2) (8) "He blew a soul into man." (Genesis 2,7) By this act, the Creator established as close a relationship with man as exists between the creatures of the first realm and Himself. In this manner man became equal to both the first and the third realm of creation, simultaneously.

3) (1) And God said, "let us make man, etc.": The intention of this is that God did not create man like the creation of the swarms of the waters and the swarms of the earth, [meaning] that He spoke to the waters and they brought forth the swarms and he spoke to the earth and it put forth [creatures], but rather He, the Creator said that He would make man. And He said, "let us make," since He is the source of humility; for this reason, He spoke in the plural form, since this is how a humble individual speaks. And He did not get concerned with giving room for error [that there are other powers besides God which helped in the creation of man], since He preceded [it] by stating, "And God said," [which is in the] singular: the Lord, He is God, He, Himself in His glory - as if it were possible - molded the dirt and blew the spirit of life into it. Its stating "let us make" in the plural form also wants [to teach] that the attributes of God are many; the thirteen attributes of mercy and the name, Elohim, which is the attribute of judgment, agreed together to create man. And [about] its stating, "in our image, in our likeness," it is possible that the intention is to say that there should be a side of mercy and a side of judgment in [man], to implement the ways of judgment and the ways of mercy in what they set up; and understand [it]. And that is the secret in its stating (Genesis 2:7), "And the Lord, God formed, etc." And its stating, "and let them have dominion" is in agreement with our explanation: given that the creation resembles the Creator with respect to the attributes of mercy and judgment, it follows logically that [man] should rule [over] the creations, since he has the attribute of mercy for that which it is fitting and for those that require it, and the [capability] to kill those that are guilty in judgment. And He made him govern everything; and even if it does not mention governance over the waters, it is hinted by its stating, "over the fish of the sea" - behold, it mentions the sea among those governed. And by way of hinting, its using the expression of descent (yeridah) [through the word vayirdu (let them have dominion)] hints by way of what they, of blessed memory, informed us (Zohar, Shemot 94b) that through the actions of man, he descends in his elevation, from the level of man to the level of fish to the level of birds to the level of animals to the level of swarming creatures. According to the severity of the sin, man goes down from the level of his elevation until he descends lower and lower - may God save us - and this is what is hinted here at the time of the creation: the different levels of descent by which he will receive his punishment and also, through which, He will return to his roots. And it began speaking [about] the descent of the soul of man to the level of the fish, since the descent that is designated for the high souls when they sin is that their souls should be reincarnated as fish. And for this reason, the verse attributed to them [that their death be by way of] gathering in their place, as they do not have to suffer the pain of slaughtering with the sword, but rather their being gathered permits them [to be eaten] (Chullin 27b). And afterwards, a descent that is lower than it, and that is the reincarnation of the soul as a bird, and this requires greater pain than fish, and God, may He be blessed, commanded it to be half slaughtered, like that which we learned (Ibid.), [the requirement to render it permissible to eat is the cutting of] the majority of one [of either the esophagus or the trachea] with birds. And afterwards, it stated the descent into animals, which is an aspect that is worse than it, and the pain of which is great, like that which we learned (Ibid.), [the requirement to render it permissible to eat is the cutting of] the majority of two (of both the esophagus and the trachea) with animals. And afterwards, it stated the descent into the inanimate and plants, and that is its stating, "and over all the earth:" the word, the earth, speaks about the inanimate and the word, over all, hints within it to the plants. And all of these descents of souls are those that have the hope of returning to their previous [state], since from the inanimate it goes up to the plant and from the plant it enters the dumb animal and from the dumb animal, it goes up to the animal that speaks (the human being). And there is a descent that is lower, and it is an end that has no hope after it, and it is the descent to the level of 'disgusting and crawling animals,' such that it has lost its hope; and this is the level of the evildoers that exchange their faith - the sinners of Israel that have acted unusually.

11) (1) אשר יצר, after G’d had created man in a manner appropriate to his superior status on earth, He placed him in Gan Eden, a location which was suitable to equip him with the צלם אלוקים, the divine image, enabling him to also fulfill the intellectual tasks involving the air and food in the garden.

