alive to take another wife (Genesis Rabbah 19:5). The word גם, also, may be understood to include cattle and beasts (that is, that she gave to these and also to her husband) (Genesis Rabbah 19:5).

THAT THE TREE WAS GOOD FOR FOOD. She [Eve] had thought that the fruit of the tree was bitter and poisonous and this was why He admonished them against eating thereof, but now she saw that it was good and sweet food. AND THAT IT WAS A DELIGHT TO THE EYES, i.e., that by means of its fruit, one attains desire and goes about after his own eyes. AND THAT THE TREE WAS TO BE DESIRED TO MAKE ONE WISE for by means of its fruit, one becomes wise to desire. Now she ascribed “delight” to the eyes and “desire” to the mind. The principle is that [by eating the fruit of the tree], one can will and desire a thing or its opposite.

"And the woman saw" — in her heart. "And the tree was desirable" — because she would gain understanding and her eyes would be opened. The meaning of "with her" is that they ate it together and she revealed to him the serpent's secret. Now Adam was not acting in error, and therefore he was punished. Many have said that (Gen. 2:9) "the tree of knowledge" was a fig tree, since we find afterward (Gen. 3:7) "they sewed fig leaves together." But if that were so, the text would have said: "they sewed leaves of the tree of knowledge"! Many others have said it was wheat. What seems correct to me is that there are two specific trees in the midst of the Garden of Eden, found nowhere else on the face of the earth. The one — the tree of knowledge — engenders sexual desire; that is why the man and his wife covered their nakedness. The meaning of "they sewed" is well known, and likewise (Job 16:15): "I have sewn sackcloth over my skin." Those who look for a needle are speaking nonsense, for a thin piece of wood serves the same purpose. After Adam ate from the tree of knowledge, "he knew his wife" (Gen. 4:1) — that "knowing" is a euphemism for intercourse, and it is called that on account of the tree of knowledge. Similarly, a youth, once he knows good and evil, begins to desire intercourse. "The tree of life" (Gen. 2:9) — it would extend life, enabling a person to live many years. And the word "forever" (le-ʿolam) in (Gen. 3:22) does not mean for all eternity; compare: "and he shall serve him forever" (Exod. 21:6), and "he shall remain there forever" (1 Sam. 1:22), and many others. Some commentators have explained (Gen. 2:17): "for on the day you eat of it you shall surely die" — meaning that man was not originally created to die; it was only when he sinned that death was decreed upon him. Many ask: what did his descendants do wrong? These are words of wind, for the soul by which both man and beast live and feel in this world is one and the same, and as one dies so dies the other — save for the higher element that man possesses beyond the beast. Moreover, one of the physicians of Greece has brought conclusive proof that it is impossible for human life not to have a fixed limit.

ותרא האשה כי טוב העץ למאכל, she realized that the tree was good to eat due to its location, its nature and the pleasant fragrance of its fruit. ונחמד העץ להשכיל, seeing that G’d Himself had already described the tree as being the tree of knowledge. גם לאישה עמה, his heart was open to her words because he was her husband, and because he was by her side.

ותרא האשה כי טוב העץ. Eve saw that the tree was good. The first problem is how could one judge what is good to eat by merely looking at it? Another question is why the Torah describes a feeling of the mouth before describing the effect on the eye? The verse should have read: "she saw that the tree was a beautiful sight and that it was good as food," in that order. Furthermore, whence did Eve know that the tree was apt to add to her perceptive powers, i.e. להשכיל? If the Torah merely intended to tell us that the serpents's description of the tree had been accurate, why describe the woman as seeing something that she did not see? Also why did the Torah add two superfluous words הוא, and העץ a second time? If the repetition of the word is justified, why did the Torah not also write the word העץ after the word תאוה? The verse describes the way in which Eve was snared, and how she eventually became willing to listen to her seducer. When you examine Eve's earlier words, you will find that she said: "and from the fruit of the tree in the center of the garden, G'd' said "do not eat." She had expressed her conviction that only the fruit of the tree was forbidden, that the trunk, the branches, etc., were permitted. She may have arrived at that conviction for one of two reasons. 1) Adam had commanded her in those very words. 2) Though Adam had mentioned only the tree without specifying its fruit, etc., she reasoned that there would have been no point in forbidding something that anyways was not food, such as the trunk, the branches, and the leaves. We have pointed out earlier that whereas the other trees did not taste similar to their fruit, the tree of knowledge was the exception, its trunk, etc. being just as edible as its fruit. We must therefore assume that Eve had already tasted the tree itself, not having considered it as forbidden. She also applied the prohibition to touch it as applicable only to its fruit, not to the trunk, etc. At any rate, Eve had already experienced the taste of the tree's trunk and nothing had happened. Alternatively, she may have discounted the prohibition to touch the tree knowing that this was not a direct command from G'd Himself and would not lead to death. Having tasted from the tree itself, and having experienced that its nature was different from all the other trees, she decided to take a closer look at the fruit of that tree. It was then that she discovered that the fruit exerted a powerful visual attraction; the word הוא refers back to the word פרי, fruit. It could not refer to the word העץ, the tree, as this would be unnecessary. It would have sufficed to say וכי תאוה לעינים, if it were merely a reference to the tree. The word העץ is needed in the sequence ונחמד העץ לעינים because the subject matter had changed from the fruit to the tree. The knowledge of the nature of the tree had been based on her sense of taste, whereas her perception of the nature of the fruit was based only on her sense of sight. The Torah explains that Eve's purpose in eating of the fruit was to broaden her powers of perception. At this point Eve believed that the serpent had spoken truthfully when it claimed that as a result of eating from the fruit of that tree she would gain greater insights, and that G'd had forbidden the fruit only in order to prevent her from gaining the insight which would make her equal to G'd. The Torah emphasises that "she took from its fruit," as she had already tasted the trunk. We have now completed answering the various questions we raised about this verse. Eve gave to her husband from this fruit out of her love for him; she wanted him to share her new insights so that he too would become G'd-like. I have seen it said in defence of Eve that her sin was not so serious as she could not imagine that G'd had created a being whose sole purpose it was to test man's love for G'd by having Satan masquerade within it to try and mislead man. If such a thought had even occurred to Eve she would never have engaged in a dialogue with the serpent. She would have acted just like the righteous nowadays who do not listen to or engage in disputes with tempters however slick-tongued they may be in making something sinful look desirable. The righteous of our time are not so naive; this is why they can withstand the wiles of Satan. Poor innocent Eve did not have their advantage and that is why she fell victim to the seductive tactics of the serpent (Satan). She had furthermore been mislead by the taste of the tree itself, something she thought of as permitted. She also did not possess as analytical a mind as that of a man, else she would have been able to resist the lure to eat from the fruit of that tree. Had she not first erred in believing that the tree itself was pemitted to eat from, she never would have considered eating from the fruit as well. Another reason that may have accounted for Eve falling an easy victim to Satan's lure was that she considered it to have been a mistake to accept the prohibition not to eat from the tree. When she accepted the commandment she had not thought that it would be so difficult to observe. Originally the tree had not appeared to her as sufficiently desirable to pose a threat to her obedience to G'd's command. We find a parallel to such considerations when we consider how many covenants G'd concluded with the Jewish people to ensure that they would not go back on their commitment to observe the Torah. G'd did not consider it sufficient to just give the commandments to the Jewish people without creating a legal device to make the commitment irrevocable. Our sages (Shabbat 85 based on Exodus 19,17) tell us that at Mount Sinai G'd had threatened to kill the Jewish people unless they embraced the Torah. He subsequently reinforced the validity of their acceptance by making them swear an oath. Our rabbis go so far as to describe the renewed acceptance by the Jewish people of the Torah at the time of Mordechai as the only free acceptance of G'd's laws, describing the original acceptance as having occcurred under conditions of duress and therefore legally not valid (Shabbat 88). Inasmuch as Eve had not been sworn to observe the commandment not to eat from the tree she was not really obligated to do so. Even though she had orally accepted the commandment and such acceptance is comparable to the uttering of a vow, it is in the category of a vow erroneously entered into, something that can be annulled retroactively (compare Nedarim 66). The exact text in the Talmud is as follows: If someone undertakes not to drink wine because the wine is bad for his digestion, and he is informed that aged wine is good for his digestion, his vow is annulled and he may drink any kind of wine. We face a similar situation here. When Eve had accepted G'd's commandment prior to having become conscious of the powerful attraction exerted on her by this tree she had been quite sincere. However, once she noticed the powerful pull which the fruit of that tree exerted on her she regretted having undertaken to honour the commandment not to eat from it. We therefore have two causes that helped to mislead Eve. The reason she may have thought that only the fruit of the tree was forbidden was because her husband had not given her precise instructions. Had her husband told her that G'd had said: "You may eat from all the trees of the garden, but from the tree of knowledge in the centre of the garden you must not eat," she would never have considered the trunk as permissible, and the fact that neither eating from it nor touching it had resulted in any harm to her would not have served as a verification of the serpent's argument. Eve's not having been aware of the attractive nature of the tree was also Adam's fault. He had not told her that G'd had described the tree as the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He had only told her not to eat from the tree in the middle of the garden, without a reference to its special nature. Had Eve been aware that the tree was of such special significance the serpent could not have tricked her, and she herself would have been unable to invoke her lack of knowledge as a reason to revoke her acceptance of G'd's command not to eat from it. None of the causes of the sin can be attributed to G'd, all were due to man's inadequacy, i.e. both Adam's and Eve's. For all we know, Adam may not have been aware that the trunk of the tree of knowledge was edible. He had only tasted the other trees and found invariably that their trunks were not edible. He did not realise that the earth had conformed with G'd's instructions to the letter when it produced the tree of knowledge. The manner in which the Torah describes Eve's realisation of the tree's properties suggests that she did not have an inkling previously that this tree had such special features.

ותרא האשה, “the woman saw,” with her mental eye; as in Kohelet 1,17 ולבי ראה הרבה חכמה, “and with my heart I saw a great deal of wisdom.”A different exegesis of these words: the verse must be rephrased as: “the woman took from the fruit and ate; as a result she realised that the tree (its fruit) was good to eat, and she also gave to her husband to share it and he ate.” [The problem was that one can taste that something is good, but one cannot know by looking at it that something tastes good. Ed.] גם לאישה, “also to her husband;” this included her twins who had already been born by that time, as we have been taught in Sanhedrin 38. [The Talmud there describes that no more than an hour elapsed between Adam and Chavah mating and Kayin and Hevel, their twins having being born, Ed.] ותאכל, “she was the first one to eat;” she had assumed eating had not been included in the prohibition. According to Rashi, she reasoned that if she had to die G-d would surely provide Adam with another wife. In order to forestall this, she gave her husband to eat so that they would both die. Alternately, they would both continue to live. (Rashi may have used the word: לאשה, “to her husband,” instead of “to Adam,” as the inspiration for this insight.) Moreover, she thought that by her survival her husband would be able to fulfill G-d’s commandment to become fruitful and to multiply by means of her surviving.

ותרא האשה כי טוב העץ למאכל וגו', “the woman saw that the tree was good as food, etc.” The sages (Berachot 40) disagree as to the exact nature of this tree. Some say it was a fig tree and they base themselves on the fact that immediately after eating from the tree Adam and Chavah are described as covering their genitals with fig leaves (verse 7). They feel that this shows that the very thing which had become their downfall now had become the instrument of their rehabilitation. Other sages believe that the tree in question was the grapevine. This is why we read in Bereshit Rabbah 19,8 Chavah squeezed the juice from the grapes and brought it to her husband. Seeing that its appearance was red like blood, their blood would be spilled and the blood of the whole universe, tit for tat, measure for measure, the punishment fitting the crime. The blood of the female of the species which would be spilled at regular intervals is the menstrual blood. This is also the mystical dimension of Deut. 32,14: “and the blood of the grapes you will drink as if it were delicious wine.” The Torah called the grape “blood,” seeing that grapes had brought blood into the world. Still another view is that of Rabbi Abba from Acco in Bereshit Rabbah 15,8 who believes that the tree in question was the Etrog tree, the citron fruit. Other scholars were aghast at all such suggestions, saying that there can be no question that G-d did not reveal the nature of this tree to any man living or in the future. As proof for their view that the Torah deliberately concealed what tree it was they cite Leviticus 20,16 ואשה אשר תקרב אל כל בהמה לרבעה אותה והרגת את האשה ואת הבהמה. “And a woman who approaches any animal for it to mate with her, you shall kill the woman and the animal, etc.” To the question that if the woman has sinned why should the animal be killed also, what sin did it commit?” The answer given is that the animal must not be allowed to survive as otherwise people would point to it saying: “this is the animal which caused a certain woman to be executed.” If G-d had been so concerned with the honour or dignity of His creatures, would He not be equally concerned with His own honour and not reveal that He Himself had been the cause of man’s death by allowing man to point to that tree? When looked at from a kabbalistic point of view, the tree was indeed the Etrog tree something which is hinted at in the words ונחמד העץ להשכיל, “and the tree was a desirable means to gain insights.” Onkelos translates these words as ומרגג, “that the fruit was exceptionally beautiful and desirable.” [You will note the similarity in the word מרגג and the word אתרג. Ed.] The nature of that fruit was that it excited and dominated one’s intellect. This is also the way the Targum translates the verse in Leviticus 23,40 ולקחתם לכם פרי עץ הדר, as פירי אילנא אתרוגין, again using the word אתרוג to describe an especially beautiful fruit We may thus understand verse 18 where the curse (punishment) for eating from such a beautiful tree is that henceforth the earth will sprout forth thorns and thistles as another example of the punishment fitting the crime. [according to תורת חיים, our author may have intended to point out the numerical value of the combined words קוץ ודרדר as equaling the numerical value of the word אתרוג.] וכי תאוה הוא לעינים, “and that it was a delight for the eyes, etc.” It is possible that the three characteristics טובה, תאוה, and חמדה, which are mentioned in this verse are all part of the sensory perceptions which when combined result in the gaining of new insights, i.e. להשכיל, a word which follows immediately afterwards. Considering the fact that original man was a totally intellectually oriented creature, the Torah wanted to remind us that at that stage (before the sin) whatever motivation prompted Chavah and Adam to eat from this tree was the desire to gain further insights, להשכיל. This would correspond to Psalms 38,10 ה' נגדך כל תאותי, “You G-d are aware that (nearness) to You is the objective of all my desire.” According to this interpretation it was the intellect which dictated to them to eat what G-d had withheld from them. Whatever his or her motivation, the fact remains that Chavah (and Adam) violated G-d’s will as expressed by His prohibition. Just as his intellect had told him that the fruit of that tree held promise of further insights, the same intellect had also told him that the acquisition of such insights was clearly against G-d’s will, else why would He have forbidden its fruit? The commentators who presented the view we quoted only wanted to emphasise that the sin was not due to an overpowering urge by the יצר הרע, the force within man which moves him to assert his independence. At this stage the יצר הרע tempted Adam in the shape of his wife Chavah. He was misled into believing that what he did was in order. After having eaten from the fruit of that tree Adam began to experience a new sensation altogether, a sensation which became an integral part of him from then on. This was the sex drive which is a drive originally nspired by the commission of a sin. Do not ask that if indeed this drive was and is responsible for sinning and Adam and Chavah did not yet have it before they ate from that tree, how did they come to sin? The fact is that even angels who most certainly do not have a sex drive and are motivated purely by intellectual considerations also sin on occasion. One example is found in Genesis 19,13 where the angels who had been commanded to destroy Sodom and to save Lot described themselves as if it were they who were destroying Sodom and not G-d. They told Lot: כי משחיתים אנחנו את המקום הזה, “for we are about to destroy this place.” We also find an interesting comment by our sages (Tanchuma Parshat Shoftim 18) that the line in Exodus 23,21 where the Torah speaks of an angel “who will not forgive your sin (if you commit it),” belongs to a group of angels which never sin. If so, there must be others who do sin on occasion. We also have a verse in Job 4,18 הן בעבדיו לא יאמין, ובמלאכיו ישים תהלה, “He cannot trust His own servants and casts reproach on His angels.” ותתן גם לאישה עמה, “and she also gave to her husband with her and he ate.” The word עמה in this verse teaches that Chavah had an evil intent in that she wanted her husband to become guilty of the same sin. [According to Rashi, she did not want to die and for Adam to marry another woman.]. According to Bereshit Rabbah 19,5 the word גם teaches that she also gave to all the animals from the fruit of that tree. According to that Midrash there was only a single bird called חול which did not eat from the fruit of that tree. This fact is alluded to in Job 29,18 ואמר עם קני אגוע וכחול ארבה ימים, ”I thought I would die together with my family (my nest), and be as long-lived as the bird חול, phoenix.” According to Rabbi Yudan this bird has a life span of 1000 years. At the end of that time fire erupts in its nest and less than the size of egg of it remains before it regenerates itself. ויאכל, “and he ate.” At this point Adam sinned seeing G-d had warned him previously ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו, “and you must not from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (2,17).” The one warning applied to earthly matters such as not to eat from the fruit in order not to ingest the source of the evil, carnal desires etc.; the other warning pertained to celestial matters, that as a result of eating from the tree and obtaining new insights he should not speculate about the origin and essence of G-d. From a practical point of view the word ממנו also included the prohibition not to use the branches of that tree to plant a duplicate, etc., etc. Philosophically speaking, Adam was not to make the mistake made later by the generation of the Tower who thought that there was no one beyond in the heavens. By writing the single word ויאכל, the Torah described his sin on several levels. Eating something, consuming it, is equivalent to destroying it. Adam destroyed two conditions which had prevailed on earth prior to his eating from that tree. He ate from the tree thereby destroying something of a terrestrial nature; he ate, i.e. he destroyed something of a spiritual nature, something the sages called קצץ בנטיעות, or something that our author calls here קצץ בדוגמתו למעלה, “he impaired his parallel spiritual image in the celestial regions.” Inasmuch as his spiritual image in the celestial regions received its input from the “left” part of the emanations, the seat of the attribute of Justice, it became necessary for him to offer an ox with only a single horn as expiation after he had done תשובה, repentance, in order to demonstrate that he recognised the Unity of G-d and did not believe that G-d had partners, i.e. that there was a power-sharing arrangement between the various מדות, “attributes” of G-d. In order for Adam to learn this lesson G-d especially made available to him an ox which had a unicorn on its forehead. The word קרן, “horn” in Hebrew is equivalent to כח, “power.” The strength of an ox is concentrated in its horns. The unicorn was in the centre of that ox’s forehead, the centre of its body, in order to symbolise the קו האמצעי, “the centre line,” [a kabbalistic concept pertaining to the diagram of the emanations, Ed.] The purpose of that “line” is to unify the “lower” and the “higher” regions. This is the meaning of the enigmatic though well known Midrash based on Psalms 69,32 ותיטב לה' משור פר מקרין מפריס, “that will please the Lord even more than the ox, i.e. bull whose horns protruded beyond its hooves.” The verse from Psalms we quoted contains a double entendre as the word מקרין though spelled with the letter י, is read as if it were written without the letter י. The first (regular) spelling would symbolise the strength radiated from the animal, whereas the defective spelling, i.e. the way we read the word suggests that the ox in question had only one horn, mi-keren. When the Israelites sinned in the desert and they made the golden calf they had to sacrifice an ox in atonement for their sin as we know from Leviticus 9,3 קחו שעיר עזים לחטאת ועגל וכבש... ושור ואיל לשלמים, “take a he-goat for a sin-offering; a calf and a lamb... and an ox and a ram for a peace-offering, etc.” From that time on, the Israelites were commanded to take the four species including the Etrog in the month of Tishrey, the month in which man was created, in order to combine all these species. These four species were a symbolic offering atoning for the first sin man had committed around that time of year. In all other instances of publicly paid for sin-offerings on the festivals, a bull or bulls are included in the Torah’s list of such offerings. The same applies to the sin-offerings on New Moon. All of this was to teach that when doing penance it is appropriate to use the instrument with which one had sinned to effect forgiveness. This is also the reason why the Torah repeats the otherwise unnecessary word הפר a second time in Leviticus 4,4 והביא את הפר אל פתח אהל מועד, ושחט את הפר לפני ה'. “He (the priest) shall bring the bull to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, and he shall slaughter the bull in the presence of the Lord.” Our sages in Vayikra Rabbah 5,6 explain the extra word הפר instead of simply אותו in this vein. The matter may be illustrated in the form of a parable: when a friend offered a gift to the king, the king told him to display the gift at the entrance of his palace so that everybody would become aware of the valuable gift that his friend had given him. The ”gift” in the parable is the תשובה, repentance, which consisted of the same category of item with which the friend had previously offended the king.

And that it was a delight to the eyes. For in every sin, the good inclination has an argument with the evil inclination, as the good inclination promises spiritual reward in the World to Come, but the evil inclination responds and claims that it is better to follow the desires that are tangible to the seeing eye, for the desires of this world are visible to everyone’s eye, rather than following the desirable things of the World to Come which no eye has seen. Therefore it says And the woman saw — she saw the words of the serpent and his arguments were pleasing in her eyes, that the tree was good for food and that it was a delight to the eyes — for the desires of this world are visible eye to eye, in contrast to the desirable things of the World to Come which no eye has seen. And one who wishes to lie distances his witnesses (Rosh, Shevuot 6:13). And she gave also to her husband with her. The word “with her” is explained by the commentators to mean so that he would be with her always and not marry another when she dies. It could also mean that she gave it to him while he was literally with her [sexually], for then she pressured him, similar to what is said about Samson: and she pressed him (Judges 16:16). Because at another time, perhaps he would not have listened to her to transgress God’s command. And regarding this, he said in his defense: The woman whom You gave to be with me. [Meaning:] At the time when she was literally with me, she overcame me — for according to the simple meaning, there is no justification for this defense. And regarding his claim she gave me from the tree, perhaps he meant to say as a defense that since the command did not state “from the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge you shall not eat” but rather said from the Tree of Knowledge you shall not eat, I thought that the intention was that I am not permitted to pluck the fruit from the tree, but if it was already plucked and available, I thought it was permissible for me to eat it. And now, she gave me from the tree, and I did not take it from the tree myself. And there are those who say that he [Adam] said: “Since You gave the woman to be with me to cook and prepare all the household needs, I thought that she could be trusted not to feed me anything forbidden. Therefore, I thought that this fruit was from a different tree.”

כי טוב העץ למאכל, “for the tree is good as food.” She had thought originally that the reason why G’d had forbidden the tree was because its fruit was bitter, and the poison of the fruit would result in death to those who ate it. Now she had convinced herself that its fruit was sweet. וכי תאוה לעינים, “and that its appearance caused one to desire it.” We learn that man’s desires are activated by his eyes, by what he sees.

The eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked. They sewed together fig leaves for themselves and made themselves girdles.

‘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, 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). 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).

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. Here too “the opening of eyes” has reference to understanding.

See Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:6.

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.] 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.

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 “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, they recognised that 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.

They heard the sound of the Word of Hashem God in the garden toward the evening of the day, and Adam and his wife hid themselves from before Hashem God among the trees of the garden.

וישמעו AND THEY HEARD — There are many Midrashic explanations and our Teachers have already collected them in their appropriate places in Genesis Rabbah and in other Midrashim. I, however, am only concerned with the plain sense of Scripture and with such Agadoth that explain the words of Scripture in a manner that fits in with them. וישמעו AND THEY HEARD — What did they hear? They heard the sound of the Holy One, blessed be He, as He walked in the garden (see Genesis Rabbah 19:12). לרוח היום IN THE WIND OF THE DAY — (רוח is used also in the meaning of direction,— north, east, — etc.) in that direction to which the sun travels (באה לשם) which is the west, for towards evening the sun is in the west, and they committed the sin in the tenth hour (Sanhedrin 38b).

AND THEY HEARD THE VOICE OF THE ETERNAL G-D WALKING IN THE GARDEN. The Rabbis have said in Bereshith Rabbah:12. “Rabbi Chilfi said that from here we may learn that a voice ‘walks,’ for it is said, And they heard the voice of the Eternal G-d walking.” And so did the Rabbi [Moshe ben Maimon] write in Moreh Nebuchim. ” And so is the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra that “walking” refers to “the voice,” just as in the verse: The sound thereof shall go like the serpent’s. And Ibn Ezra further says that the meaning of toward the cool of the day is that they heard the voice towards evening. And he mentioned in the name of Rabbi Jonah ibn Ganach He is the author of the Rikmah (Many Colored Web) and the Book of Roots, a lexicon. that the meaning of the verse is: “and man was walking in the garden toward the cool of the day,” [the sense of the verse thus being that while man was walking in the garden, he heard the voice of G-d]. In my opinion, the sense of walking in the garden of Eden is similar to that of the verses: And I will walk among you; And the Eternal went as soon as He had finished speaking with Abraham; I will go and return to My place. All these verses indicate a revelation of the Divine Presence in that place or the departure from the place wherein He was revealed. The sense of the expression, toward the cool of the day, is that with the revelation of the Divine Presence comes a great and strong wind, even as it says, And, behold, the Eternal passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and broke in pieces the rocks before the Eternal. Similarly we find: Yea, He did swoop down upon the wings of the wind; and in the book of Job it is written, Then the Eternal answered Job out of the whirlwind. Therefore Scripture says here that they heard the voice of G-d as the Divine Presence was revealed in the garden approaching them in the wind of the day, because the breath of the Eternal blew upon it, that is, in the garden, like the wind of ordinary days, not a great and strong wind as in the vision of other prophecies, in order that they should not be frightened or terrified. Yet Scripture says that in spite of this they hid themselves on account of their nakedness. In Bereshith Rabbah 9:13. we find that the Rabbis also said: “Said Rabbi Aba the son of Kahana: ‘Mehalech (walking) is not written here but mith’halech (meaning “it leaped and ascended).” This is so clearly explained in Bereshith Rabbah there (19:12). Rabbi Aba thus interpreted the word mith’halech similarly to that of And the Eternal went, as we have explained the term “walking,” except that he explained the verse before us as referring to the withdrawal of the Divine Presence that dwelt in the garden of Eden and its retiring therefrom on account of the sin of Adam, even as it says, I will go and return to My place. We interpret it to mean the revelation of the Divine Presence in that place, which is the correct and fitting explanation of the verse.

"They heard... walking in the garden" — the voice of Hashem. This occurred toward evening, at the time when the wind of the day blows. We find "voice" used together with going, as in: "her sound goes forth like a serpent" (Jer. 46:22), and: "the sound of the shofar grew ever louder" (Exod. 19:19). Rabbi Yona the Spanish grammarian says that the meaning is: "the man was walking in the garden." He also said that the interpretation of "on the day you eat of it" is a thousand years, in the manner of the midrashic reading. Others said that he was created on the sixth day and died on a sixth day. Others said: then you will become liable to death. Others said there is a kind of death that is a punishment, as in: "the man who does this deserves death" (2 Sam. 12:5). Others said: from that moment you will begin to die, and they cited the case of an infant as proof. What seems correct to me is what the early authorities said — that Adam repented, in keeping with the sense of "In one moment I may speak" (Jer. 18:7; see also Eruvin 18b and Avodah Zarah 8a).

מתהלך בגן, back and forth, in accordance with the requirements of their purpose. The word is similar in meaning to Genesis 13,17 where Avraham is instructed by G’d התהלך to “crisscross the land of Canaan, in order to symbolically lay claim to it.” The same construction is also found in Psalms 105,13 ויתהלכו מגוי אל גוי, “they wandered from nation to nation.” לרוח היום, according to His pleasure on that day. The word רוח is used in the abstract, spiritual sense, not referring to a breeze. This is no different that what G’d had also done during the other days of creation, and as He had been doing on this same day (sixth day of creation) prior to Adam’s sin. ויתחבא, as the Torah wrote in Deuteronomy 23,15 ולא יראה בך ערות דבר, “no exposure of genitals (or other shameful matters) shall be visible on you.”

וישמעו את קול השם They heard the voice of G'd. The reason the Torah describes the direction G'd's voice took, i.e. לרוח היום, was to enable them to find a place to "hide" from G'd. In this instance G'd's voice travelled westwards, parallel to the sun, whereas Adam and Eve were in the centre of the garden.

מתהלך בגן, “the sound of G-d’s voice appeared to take a walk in the garden” This expression describing the movement of sound, occurs elsewhere also. Examples are: Exodus 19,19, קול השופר הולך, “as the sound of the shofar became progressively stronger;” it also occurs in Jeremiah 46,22, קולה כנחש ילך, “she rustles like a snake.” לרוח היום, as if accompanying the prevailing wind; it did not cause the wind to blow harder so as not to give Adam the excuse that he had to hide in order to escape the force of the wind. An alternate exegesis of this expression: Adam and his wife had been sitting in a position where they could take advantage of the cooling effect of that wind. As soon as they heard G-d’s voice, they fled from their position to escape G-d’s voice. According to Rashi, this was a westerly wind. This sounds logical as the seat of G-d’s Presence is always perceived as being in the West. [not the Rashi on our verse; perhaps the author refers to the Rashi on Song of Songs 4,6. In the Temple the holiest section was at its western end. Ed.]

וישמעו את קול ה' אלוקים מתהלך בגן, “they heard the voice of the Lord G’d strolling trough the garden.” This is not the only time that we find the word הילוך, walking, associated with קול, a voice. We read in Jeremiah 46,22 קולה כנחש ילך, “She will rustle (sound) away like a snake.” Nachmanides understands the word מתהלך as a metaphor for a form of revelation of G’d’s Presence. We have a similar verse in Leviticus 26,12 והתהלכתי בתוככם, “I reveal Myself in your midst,” although in that context it is as a result of Israel obeying all of G’d’s commandments. The meaning of the word לרוח, in the expression לרוח היום, is that prior to a revelation of G’d’s Presence, one of the advance notices is a strong wind such as when Elijah experienced such a revelation at Mount Sinai. (Kings I 19,11) In this instance the wind was not powerful and frightening, but רוח היום of the same force as it was daily when a breeze is blowing. G’d had not intended to frighten Adam and his wife. There are some commentators who understand the line as indicating that Adam and his wife were indeed frightened upon hearing G’d’s voice, and that is why they tried to hide.

Hashem God called to Adam and said to him: Where are you?

איכה WHERE ART THOU — He knew where he was, but He asked this in order to open up a conversation with him that he should not become confused in his reply, if He were to pronounce punishment against him all of a sudden. Similarly in the case of Cain, He said to him, (4:9) “where is Abel thy brother?” Similarly with Balaam, (Numbers 22:9) “what men are these with thee?” — to open up a conversation with them; so, also, in the case of Hezekiah with reference to the messengers of Merodach-baladan (Isaiah 39:3).

"He called." The meaning of "Where are you?" is that it is an opening for speech — similarly: "Where is your brother Abel?" (Gen. 4:9). Cain denied it, and Hashem replied to him: "The voice of your brother's blood cries out."

Where are you. Why do you not show yourselves openly as before?

ויאמר לו איכה? He said to him: "Where are you?" The meaning is: Why do you hide yourself and do not appear before Me? Adam replied that he was afraid because he considered himself naked, and as it is forbidden to stand naked in front of a Torah scroll it certainly is unseemly to appear before G'd in such a state. According to our exegesis, he meant they had become aware of their reduced stature. Their sin had made them aware of the loss of their aura of holiness, hence their nakedness. They could not have referred to actual nudity as the Torah already reported that they sewed together fig-leaves to serve as clothing.

He said: I heard the sound of Your Word in the garden, and I was afraid because I am naked, and I hid myself.

ואירא, this feeling of fear is similar to that experienced by the Jewish people in Exodus 34,30 when, because of the sin of the golden calf, the people were afraid to face him after his face radiated light when he returned from Mount Sinai.

כי עירום אנכי, because I am nude;” although they wore the fig leaf. Perhaps that leaf only covered their private parts.

כי עירום אנכי, “for I am naked.” The fig leaf which they had used to cover themselves only covered their private parts. Although, according to the Midrash, G’d, personally, provided them with no fewer than 24 kinds of ornaments, they had to remove these at the time when they engaged in marital relations.

And he said, The voice of Thy Word heard I in the garden, and I was afraid, because I am naked; and the commandment which Thou didst teach me, I have transgressed; therefore I hid myself from shame.

He said: Who told you that you are naked? Have you eaten from the tree concerning which I commanded you not to eat from it?

מי הגיד לך WHO TOLD THEE? — Whence has the knowledge come to you what shame there is in standing naked? המן העץ HAST THOU EATEN OF THE TREE — The ' ה of the word המן expresses a question.

"Lest" (levilti) — when it carries the lamed, its meaning is "so that not"; without the lamed, its meaning is "only" or "but": "eating" (akhol) from it — this is the infinitive noun. Likewise: "lest you keep his commandments" (Deut. 8:11).

מי הגיד לך, who revealed to you the difference between good and evil? כי עירום אתה, that on account of familiarity with evil you felt the need to cover your genitals.

ויאמר מי הגיד לך כי עירום אתה, He said: "Who has told you that you are naked?" G'd meant: "what is different now? You stood before Me previously without feeling naked?" The new knowledge you display cannot have originated within you. It must have been provided by an external source. G'd therefore wanted to know: "Who has told you?" According to our exegesis that the feeling was generated internally, i.e. a result of the sin and the loss of the aura of holiness, we must understand the question as merely rhetorical. G'd did not want to shame man too much, therefore He Himself supplied the answer that Adam might have eaten from the forbidden tree, and the act of eating revealed this knowledge to him. By the reference to the tree as opposed to the fruit, the verse once more stresses that the trunk too was forbidden.

The man said: The woman whom You placed with me — she gave me from the tree, and I ate.

אשר נתת עמדי WHOM THOU GAVEST TO BE WITH ME — Here he showed his ingratitude (Avodah Zarah 5b).

THE WOMAN WHOM THOU GAVEST TO BE WITH ME. The sense of it is to say: “The woman whom Thy Honor Himself gave me for a help, she gave me of the tree, and I thought that whatever she says to me is a help and benefit to me.” This is why He said when meting out his punishment, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, meaning “You should not have transgressed My commandment on account of her advice.” Our Rabbis have called Adam “ungrateful” for this remark. By this they mean to explain that the sense of his answer was: “Thou caused me this stumbling for Thou gavest me a woman as a help, and she counselled me to do evil.” (Rashi, ibid.) In this he spoke ungratefully.

"Whom you placed with me" — You placed the one who gave [it] to me. The meaning of "with me" refers to the garden, and it is like "with me" (ʿimmi). Yet we find this form (ʿimmadi) only in the first person singular. "And I ate" (va-okhel) — the alef is the marker of the first person speaker, and the hidden quiescent letter following it is in place of the alef of the root, and it comes with a small qamatz because it is at the end of a verse. It is not possible that a vav with a qamatz should appear with a verb, for it always carries a sheva.

היא, she, who was meant to be an assistant to me has turned out to be the opposite. נתנה לי מן העץ, and has become a hindrance instead of a help. By saying these words, Adam tried to blame his Creator for having committed a sin. Adam, instead of being defensive by repenting, apologizing, admitting his guilt, as did David when the prophet Natan had called him to order over his conduct with Bat Sheva, (Samuel II 12,13)

ויאמר האדם האשה אשר נתת עמדי. Adam said: "The woman You put with me." The manner of Adam's reply was so unseemly that one would not expect him to use it vis-a-vis the least important human being, certainly not when addressing the King of Kings. Besides, when Adam said: "she gave me from the tree, and I ate," why did he add the unnecessary words "from the tree?" We would all have understood that he referred to said tree without his repeating this. Eve did not bother to say that it was the tree she ate from. Apparently Adam did not know exactly what happened except that Eve had placed something before him and he had eaten without examining it. He had not felt the need to ask her what it was she had placed before him seeing that the whole earth was his to enjoy. He added "which You put with me" in justification for not having enquired where the fruit had come from. It was as if he had said to G'd that since G'd had supplied the woman, he, Adam, had no reason to be suspicious about her motives. After all, nothing evil originates in Heaven! Our sages have said: אין בודקין מן המזבח ולמעלה, "once something (a slaughtered animal) has arrived on the altar (having passed several stages of inspection on the way) there is no need to again check its suitability as a sacrifice." Adam argued that if the חזקה, the presumption of fitness of such an animal, is acceptable, then surely a woman supplied by G'd Himself need not be examined for blemishes. When Adam said: "from the tree," he referred to a tree planted within the garden seeing all those trees had been planted by G'd Himself (2,8-9). When Adam spoke of "the tree," he did not refer to the tree of knowledge which G'd had referred to. He described his situation before he had eaten from the fruit Eve gave him. At that time he thought the fruit was from any of a number of trees. It was only after he had tasted the fruit that he became aware that this fruit must have been from the tree of knowledge. Adam's argument then was not nearly as outrageous as it appears at first glance. Although one might even argue that Adam said he ate merely from the tree and not from its fruit, and that eating from the tree had not been forbidden, such an argument is not tenable for a number of reasons. As a result, Adam was merely a שוגג, an unintentional sinner. One might go further and claim that he was an innocent victim and thus not guilty at all. This would explain why G'd' did not curse Adam but only the earth. The truth is, however, that Adam acted carelessly in not accurately repeating G'd's command to Eve. He had mentioned only the fruit of the tree to Eve, not the prohibition of the tree itself. This inaccuracy paved the way for all the subsequent events.