1) (1) ויצמח, G‘d made the food necessary for Adam sprout forth. The verse illustrates with what ease Adam could secure his requirements in Gan Eden.

​2) (3) ועץ הדעת, a tree whose fruit results in those who eat from it gaining greater understanding of the relationship of good and evil. The word דעת, which appears here for the first time, helps us understand Genesis 4,1 והאדם ידע את חוה אשתו. Without this verse we would have been puzzled by the Torah telling us something that was so obvious. Who does not “know” his wife, especially when he had described her as “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh!” (2,23) In our verse we are told that the words ידע, דעת do not primarily refer to factual knowledge but to conceptual knowledge. This also helps us to understand why relatives, as in Ruth 2,1 are referred to as מודע לאישה, “someone whom her late husband had been intimate with, had been related to by blood.” It is normal for blood relations to be concerned with the physical and emotional needs of their kin. (compare Proverbs 17,17.)

(1) ויקח ה' אלוקים, even though we have been told already in verse 8 that G’d placed Adam in Gan Eden, the Torah repeats this by stating that “G’d took man etc.,” because at this point the Torah wanted to inform us of the commandment which accompanied Adam’s taking up residence in that idyllic place. Our verse also spells out something that had not been mentioned previously, i.e. that Adam was not to treat Gan Eden as a retreat, but that he was made responsible for maintaining it in good order.

(1) לעבדה, a reference to perfecting his own personality, that which was supplied by G’d in an as yet unrefined state, the one called נשמת חיים. [the author searched to justify the use of the feminine mode in the word לעבדה and related it to נשמה, soul, a noun which is feminine and requires further refinement, just like שיר and שירה which both mean song, the latter, in the feminine mode being unrefined when compared to the former. Compare its use in the haggadah shel Pessach. Ed.]

(1) ויצו ה' אלוקים, the commandment mentioned here may either apply only to the specific fruit Adam was not to eat, or it is a dual commandment, the positive commandment being to eat the other fruit in order to keep healthy, and to shun the fruit of the tree of knowledge precisely for the same reason, as it would prove extremely harmful. G’d emphasised the importance of eating in order to keep alive and healthy by repeating and saying אכול תאכל, meaning: “be sure to eat!” Such repetitions are always used in the Torah when the Torah wants to underscore a point…...

(1) ומעץ הדעת, the tree in the middle of the garden, in close proximity to the tree of life mentioned previously (verse 9) The meaning of חיים in connection with that tree is equivalent to the meaning of the words in Deuteronomy 30,19 החיים והמות נתתי לפניך, “I have placed life and death (to choose) before you.” [we may understand this to mean that the tree of life, if its fruit were eaten, would result in life of infinite duration, whereas eating from the tree next to it would result in life being shortened. Ed.]