האשה אשר נתתה עמדי, “the woman You have given me to be my companion;” Adam complains that this woman who had been meant to be his helper, assistant, had instead turned out to be his seducer. He had assumed that he could trust her implicitly. He claimed that he had not known from which tree she had taken the fruit she offered him. The Torah had not mentioned which fruit she had asked him to share, i.e. the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Adam implied that if he had known that this was the fruit of the tree of knowledge he would not have eaten from it. Had he refused her offer of the fruit, he would have appeared as ungrateful, for how could he refuse something that G-d had provided, seeing that only good things emanate from G-d. (Compare Avodah Zarah, 5)

האשה אשר נתת עמדי, “the woman You have given me as my companion, etc.” According to Nachmanides Adam’s excuse was that seeing that G’d had given him Chavah as an עזר, helpmate, everything she would ask or advise him to do would be of benefit and use to him. It had not therefore occurred to him that her advice could be harmful if followed. When G’d punished him, He made plain that Adam’s argument was flawed as how could he ignore G’d’s command and accept a contrary command by one of G’d’s creatures? My sainted father the רא'ש explained that the only reason why Adam could use the excuse he offered was because he had already eaten from the fruit of the tree and had become aware of the difference between good and evil. He accused his wife of having tricked him.

Hashem God said to the woman: What is this that you have done? The woman said: The serpent led me astray, and I ate.

השיאני means HE DECEIVED ME; — we find the word in the same meaning in (2 Chronicles 32:15), “Now therefore let not Hezekiah beguile you” (Genesis Rabbah 19).

WHAT IS THIS THOU HAST DONE to transgress My commandment? For the woman was included in the admonition given to Adam since at that time she was yet bone of his bones, and similarly she was included in his punishment. The reason why G-d did not say to the woman, “and thou hast eaten of the tree,” is that she was punished for both her eating and her advice, just as the serpent was punished for the advice. This is why she said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat, Thus she mentioned both the eating and the advice. as the punishment for the beguiling was greater than that for the eating. [Hence as soon as she mentioned that the serpent beguiled her, G-d meted out his punishment immediately, as is stated in the following two verses.] Thus we may derive from here the principle of punishment for those that cause people to sin in any matter, just as our Rabbis have derived it from the verse, Thou shalt not put a stumbling-block before the blind. In Pesachim 22 b, the verse is interpreted to mean: do not give a person who is “blind” in a matter advice which is improper for him. Advising or causing one to sin is thus included in this prohibition. Ramban is here suggesting that while the admonition against causing people to sin is derived from the verse in Leviticus, the principle of punishment for such advice is derived from here.

"He deceived me" (hissiʾani) — he enticed me.

What is this that you have done. Hashem said this to arouse her to repent.

ויאמר השם אלוקים אל האשה. The Lord G'd said to the woman. The only reason G'd asked Eve what she had done was to give her an opportunity to confess her sin against G'd. The confession would act as the cure for her newly contracted sickness. When she said that the serpent had seduced her this was both a confession and an explanation that her sin had not been intentional. I have explained earlier that Eve had been under the impression that it was permitted to eat from the trunk of the tree. She had also not realised that the serpent was a seducer. She confessed her error to her Creator.

ויאמר ה' אלוקים לאשה, “The Lord G-d said to the woman: where was Adam? Abba Chalfi ben Karchi said that after having engaged in marital relations with his wife he was tired and had gone to sleep. [Explicação gramatical em relação à língua sagrada: Quando a vogal estiver na letra que segue o vav, ela será aberta.]

מה זאת עשית, “what is this you have done?” How could you have violated My commandment, even though it had not been addressed to you directly but to your husband? Seeing that you are made of his bone, surely you must have realized that My commandment also included you?

Hashem God said to the serpent: Because you have done this, cursed are you above all the cattle and above all the beasts of the field. Upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.

כי עשית זאת BECAUSE THOU HAST DONE THIS — From here we infer that we should not occupy ourselves with what may be in favour of one who seduces people to idolatry, for had He asked it, “Why hast thou done this?”, it could have answered Him, “When the words of the teacher and those of the pupil are contradictory, whose orders should be obeyed?” (Sanhedrin 29a). (i. e. if You told them one thing and I another, should they not have obeyed You?). מכל הבהמה ומכל חית השדה FROM AMONG (or, MORE THAN) ALL CATTLE AND ALL THE BEASTS OF THE FIELD — If it was cursed more than the cattle whose period of gestation is longer than that of beasts does it not necessarily follow that it was cursed more than the beasts? Our Rabbis have definitely established the correctness of the following deduction in treatise Bekhorot 8a, that it (viz., the use of these apparently superfluous words “and more than all the beasts of the field”) teaches that the period of gestation of the serpent is seven years. על גחנך תלך UPON THY BELLY SHALT THOU GO — It had feet but they were cut off (Genesis Rabbah 20:5).

FROM AMONG ALL CATTLE, AND FROM AMONG ALL BEASTS OF THE FIELD. From a study of this verse, Rabbi Yehoshua the son of Chananya derived the fact that a serpent gives birth once in seven years; See my Hebrew commentary, p. 41. this they investigated and found to be so. For the Midrashic interpretations of Scripture and their allusions are all traditional, and they found in them profound secrets on procreation and all matters, as I mentioned in my introduction.

"Cursed" — said to the serpent, meaning its life will be short. More precisely, it will be diminished in its manner of movement. "On your belly" (gaḥon) — the chest. We do not know whether the nun of gaḥon is a root letter, as in adon ("lord"), or added, as in zadon ("arrogance"). One who says it is called thus because of the wind (ruaḥ) that bursts forth (yagiaḥ) from it — that is a midrashic reading. Similarly, they said that "Gihon" (Gen. 2:13) derives from bursting, and "Pishon" (Gen. 2:11) from "when you thrash about" (Jer. 50:11), and "Perat" [Euphrates] (Gen. 2:14) from "be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:22). But then "the great river, that is the Ḥiddekel" (Dan. 10:4) stood in their way and they could not pass it. So they said: it is two words — that its waters are sharp (ḥadim) and swift (qalim).

ארור אתה מכל. The serpent was condemned henceforth to attain its needs as well as its desires only through experiencing more pain and greater lack of pleasure than all the other creatures. Compare Kidushin 82 ראית חיה ועוף שהם בני אומנות והם מתפרנסים שלא בצער, “Did you ever see a beast or bird practicing a vocation, and yet they find their livelihood without pain?” [the scholar makes the point that our parnassah lies in the hands of G’d and is not due to our professional level. Ed.] G’d’s curse is explained in detail by the words על גחונך תלך, “you will have to crawl on your belly.” This means that the serpent will find its sustenance only laboriously, experiencing frustration in doing so. Our sages (Berachot 58) mention how many laborious stages the kernel of wheat had to undergo until Adam finally was able to eat the bread that he made out of it. ועפר תאכל, you will not enjoy the food (or other earthly pleasures) previously enjoyable. The Talmud Sotah 49 describes something similar happening to the Jewish people as a whole after the destruction of the Temple, saying: הטהרה נטלה את הטעם ואת הריח, והמעשרות נטלו את שומן הדגן, [the subject being the negative fallout for the entire nation of the destruction of the Temple, Ed.] “previously pleasant tasting and fragrant foods no longer tasted as well with the exception of food which needed to be consumed in a state of ritual purity, and the tithes now assumed the richness of cereals.”

ויאמר השם אלוקים אל הנחש. The Lord G'd said to the serpent. The serpent had caused three kinds of harm by its words. 1) It caused the withdrawal of the glory of G'd's light which had hovered over Adam and Eve as we explained previously. This is the real meaning of the כתנות אור, the garments of light. [this spelling is reported to have been found in the Torah scroll of Rabbi Meir. Ed.]. 2) It resulted in Adam and Eve both becoming mortal, losing their immortality in this world. This was the punishment G'd had threatened would result from eating of the tree of knowledge. 3) The serpent caused even man's limited life on this earth to be of an inferior quality, outside the confines of גן עדן. G'd therefore punished the serpent separately concerning each one of these losses it had caused man. 1) G'd cursed the serpent because it deprived man of his blessing, i.e. the presence of G'd's glorious light. 2) G'd deprived the serpent of the legs it used to walk on because the serpent had deprived man of eternal life on earth. Prior to the sin the serpent possessed the kind of stature that enabled it to share all the advantages of the world with Adam. It would have been an honoured houseguest at Adam's all its life. As a result of its sin, co-existence of man and the serpent in this world became almost impossible. 3) The serpent was condemned to eat dust for having deprived Adam and Eve of the enjoyment of life in גן עדן. Our sages explain this to mean that the serpent does not enjoy any of its food, just as one does not enjoy eating dust (Yuma 75). G'd's words: כי עשית זאת, "because you have done this," which introduces the serpent's punishment, are a reminder that the serpent's words were considered its deeds.

כי עשית זאת, (G-d speaking to the serpent) “because this is what you have done, etc;” Rashi comments that we learn from here that seducers are not given an opportunity to defend their actions, as if G-d had asked the serpent why it had acted as it did, the serpent would have answered: ”since when does one follow the instructions of the pupil when they contradict the instructions of the teacher, i.e. G-d?” Since the Torah had expressly forbidden the seducer to practice his trade, this will never be accepted as his excuse, i.e. that he only wanted to “test” the victim of his seduction. If the seducer himself does not use this argument, we (the court) certainly must not use it on his behalf. If you were to ask: the Torah’s legislation about this subject only deals with someone who seduces others to commit idolatry, not other sins!? (Compare Deuteronomy 13,712) The answer is that the serpent had held out the hope to the woman that by eating from the tree of knowledge they would be just as great as G-d, והייתם כאלוהים, i.e. the seduction was based on leading them into worshipping themselves as deities. ארור אתה, “you are cursed;” G-d began the series of curses, in the same sequence as the seduction had begun, i.e. the serpent was punished first. The woman was punished next, and Adam was punished last. מכל הבהמה ומכל חית השדה, “more than any mammal or beast of the field;” Rashi asks the rhetorical question: “if G-d punished the serpent more than any mammal, is it not understood that it also punished it more than any beast of the field?” The sages in Bechorot 8 explain that a female cat gives birth after 52 days of pregnancy, whereas domesticated mammals such as donkeys require 49 weeks, i.e. about seven times as long. The serpent was condemned to a pregnancy of seven years instead. The Torah had only used this opportunity to inform us that the pregnancy of large mammals had already been longer than that of smaller mammals. The duration of a snake’s pregnancy would be so much longer.[This editor may be forgiven when he fails to understand that snakes which do not produce live young, but lay eggs, like birds, “suffer” pregnancy pains at all. I have found in Google that there are some snakes which reside in cool climates that do produce live young. This still does not mean that they have carried them for seven years? Ed.] A different exegesis: seeing that there is no other beast that is forced to crawl on its belly, not even having many short legs, it is quite obvious that the snake, in order to secure its food, labours under greater difficulties than any other type of living creature. Besides, the manner in which a snake has to eat the grass of the field makes it impossible that its mouth does not also swallow some of the earth that the grass grew out of. ועפר תאכל, “and you will be forced to eat dust.” The reference is to virgin earth. The meaning of the whole verse is: ”as long as you live you will search for virgin earth from which to secure your food; this is the penalty that has been decreed for you.” על גחונך תלך, “you will have to move by using your belly.” This part of the penalty would commence forthwith and would continue indefinitely.

מכל הבהמה ומכל חית השדה, “more than any domestic beast or free-roaming animal in the field.” According to the plain meaning of the text G-d said to the serpent that inasmuch as “you used to be more wily than all the other beasts, now you will be downgraded to a level even lower than all other beasts, having to crawl on your belly, etc.” Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 19,1 also approached the verse from this angle when they said: that what had been ערום מכל, now became ארור מכל, “the most wily became the most accursed.” Following an homiletical approach, the sages claim that the serpent’s time of gestation is seven years. The Talmud Bechorot 5 claims that the words “more than any other beasts, etc., and more than any free-roaming animal,” are basically superfluous as if the serpent is more cursed than the domestic animals it is only logical; because of this they concluded that the time of gestation of a serpent is seven years. [Rashi on that statement in the Talmud explains that a domestic animal such as a goat requires seven months of gestation whereas a cat requires only fifty-two days of pregnancy. The relative ratio of domestic animal to free-roaming animal therefore is one of seven to one. If the serpent is proportionately more cursed than even the regular free-roaming animals under normal circumstances (or at least the ones with the longest period of pregnancy), this means that the serpent has to carry its egg for seven years. Ed.] Actually, the Torah should have first mentioned categories of animals which are relatively little cursed, i.e. which have a short period of gestation followed by those animals which have a longer period of gestation. The fact that the Torah reversed this pattern indicates that it wishes to stress something. The matter sounded so hard to believe that we have Rabbi Joshua who indulged an heretic who refused to believe all this by making an experiment which proved that our sages were correct in their assessment. על גחונך תלך ועפר תאכל, “you will crawl on your belly and eat dust, etc.” The punishment matched the crime. The serpent had been instrumental in bringing man down from his lofty heights. As a penalty the serpent itself experienced being demoted when compared to its former stature. Whereas the Torah mentions the loss of height by the serpent and the fact that it would henceforth subsist on dust, an inert material, it did not mention the fact that henceforth the serpent would be deprived of its ability to speak. Actually, the loss of that ability would have constituted the most severe part of its curse. If the serpent was not punished by loss of communicative powers there must have been a special reason for this. The fact is that the serpent was predestined for trouble and retribution. The very fact that it was introduced by the Torah as being the most crafty of all the animals of the field predestined it to become Satan’s partner. It manifested visible superiority over the other animals but at the same time also concealed its propensity for evil. When G-d downsized it from its previous lofty and upright posture, He also reduced the power for evil it possessed at the same time. In kabbalistic terms, He reduced it by three times three levels of emanations. For we know from Psalms 5,5 כי לא קל חפץ רשע אתה לא יגורך רע, “for You are not a G-d Who desires wickedness; evil cannot abide with You.” As a result of such considerations, the serpent was expelled from three regions of three encampment each. [The encampment of the Israelites in the desert consisted of three distinct areas of relative sanctity. Similarly, in the higher regions there are other such groupings of three, each representing different levels of holiness. Our author speaks more about this at the end of his commentary on Parshat Ki Tissa. Ed.] The expulsion of the serpent from such regions may be compared to the expulsion of the person afflicted with the dreaded צרעת, “a skin eczema due to anti-social behaviour,” from the three encampments of the Israelites in the desert. The serpent suffered expulsion from parallel regions in the celestial regions. You are familiar with the concept that the power of speech enables those who possess it to spread slander about its Creator. It is only logical therefore that if the punishment were to fit the crime, such creatures had to be deprived of their ability to repeat their sin. This would be accomplished by banning them from areas of sanctity. Our sages have coined the phrase that anyone who tells untruths or gives patently unsound advice, is considered as having dust in his mouth. We find that the Talmud Baba Batra 16 labeled the mouth of Job as consisting of earth as he too slandered his Creator. כל ימי חייך, ”all the days of your life.” The Torah tells us here that this curse would continue throughout the serpent’s lifetime. It would continue even during the messianic era when the enmity between man and beast would subside and, according to Isaiah 11,8 “an infant would play over a viper’s hole”, the serpent would still not become rehabilitated. The punishment of having to eat dust also continues beyond the messianic era as we read in Isaiah 65,25 זאב וטלה ירעו כאחד ואריה כבקר יאכל תבן ונחש עפר לחמו, “the wolf and the lamb shall graze together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; but the serpent’s food shall be earth.” This is the reason the Torah stresses here that the serpent will eat dust כל ימי חייך, “for all the days of your life.” This expression alludes to messianic times. It is similar to Deut 16,3 למען תזכור את יום צאתך ממצרים כל ימי חייך, “in order that you may remember the day that you went out of Egypt all the days of your life.” Our sages interpreted that expression as also applicable to the time of the arrival of the Messiah and beyond, by stressing that if the Torah had not included the word כל “all,” the messianic period would not have been included (Berachot 12).

You shall be cursed more than all cattle and all beasts of the field. Following what our Sages of blessed memory said (Taanit 8a): In the future, all the animals will gather around the snake and say, “A lion hunts and eats, etc., but you — what pleasure do you get, etc.” Therefore, it is said that it will be cursed more than all animals and beasts, for they all derive some pleasure from their hunting and mauling, but the snake has no pleasure at all, for there is no benefit to the master of the tongue. Therefore, it will have no pleasure in its mauling, as mentioned. And if you wish to say that the letter mem in mikol [from all] is not indicating comparison [more than], rather interpret it this way: that you will be cursed from [indicated by the letter mem] the mouth of all, for all the animals will gather against you and curse you and despise you, and to your face they will testify to your wickedness, saying, “What pleasure do you get?”

And enmity I will set between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring. He will remember against you what you did to him from the beginning, and you will lie in wait for him at the end.

ואיבה אשית AND I WILL SET ENMITY — Your sole intention was that Adam should die by eating it first and that you should then take Eve for yourself (Genesis Rabbah 20:5), and you came to speak to Eve first only because women are easily influenced and know how to influence their husbands; therefore “I shall put enmity [between thee and the woman]”. הוא ישופך HE WILL BRUISE (or, POUND) THEE— Like (Deuteronomy 9:21), “And I beat in pieces” which Onkelos translates by ושפית “I pounded it.” ואתה תשופנו עקב AND THOU SHALT BRUISE HIS HEEL — As you will have no height (not stand erect) you will be able to bite him only on the heel, but even at that spot you will kill him. The word תשופנו is of the same import as the verb in (Isaiah 40:24). נשף בהם “It bloweth upon them.” When a serpent comes to bite, it blows with a kind of hissing sound. Although the words ישופך and תשופנו have different meanings, since they constitute “a play upon words” by sounding similar, they are both used here.

AND THOU SHALT BRUISE THEIR HEEL. This means man will have an advantage over you [the serpent] in the enmity between him and you for he will bruise your head but you will bruise him only in his heel, with which he will crush your brain.

"And enmity." "He shall bruise you on the head" — her seed will strike you on the head. Similarly (Job 9:17): "who bruises me with a storm" — look at what follows that verse. The bet is omitted, as is the bet in "found in the house of Hashem" (2 Kings 12:11). "Heel" (ʿaqev) — this is the foot; if the head is first, this is last. Likewise: "and his heel by the water" (Josh. 8:13).

ואיבה אשית, woman would henceforth be an object of disgust even in her own estimation, as described in the Talmud (Shabbat 152) “although a woman is a vessel full of excrement and her orifice full of blood,” (men run after her as if she was the most desirable creature) This was going to be the relationship between males and females in the future, not only that between Adam and Chavah [who apparently could not bring himself to have intercourse with her for the next 130 years. Ed.] ובין זרעך ובין זרעה, not only between Adam and Chavah, but also between their respective male and female offspring. הוא ישופך ראש, these thoughts crossing man’s mind will reduce the satisfaction he obtains already in the early stages of sexual intercourse, a feeling gradually reinforced when he considers the potential harm he may cause himself by indulging in copulation, diminishing both the qualitative and quantitative enjoyment of it. ואתה תשופנו עקב, he who initially derives pleasure from his superiority will eventually cause himself harm at the end of the pleasure cycle.

ואיבה אשית בינך ובין האשה. And l shall place hatred between you and the woman. G'd applied the principle of גואל הדם, a relative avenging a killing who is permitted to kill the slayer without trial. This is so because the serpent's deed brought death to all of Eve's descendants. The nature of the revenge matches what the serpent had done. Humans will strike at the head of the serpents, seeing that the original serpent had initiated man's downfall and the head is the beginning of life, it is the area which is smitten by the angel of death. Whenever it attacks man, the serpent will aim at the heel because man in the end trailed, i.e. followed the advice of the serpent when sinning. The word "heel" may also simply be an allusion to the serpent's having lost its legs, being forced to move on its belly. You may well ask how could the Torah in the same breath as allowing man to avenge himself on the serpent permit it to attack man's heel? What kind of penalty is it for the serpent to be allowed to continue harassing man? The answer is simply that the serpent could have retorted that no one forced Eve to listen to its advice. Our sages (Kidushin 42) have formulated this by asking rhetorically: "When the instructions of the teacher conflict with those of the disciple, whose instructions is one to follow?" If Eve had followed this simple piece of logic there would not have been any unfortunate developments as a result of the serpent's argument. The serpent therefore felt aggrieved that Eve's lack of logic had caused it permanent harm. There is an allusion as to how long this condition of enmity between man and the serpent will continue. As long as man, i.e. Israel, is ראש, deserving of the title "head" by performing G'd's commandments, it will prevail over the tempter called serpent and smash it. On the other hand, when Israel ignores G'd's commandments, the serpent will bite it because Israel has itself become like a heel instead of like a head.

ואיבה אשית, “and I will set enmity, etc.” Rashi’s comment, printed in our chumashim as belonging to this verse, although appearing at the end of G-d’s speaking to the serpent, refers to the original intention of the serpent to cause Adam’s death as a result from eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge; the reason it had not tried to seduce Adam, G-d was well aware of, was that it is easier to deceive women, so that the woman was used as the serpent’s tool in seducing Adam. The Torah adds this line in order to show how much the punishment fitted the crime, the ultimate objective of the serpent having been (according to Rashi’s source (Bereshit Rabbah, 20,5) that it would marry the woman. הוא ישופך ראש, “he will strike your head,” seeing that you are crawling on the ground, ואתה תשופנו עקב, “whereas you will only be able to attack the heel.”

ואיבה אשית, “and I will put enmity, etc.” Actually, we do not hate the serpent more than any of the other reptiles and creepers. The verse only hints that the body [the very existence, Ed.] of the serpent was already predestined to harbour within it calamity for man, as we indicated in our commentary on the previous verse. This manifested itself when the serpent seduced Chavah and through her death was decreed on the whole species of mankind. This is the deeper reason of the ongoing enmity between human beings and the serpent. We see in the serpent the cause for our eventual death. This is also alluded to by the fact that on another occasion the Torah called the serpent שרף, a name also applicable to the angel of death who is referred to as the angel שרף, in Isaiah 6,6. Another verse where the serpent is referred to as שרף is in Numbers 21,6 את הנחשים השרפים. The reason the snakes were called by that name was that they were direct descendants of the original serpent about which we read here. Therefore the verse continues: הוא ישופך ראש ואתה תשופנה עקב, “he will strike your head, and you will strike at the heel.” In this instance the Torah permits man to attack the animal even if it did not pose an immediate threat to him. The word עקב need not be understood literally, but is an allusion to man’s final day, his death. You are already familiar with what we learned in Baba Batra 16 that serpent-Satan and death are merely different sides of the same coin.

To the woman He said: I will greatly increase your pain and your travail; in pain you shall bear children. Your desire shall be toward your husband, and he shall have dominion over you.

עצבנך THY PAIN — viz., the trouble of rearing children (Eruvin 100b). והרונך AND THY CONCEPTION— viz., the pain of pregnancy. בעצב תלדי בנים IN PAIN THOU SHALT BEAR CHILDREN — This refers to the pangs of childbirth (Eruvin 100b). ואל אישך תשוקתך AND TO YOUR HUSBAND WILL BE YOUR DESIRE — for sexual relations. And, nonetheless, you will not have the temerity to proposition him with [your] mouth, but rather HE WILL RULE OVER YOU — everything will come from him and not from you. תשוקתך THY DESIRE — Similar to (Isaiah 29:8), ונפשו שוקקה “and his soul hath appetite”, (desires).

‘T’SHUKATHECH’ (AND THY DESIRE) SHALL BE TO THY HUSBAND, meaning for cohabitation. Yet you will not have the boldness to demand it by word, rather he shall rule over thee. It will all be from him and not from you. Thus are the words of Rashi. But this is not correct, for modesty is praiseworthy in a woman, just as the Rabbis have said: “This is a good quality in women.”Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said: “And thy desire shall be to thy husband, meaning your obedience.” This means you will obey whatever he commands you for you are under his authority to do his desire. However, I have found the expression t’shukah used only in connection with desire and lust. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that He punished her that her desire for her husband be exceedingly great and that she should not be deterred by the pain of pregnancy and birth or that he keeps her as a maid-servant. Now it is not customary for a servant to desire to acquire a master over himself, rather his desire is to flee from him. Thus her punishment is measure for measure; she gave [the fruit of the tree of knowledge] also to her husband and he ate at her command, and He punished her that she should no longer command him, but instead he should command her entirely at his will.

"I will greatly multiply" — an infinitive absolute construction. "Your pain" (ʿitzevonekh) — at the time of suffering, when the blood of virginity is shed. "And your conception" (heronekh) — the nun is added. For pregnancy weighs heavily on a woman, and so does childbirth. "Your desire" (teshukhatek) — your submission. The meaning is: you will obey whatever he commands you, for you are in his domain to do his will.

הרבה ארבה עצבונך, the menstrual blood, known in the Torah and Talmud as נדת דותה (Niddah 9 and Leviticus 12,2) The prophet Jeremiah in Lamentations 1,13 describes the state of the Jewish people after the destruction of the Temple as כל היום דוה, as if she lost menstrual blood all day long. והרונך, her pregnancy will be exactly the opposite of what it had been before she sinned. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 22,22) describe that at that time Adam and Chavah were created, copulated, and produced offspring, all on the same day. This is also what things will be like in the future according to Shabbat 30 “in the future woman will be able to give birth every day.” Such a situation will occur when the Jewish people once more regain G’d’s favour, as had been the case prior to the original sin. בעצב תלדי בנים, you will experience anguish while engaged in raising them, by comparison to the other creatures on earth who do not experience such prolonged periods during which they have to look after all the needs of their young. The word לידה does appear in the context of raising children (not even one’s own) such as in the case of Michal, daughter of King Sha-ul, wife of David of whom we are told (Samuel II 21,8) חמשת בני מיכל בת שאול אשר ילדה לעדריאל בן ברזילי המחולתי“the five sons of Michal, daughter of Sha-ul whom she had born to Adriel son of Barzilai the Mecholti.” [Michal had not given birth to these five sons, but her older sister Merav, who had died very young so that Michal, her sister, had raised her nephews. Ed.]

אל האשה אמר. He (G'd) had said to the woman. G'd intended to make it clear that Eve would suffer three curses as retribution for the three features of the tree of knowledge she had wanted to enjoy. She had seen that the tree a) was good as food; b) a temptation for the eyes; and c) desirable to make one perceptive. G'd decreed that instead of enjoying the fruit of the tree she would suffer pains when producing her own fruit, i.e. her children. Regarding the temptation for her eyes Eve wanted to enjoy, G'd decreed that she would henceforth pine for her husband as a passive partner, her husband deciding if and when to indulge her desire. Her husband would always derive satisfaction from the mating process without a guarantee that her desire would be satisfied during union with her husband. Finally, instead of satisfying her desire to be G'd-like, she would be dominated not only by G'd but also by her husband.

אל האשה אמר, “to the woman He had said:” the gentiles asked Rabbi Joshua why the woman was punished for eating from a tree, seeing that she had not even been created yet when G-d issued the prohibition to eat from it to Adam. He replied that the Torah did not write that G-d forbade eating from the tree “to” Adam, but that it worded it as a general prohibition including the human species, by writing: על האדם, “concerning all his limbs and sinews,” or “the human species,” i.e. himself and all his offspring. (Compare 2,16) Woman, after all, had been constructed from what had been part of his body. A different exegesis: the woman had included herself in the prohibition when she had told the serpent that G-d had forbidden, quoting Him in the plural mode: לא תאכלו ממנו, “you (pl) must not eat from it.” (3,4). הרבה ארבה, “you will be in a state of retardation, held back throughout your life.” You will always be in a position of trying to catch up. If you were to ask that she could console herself by arguing that she would assign her household duties to her paid servants, G-d added that there were duties, such as her carrying a fetus in her womb which she could not outsource, i.e. הרונך, your pregnancy and the pain associated with her giving birth; if she were to respond that she would forego having marital relations with her husband, G-d added that it would become her second nature to long for the physical union with her husband, ואל אישך תשוקתך. If she would respond that she would learn to control such urges, G-d added that והוא ימשול בך, “he would exercise control over her.” והוא ימשול בך, according to Rashi, [as understood by our author, Ed.] the meaning of this phrase is that her husband will be the driving force in all matters of marital union, and that seeing you do not experience the desire for such physical intercourse, unless he has been aroused, you will not be able to arouse him, but on the other hand, he can force marital union on you;”Our sages state in Bereshit Rabbah 20,18, “you might have thought from this phrase that her husband dominates her in every respect;” to prevent you from thinking thus, the Torah in Deuteronomy 24,6 wrote: לא יחבול רחים ורכב, “he must not inflict injury upon her by overburdening her.” [It is clear that the Torah there refers to the woman, as in the previous verse it had ordered the husband to provide his new bride with joy for the first year of the marriage. Ed.] Furthermore, that verse has been translated by the Jerusalem Talmud as meaning: “you must not take the upper millstone as pawn for overdue debts, as the livelihood of the debtor depends upon it.” Our author accepts a different exegesis which understands the verse to mean that a man who has become engaged to a woman, must not allow undue delay before the actual marriage, as his “bride” would then be considered as if her groom had abandoned her. [The word כי יקח in the previous verse refers to engagement not actual consummation, Ed.]

הרבה ארבה עצבונך, “I will greatly increase your pain, etc.” Actually, the Torah should have written עצבון הרונך“the pain associated with your pregnancy.” It is possible that the two words represent two different experiences. The meaning of the word עצבונך, may be the normal menstrual pains, something that women experience regardless of their being pregnant. Our sages in Niddah 40 have said that at the time of her menstrual cycle a woman’s head and limbs feel exceptionally heavy. Seeing that this is a recurring phenomenon which occurs month after month may have prompted the Torah to repeat the word הרבה ארבה, as if to say “I will make it occur many times.” On the other hand, the word הרונך, “your pregnancy,” includes the pain associated with pregnancy. The pain associated with the actual birth of children is described by the words בעצב תלדי בנים, “you will experience pain when giving birth to children.” ואל אישך תשוקתך, ”and your craving will be for your husband.” The unusual thing here is that normally, when someone is in a subordinate position such as a slave to a master, the slave tends to use every opportunity to flee from the master. G-d decreed here that the natural orientation of a woman would be the reverse. She would pine for her husband, seek out his presence and nearness. She would be his willing subordinate. והוא ימשול בך, ”and he will rule over you.” This punishment that the husband would be the dominant figure in the husband-wife relationship and that he would issue instructions to her was decreed as the fitting response to the fact that she had ordered him to eat from the fruit of the tree. Chavah (woman) was cursed in five different ways. 1) the pain accompanying menstruation. 2) The discomfort experienced during pregnancy. 3) The pain experienced when giving birth. 4) The feeling of being dependent on and having a craving for her husband. 5) Having to accept instructions from him. Our sages also said in Niddah 19 that there are five different kinds of blood which originate in a woman’s body which are ritually unclean. They correspond to five parts of desire which were involved in the sin of eating from the tree. They are 1) looking at the tree and its fruit with her heart; 2) the desire inspired by the eye; 3) the desire to acquire additional intelligence; 4) the actual eating of the fruit; 5) giving of the fruit to her husband. These five parts of the sin are clearly spelled out in verses six and seven. “The woman saw that the tree was good as food, and that is was desirable for the eyes (to behold); that it was designed to obtain insights. She took from its fruit and she ate; she also gave to her husband to eat with her.” An homiletical approach to the words הרבה ארבה is found in Bereshit Rabbah 20,13 where it is stated כל שישנו בהרבה ישנו בארבה; we may understand this as follows: “whenever an embryo spends an extended period of time within its mother’s womb it will likely become a viable baby.” The numerical value of the letters in the word הרבה add up to 212. If an embryo has been carried by the mother for no less than 212 days it may survive birth unassisted. Actually, 212 days are three days more than seven months. They are accounted for by the three days before true pregnancy commences, i.e. sometimes it takes up to three days for the male sperm to fertilise the female ovum The third day is included in the count of seven months, i.e. 210 days. The word בארבה hints at the differential between these two periods of time. The day when the ovum is fertilised is included in the calculation of the pregnancy.

He will crush your head, and you will strike his heel. Most commentators have said that the evil inclination draws its power from the primordial serpent. The evil inclination is at first like a spider’s thread, but later becomes like the thick ropes of a wagon. This is why it says he [man] will crush your [the serpent’s] head — for if one is quick to go out and fight against his evil inclination at the beginning [that is to say, at its first approach], then he will crush you, because it is easy for a person to overcome it and tear it away like breaking a spider’s thread. However, if at the start one gives place to his inclination and follows its advice day after day until it becomes as strong as wagon ropes, then it becomes difficult to overcome, and on the contrary, it will overcome you. This is why it says to the serpent and you will strike his heel, as the heel represents the end, meaning that if at the end one tries to fight against you, then you will strike him and overcome him, because it will be difficult for the person to break the wagon ropes from himself, as the evil inclination is already bound to him with bonds of love because of the pleasures, and it is difficult to separate from this uncircumcised and impure thing. This is also an allegory about repentance that a person does in his youth, meaning at the beginning of his days, when it is easy to leave his path. However, at the heel — at the end — when he is already accustomed to his ways, even when he grows old, he will not turn from it, and then you will strike him, This can also be said about severe transgressions — idolatry, forbidden relationships, murder, and their like — your inclination cannot make you transgress these so easily, for who would be foolish enough to turn here and who would listen to such a thing, to transgress these primary sins. But with the heel, meaning the light commandments that people trample with their heels, you will strike him because it will be easy for you to make him transgress these, as this is the way of the evil inclination — it begins with the heel and rises and seeps up to the head, like the venom of the snake that begins in the heel and continues to seep until it reaches the head. Similarly, the evil inclination begins by making a person transgress the light commandments that people trample with their heels, and after this, one transgression leads to another, and it will rise from the light to the severe ones until one’s sins go over his head, as it says For my iniquities have gone over my head (Psalms 38:5). This is an allusion about the transgressions that are the head of all transgressions, which is why it says Her impurity is in her skirts, she did not consider her end (Lamentations 1:9). For the wise person will take to heart that when the evil inclination comes to defile him in his skirts, meaning in the lower place like the heel, so it will rise from there and seep up, and his end will be bitter, for it will bring him up from light transgressions to severe ones. The wicked will not understand this, but the wise will understand.

אל האשה אמר, “to the woman He had said, etc.” G’d did not mention the woman’s eating from the tree as the cause of her punishment as He had done when He announced Adam’s punishment in verse 17. The reason is that she was punished both for the eating and for suggesting that her husband become her partner in crime. The serpent too, had been punished for giving criminal advice to the woman. עצבונך, “your severe discomfort.” According to Rashi this is not physical discomfort, but the mental anguish which is part of raising children. This seems difficult, for if this were the true meaning of the verse, why did the Torah not write the word הרונך, “your pregnancy,” before speaking about raising as yet unborn children? It appears more appropriate therefore to understand the word עצבונך as referring to the monthly discomfort of menstruating, something even women who do not bear children have to contend with. ואל אישך תשוקתך, “and your longing will be for your husband.” Rashi interprets this as the woman’s desire for marital relations with her husband, something that she does not express openly, by words of mouth, but has to wait for passively, seeing that her husband is the initiator, “rules over her.” Nachmanides takes exception to Rashi’s interpretation, saying that on the contrary, a woman’s natural reticence in these matters is praiseworthy, hardly a punishment. Ibn Ezra understands the word תשוקתך as “your obedience,” saying that the wife has to be obedient to the demands of her husband. She requires his permission to carry out plans of her own design, seeing that she is basically under his control. It would appear that seeing G’d said to the woman: הרבה ארבה עצבונך והרונך, “I will greatly increase your discomfort, etc.,” including that during pregnancy, that even if the woman takes care to minimize the incidence of marital relations in order to not become pregnant, her natural tendency to engage in marital relations will overcome her unwillingness to become pregnant again and again. In fact her husband, seeing that he rules over her, may force her to submit to having marital relations even against her will.