(2) מות תמות, mortality will be decreed for you as something occurring far sooner than would have been the case otherwise. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 19,8) explain that the word ביום does not refer to a day of our lives, i.e. a period of 24 hours, but refers to a “day” in G’d’s calendar, i.e. 1000 years in terms of our lives. Man was henceforth not to reach the age of 1000 years. Adam, who had been slated to live for 1000 years, actually lived only 930 years, having bequeathed the other 70 years to his descendants. They base this on Psalms 90,10 ימי שנותנו בהם שבעים שנה, “the number of years of our lives is 70.” [according to Rabbi David Luriah the words לבניו in this Midrash refer specifically to David. Ed.] According to the above we must conclude that the sages of the Midrash consider death per se as a curse, based on Deuteronomy 30,15 כי הרע הוא המות והטוב הוא החיים, “for life is good and death is evil.”
As to “knowledge of good and evil,” there are a number of explanations of these words. (Ibn Ezra) It may refer to the intimacy experienced between man and his wife when engaging in marital intercourse. The fruit of that tree created the mating instinct in man. The word טוב refers to copulation that is permitted and the word רע would refer to copulation which is forbidden. Adam was full of knowledge, and it is preposterous to assume that he had no concept of what is good and what is evil before he ate from that tree. However, he had lacked the biological urge to engage in marital intercourse. This is proved by the fact that after both he and his wife had eaten from the tree of knowledge they are quoted as saying that “their eyes were opened and they realised that they were naked,” in the sense that they lacked something which they had not been aware of needing. (Genesis 3,7). The meaning of the words והייתם כאלוקים, (3,5) is “you will be like the angels.” The common denominator between Adam and the angels at that stage was that both the angels and man had no inkling of the mating instinct. It is true that merely by observing the animals’ behaviour they realised that the males and females engaged in such activities, however they had no understanding of how such a process of creating progeny applied to themselves.
Alternatively, we may understand the serpent as not having the slightest idea of what the concepts טוב ורע, “good and evil” represented. Even though Chavah is not quoted in the text of having used these words, it is quite impossible to assume that the entire dialogue between the serpent and Chavah has been recorded here. Unless there had been some discussion between them before the words recorded in the text, whence did the serpent know that G’d had forbidden the fruit of the trees, as it had claimed to know? She must have learned such details from the words of the woman. Furthermore, the very opening remark of the serpent, אף, suggests that this is a continuation of the preceding parts of the dialogue which the Torah did not consider worth reporting. Nowhere else is the word אף used as the opening remark in a dialogue. (Ibn Ezra)

And the LORD God said: ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.’

(1) ויאמר ה' אלוקים, G’d did not utter these words audibly, as is the meaning of the word when applied to human beings, but He “spoke” to Himself. Alternatively, G’d did utter words to that effect without directly addressing Adam, but Adam happened to hear these words. When the Torah speaks of “G’d speaking,” we must understand this as a sound created especially for that particular occasion. Seeing that Adam overheard the words אעשה לו עזר כנגדו, “I shall make for him a suitable companion,” he had entertained the hope that when all the animals paraded before him that he would encounter among them the helpmate, companion, G’d had spoken of. This is how we must understand the words in verse 20 ולאדם לא מצא עזר כנגדו, that he had not found a suitable helpmate when reviewing all the animals and naming them.
The Torah inserted these words between reporting on the commandment not to eat from the tree of knowledge and the sin, in order to make plain that man’s sin was due to the influence of the woman, as he had not eaten from this tree before she had been formed and been given to him as a mate, companion. Clearly, also when G’d gave Adam the commandments and forbade him to eat from that tree, seeing that the woman had not been created yet, she could not have heard this commandment from the mouth of G’d, but only from the mouth of her husband. The woman was clever enough to know that G’d had created both her husband and her. She presumed that communication from G’d took place by means of both her and her husband’s intellect, seeing that they were the only creatures who had been endowed with superior intellect.

(1) It is not good: Lest the people say that there are two realms - Hashem, he is in the heavens and his is alone without a partner; and man he is in the earthly realm and he also does not have a partner.

(2)

(3) A helpmate opposite him: If the man merits it, then his helper will be an ezer - a helper! but if he does not merit it, then she will be knegdo him - opposite him!

(1) ויקרא האדם...ולאדם לא מצא עזר כנגדו, he saw all these creatures parading before him as males partnered by a female, whereas there was no such partner available for him. We find a similar construction in Exodus 24,1 of the Torah writing ואל משה אמר עלה אל ה', or in Genesis 4,23 נשי למך or in Samuel I 12,11 ואת יפתח ואת שמואל. According to Tur, quoting Rabbi Joseph Kimchi, our author’s father, what gave rise to our author supplying other examples of such a strange syntax is the fact that Adam is portrayed as if viewing himself from the outside, as a third party.
The names Adam gave the animals were all in Hebrew, seeing that this is the language he spoke. This is also the language in which G’d addressed him. G’d had called him אדם since he was a product of אדמה. Similarly, Adam called his wife חוה, to reflect the fact that she was the mother of the human race, i.e. אם כל חי. Chavah in turn called her son קין, describing him as an acquisition קנין of an איש, a man, paralleling G’d Who up until then had been the Only One who had acquired an איש, meaning her own husband Adam. (Genesis 4,1). Similarly, when Lemech named his son נח, he mentioned that the name symbolised the hope that his son would provide comfort for man, זה ינחמנו, (Genesis 5,29)…...

(1) ויבן ה' אלוקים את הצלע לאשה, it was someone possessing the features of a human being, much like those of a man. She would be different from man only in some external physical features. She would possess the same ability to perfect her personality as did man.

(1) ויבן ה' אלוקים את הצלע, the word צלע here has to be pronounced on the last syllable. The Torah says, in effect, that G’d “integrated” this צלע to be an integral indistinguishable part of Chavah’s other limbs and organs. She became basically a creature similar in all respects to Adam himself, except for her specifically female features.

(2) ויביאה אל האדם, after Adam had woken up G’d brought Chavah to him to be his mate. In other words, when Adam awoke he saw her standing upright facing him.

(1) ויאמר..זאת, for on the first occasion when G’d brought the domesticated animals, the free roaming beasts and the birds to be inspected by Adam, he had not seen among them one that would qualify as his mate. The reason was that none of them matched him in physical features even, not to speak of intellectual compatibility. However, this time, finally, when G’d brought Chavah to him, he recognised immediately that he had found a truly compatible mate. He did not only realise this by comparing her visible features, but he became aware that part of his body, or at least one of his ribs, had been removed, which confirmed his impression that Chavah must indeed be his other half.

(3) The word איש is a general term for man, also sometimes used to refer to a specific human being. This is why sometimes the word is used as describing people in general, such as ואיש לא נעדר, and “no one was missing,” (Isaiah 40,26) or גדעון איש ישראל, “or איש ואשתו, “male and his mate” (Genesis 7,2). Seeing that the man is the predominant partner and the woman’s husband, seeing she is as if literally one of his organs, he is often referred to as אדון, “master.” In Judges 8,23 we read ויאמרו איש ישראל אל גדעון וגו'. The meaning is not that a particular Jewish man said something to Gideon, but that the Jewish people at that time suggested to Gideon that be become their ruler on an ongoing basis, even his children having a claim to succeed him. The reason why Adam did not refer to Chavah as אישה, as the feminine form of איש, was to avoid confusion with the word אישה when it means “her husband.”

(4) לוקחה זאת, the letter ל is pronounced as a long syllable, whereas the vowel kametz is shortened into a chataf kametz. When Adam referred to Chavah merely as זאת, “this one,” as if she were merely some chattel, he did so because he did not refer to her alone but to her entire species, i.e. the female of the human species. `

(1) זאת, this female הפעם הזאת, finally, this timeעצם מעצמי ובשר מבשרי, only this time, seeing that all females of the future will not be fashioned by the male undergoing such type of surgery.

(2) לזאת יקרא אשה, all other female human beings in the future will be known as אשה,

(3) even though they will not, like this time, be literally part of the flesh of their husbands.

(4) כי מאיש לוקחה זאת, “this one,” the first woman ever.

(1) זאת הפעם עצם מעצמי, “only this time will man’s wife be made of his own bone and flesh; in the future things will be reversed, a male will come forth from a female, not as this time.”

(2) והיו לבשר אחד, this means that they are to be as if they were made of the same flesh. It is a reminder to man that the wife of the first male was indeed made of the same flesh as his own. When the two joined in marital intercourse, they did indeed become once more one flesh. In the future, when engaging in the act of procreation, they would relive the experience Adam and Chavah had when their separate bodies joined for the first time after Chavah had become a person in her own right. Our sages (Sanhedrin 58) explained this verse as words uttered by Adam with holy spirit, i.e. prophetic vision. The words were meant as a warning to the descendants of Noach not to engage in incestuous sexual relations with one another. The reason the Torah mentioned this as a warning to mankind in general is because mankind in general is responsible for the survival of the human race, having come so close to being wiped out altogether because of promiscuous sexual practices. The line does not mean that this prohibition commenced only as something applicable at a later stage in history, it applied to Adam himself and his direct offspring. All the seven “Noachide” laws applied to Adam already, with the exception of the prohibition of consuming flesh or tissue from animals that were still alive. This law did not have to be promulgated until after the deluge, seeing that consumption of any kind of meat was forbidden until then.
The same folio (58) in the Talmud understands the word ודבק in our verse literally, meaning a prohibition of engaging in homosexuality. Only embracing one’s wife in an intimate sexual embrace is permitted, not embracing any other human being in such fashion. Even embracing one’s fellow’s wife in such an intimate embrace, though something heterosexual, is prohibited, this is why the Torah added the pronoun “his” when referring to “his wife, באשתו.”