And to Adam He said: Because you heeded the word of your wife and ate from the tree concerning which I commanded you, saying: You shall not eat of it — cursed is the ground on your account; in toil shall you eat of it all the days of your life.

ארורה האדמה בעבורך CURSED BE THE GROUND FOR THY SAKE — It will produce to you cursed objects such as flies, fleas and ants; it may be compared to the case of one who gets into depraved ways, and people curse the breasts at which he was suckled (Genesis Rabbah 5:9).

"And to Adam." "Cursed is the ground" — meaning it will not bring forth abundant produce. "In toil you shall eat of it" — you shall eat its produce; this is an abbreviated expression, and likewise: "and let them be among those who eat at your table" (1 Kings 2:7).

כי שמעת לקול אשתך, by attributing to G’d such negative characteristics as lying and jealousy. ותאכל מן העץ, thereby rebelling and causing yourself death as you had been warned about. Because you listened and accepted the argument to think of G’d as imperfect, ארורה האדמה, the earth will not continue to put its potential at your disposal without your having to exert yourself by hard labour. Furthermore, also because you rebelled and violated My command.

ולאדם אמר. And G'd had said to Adam. We need to understand why G'd mentioned Adam's "listening to the voice of his wife;" It would have sufficed to say: "because you ate from the tree, etc.;" Besides, why did the Torah add the word "to the voice?" Could the Torah not simply have said "because you listened to your wife, etc.?" Having in mind that we explained that Adam had not been aware at the time he ate that the fruit he ate was from the tree of knowledge, it would not have been appropriate for the Torah to simply say: "because you ate from the tree, etc." since in fact he did not eat from the tree knowingly but inadvertently. The Torah therefore had to spell out that Adam's sin was accepting the words of his wife without checking them. As a result of his failure to investigate his wife's words more closely, he "ate from the tree." The reason the Torah refers to the "voice" of Adam's wife is to alert us to the fact that Adam was satisfied that it was his wife talking; he did not bother to analyse what she was saying. When she told him: "take and eat," this is what he did. He did not ask where the fruit came from. The Torah alludes once more to Adam's error in not giving Eve precise instructions when it says: "from the tree which I told you not to eat from." Adam had only told Eve not to eat from the fruit of the tree. The lack of adequate information at the time Adam relayed G'd's command to Eve was a major cause of the tragedy. The reason G'd cursed both the earth and Eve but not Adam is due to the earth's failure on the third day of creation to produce trees exactly as G'd had commanded. Had the earth produced only trees whose trunk were edible, or only trees whose trunks were not edible, Eve could not have made the error she made. It was only because the tree of knowledge was different in this respect that made Adam's failure to warn her not to eat from this tree result in tragic consequences. G'd therefore cursed the earth as the cause of all that had happened. Since G'd expelled Adam from the garden and made him toil the unresponsive earth, Adam was punished for having accepted his wife's urgings without checking. He had greedily indulged his desire, and as a result he would forever more remain in a state of sadness that he could not earn his livelihood without hard work. He would now eat grass of the field in lieu of the fruit of the trees of the garden for which he did not have to toil. In future when he would have to labour to secure his food supply he would know exactly where it came from.

ולאדם, Rabbi Yehudah, son of Rabbi Shimon points out that the word for G-d appears a total of 71 times before this word. This is an allusion to the number of judges that comprise the Jewish Supreme Court, known as Sanhedrin. The verse is a hint that G-d convened the Supreme Court in the celestial regions to decree the death penalty on Adam. If, after making your own count you found that G-d’s name had already appeared 73 times, you must remember that in the expression: בצלם אלוהים or in והייתם כאלוהים, the word ”elohim, is not sacred, as it does not mean “G-d,” but “angel.” Our author had drawn attention to this already in his commentary of Genesis 1,27. ולאדם אמר, ”and to Adam He had said:” Bereshit Rabbah, 20,3 in commenting on the words: “and He had said to Man,” writes that of all creatures only three perform sexual union while facing one another’s face; they are: the human beings, the snake and the fish. They enjoy this distinction because in the Holy Scriptures we read that each of these species had been spoken to by G-d, directly. Man had been addressed by G-d in our chapter. The snake had been addressed by G-d also in our chapter. The fish that had swallowed and spat out Jonah had also been addressed by G-d directly, as we read in Jonah: 2,11. כי שמעת לקול אשתך, “because you (preferred) to listen to the voice of your wife, etc.;” instead of to My voice. She had revealed the secret to you that the serpent had revealed to her, you cannot claim to have been ignorant, and that is why you have to be punished. ארורה האדמה, “the soil has become cursed;” the earth had been guilty on its own account, as G-d had commanded it in Genesis 1,11: תדשא הארץ עץ פרי עושה פרי, “to produce edible trees bearing edible fruit;” however the earth had failed to produce edible trees (compare 1,12) The curse on the earth lasted only as long as Adam would live on it, i.e. כל ימי חייך, “as long as you are alive.” If you will make a careful count, you will find that from the day Adam died until Noach was born, no one had been born, and with Noach’s birth the original blessing returned to the earth. Noach’s father, Lemech, was aware of this, this is why he exclaimed at the birth of his son (Genesis, 29) זה ינחמנו ממעשי ידינו ומעצבון ידינו מן האדמה אשר אררה ה'. “this one is destined to comfort us for the hard work we had to do and the disappointments we have experienced as the result of G-d having cursed the soil.”The Torah, after the deluge, testifies that Noach became an outstanding farmer, איש האדמה, who also planted a vineyard. (Genesis 9,20) בעבורך, not “on account of you,” but “relative to your harvest.” We find the word עבור meaning: “harvest,” in Joshua 5,11, where the Israelites are described as for the first time eating from the produce of the Holy Land (instead of manna). The Torah had told us that subsequent to the earth’s having been cursed it would (not exclusively) produce thorns and thistles although it had been sowed with perfectly good seeds. (3,18) כל ימי חייך, “all the days of your life.” If you were to ask that if the earth only produced thorns and thistles how was Adam able to live on it for 930 years as testified by the Torah? (Genesis 5,5) Besides, had the Torah not warned him that he would die on the day he ate from the tree of knowledge? He was allowed to continue living for a while as part of his excuse had been perfectly logical, namely his argument that he had thought that G-d had given him a wife only for his benefit not as someone who would seduce him into sinning.

אשר צויתיך לאמר, ”which I had commanded you to say, etc.” The addition of the word לאמר is a reminder to Adam that he was supposed to also have cautioned the animals against eating from that tree.

Thorns and thistles shall it sprout for you, and you shall eat the grass of the field.

וקוץ ודרדר תצמיח לך THORNS ALSO AND THISTLES SHALL IT BRING FORTH TO THEE— תצמיח has for subject the earth; when you sow it with various kinds of grain, it shall bring forth thorns and thistles — artichokes and cardoon — which are fit for food only after special preparation (Genesis Rabbah 20:10). ואכלת את עשב השדה AND THOU SHALT EAT THE HERB OF THE FIELD — What curse is involved here? Was he not told as a blessing, (1:29) “Behold I have given unto you every herb yielding seed”? But what is stated here at the beginning of this passage? “Cursed be the ground etc.… in toil shalt thou eat of it.” And after all your toil “thorns and thistles shall it bring forth to thee”. This means when you sow it with cereals and vegetables it shall bring forth for you thorns and thistles and other weeds, and you will perforce have to eat them for lack of other food (Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 14).

"Thorn" (qotz) — large; smaller than it is thistle (dardar). The word on its own is dar, since its companion [letter] is absent. The meaning of "in toil" — is to plow, to break the soil, and to sow. There is yet a further calamity: that thorns will grow up among the grain. The meaning of "the herb of the field" — this is bread, for in the Garden of Eden his sustenance came from the fruit of trees.

קוץ ודרדר תצמיח לך, “it will grow thorns and thistles for you.” Until this moment the decree of Genesis 1,26 according to which the human species would rule in an unrestricted manner over all the creatures on earth had been in effect. There had been no need to guard the garden against invasion of wild beasts. From this moment on the negative phenomena on earth would be in effect, but would be directed only against the human species, לך, “against you.” The animal kingdom would not experience thorns and thistles as an impediment of their life on earth.

By the sweat of your brow you shall eat bread, until you return to the ground from which you were created, for dust you are, and to dust you shall return.

בזעת אפיך IN THE SWEAT OF THY FACE — after you have taken all this great trouble.

The meaning of "by the sweat of your brow" is that he must toil to winnow, to grind, to knead, and to cook — unlike the food of animals. The explanation of "sweat" (zeʿat) is well known from the sages of blessed memory; it follows the pattern of "sleep" (shena), and its root is y-z-ʿ, as in: "they shall not gird themselves with that which causes sweat" (Ezek. 44:18) — until they are brought to sweating. Now since we know that man was created from the four elements, what is the meaning of "for from it you were taken"? The answer is that bones derive from dust, which is why they are heavy and have no sensation — they are the foundation of the body. Just observe: "and bone came close to bone" (Ezek. 37:7), for they are like the frame of a built house, after which "sinews appeared upon them, and flesh covered them, and skin spread over them" (ibid.). Similarly: "and you shall carry up my bones" (Exod. 13:19).

אל עפר תשוב, you will revert to dust, just as I had told you “on the day you eat from it you will surely become mortal.” (not that he would actually die on that same day).

עד שובך אל האדמה, Until you will return to the soil, etc. The Torah gives two reasons why man would have to die. It would not have sufficed to explain the need for man to die, i.e. return to the folds of the earth merely because that had been his origin. After all, he had originated from earth before the sin and was not bound to return to it. Since man is made of dust, i.e. earth, he is part of it, or rather, he has made himself part of it through his sin. Had he not sinned, the holiness acquired by triumphing over temptation would have guaranteed that he did not have to return to his lowly origin. His body would have become so refined that it no longer would have been considered as part of the earth. Now, even the part of Adam that was spiritual had been severely tainted through his sin. G'd explained to Adam that although it is normal for things to return to their origin; he, Adam, had forfeited his opportunity to defy that norm through non-observance of G'd's commandment.

בזיעת אפיך, “in the sweat of your face; etc.;” the word אף in this verse refers to the protrusion called “nose,” which is the first organ beginning to perspire when one engages in physically strenuous activity. This particular curse affects only farmers, people working the soil. The second curse, that of enduring pain and hardship during the process of giving birth, affects only women. This was because Chavah had not only sinned but had also caused others, i.e. her husband, to sin. As a result she had been cursed more severely. עד שובך אל האדמה, “until you return to the soil.” As soon as man had died the decree cursing the earth became null and void, as we explained. (verse 17) [Our author appears anxious to counter the Christian doctrine that all of mankind, forever suffers from the consequences of Adam and Chavah’s sin, especially woman which is considered as having brought hereditary sin into the world. Ed.]

אל עפר תשוב, “and to dust you shall return.” The deeper meaning of this verse is reflected in the words of Elihu to Job in Job 34,36. The intelligent reader will understand what I mean. [Rabbi Chavell, in his annotations, understands the whole return to dust as a preliminary for man’s total rehabilitation from sin, a popular concept in all kabbalistic literature. Ed.] Bereshit Rabbah 20,26 emphasizes that instead of the Torah writing תבא, “you will come,” it wrote תשוב, “you will return.” This is a reference to the eventual resurrection seeing that the words עד שובך אל האדמה already mentioned the first return to dust, original death. We may also see in this wording an allusion to Avraham who had said of himself that he was עפר ואפר, “dust and ashes,” and to whom Adam bequeathed seventy years of his allocated time on earth.

“By the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread.” From here there is support for the words of the doctors who say that before every meal, a person needs to engage in some form of work that warms its owner, as this aids digestion. As it is written, When you eat the labor of your hands, you are praiseworthy and it shall be well with you (Psalms 128:2). This is what is meant by in sorrow shall you eat of it all the days of your life. For the word itzavon [sorrow] is a term for work, as it says regarding Job, Your hands have formed me and made me (Job 10:8). And in saying all the days of your life, it teaches that one should eat only what is necessary for life and not seek after excess, for what profit is there in toiling for the wind?

Adam called his wife's name Chavah, for she was the mother of all human beings.

ויקרא האדם AND THE MAN CALLED — Scripture now reverts to its previous topic (Genesis 2:20) beginning with “and the man gave names”. It broke it off (that is, interpolated the story of the serpent) only to tell you that through the giving of names Eve became his mate, as it is written (Genesis 2:20) “but for Adam there was not found a help meet for him,” and that therefore “the [Lord God] caused to fall a deep sleep upon him” and formed Eve. But because Scripture writes at the end of the story of creation of Eve (Genesis 2:25), “and they were both naked”, it therefore follows on with the passage dealing with the serpent, to inform you that because he saw her nakedness and that they displayed no feeling of shame in their actions, he desired her, and he came upon them with his evil plan and with deceit. חוה EVE — חוה has the same sound as חיה (and similar meaning “life”) — she was so called because she gives life (birth) to her children; the interchange of ‘י and ‘ו is similar to that in (Ecclesiastes 2:22), מה הוה לאדם “for what hath a man”, where הוה is used in the sense of היה “to be.”

"He called." "Ḥavvah" — the vav and the yod are interchangeable; similarly: "behold, the hand of Hashem shall be" (hovah) (Exod. 9:3), and: "and you would be their king" (hoveh) (Neh. 6:6). He did not name her with a yod [as ḥayyah], for what would distinguish her name from the name of other living creatures? "The mother of all living" — meaning of all human beings.

חוה, she is a necessary requirement for the human species to continue life on earth. כי היא היתה אם כל חי, even though the function of the female of the species listed here also applies to all women after Chavah, she is used as the role model and therefore accorded this name. The reason is that she was the first woman ever to fulfill this role.

ויקרא אדם שם אשתו חוה. Adam called the name of his wife Chavah. We must understand why Adam had not named his wife immediately after he met her, before any of the happenings described by the Torah. Know therefore that G'd had already given the woman a name reflecting her distinction when He named both the man and the woman ADAM. We know from Ezekiel 34,31 that the name ADAM is a great distinction. The prophet proclaims: אדם אתם, "you are Adam" (referring to Israel). Our sages (Yevamot 61) have stated about Israel: "you have been called ADAM, whereas the Gentiles have not been called ADAM." There was therefore no reason for Adam to have named Eve previously. Now that his wife had been seduced by the serpent she had suffered a spiritual decline and no longer qualified for the name ADAM. In fact it is generally accepted that when a person violates G'd's law knowingly he forfeits his original name. This is what Solomon (Proverbs 10,7) meant when he said: ושם רשעים ירקב, that the "name" i.e. the original name of the wicked, will rot. Adam now had to give his wife a name which reflected her function in life, namely that she became the "mother" of all human beings. True, Adam had sinned too, but his sin had been unintentional as already pointed out. He did not forfeit his name on that account. As a matter of fact Adam too experienced a diminution of status as expressed by his name. The Torah here calls him suddenly האדם, three or four times instead of אדם as previously. You must appreciate that the category of person called האדם is inferior to the one called אדם without the letter ה. Sifri 143 quotes Rabbi Yirmiyah on Leviticus 18,5: אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם, that האדם should perform these commandments in order to live by them, as including Gentiles. This is so because whenever the letter ה before the word אדם does not signify a definite article it refers to the human species as such. [I have condensed the proof presented by the author. Ed.] Although Adam declined in spiritual stature and forfeited the full extent of his name, this was a temporary phenomenon. The Torah again accords him his full name when it describes that he became the father of Sheth (4,25). He regained his stature having only sinned inadvertently. There is another reason for the name חוה. First we must understand why "life" is attributed to Eve and not to Adam. After all, Adam was the "father" of all human beings! Besides, if the reason we have given for Adam calling חוה is that she is the "mother" of all human beings, he should have called her חיה, not חוה! Her name was to reflect two new developments. 1) She had listened to the urgings of the seducer. Adam called her by the name of the seducer, the word חוה being the same as חויא the aramaic for serpent. This is the reason given in the Zohar. The second new development was that she was condemned to bear children in pain. She alone deserved to be called "mother" of all human beings because it was only she who had to endure pain in connection with procreation. The Torah did not want to spell out the other reason, seeing that it is already alluded to in the name חוה.

חוה, a variant of the word חיות, “life.” It is a derivative of the root:.הוה היה אם כל חיה, “mother of all living human beings.” According to Rabbi Simmon, in Bereshit Rabbah 20,11, what is meant is the “mother of all living creatures.” According to his view during all the 130 years that Adam lived apart from his wife, male disembodied spirits used her body warmth to produce living creatures that emanated from her womb. Female spirits also used her body as the means to reproduce. Our author directs the reader to a Midrash on Samuel II 7,14 where the words: והוכחתיו בשבט אנשים ובנגעי בני אדם, “I will chastise him with the rod of men and the affliction of mortals,” are explained in the manner he had described. The 130 years of which the Torah speaks are explained in the Talmud Eyruvin 18. A different exegesis: the words אם כל חי, are a compliment to Chavah who is the human mother of the human species. Devorah refers to herself in similar terms at the beginning of her famous song thanking G-d for her and Barak’s victory in Judges 5,7, where she refers to herself as “the mother of Israel.”

ויקרא האדם שם אשתו חוה, “Adam called the name of his wife Chavah.” According to the plain meaning of the text the word חוה means “talking,” based on Job 15,17 אחוך שמע לי, “I will hold forth, listen to me.” This was another example of Adam displaying his great wisdom when naming creatures. He immediately realized that woman was prone to talk a lot. The fact that most women are very talkative may have been inherited from the first woman. When Adam added the words כי היא היתה אם כל חי, “for she had become the mother of all חי”, this was a reference to all living creatures equipped with the power of speech. He meant to exclude all the living creatures which did not possess intelligence. Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 20,11 sees in the word חוה something analogous to חויא, “serpent.” Seeing she was named thus we can understand why the נחש, the male of the species copulated with her. Based on this our sages have taught us that a person’s name has far ranging influence on what happens to the bearer of that name.

For she was the mother of all living. Why did he name her now after the sin, and furthermore, he should have called her “Chayah” [meaning “living”]. It appears that before the sin she was called “Chayah” because she was the mother of all living things, but after the sin, which brought death to future generations, her name was changed from “Chayah” to “Chavah” because “Chavah” is derived from the word “chivyah” meaning snake. The verse comes to explain why he didn’t explicitly call her “snake,” but rather [called her Chavah] because before this she was the mother of all living things and was called “Chayah.” Therefore, when changing her name, it was only necessary to change the letter yod to vav, so that a trace of the original name would remain in place.

Hashem God made for Adam and for his wife garments of glory upon the skin of their flesh, and clothed them.

כתנות עור GARMENTS FOR THE SKIN — There are Agadoth which say that they were smooth as fingernails, cleaving to their skin; whereas some say that they were made of material that comes from skin, as for example, the hair of hares which is soft and warm, and of this He made garments for them (Genesis Rabbah 20:12).

"Garments of skin" — some say that at first they had only bone and flesh, and now skin spread over them. Others say that the garments were for their skin. Others say that there exists an animal in human form, and Hashem commanded that its skin be stripped off. We need not inquire further into this; we need only believe that Hashem made garments of skin for the man and for his wife. Who can express His mighty acts, who can recount His works and wonders — His greatness is beyond all searching.

ויעש... כתנות עור, without any input by man, similar to a description of the Talmud of what the earth will produce without human input in idyllic times when ready made bread rolls will be produced by the earth (Shabbat 30) וילבישם, in order that He would not have to expel them from Gan Eden while they were naked. Not only that, but if they would dress themselves in these coats after having been expelled, they might delude themselves that they had improved on G’d’s handiwork.

כתנות עור, according to Rashi, “tunics made of skin/leather.” This “leather” was smooth as nails, no hair ever having been on it. Rashi contradicts commentators who explained the term as referring to the skins of hares which are completely covered with hair. (Compare Bereshit Rabbah 20,20) כתנות עור, the term כתונת is familiar to us from the outer garment made for Joseph by his father, and the linen tunic worn by the High Priest, was intended to cover their bodies and their flesh, as described in Job 5,5, the extremities of their bodies, as opposed to the torso. The point is that the material was not taken from the body of a large mammal that had died, as there had not been time as yet for such skin to have been stretched to make it into leather. Compare Onkelos. According to some opinions the material stemmed from the Leviathan, the female of which G-d had killed and whose meat had been salted away by G-d for use to serve to the righteous in the future. וילבישם, “He dressed them.” First Adam and Chavah had made some kind of aprons that could be tied around their loins.(3,7) Now their entire bodies were covered by these tunics.

ויעש ה' אלוקים לאדם ולאשתו כתנות עור. “The Lord G-d made leather coats for man and his wife.” According to the plain meaning of the text, G-d made superior kinds of garments for them, garments which would cover their entire bodies and which would make them look distinguished. This had become necessary as their inherent dignity had turned to shame (compare Psalms 4,3 עד מה כבודי לכלמה, “how long will my honour be shamed?”) as long as only their genitals were covered by the fig leaves. Perhaps this leather was made from the animal called Tachash which the Jewish people used as a covering for the Tabernacle in the desert. According to Tanchuma on Parshat Terumah 6, the Tachash had been created only for that purpose at the time. Possibly, here too, the animal out of whose hide these coats of Adam and Chavah were made had been created only for that purpose. According to Shabbat 28, the Holy Ark and other vessels of the Tabernacle were wrapped in the skin of the Tachash when they were being transported. Afterwards, these covers were hidden, never to be found again. Apparently this skin was multi-coloured. This would help to make anyone dressed in it look very distinguished. Onkelos translates עור תחש as ססגונא “a multi-coloured skin.” The opinion of our sages appears to be that these garments had pictures of all the birds of the world and that Adam bequeathed them to his son Cain. When Cain was killed, they passed over to Nimrod; this is the meaning of Genesis 10,9 והוא היה גבור ציד “he was a very prodigious hunter.” At the death of Nimrod, these garments became the property of Esau. When the Torah speaks of these valuable garments which Esau entrusted to his mother (Genesis 27,15), the word חמודות, “desirable,” means that Esau (also a hunter) had long desired to obtain these garments from Nimrod. Now to a homiletical approach. In Bereshit Rabbah 20,29 the copy of the Torah in the possession of Rabbi Meir, had the word “OR” כתנות עור spelled אור, “light.” The meaning of this comment is that G-d dressed Adam and Chavah in clothing consisting of different degrees of “light.” This “light” was a derivative of the אור העליון, “light in the celestial spheres,” similar to the rays of light which Moses’ forehead emitted when he came down from Mount Sinai (Exodus 34,29). In Gan Eden such light still prevailed. The quality of the clothing given to the person so clothed relates in some degree to the quality of He who provides such clothing, in this instance G-d Himself. It was G-d’s intention for this clothing to exist indefinitely and for the wearers to be similar in stature to the angels. וילבישם, “He clothed them.” It would have been more appropriate for the Torah to write כתנות עור ללבוש, ”coats of leather to serve as clothing.” This is the way Yaakov described it when he asked G-d for בגד ללבש, “clothes to wear” in Genesis 28,20. According to the plain meaning of the text the Torah simply wanted to relate the fact that they were being clothed to G-d Himself to show G-d’s loving concern and His pity for His creatures. Even though they had sinned, this did not mean that G-d no longer related to them with feelings of fondness. He, personally, engaged in the act of dressing them. We find that G-d related similarly to the Jewish people in the desert when He personally provided them with manna. G-d is on record with these words that he Himself made the manna rain down from heaven. We read in Exodus 16,4 “Here I will make manna rain down for you from the heaven.” This was in spite of the fact that the Israelites had committed a sin similar to that of Adam and Chavah He did not cease to relate to hem lovingly. He never stopped providing them with manna during all the forty years in spite of grievous sins committed at one time or another. This is what Ezra referred to when he said (Nechemiah 9,20) ומנך לא מנעת מפיהם, “and You did not withhold Your manna from their mouths.” From this we learn that legally speaking, G-d would have been entitled to deny them the manna. We find that G-d performed the miracle of splitting the sea to save the Israelites from the pursuing Egyptians even though there were idolaters among them. This is the meaning of Zechariah 10,11 ועבר בים צרה, “he crossed the sea with an idol.” (Sanhedrin 103 understands the word צרה in that verse as a reference to the idol used by the fake Levite Micah hundreds of years later). All of the items mentioned reflect the love of G-d; this is the meaning of Daniel 9,7 לך ה' הצדקה ולנו בשת הפנים, “Yours, O Lord is the righteousness, and ours is the shamefacedness. From a homiletical point of view, the word וילבישם refers to the priestly garments worn by the High Priest. We have the identical expression in Leviticus 8,13 where Moses is reported as dressing the sons of Aaron in the clothing they wore when performing their priestly functions. It is a well known fact that the High Priest wore eight garments when on duty. When you count the number of words in our verse you will find that it contains eight words. You will appreciate the allusion in this. The word וילבישם is the eighth word in that verse. Looking at our verse from a rational-investigative point of view, this paragraph contains definite allusions to the Torah and its commandments for the sake of which man was created. There is also an allusion to body, soul, and the evil urge. We also find in this paragraph allusions to resurrection of the body and to the whole subject of reward and punishment as it applies to both body and soul. There is even an allusion to the eventual removal of the evil urge from the world. Let me now deal with these various allusions in general and you will be able to apply these rules in detail to specific situations. The paragraph begins with ויקח ה' אלוקים את האדם ויניחהו בגן עדן לעבדה ולשמרה. “G-d took Adam and placed him in Gan Eden in order to work it and to preserve it.” The words גן עדן are an allusion to the Torah. Just as the garden had its origin in Eden, so the Torah has is origin in the regions of celestial wisdom which is called Eden. The principal reason man was created was in order to preoccupy himself with Torah, i.e. to study it and to observe it. It follows that the two trees in the centre of the garden, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge, refer to the positive and the negative commandments which are rooted in the Torah. The word האדם is an allusion to intellect an abstract part of man. G-d did not consider it good for this intellect to be alone as it needed an instrument by means of which its achievements could become manifest and which would be his assistant when performing the commandments of the Torah. This instrument would be matter rather than something abstract like the intellect. Seeing that man had been created as a combination of body and spirit it needed a partner in order to ensure the continuity of the species by means of offspring. This is similar to the body being a partner to the intellect in matters pertaining to intellectual pursuits. The helpmate in question was woman. The very name of woman contains an allusion to גוף, body. Solomon compared matter to woman when he said in Proverbs 2,16 להצילך מאשה זרה, “to save you from the alien woman.” He meant that matter by definition is not part of the intellect, but it is necessary in order to become the receptacle of the intellect’s activity. Woman is such an instrument. Matter reflects the form and accepts the shapes the intellect dictates to it. The serpent i.e. נחש, represents an allusion to the evil urge, as we find the word מ-נחש which expresses an attempt to seduce and to put man to a test. The serpent began the dialogue with the woman, i.e. it addressed itself to חומר, matter. It began with the word אף, anger, seeing that anger and wrath are derivatives of the power of Satan. Now to explain what it was exactly that the serpent was saying: אף כי אמר אלוקים לא תאכלו מכל עץ הגן, “if G-d has said that you must not eat from any of the trees of the garden, this is equivalent to denying you any physical gratification at all. You would not benefit from all the good things to be found in the world. How could G-d have commanded something like this?” This was typical of the tactics of seduction employed by the evil urge, by Satan. The reason that he serpent spoke with woman and not with man is simply that the evil urge always addresses the physical side of man, i.e. the חומר, the material. It never tries to match wits with the power of the שכל, man’s reason. Woman said to the serpent: “we may eat from the fruit of the trees of the garden.” This was the reply of the material side of man to its potential seducer; in other words: “we have not been denied gratification of the body by means of the senses when this gratification serves the purpose of maintaining our health by eating and drinking.” She continued: “however, G-d warned us concerning some specific gratification which we are to indulge in only in order to assure the continuity of the species. If we were to transgress that commandment both our body and our soul would die.” Thereupon the serpent said to the woman in the classic words of the evil urge which appeals to the physical part of man:לא מות תמותון, “you will surely not die on account of indulging in a physical pleasure as the body cannot exist without such pleasures. G-d knows full well that on the day you eat from this tree your eyes will be opened;” the serpent meant that every time Chavah would indulge in physical pleasures she would grow in intellectual power also and she would experience free choice between good and evil. At this stage, the serpent became even more seductive and said: ”Try only a single time to enjoy the fruit of this tree and you will immediately experience its beneficial effects for your eyes will be opened to new vistas. As soon as you will be able to distinguish between good and evil you will turn away from everything which you have recognised as evil and will pursue only what is good.” What the serpent was hoping for, of course, was that once man would know to separate good from evil, he would also choose evil on occasion. When the Torah continues ותרא האשה ”the woman saw, etc., ”this does not refer to “seeing with the eyes,” but to “seeing with the heart.” Woman, who was predominantly חומר, matter, naturally “viewed” matters from a physical, material perspective following the inclines of her heart. As a result she concluded that the tree was good as food, i.e. that it was worth while to preoccupy oneself with the pursuit of physical gratifications. The word מאכל, “food,” in the verse includes gratification of the body through the act of mating. When Solomon describes the temptress in Proverbs 30,20 he writes אכלה ומחתה פיה, “she ate and wiped her mouth, saying: I have done no wrong.” This verse is merely a euphemism for sexual intercourse. The meaning of the words וכי תאוה הוא לעינים, “and it is a source of desire for the eyes,” means that heart and eyes always collaborate before a sin is committed. The eyes are “the brokers” of sin. This is why the Torah warned in Numbers 15,39 ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם, “and do not explore after your hearts and after your eyes after which you stray.” ותקח מפריו ותאכל, “she took from its fruit and ate.” This means that woman, i.e. חומר, engrossed herself in physical pleasures until she obtained the new insight and then she gave to her husband. The meaning of the words: “she also gave her husband with her and he ate,” is that just as the serpent had seduced woman it had also seduced man. According to the plain meaning of the text it was Chavah who seduced Adam. After all, we are not allowed to use homiletical material to change the plain meaning of the text, אין מקרא יוצא מידי פשוטו (Shabbat 63). Nonetheless, what the Torah describes here is not only what happened between Adam and Chavah but it describes a blueprint of any future seduction instigated by the evil urge. The first stage of such seduction involves an appeal to the physical part of man to enjoy the pleasures offered by the physical universe. Once the physical part of man has been won over, it will then entice the intellectual part of man to rationalise what the seducer has said. ותפקחנה עיני שניהם, “The eyes of both of them were opened, etc.” The Torah simply describes a customary process, involving the intellectual faculties of man, i.e. that after body and soul have sinned they become aware of the wrong they have done, that because of the wrong they have done they have lost stature. They realize that they have allowed their cravings to dominate them. This is the process described here as “their eyes were opened.” This “opening” does not refer to their gaining of additional insights. On the contrary, they now became aware of a failing. When their eyes were “opened,” they realized that they had actually lost something, that instead of achieving something new they had lost something they had previously possessed. They realized how fortunate they had been when they were not enslaved by various physical desires, whereas now they had to struggle to become free of these cravings which had become as indispensable for them as clothing. This is the deeper meaning of the word וידעו, they were drawing on the powers of the עץ הדעת, “the tree which communicated this intimacy with good and evil.” A wealthy man usually does not appreciate all the advantages he enjoys but he takes them for granted. It is only when he is deprived of them that he realizes in retrospect how fortunate he had been while he possessed what is now lost to him. This is precisely what happened to Adam and Chavah. Their “eyes were opened,” they now appreciated what great stature they had possessed prior to their sin. כי ערומים הם, “that they were naked.” The very power of desire which now “clothed them,” made them condemn a certain state which previously they had not seen fit to condemn. As a result of their sin both their bodies as well as their intellects felt exposed, bereft of the protective cover provided by knowledge that one has lived meritoriously. At that point they understood that G-d’s warnings had been justified and they felt ashamed for having transgressed it. Their feelings of shame were like those of a thief who has been found out (compare Jeremiah 2,26). Their feeling of shame and embarrassment included the fact that they had not observed the prohibition of the Torah’s commandments, seeing the Torah was comparable to a garden. This is the meaning of “they heard the sound of the Lord G-d moving about in garden in the breeze of the day; and man and his wife hid himself on account of the Lord G-d.” The word האדם here refers to man’s intellectual powers. The “sound of the voice of the Lord G-d” which the Torah mentions here is a reference to the heavenly tribunal to which all creatures will have to answer after death when they are ordered to appear before the King of Kings. This is the meaning of G-d asking in this verse איכה, “where are you?” G-d referred to the moral level which man had sunk to. In the future, when examining man after his death on earth, He will want to know to what level of Torah study and observance man had risen to during his life on earth. The additional letter ה at the end of the word איכה, is an allusion to the five Books of Moses. We find a similar construction in Psalms 139,8 ואציעה שאול הנך, “and when I descend to Sheol You are there too. The extra letter ה at the end of the word ואציע is a hint that man will be examined for how he related to the five Books of Moses. When the Torah reports Adam (man) responding את קולך שמעתי בגן, “I have heard the sound of Your voice in the garden,” this was a response by man’s intellectual faculties and is to be understood as if he said “I have understood Your intention when You called out my name and I have heard the warnings which are written in the Torah.” The word ואירא, “I was afraid,” refers to the fear of the Day of Judgment. When Adam added כי עירום אנכי, “for I am naked,” this was an admission that he felt inadequate, had not fulfilled the Torah’s commandments. He had neither Torah study nor Torah-observance which he could cite in defense of his actions. This is the deeper meaning of why he said אנכי instead of אני. [The word is a reference to the first word in the Ten Commandments.] When he added ואחבא, “I hid myself,” it means “I was ashamed.” It is natural for a person who is ashamed of something to hide from the one he is ashamed of. מי הגיד לך, “who has told you?” G-d wanted to know who was the cause that he felt exposed, bereft of merits. המן העץ אשר ציויתיך, “Did you by chance eat from the tree which I commanded you?" Did you violate My commandment and did what I prohibited you to do? Adam answered: “the woman that You have given me, etc.” Adam’s intellectual faculties responded to the question saying: “indeed I did violate Your commandment. As to he reason? It was the woman You gave me, i.e. the חמר, the material part of me which violated Your commandment.” She was supposed to be my helpmate and instead Your intention was foiled. She (the חומר, the material part), is the cause that I have experienced this terrible pain.” The reason the Torah added the letter ה at the end of the word נתתה, “You have given,” is an allusion to the five senses which comprise the perceptive powers of the physical part of man, the חומר. In other words, Adam (man) blamed the addition of powerful physical material for his failure. He (his wife, also part of “man,”) added further that the serpent had seduced him (her, respectively). This simply meant that Adam and Chavah blamed the seductive powers of Satan for having been seduced. Their argument was that חומר, physical material, without the addition of the seductive powers of Satan would not be something harmful at all. Thereupon G-d first of all cursed the serpent, read “evil urge,” condemning it to henceforth crawl on its belly; this was a tremendous demotion as up until then the serpent (read Satan) had conducted itself like a king, and even Solomon referred to him a מלך גדול in Kohelet 9,14. It is a mark of a king that he walks upright holding his head erect. The serpent now lost this ability. This brought in its wake a greatly reduced ability of the serpent (read evil urge) to seduce man as it could no longer give itself airs fooling man about its true nature. ועפר תאכל כל ימי חייך, “and you shall eat dust as long as you live.” The period of which the Torah speaks is the period of the resurrection when the serpent will no longer be allowed to feed on other creatures as it does nowadays. It was sort of a challenge. We had explained that “to eat means to destroy.” G-d told the serpent, the seducer, Satan, that in the days of the resurrection it would have to restrict its activities to he dust, if indeed it were able to seduce dust to sin. It would no longer be allowed to seduce living creatures. ואיבה אשית, “and I will put enmity, etc.” When you hate someone you keep your distance from that person. The purpose of G-d making enmity between man and Satan (serpent) a natural state of affairs was to ensure that they would keep apart as much as possible. This state of affairs would not be achieved until the days of the resurrection The message is that at that time even the חומר, the material side of man, would be totally pure, not accompanied by any input from Satan. This idyllic state of affairs has been forecast in Kings I 5,18 when Solomon sent a message to Chirom in which he said (amongst other things) ועתה הניח ה' אלוקי לי מסביב, אין שטן ואין פגע רע, “But now the Lord my G-d has given me respite all around; there is no adversary and no one to cause harm.” Our verse is an allusion to the distant future forecasting the destruction of the power of the seducer, the evil urge. Another scriptural reference to that distant future is found in Isaiah 25,8 בלע המות לנצח, “He will destroy death forever.” Next G-d punished the חומר, the representative of everything material, in this instance Chavah He said הרבה ארבה עצבונך וגו' “I will greatly increase your pain, etc.” This means that “because you were not careful to resist the seduction of the evil urge I will punish you. Just as you had had indulged in bodily pleasures and increased your enjoyment of vain values, now you will experience pain even when engaged in fruitful activities such as having children.” This is the reason the words הרבה ארבה appear twice. Again we see the punishment fitting the sin, i.e. you indulged in too much pleasure only in order to suffer too much discomfort. ולאדם אמר כי שמעת לקול אשתך, “and to Adam He had said: “because you listened to the voice of your wife, etc.” G-d meant: “you are being punished because you preferred to heed the call of the physical part of man over My commandment.” ארורה האדמה בעבורך, “the earth has now been cursed for your sake.” This was an additional form of cursing the חומר, physical matter, which reflects the productivity of man’s intelligence. This חומר is now being called אדמה, “earth,” G-d added: בעצבון תאכל לחם, “through pain or suffering will you eat bread.” Adam’s punishment was that his intellectual prowess could no longer make the חומר, the physical matter, do its bidding without his encountering opposition. even in the days of resurrection. This was indeed a very harsh curse, and we have already been told in Daniel 12,2 that even during the days of the resurrection not all people will enjoy the same privileges. Some will be resurrected in order to lead a life of infinite duration, whereas others will be resurrected in order to face everlasting shame and abhorrence. This is the meaning of the words: ורבים מישיני אדמת עפר יקיצו, אלה לחיי עולם ואלה לחרפות ודראון עולם. When G-d added כי עפר אתה ואל עפר תשוב, this was an explanation to Adam that seeing he had allowed the physical part of himself to dominate him it was natural that in the end his intellectual part would share the fate of his חומר and he would die and disintegrate. As far as the concluding words of the entire episode i.e. כתנות עור וילבישם are concerned, they are needed seeing that the Torah had spoken about the future generations during the resurrection who would enjoy infinite life. [Seeing that this generation, i.e. Adam and Chavah, had now forfeited their right to infinite life on earth, these words were reassurance for that future time. Adam and Chavah had repented, hence G-d related to them accordingly. Ed.] It pays to look closely at the verses in which G-d’s punishment for Adam and Chavah are described. Whereas G-d’s name is mentioned in connection with the curse of the serpent, the Torah refrains from mentioning G-d’s name in verses 15-19 when the punishment meted out to Adam and Chavah is described. G-d is referred to repeatedly only in the third person as “He.” This teaches that G-d makes every effort to prove that evil never originates with Him. Hence He is careful to dissociate His name from it. By contrast, when it came to describing infinite life in the future as symbolised by the last verse in the paragraph, the Torah makes a point of attributing these כתנות עור to ה' אלוקים, to G-d personally, directly. This whole verse, although phrased in the past tense, actually is a reference to the future as we find in connection with many prophecies. [According to Nachmanides, the reason for this is to lend emphasis to the prophecy, to assure the reader it is so certain to come true that it may be described as if it had happened already.] I believe that the appropriate translation of the word ויעש in the verse ויעש ה' אלוקים לאדם ולאשתו כתנות עור וילבישם, is: “He made something entirely new; He created a new concept.” The words אדם and אשתו are not to be understood literally but refer to the שכל and to the נפש respectively. It is quite possible to think of man and woman in terms of שכל, and נפש respectively, the former the innovative enterprising active force symbolising the male, whereas נפש is a more passive responsive spiritual force and therefore symbolises woman. The נפש accompanies the שכל just like a woman accompanies the male. My revered teacher Rabbi Shlomoh Aderet may his light continue to shine, has similarly explained the matter of Leviathan and its mate, i.e. that these terms are similes for the concepts of שכל and נפש. The verse introduces a vision of a future life on earth after the resurrection. G-d goes on record that when that time arrives He will make a new creation for שכל and נפש. This will be known as כתנות עור, i.e. as “bodies,” The word וילבישם “He dressed them,” means that at that time G-d will provide a body for שכל ונפש who are the first part, the intangible part, in man’s resurrection. We find a parallel concept in Job 10,11 עור ובשר תלבישני, “You will clothe me with skin and flesh.” In our verse too, G-d envisages a future when שכל ונפש will be clothed with a body, as a result of which he will become a new kind of human being. Isaiah 15,22 speaks about a “new earth” in those days. I have found support for my view in Tanchuma on Parshat Lech Lecha where G-d’s promise in Genesis 12,2 ואעשך אותך לגוי גדול, “I will make you into a great nation,” is interpreted as G-d saying to Avraham: “I am going to create for you a new creature.” The word ויעש as describing a new creation has been used already at the very beginning of Genesis (1,7) when the Torah describes the creation of the heavens in these words: ויעש אלוקים את הרקיע, “G-d created the heaven.” A further meaning of the words כתנות עור, “leather coats”, is the exchangeability of the letters ע and א. When we mentioned earlier that the text of Rabbi Meir’s Torah scroll had the word עור spelled with the letter א, the allusion contained in that statement was that אור, “light,” may be a fitting substitute for עור, “skin” as a garment. In the future G-d would clothe שכל ונפש, intelligence and the emotional part of man soul, in a variety of rays of light all derived from the celestial regions. In connection with Moses’ skin radiating light from the celestial regions, our sages interpret the word אהל in Exodus 33,7 ומשה יקח את האהל, “and Moses would take the Tent, etc.” as being analogous to Job 29,3 בהלו נרו עלי ראשי, “when His lamp shone over my head.” This corresponds to my first explanation of the words האדם ואשתו, that the entire paragraph is full of allusions to נפש and גוף, “body and soul,” respectively. This is why the Torah did not write simply ויעש... כתנות עור ללבוש, “He made... leather coats to wear,” but it wrote ויעש... כתנות עור וילבישם. Only G-d Himself is able to bring about this combination of body-soul-intellect as proven by the words “He clothed them.”