(2) והיו לבשר אחד, they are to work together in such close union as if there were in fact only one of them. (This had been the idea behind creating man as both male and female in the first place.)

(1) על כן, seeing that on this first occasion G’d had aimed to make Adam’s wife as much part of him as possible, so that he even used Adam’s personal body as Chavah’s basic skeleton, יעזוב איש את אביו ואת אמו ודבק באשתו, it is appropriate that a man leave the home of his parents in order to acquire a wife who is compatible with him, and who is a suitable mate for him to live with on a permanent basis. The Torah teaches here also that the expression דיבוק, “cleaving,” being in a state of true union, is not possible between two people who are not alike in their common purpose in life. Parents and children do not have the same tasks and challenges. Man and his wife do have to master the same challenges, hence the word “union” can be applied to their union, whereas the same word would be inappropriate for describing the relationship between father and son, or mother and son. By living together they will become of one mind on how to deal with their lives’ challenges.

(2) את דרכו, its norms as established at the time of creation. Just as man cleaving to his wife (only) is described as a norm in Genesis 2,24, so there were other norms all of which were violated by the generation of the deluge. In retribution, G’d now violates the norms that applied to the conditions prevailing on our planet.

(1) ערומים ולא יתבוששו, because while in that state of innocence all their activities were aimed at pleasing their Creator. When this is the case, one has no reason to feel ashamed of anything. Just as eating and drinking was an activity they engaged in, in order to remain healthy and be able to carry out the tasks assigned to them by G’d, so marital intercourse was an activity designed exclusively to fulfill the commandments to produce more members of their species. Instead of using hands and feet to carry out other aspects of G’d’s will, in this instance they had to use their genitals for this purpose.

(2) ולא יתבוששו, this verse tells us that until after they had eaten from the tree of knowledge they had not experienced a feeling of shame due to the fact that their entire bodies were fully exposed. Seeing that they had not yet engaged in sexual intercourse due to their not having experienced a desire for copulation, their sexual organs did not appear to them as any different from all their other organs. They had no reason to be ashamed of them.

(1) 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. 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).

(2) 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:

(1) 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

(1) לא מות תמותון “you will sure not die,

(1) והנחש היה ערום מכל חית ה שדה אשר עשה ה' אלוקים, It is in order to ask in what fashion the serpent conversed with Chavah. If G’d had opened the serpent’s mouth by means of a miracle, as He did when Bileam’s ass started speaking to him (Numbers 22,28), why did the Torah not report, as it did in that verse that “G’d opened the mouth of the serpent?” If, on the other hand, if, as in the view of Rabbi Saadyah gaon, the conversations reported in the Torah between both the ass and Bileam and the serpent and Chavah were conducted by an angel on their behalf, why was the serpent punished and cursed for all times? Besides, how is it possible that G’d assigned to an angel the task to seduce Chavah to sin against G’d? Furthermore, what reason was there to introduce the serpent into the story at this point? Why did the Torah have to write: “and the serpent was the wiliest of all the beasts of the field, etc.?” If the serpent was unable to speak, i.e. to communicate with Chavah in his own right, how do we know that it was such a clever creature? If we are to assume that the angel was dispatched to subject the woman to a test of her faith and obedience, how was the serpent to blame for the outcome? Besides, it would have been so much more appropriate for the angel to test Adam himself, seeing it was he who had been commanded by G’d not to eat from the tree of knowledge? Chavah had heard of this only second hand from her husband!
The whole subject is extremely confusing, when we look only at what has been revealed to us by the text. We need to resort to the writings of the Kabbalists to make better sense of this whole episode.(Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 13)[in that chapter’s introduction, the point is made that jealousy and envy, some of the most destructive character traits, exist also in the celestial regions, and that when the angels who had not been delighted at man’s creation in the first place, saw how clever Adam was, and how he had named the animals immediately upon looking at them, they became afraid that their dominant role in G’d’s entourage would be jeopardized now. They therefore schemed to seduce man into sinning against His Creator in order to safeguard their role as being closest to G’d. Thereupon, Samael, the most powerful angel, the one who had 12 wings whereas all the others had only 6 wings, took his underlings with him to take a closer look at what went on in the terrestrial regions. He found that in those regions the serpent was by far the most intelligent of the beasts, and he could not find another beast as capable and willing to fall in with his wicked plans. We are informed there that the serpent was huge, and looked like a camel and Samael was riding on it. The sages, with their insight into then hidden aspects of the Torah, wanted to illustrate how G’d sometimes amuses Himself to make playful use both of the “camel,” i.e. the serpent, and its rider, i.e. Samael.
Another comment offered by the sages (Shabbat 146) is that after the serpent had engaged in sexual relations with Chavah, it had left behind within her some of the spiritually poisonous residue, which had contaminated her personality. This was so pervasive that until the Jewish people accepted the Torah at Mount Sinai they had not been able to totally cleanse themselves of that poison. The other nations of the world never cleansed themselves of this spiritually poisonous material. Students of such mystical aspects of the Torah will understand what I refer to, but I have no intention to use my commentary to dwell on such matters, having been warned by my teachers not to reveal what the Torah clearly had not seen fit to reveal to one and all. We will relate to such allusions only in the same way as the sages have seen fit to do themselves. Hopefully, those who are attuned will understand what the sages had in mind to convey to us. Some commentators, cited by Ibn Ezra, say that the serpent did not speak at all, but managed to convey its meaning to Chavah by whistling, hissing to her. Chavah was clever enough, according to that view, to understand what the serpent was trying to communicate to her. It seems very far fetched to credit Chavah with understanding what the serpent tried to hint to her in such a fashion. It is even more far fetched to credit the serpent with understanding what Chavah answered her in Hebrew.
The scholar Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes that the serpent did indeed speak, and it used to walk upright, just like man. Originally, G’d had equipped the serpent with superior knowledge and intelligence, i.e. “more crafty than any of the beasts of the field, but not as crafty as man.” this was also the opinion of our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 20,5) This is what they write: At the time G’d punished the serpent, He said to it: “here I had made you so that you are king of the all the beasts, something that you had not been satisfied with. I enabled you to walk upright just like man. You were not satisfied with this either. Now you will have to crawl on your belly and eat dust.” We must ask ourselves that if all this is so, why the Torah had not mentioned that the serpent had enjoyed such distinctions, that the Torah’s report of G’d’s creative activities makes no mention of this, as it did in Genesis 1,26 when man’s distinction over the other creatures is introduced by G’d saying “we will make him in our image, etc?” Furthermore, when G’d cursed the serpent, mention is meant of it having to crawl and having to eat dust. Why did the Torah not also mention that G’d deprived it of its superior intellect? This would have been the most severe part of the punishment and the Torah does not mention it at all? The most likely answer to all the points that we have raised is that the serpent was enabled, -miraculously,- on that occasion, to speak in a voice and language Chavah could understand, even though the Torah did not write specifically that “G’d opened its mouth,” as it did in connection with Bileam. seeing that this represented something far more extraordinary [Bileam’s ass speaking, which occurred in a world that was post Gan Eden, as opposed to an idyllic world where such miracles were not out of the ordinary. Besides, Bileam’s ass had saved her master from death by opening her mouth, whereas the serpent’s speaking had led to Chavah’s and her husband’s eventual death. Ed.]