Hashem God said: Behold, Adam was unique in the world, and from himself he came to know good and evil. And now, lest he stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat and live forever —

היה כאחד ממנו IS BECOME LIKE ONE OF US (or, like the Being who is One, Unique amongst us) — Lo, he is unique among the terrestrial ones, even as I am unique among the celestial ones. And in what does his uniqueness consist? In knowing good and evil, which is not so in the case of cattle and beasts (Genesis Rabbah 21:5). ועתה פן ישלח ידו AND NOW, LEST HE PUT FORTH HIS HAND… [AND EAT AND LIVE FOR EVER] — And if he does live forever he is likely to lead people astray, so that they may say, “He, also, is a god”; there are also Agadic Midrashim, but they are not in keeping with its (the verse’s) plain sense.

AND NOW, LEST HE PUT FORTH HIS HAND. The Holy One, blessed be He, wanted His decree concerning the death of Adam to be fulfilled, and if he were to eat of the tree of life which was created to give everlasting life to those who ate of its fruit, the decree would be nullified; for either he would not die at all or his day of death would not come at the time it was decreed for him and his descendants to die. The teaching of the Rabbis is that man was originally designed to live forever. By having sinned, death was decreed upon him; by eating of the tree of life, he would thus restore himself to his original position of immortality. The opinion of the philosophers, however, is that man was originally destined to die; by having sinned, it was decreed that he die before the time designated at first. By eating of the tree of life he would thus live a long time and not die at the time decreed for him as punishment for his sin. This is the deeper meaning of Ramban’s words here in the text, “for either he would not die at all, etc.” And now that Adam had the power of choice, He therefore guarded this tree from him for at first Adam did only what he was commanded and he did not eat thereof as he did not need it. Know and believe that the garden of Eden is on this earth 1, p. 309, in notes, as to why this point that the Garden of Eden is on this earth is of such vital importance to Ramban that he writes: ‘Know and believe that the garden….’” as are also the tree of life and the tree of knowledge, and from there the river comes forth and is divided into four heads which are visible to us. For the Euphrates is in our land and within our border, and Pishon, according to the words of the former scholars, is the Nile of Egypt. But as these are on earth so are there also in the heavens things similarly named, and those in the heavens are the foundations of these on earth, just as the Rabbis have said:, pp. 9-10). “The king hath brought me into his chambers — this teaches us that the Holy One, blessed be He, is destined to show Israel the treasures on high that are chambered in the heavens. Another interpretation of The king hath brought me into his chambers is that these are the chambers of the garden of Eden. It is on the basis of this that they have said: ‘The work of the garden of Eden is like the work of the firmament.’” The rivers correspond to the four camps of angels on high, and it is from there that the power of the kingdoms on earth is derived, just as it is written, The host of the high heaven on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. Thus the Rabbis said in Bereshith Rabbah,40616:7. “Into four heads — these are the four kingdoms. The name of the first is Pishon — this is Babylon, etc.” And the things called the tree of life and the tree of knowledge on high — their secret is high and lofty. Adam sinned with the fruit of the tree of knowledge below and on high, in deed and thought. Now if the fruit of the tree were good for food and he desired it to become wise, why did He withhold it from him? Indeed, G-d is kind and dealeth kindly; He will withhold no good thing from them that walk uprightly! The serpent, moreover, has today no speaking faculty, and if it did have it at first, He would surely have mentioned in His curse that its mouth become dumb, as this would have been the most grievous curse of all. But all these things are twofold in meaning, the overt and the concealed in them both being true. In Bereshith Rabbah the Rabbis say:8. Mentioned also above, 2:8. “Another interpretation of Le’ovdah uleshomrah (to cultivate her and to keep her) is that these words refer to the sacrifices, as it is said, ‘Ta’avdun’ (Ye shall serve) G-d upon this mountain. It is this which Scripture says, ‘Tishm’ru’ (Ye shall keep) to offer unto Me in its appointed season.” By this Midrash, the Rabbis hinted that the sacrifices will cause growth and expansion in the tree of life and the tree of knowledge and all other trees in the garden of Eden. It is this which constitutes their cultivation and care. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra denies what the scholars have said, namely, that Pishon is the Nile, because they found that the Nile comes from the Mountain of Frankincense [far south of the equator], and therefore it swells during the days of summer. Hence the Nile, the source of which is in the southern hemisphere, swells during the summer time. And “we know that the Garden of Eden is near the equator, where day and night are always equal” (Ibn Ezra), it follows that Pishon is not the Nile, since the Nile originates far south of the equator. This is the opinion of Ibn Ezra. Ramban replies: “But it is already known, etc.” But it is already known that many rivers come from their source and flow for a great distance and enter the bowels of the earth for a journey of many days, and then break forth again, and flow from under one of the mountains in a distant place. [This being the case, it is possible that Pishon is the Nile.]

Or the verse may be interpreted according to Adam's own aspiration — that God is affirming what Adam had thought he would become.

כאחד ממנו לדעת טוב ורע, he will know good and evil even while continuing to wear “our image.” This would be an intolerable situation, as in spite of his tendency to give in to his evil urge he would live on forever. [the author considers בצלמנו as a reference to the infinite life prevailing among the celestial beings. Ed.] In such circumstances, this Adam whose evil urge was active would continue to chase the material blessings of this world, something which would prevent him from reaching the spiritual aims set for him on earth when G’d made him in the divine image.

ויאמר השם אלוקים, The Lord G'd said: "Here man has become like one of Us, etc." We need to understand why G'd had not commanded Adam and Eve not to eat from the tree of life before He forbade them to eat from the tree of knowledge. Had they eaten from it first they would have lived forever! Another peculiarity in our verse is the word היה. G'd was afraid that Adam might live forever, not that he had already achieved that status. The word therefore should have been עוד לא היה, or something to that effect. Furthermore, why would the ability to distinguish between good and evil elevate man to the status of G'd? How can we justify the expression ממנו, "like one of Us?" This would give the impression that there are physical beings in the heavens! In view of the fact that G'd had warned man not to eat from the tree of knowledge He was not worried about his eating from the tree of life. He did not think man would be motivated to do so either of his own volition or as a result of seduction by the serpent. The seducer only urges man to taste what is forbidden; Satan never urges you to do what is perfectly permissible. Man on his own had no desire to eat from that tree in order to secure permanent life, something that was his birthright anyways. It was only after he had forfeited his birthright that he would seek to find an alternative for what he had lost. If G'd had forbidden the tree of life immediately, the serpent might have succeeded to entice even Adam himself into eating from it. Therefore G'd was wise in not including the tree of life in the prohibition immediately. After having eaten from the tree of knowledge with its fateful consequences, Adam's priorities had changed, and G'd now had to be concerned lest man eat from that tree in order to neutralize the mortality that had been decreed on him. The meaning of the word היה then is: "up until now man was alone unto himself," i.e. he was immortal," however, now that he has lost his immortality, he might want to eat from the tree of life. The word אחד ממנו, would refer to the uniqueness of man on earth. He alone of all the creatures on earth was immortal. The knowledge man acquired due to having eaten from the tree of knowledge might prompt him to want to eat from the tree of life to recapture the uniqueness of his former stature of ruling over the creatures of earth. I have found a proof for my interpretation of the word ממנו in Onkelos. Onkelos translates the word as מניה, "from him," i.e. כאחד ממנו, "like the only one of its kind" There is another way to solve the problems we have raised. On the day G'd commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge He gave two commandments. G'd actually allowed for the possibility that Adam would violate His command by saying: "should you eat from it, your only way to rehabilitate yourself will be through death, through mortality of the body." In halachah we would consider the second commandment, i.e. the need to die as a לאו הניתק לעשה, a negative commandment tied to a positive commandment. The positive commandment is viewed as the תיקון, reparation of the negative commandment that has been violated. We have mentioned earlier that had it not been for the sin, Adam would have become so refined that he would have been considered as at home in the world of the permanent beings, just as the prophet Elijah who departed this world, body intact. It was only due to the sin that Adam's body forfeited the chance to rise with him to such lofty heights. Once deprived of the opportunity to refine his body in the manner described, the very act of separation of the soul from the body becomes the symbol of the inability to achieve the elevation of the body to eternal life. Under such circumstances man would not eat from the tree of life of his own accord. He would be afraid that as a result of eating from it he would forever forfeit potential rehabilitation should he violate the command not to eat from the tree of knowledge. Only death could afford him that chance, and once he had eaten from the tree of life he would not die. The matter was different, however, once he had eaten from the tree of knowledge without having eaten as yet from the tree of life. If he had eaten deliberately from the tree of knowledge, man would certainly be careful not to eat from the tree of life as that would condemn him eternally to a physical existence only. However, as we explained, man's sin had been inadvertent, meaning that he thought he was not bound to die in order to rehabilitate himself. If so, there was no powerful incentive for him to stay clear of the tree of life. Actually, Adam erred; even though his sin was inadvertent it could only be completely atoned for through death of his body at some stage. The principal reason that G'd had commanded man not to eat from the tree of knowledge was to prevent knowledge of evil becoming an integral part of his perceptions. His perceptions were meant to concentrate only on what is good. This is what Solomon meant (Kohelet 7,29) when he said that ישר עשה האלוקים את האדם, that "G'd made man perfectly upright." Evil did not figure as part of man's imagination and fantasies. All of this changed after he ate from the tree of knowledge. The fact that man felt naked and ashamed is proof that his fantasies now included things that were evil. Once man had undergone such a drastic change and the purpose of the prohibition to eat from the tree of knowledge had been irreversibly thwarted, he would no longer consider not eating from the tree of life as his insurance should he need to recapture his original status. He had already lost that status irretrievably. With the incentive not to eat from the tree of life gone, G'd had to forbid man to eat from that tree. In view of the fact that man had ignored a previous command, G'd deemed it safer to place the tree of life out of Adam's reach by expelling him from the garden. Having said all this we can now understand a difficult passage in Bereshit Rabbah 21,6. Commenting on the words: "and now, lest he reach out and take also from the tree of life and eat thereof and live forever," Rabbi Aba bar Kahane says that the word ועתה, "and now" in this verse teaches that G'd encouraged Adam to repent. This word is used by the Torah to introduce the process of repentance. For instance, we have Deut. 10 where Moses described the sin of the golden calf and his endeavours to obtain forgiveness for the Jewish people. Verse 12 there commences with the words: ועתה ישראל, and goes on to describe what it is that G'd asks of the Jewish people so that they can rehabilitate themselves. The expression פן, always means "not or no." G'd said: "lest he stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat of it and live forever." Thus far Rabbi Aba bar Kahane. This Midrash is extremely puzzling. How could G'd justify encouraging man to do repentance by saying to him "NO!?" Why did G'd only start to worry that Adam would eat from the tree of life after He had said to him "No?" It appears as if G'd would not have been concerned about Adam living forever if he had done תשובה! This cannot be since man had already become mortal on the day he ate from the tree of knowledge! Actually, keeping in mind our exegesis, the words of Rabbi Ada bar Kahane make sense. G'd wanted Adam to realise that he had sinned by eating from the tree of knowledge. He did this by telling him to repent. Adam answered this invitation to do תשובה by saying that he had not sinned in a manner that required him to repent. He argued that he had been unaware of committing a sin when he ate from the tree. When G'd heard that Adam thought that an inadvertently committed sin does not require repentance, He began to worry that now there was no impediment to Adam eating from the tree of life. This is why G'd had to expel him from the garden to prevent this from happening. Later on Adam did repent and spent 130 years immersing himself in the waters of the river גיחון to atone for his sin [compare Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 20. Ed.]. Although G'd had said that Adam would die "on the day" he would eat from the tree of knowledge, the word "day" could have one of two connotations. It could mean a period of 24 hours, i.e. a day in human terms, or it could refer to a day in G'd's terms, i.e. 1000 years. If it is the latter, the meaning of the warning was that Adam would die before he reached the age of 1000 years. The respective connotation of the word depends on the severity of the sin and the feeling the sinner had at the time he committed the sin. If the sinner intended to anger G'd at the time he sinned, the meaning of the word "day" would be the minimum. The sinner would have to die before that period of 24 hours expired. If, however, the sin was not committed intentionally and the sinner had made it plain that he had not intended to sin, he would be given the maximum period possible, i.e. he would live up to but not including 1000 years.