Still. The question remains why the serpent was punished if G’d Himself had put these words in its mouth? We need to answer that the serpent had already planned its craftiness how to set a trap for man to discredit it in the eyes of G’d so that it would replace man as the superior creature on earth. G’d was aware of all this, and all He did was to follow the principle in Shabbat 104 of בא לטמא פותחים לו, “when someone is bent on defiling something, one facilitates this for him.” Furthermore, G’d had to make sure that Adam (mankind) knew that the serpent had been punished with good cause. [this editor is astounded by the use of Kimchi of the quote in Shabbat 104 as it is my understanding that whereas when planning to do good one enjoys heavenly assists, when planning to do evil one is merely not interfered with. Besides, this saying applies to human beings who have freedom of choice; whoever heard of this saying applying to animals? Ed.]
היה ערום, clever. Seeing that the word refers to intelligence, it is spelled with the vowel shuruk to distinguish it from the adjective arum naked, which is spelled with the vowel cholam. [in our editions of the Torah both words are spelled with the letter shuruk representing the vowel shuruk. Ed.] Seeing the word occurs in the plural, the letter מ does not have a dagesh, compare מחשבות ערומים in Job 5,12 where it means :“the designs of the crafty ones.” When the word is used to described nudity, the letter מ is written with a dagesh. Compare Job 22,6 ובגדי ערומים תפשיט, “You leave them stripped of their clothing.” When the Torah wrote here היה ערום, it meant that the serpent possessed extraordinary powers of imagination, totally superior to other animals in this respect. Our sages generally describe the fox as crafty, able to scheme, something other animals are not credited with doing. (Berachot 61) This is not the same as possessing didactic intelligence, something reserved for man. When the Torah adds the words מכל חית השדה, it excludes the domestic animals, בהמות as not possessing even a modicum of such powers of imagination, The serpent at that time was superior to the fox in its ability to scheme. אשר עשה ה' אלוקים, even though all these creatures had been constructed out of the same raw material, G’d had given added an advantage to different ones of these creatures. Some had been granted greater physical prowess, others greater power to scheme.
ויאמר אל האשה, the serpent deliberately avoided speaking to Adam, but spoke to the woman. It knew that it would be easier to seduce the woman because women’s minds are more easily swayed. (Shabbat 33) אף כי אמר אלוקים, the fact that the Torah commences its report of this conversation with the word אף is proof that there had been an exchange of words between the serpent and Chavah prior to this already. It is likely that Chavah had told the serpent about the great honour G’d had bestowed on them to place them within the Garden of Eden. To this the serpent had replied that it did not view this as proof that G’d loved them especially, but as proof of the contrary, that G’d hated them. Granted that G’d had elevated the human species as compared to the animals, but He had not elevated them to the status of becoming potential competitors of His by forbidding them to eat from all the good trees in the garden. The Torah decided to omit the introduction to the dialogue between the two and to concentrate on its essence. This is a style the Torah employs on a number of occasions. One example is the spies telling Joshua that they had heard while in Jericho clear evidence that G’d had as good as given the country into the hands of the Israelites already. They are not quoted as telling Joshua about their personal experiences during that mission. No doubt they had reported this. (Joshua 2,23) The meaning of the word אף here appears to b: “on the contrary, even more so.” We have a number of parallel verses in which the word אף is used in this sense, for instance Job 4,19 אף שכני בתי חמר, “how much less those who dwell in house made of clay.” Or, Kings I 8,27 אף כי הבית הזה אשר בניתי, “how much less this House which I have built.” The serpent did not refer to G’d’s holy name. Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes that this was because the serpent did not know G’d’s name Hashem. According to our explanations of the serpent’s sudden ability to speak in a manner comprehensible to Chavah being an ad hoc miracle, G’d did not allow the serpent to use His holy name. It is beyond our imagination to assume that G’d would allow a beast to bandy about His sacred name, something that is His exclusively. A careful reading of the text will reveal that even Chavah did not use the holy name of G’d. The bald-faced lie of the serpent was its claim that G’d had said מכל עץ הנן, that man had been forbidden to eat of any of the trees of the garden, this was part of its shrewdness, pretending as if Chavah had told her this, though the serpent was perfectly aware that Chavah had said no such thing. He wanted to challenge Chavah by saying “what good is your being in Gan Eden, seeing you cannot enjoy any of its fruit?”