ועתה פן ישלח ידו, “and now, lest he stretch out his hand;” this is an abbreviated verse, [reflecting the urgency of the matter? Ed.] The word: ועתה, could have been omitted as it is well known that הכל בידי שמים חוץ מיראת שמים, “everything is subject to control by heaven except matters that depend on one’s degree of awe for heaven.” G-d did not therefore have to “fear” what Adam was about to do, but He knew it beforehand. G-d was perfectly capable to prevent Adam from eating of the tree while he was in the garden. It was His domain also, and He could have denied him access without having to expel him. Why then did the Torah bother to begin our verse with the word: ועתה, “and now?” It was inserted as the attribute of Justice urged G-d to test man’s ability to resist his temptation. G-d was certain that, especially now, Adam would not be able to resist that temptation, therefore G-d put him beyond such temptation. This was going beyond the demands of justice, an act of Mercy by G-d. It gave Adam an opportunity to claim that even if he had remained within the garden he would have resisted the temptation to eat from the tree of Life. ולקח גם מעץ החיים, “and he will also take from the fruit of the tree of Life.” One reason that would have caused him to eat from that tree is that he had not even been warned not to eat from it. At any rate, after Adam had already sinned once by eating from the tree of knowledge, there was reason to assume that to breach the restrictions once more, especially if the objective was to repair the damage he had caused himself by eating from the tree of knowledge was not far fetched, and G-d took that into consideration by physically preventing him from carrying out such an intention. ואכל וחי לעולם, “he will eat and live forever.” If you were to remind us that the Torah had previously written that as a result of, or even on the day of eating from the tree of knowledge man would die, what good would it do him to eat from the tree of Life? We are forced to assume that the tree of Life, i.e. its fruit, was a medication intended to heal people that had been afflicted with a fatal disease. Anyone not so inflicted would not feel the urge to eat from it; [for all we know its fruit did not even look inviting. Ed.] Perhaps the translation of the expression: מות תמות, especially the repetition of the word for “death”: means that after having eaten from the fruit of the tree of knowledge man would be considered as if already legally dead. A different exegesis: G-d said that seeing death had already been decreed for man, and He had decreed that anyone eating from the tree of Life would live forever, how could both decrees exist side by side except by denying those who had eaten from the tree of knowledge access to the tree of Life?A third possible exegesis: if Adam and Chavah would give birth to children while still in the garden, and these had not eaten from the fruit of the tree of knowledge, it would be unfair to decree death for them; and if they were to eat from the tree of Life they would live forever. Therefore they had to be denied access.[Seeing that G-d did not consider uprooting the tree of Life, it is proof that anything in this universe which dies out, or perishes, does not do so as an act of G-d Who had created it for the benefit of His creatures, but must be a result of those creatures having forfeited by their actions the good such a phenomenon could do for them. Ed.]

הן אדם היה כאחד ממנו, “now that man has become like one of us; etc.” according to the plain meaning of the text the word ממנו, “of Us,” is a reference to the angels. However, if that were the only true explanation the Torah should have written “like one of you.” However, due to G-d’s humility, He wrote “like one of Us.” The real intention of the verse is to say that originally, היה, “he had been,” like one of Us due to his superior intellect and due to this intellect not being hindered by the evil urge. Now, that he had sinned and become possessed of the desires of the flesh, however, he was no longer like “one of Us.” ועתה פן ישלח ידו, “and now lest he put forth his hand, etc.” G-d meant that now that He had decreed for man to be mortal there was concern that he would try and neutralize this by eating from the tree of life and assure himself of living forever. From a homiletical approach the words הן האדם היה mean “he was like a twenty year old;” [we have a tradition that although man becomes accountable to a human tribunal already at thirteen years of age, he does not become accountable (is not considered mature) to a celestial court until he has attained the age of twenty]. This is the reason that of the generation of Israelites in the desert who had sinned by accepting the majority report of the spies only people over the age of twenty were condemned to die in the desert (Numbers 14,29). Adam’s case was different. Although he had been less than a day old when he ate from the tree of knowledge G-d had punished him as if he were already twenty years old. The Torah therefore tells us here that he had been created with the maturity of a twenty-year old so that he qualified for punishment immediately. Incidentally, the very word היה has a numerical value of 20 so that we have an allusion in the text that Adam was considered at creation as if he were fully mature, the equivalent of a human born by woman after 20 years. According to the views of Rabbi Yehudah and Rabbi Shimon in Bereshit Rabbah 21,5 the words כאחד ממנו, “like one of Us” mean “like the Unique One in the world.” The word אחד in Deut 6,4 שמע ישראל ה' אלוקינו ה' אחד, means “the One, the Unique One.” The other Rabbis quoted in that Midrash believed that the word אחד in our verse refers to the archangel Gavriel seeing we have a verse in Ezekiel 9,2 where that angel is referred to as אחד. The full text there is ואיש אחד בתוכם לבוש בדים וקסת הספר במתניו, “and one man amongst them clothed in linen with a slate of the scribe at his hips, etc.” According to Shabbat 55 the man referred to in that verse is the archangel Gavriel. This is based on the emphasis of the verse in Ezekiel on that angel’s “clothing.” Bereshit Rabbah 21,8 understands this as something which is integral to that angel, not something peripheral such as when we describe a human being’s clothing. It is similar to a certain insect called קמצא, snail, whose clothing is an integral part of it. Similarly, Adam’s original clothing (the divine rays of light) were an integral part of him. It is well known that the meaning of the word אחד when spelled with the vowel segol is different from the same word when spelled with the vowel patach. The former is intransitive whereas the latter is transitive, i.e. it is always a genitive, a possessive form. An example of the latter is found in Daniel 10,13 אחד השרים הראשונים, “one of the foremost princes.” Daniel describes the angel Michael as one belonging to the hierarchy of the other angels. We have a similar verse in Genesis 32,23 where the Torah speaks about Yaakov taking his eleven children across the river Yabok. The wording is אחד עשר ילדיו. There are many other examples of the word when spelled with the vowel patach meaning that the “one-ness” of the word אחד is really only relative. In the verse in Ezekiel where the word אחד appears with the vowel segol, however, Rabbi Yehudah views this as justification to compare the angel Gavriel in some respects to the “Unique One of the world,” i.e. G-d. Rabbi Yehudah was of course aware that the Torah scrolls from which we read do not distinguish in the spelling of the word Echad and the word Achad, seeing that there are no vowels shown in the text. It is therefore possible to read our verse as “here man has become like echad of Us,” i.e. “like the Unique One amongst us,” instead of as achad of Us.” The other sages who understand the word “of us,” as referring to the angel Gavriel simply base themselves on the fact that the traditional reading of the verse has the word אחד read as achad, and not as echad. There could not therefore be an allusion here to G-d the Unique One. This still requires that these sages deal with the vocalisation of the verse in Ezekiel where even the angel Gavriel seems to be accorded a status of being “unique,” seeing the word אחד there is vocalised with the vowel segol. We must conclude that they saw in this wording only something metaphorical. They understood the word as symbolising the clothing of the snail we mentioned previously. Just as that clothing is integral to the creature, so, even though the angel Gavriel represents the punishing agency of G-d both when he went to destroy Sodom, as well as in the story in Ezekiel, he has attached to him least a smattering of the attribute of Mercy. This attribute is alluded to by mention of the white linen he is garbed in. The important lesson in all this is that the attribute of Justice even when predominant is always tempered by the attribute of Mercy. A kabbalistic approach to our verse: The word היה in הן היה האדם is similar to the words היה ומשה in Exodus 3,1, or to איש היה at the beginning of the Book of Job. In both those instances the word היה (as distinct from ויהי) indicates that what is being reported here is not something original, something the like of which had never existed before. This is the reason that the birth of Chavah’s children is reported as the result of והאדם ידע את חוה, “Man had been intimate with Chavah.” This intimacy had occurred previous to the children being born, or better, he had already known how the mechanism of procreation works and had acted accordingly. When Rabbi Yehudah had interpreted the כאחד ממנו as if the word אחד had been vocalised with the vowel segol, he may have seen in the verse an allusion to the קו האמצעי the emanation which combines the attribute of Justice and the attribute of Mercy. This is something unique to G-d, the יחידו של העולם. This may also be the hidden meaning of Song of Songs 3,10 עמודיו עשה כסף, רפידתו זהב מרכבו ארגמן.“ Solomon meant to describe a variety of light (colours). This is also an allusion to the various components which make up a human being, i.e. the יצר הטוב and the יצר הרע, the spiritually positive urge and the spiritually negative urge. Our sages described this by another metaphor when they said in Shabbat 119 that when man returns from the synagogue on Friday night he is accompanied by a “good” angel and by a “bad” angel. The former is on his right side, the latter on his left.

ועתה פן ישלח ידו ולקח גם מעץ החיים, “and now, so that he will not attempt to also take from the tree of life, etc.” Before Adam had eaten from the tree of knowledge and had become mortal, there was no concern that he would eat from that tree, as prior to that sin Adam would not be tempted to do anything against the wishes of His Creator. Besides, he had no need for what that tree had to offer, being himself immortal.

Hashem God sent him out from the Garden of Eden to till the ground from which he had been created.

"He sent him away" (vayeshallḥehu) — every instance of "sending" (shilluaḥ) followed by a mem is like banishment (gerushin) and carries a negative connotation, as in: "send them away from before Me" (Jer. 15:1). This is not as a great Sephardic sage said — that it is an expression of honor, as in: "going with them to send them off" (Gen. 18:16), and: "and he sent him away and he went in peace" (2 Sam. 3:23). For if it were so, the honor of the farmland would be greater than the honor of the Garden of Eden. And if one asks: why is "and He drove out the man" written if the meaning is "he sent him away" — the answer is: vayegaresh conveys the same meaning; when He drove him out, He stationed the cherubim. As for the word "cherubim" (keruvim) — some say it means "like youths" (ke-neʿarim), as in Aramaic karavya. In my view, it is a general term encompassing all forms. Ezekiel, when he first described "the face of an ox" (Ezek. 1:10), did not mean the form had changed — for the [image of the] calf was not made during his days. When he then says "the face of the cherub" (Ezek. 10:14) with the definite article, the form is that of an ox — as if saying: the form I mentioned at first. Therefore, every form of an ox is a cherub, but not every cherub is the form of an ox. The conclusive proof is that he states at the end: "for they are the cherubim" (Ezek. 10:20). Here it says "the cherubim" — these are the well-known angels, bearing in their hands a sword that has a flame and two edges, which is the meaning of "the turning" (ha-mithappekhet). Those commentators who say Scripture is referring here to the sun are incorrect.

וישלחהו, He expelled him. G’d ordered Adam to leave the garden. The expression is used in the same vein as Exodus 12,33 למהר לשלחם מן הארץ, “hastening to send them out of the country.” (Pharaoh) האדמה אשר לוקח משם, the place to which Adam was transferred was compatible with the requirements of his constitution, more so than other areas on the globe.

וישלחהו מגן עדן, “He expelled them from Gan Eden”. He was punished in a manner similar to that of a person killing another person through neglect rather than with intent to kill, i.e. he is exiled to a city of refuge. [the whole earth other than Gan Eden in this instance. Ed.] The reason why this penalty was appropriate was that at the moment when Chavah and Adam had eaten from the tree of knowledge they had not yet possessed the knowledge of good and evil which would have made them deliberate sinners.

To work the ground from which he was taken. It is not for nothing that the text mentions from which he was taken. I also found (in Midrash Shochar Tov, Psalms 92) that it states that Adam settled on Mount Moriah. From where did our sages learn to say this? Additionally, our Sages (Chullin 60a) state that Adam offered a bull with horns and hooves [as a sacrifice] — what biblical support did they find for this? It appears that the basis for all these matters comes from the phrase from which he was taken — namely, from the place about which it is said an altar of earth you shall make for Me (Exodus 20:21). As our Sages said in Bereishit Rabbah (14:8), “The Holy One, Blessed be He, created him from the place of his atonement, and may it serve as his atonement.” This refers to Mount Moriah, where God sent him to work the ground and build from it an earthen altar to offer sacrifices for his atonement. Since he was taken from that earth, and it was the gateway through which he passed — for the earth provided him with coarse and gross material which caused him to sin, as explained above in the verse tree bearing fruit (Genesis 1:11) — therefore, in the place that caused the sin, there shall be his atonement. For that place, meaning that earth, caused him to sin; therefore that earth is obligated to assist in his atonement through his working it to make from it an altar upon which to offer a bull with horns and hooves. This is a proper reason for the commandment an altar of earth you shall make for Me, for through the very thing that caused the sin, he will repair what he corrupted. And even according to the opinion that states that His dust was gathered from all the earth, this is its explanation: Since the place where it says an altar of earth you shall make for Me is where the Foundation Stone is located, and from there the entire world was founded, the dust taken from the center of the world is as if it were gathered from the entire world. This also resolves what is said The land upon which you lie, I will give to you (Genesis 28:13). Rashi explains that God folded all the land beneath him. It was not necessarily folded, but rather, since he lay on the navel of the earth and its center, it is as if he lay upon all the land.

וישלחהו, “He expelled him.” According to Rabbi Joseph Kimchi, G’d first sent him outside the boundaries of Gan Eden, and subsequently expelled him by positioning the cherubs to prevent him for regaining access to that garden.

He drove out Adam and stationed from before the Garden of Eden the cherubim and the sharp, turning sword to guard the way to the tree of life.

מקדם לגן עדן AT THE EAST OF THE GARDEN OF EDEN — Not in the eastern part of the Garden but eastward of the garden of Eden and outside the garden. את הכרבים THE CHERUBIM — Angels of destruction (Exodus Rabbah 9:11). החרב המתהפכת THE SWORD TURNING ITSELF — It was a revolving sword and consequently had a להט, a flashing flame for the purpose of frightening him so that he should not enter again into the garden. The Targum of להט, however, is שנן, like (Sanhedrin 82a) שלף שננא he drew his blade; old French lame. There are Agadic Midrashim, but I come only to explain it according to its plain sense.

"East of" (mi-qedem) — meaning from the east. Know that everything found written is true and was so, without any doubt. But there is a mystical dimension to it: from the light of the intellect proceeds desire, and from the second — which rises above — for the movements of desire are forward. The fig leaf also serves as a sign, and the third is called by the name of discernment, for at the outset there is potential without actualization. One who understands this secret will understand how the river divides, and what is the secret of the Garden of Eden, and the garments of skin. This secret also indicates that man has the capacity to live forever — and the discerning will understand, for this is the whole of man.

He banished the man. Neither he nor his offspring would be permitted to return. He stationed. The Cherubim were stationed to guard the Tree of life even before Adam and Chavah left the Garden to ensure that they would not partake on their way out. לשמור את דרך עץ החיים, to ensure that on the way out they would not take from its fruit and eat thereof.

ויגרש את האדם; “as soon as He had expelled Adam, etc.;” this verse does not mean to tell us that G-d had expelled Adam and his family, as we have already been told this in the previous verse. We have to understand this verse as follows: “as soon as G-d had expelled Adam and his wife, G-d positioned angels at the entrance to Gan Eden. הכרובים “the cherubs;” who were these cherubs? They were creatures whose very appearance frightened all those who merely looked at them. They carried gleaming swords in their hands. המתהפכת, “these swords exuded flashes of lightning from either side of the blade.”

את הכרובים ואת להט החרב המתהפכת ’”the cherubs and the flashing blade of the sword.” After G-d had expelled man from Gan Eden He placed the “cherubs,” i.e. angels (according to Rashi based on Shemot Rabbah 9,10) in the direction of the tree of life. In this verse the fear of the Lord is expressed by the metaphor להט החרב המתהפכת. The purpose of this was to create a barrier between the tree of life and man. It is noteworthy that the Torah wrote ואת להט החרב instead of simply ואת החרב המתהפכת. It is a well known fact that להט is something intangible, but it is an attribute of חרב, “sword” something very tangible indeed. The combination of the two is something which inspires great fear. Everyone who looks at that spectacle is reminded forcefully of death when he beholds this spectacle. G-d’s intention was to create an atmosphere which would discourage the pursuit of the tree of life and the attainment by man of an infinite life span on earth. G-d did not want His decree that man would be rehabilitated only through the death of his body to become null and void. Another way of understanding the word הכרובים is that it symbolizes the seven angels who preside over the various compartments of Gehinom, hades. The word כרובים is in the plural and the minimal plural is two. The extra letter ה in front equals 5 so that 2+5=7. Based on such an approach, the entire verse may be explained as follows: “The angels who have been placed in charge of Gehinom, the fiery regions where the wicked keep turning themselves over like meat on a spit, i.e. המתהפכת.” Our sages have explained this in similar terms i.e. that the word להט is another word for Gehinom, the place where justice is meted out to man after death. The word appears in that sense in Maleachi 3,19. We have a tradition that both the angels and Gehinom were created on the second day. On the other hand, the Gan Eden on earth was created on the third day. Although man has been created later, he possesses the potential to defeat the forces that were created on the second day through his observance of the Torah’s commandments. When that is the case, there is no barrier between man and the tree of life. On the contrary, then he may approach the tree of life and live forever (compare verse 22) We also learn from this verse, especially the words, את הכרובים, that these angels are the ones we refer to in our prayers as חיות הקדש. These names of the angels are mentioned in Ezekiel 10,20 היא החיה אשר ראיתי... ואדע כי כרובים המה. “This is the Chayah which I have seen... and I realized that they are the cherubs.” It is a fact familiar to kabbalists that every Chayah has 16 facets, four in each direction of globe, as it is written in Ezekiel 1,6 וארבעה פנים לאחת, “one of them had four faces (facets). Seeing the word פנים consists of the singular פן, the rest is merely a plural ending. Hence four times פן in four directions each time totals 16. These cherubs are something intangible which flashes from the sword which seems in constant motion, turning over and over. This is what is meant by the words ואת להט החרב המתהפכת i.e. G-d’s angel Chayah, the one with 16 facets. This angel symbolizes His attribute of Justice. You must understand how it is possible that this angel is called להט, suggesting it is a great power, whereas according to our verse here this להט appears as something subordinate, an adjective, something “carried” by the sword. This is always the case with the angels called חיות הקדש. Although they appear to be carriers of the glory of G-d, the fact is that the glory of G-d carries them. You have also learned already that the four letters of the Ineffable name of G-d which represent the pinnacle of all intelligence are alluded to here, i.e. the highest of the ten emanations is represented by the letter י at the beginning of G-d’s name and the remaining letters ה-ו-ה correspond in their numerical value (16) to the 16 facets of the חיות הקדש that we have discussed. The Torah which is called עץ החיים, “the tree of life,” has been given to us by means of 16 covenants, 13 of them are mentioned in connection with the ritual of circumcision, whereas the word ברית, covenant, appears three more times in connection with the Torah’s report of the revelation at Mount Sinai where we received the Torah.