(1) ותרא האשה, she believed the words of the serpent and saw with her heart כי טוב העץ למאכל וכי תאוה הוא לעינים, as the Torah had already described this tree in its own words in 2,9 when we were told that all “the trees of the garden were pleasant to look at and good to eat.” The tree of knowledge did not distinguish itself in external appearance from the other trees of the garden. Therefore, Chavah argued, there is no reason to believe that we will die if we eat from it. She agreed that the serpent had spoken the truth when it said that the distinction of this tree must lie in the spiritual benefits its fruit bestow on us not in the taste of its fruit. The serpent must be right when saying that we will become G’d-like (verse 5). ותקח מפריו ותאכל, and afterwards she gave to her husband who at that time had been in some other location inside the garden; she brought him some of the fruit and told him what the serpent had said to her and why she had eaten from the fruit. They then ate from the fruit jointly. This is the meaning of the additional word עמה. In other words, Chavah ate from the fruit twice, whereas Adam ate from it only once. It is important to understand this. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 19,5) explained that the word גם which is supposed to add something means that she fed the fruit also to the animals and the birds. We need to reflect on this statement by our sages.

(2) (Fol. 70) R. Chanan said: "Wine was created for nothing else than to comfort mourners and to compensate through it the wicked for any good thing they do in this world, as it is said (Pr. 31, 6) And Noah, who was a husbandman, began his work and he planted a vineyard. And he drank of the wine, and became drunken, and he uncovered himself within his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told it to his two brothers without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon the shoulders of both of them, and went backwards, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were turned backwards, and they saw not their father's nakedness. And Noah awoke from his wine, and discovered what his younger son had done unto him. And Noah began his work, and planted a vineyard. R. Chisda in the name of Ukba (according to others Mar Ukba in the name of R. Zakkai), said: "The Holy One, praised be He ! said to Noah : 'Noah, why didst thou not learn from Adam the First that all the troubles he had were caused by wine?'" This is in accordance with R. Maier, who maintains that the tree of whose fruit Adam partook was a vine; for we are taught in a Baraitha: R. Maier says: "The tree of whose fruit Adam partook was a vine (Ib. b) as there is no other thing which brings lamentation upon man except wine." R. Juda says: "It was wheat, since a child is not able to call mother or father before it has tasted wheat." R. Nechemiah says : "It was a fig tree, for they were mended (restored) by the same thing by which they were impaired (sinned), as it is written (Gen. 3, 7) And they sewed fig leaves together."

(2) לרוח היום, towards evening, when the day becomes cooler and the breeze blows. He recognized at once that the voice belonged to G’d, and that G’d had come to speak to them about their sin. As a result, they hid among the trees of the garden out of shame over the fact that their genitals were exposed. Even though they had made these חגורות for themselves by sewing together the fig leaves, these were not enough to hide the areas of their bodies they felt ashamed of. They were perfectly aware, of course, that it is impossible to “hide” from G’d, else their entire intelligence would not have amounted to much. The Torah merely describes that they reacted in the time honoured human fashion when one is ashamed and wishes to hide the source of one’s shame.
The reason why the Torah informs us that they heard G’d’s “voice” before they heard what He had to say, is that the Torah wishes to teach us something about good manners. 1) G’d wanted to give them an opportunity to hide; 2) one should not frighten people by addressing them suddenly without a person having had a chance to compose himself first in order to receive a visitor and to meet such a visitor after preparing for his visit. One should either knock on the door, or try and make voice contact by inquiring if the person is at home, etc. (Massechet Derech Eretz ) The reason why the Torah had to mention the expression רוח היום is that the wind carried the sound of the voice to them.

(1) 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.