## Ibn Ezra on Genesis Chapter 3

###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:1:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:1:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:1:1)

**והנחש**. י"א כי האשה היתה מבינה ויודעת לשון החיות, ויפרשו ויאמר הנחש ברמיזה ואחרים אמרו שהוא שטן ואיך לא יראו סוף הפרשה, כי אלך ילך השטן על גחון, ואיך יאכל עפר ומה טעם לקללת, הוא ישופך ראש", ורבים השתבשו לחקור למה היה קולל הנחש, ואם היתה לו דעת שלמה, או צוה שלא ישיא האשה, ויאמר רב סעדיה גאון אחר שהתבררה לנו שאין דבור ודעת כי אם באדם לבדו, נצטרך לומר כי הנחש גם האתון לא דברו רק מלאך דבר בשבילם, והשיב עליו רב שמואל בן חפני, והנה קם ר' שלמה הספרדי בעלי השירים השקולים, וחכם גדול היה והשיב על רב שמואל, והישר בעיני שהם הדברים כמשמעם, והנחש היה מדבר, והיה הולך בקומה זקופה, והשָם דעת באדם שם בו, והנה הפסוק העיד כי היה ערום מכל חית השדה רק לא כאדם, ופי' ערום חכם שיעשה דבריו בערמה, ואל תתמה בעבור היות ערום אחר ערומים, והם שני טעמים, כי באלה הצחות בלשון, כמו "בלחי החמור חמור חמורתים (שופ', טו טז), וכן "על שלשים עיירים, ושלשים עיירים להם" (שם יו"ד ד), ועוד אם המלאך דבר על פיו אין חטא לנחש וזה המלאך לא יתכן להיות שלוחו של השם, ואין המלאך ממרה פי השם, והשואלים איך (וי"ג אנה) מצא הנחש את האשה איננה שאלה,

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
NOW THE SERPENT. Some say that the woman understood and knew the language of the animals. They interpret *And the serpent said* as meaning, that the serpent spoke through signs.¹ Others say that the serpent was in reality Satan.² Now why don’t they look at what Scripture states at the close of this chapter (v. 14 and 15)? How is Satan to crawl upon his belly or eat the dust of the ground?³ Furthermore, what meaning is there to the curse *they shall bruise thy head* if the reference is to Satan?⁴ Many err and inquire why the serpent was cursed. They ask, was the serpent fully intelligent?⁵ Was he commanded by God to refrain from beguiling the woman?⁶ Rabbi Saadiah Gaon says since we know that only humans are intelligent and capable of speaking, we must conclude that neither the serpent nor Balaam’s ass spoke. He argues that in reality an angel spoke for them. However, Rabbi Samuel ben Hofni took issue with him.⁷ On the other hand, Rabbi Solomon ibn Gabirol, the great Spanish scholar and poet who wrote metered verse, arose and disagreed with Rabbi Samuel ben Hofni. It appears to me that we are to interpret the account of the serpent literally. The serpent spoke and walked in an upright position. The One who gave intelligence to man also gave it to the serpent. Scripture itself bears witness that the serpent, although not as intelligent as man, *was more subtle* (arum) *than any beast of the field*.⁸ The meaning of *arum* (subtle) is wise, i.e., one who conducts his affairs intelligently. Now do not be surprised that Scripture uses the term *arum* (subtle, in v. 1) after *arummim* (naked in Gen. 2:25) when each of these words has a different meaning. Scripture is being poetic. Similarly, *With the jawbone of an ass* (ha-chamor), *heaps upon heaps* (chamor chamoratayim) (Judges 15:16), and *on thirty ass colts* (ayarim), *and they had thirty cities* (ayarim) (Jud. 10:4). Furthermore, if an angel spoke via the mouth of the serpent, then the serpent did not sin.⁹ This angel could not be God’s messenger.¹⁰ Neither does an angel rebel against God.¹¹ Those who ask, how did the serpent find the woman,¹² are not asking a valid question.¹³

footnotes:
¹ That is, the serpent did not actually speak. He conveyed his intentions through signs; i.e., he went to the tree and pantomimed the eating of the fruit thereof.
² Satan took the form of the serpent.
³ Satan is incorporeal and consequently cannot crawl on the ground or eat dust.
⁴ Man does not bruise Satan’s head. Hence the reference must be to a real serpent.
⁵ God would not punish a dumb animal.
⁶ There is a Rabbinic dictum, “One who is not warned is not punished.”
⁷ Rabbi Samuel ben Hofni held that the serpent actually spoke. Some editions read: “with them,” i.e., with Saadiah and the others who do not interpret that the serpent actually spoke.
⁸ Verse 1. Hence the serpent was responsible for his actions.
⁹ Why, then, was the serpent punished? I.E. now offers arguments against Saadiah’s interpretation.
¹⁰ God would not send an angel to induce Adam and Eve to sin.
¹¹ The angel would not beguile the woman on his own accord, for angels do not rebel against God.
¹² There were no animals in the garden. See I.E.’s comment on 2:15.
¹³ The serpent may have encountered the woman at the gate of the garden and engaged her in conversation there (Krinsky), or she may have left the garden briefly and met the serpent outside.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:1:2
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:1:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:1:2)

וטעם אף כי יורה כי דבר דברים אחרים, ואמר בסוף קל וחומר שאמר לכם לא תאכלו פרי כל עץ כלל "לא הזכיר הנחש השם הנכבד והנורא כי לא ידעו, גם האשה הוסיפה על מצות השם, ולא תגעו בו, וכן הוסיפה אשת מנוח עד יום מותו (שופ' יג ז):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
The use of the term *af ki* (yea) shows that the serpent spoke other things to the woman and that at the end of his conversation with her said, “yea much more so (*af ki*)¹⁴ (yea) is a technical term used in a *kal ve-chomer*, an argument from a minor to a major premise. Cf. Job 25:6. Hence a conversation had to precede this final point. See Rashi. now that God said: *Ye shall not eat of any tree of the garden* (v. 1).”The serpent did not mention the revered and feared name of God¹⁵ because he did not know it. The woman also added to God’s commandment, *neither shall ye touch it*.¹⁶, (Gen. 2:17). The woman said, *God hath said: Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die*. The wife of Manoah did the same when she quoted the angel as saying, *for the child shall be a Nazirite unto God from the womb to the day of his death* (Jud. 13:7).¹⁷ (Jud. 13:5). He did not mention *to the day of his death*.

footnotes:
¹⁴ I.E. argues that af ki
¹⁵ The Tetragrammaton. The serpent employed Elohim when referring to God.
¹⁶ God said, thou shalt not eat of it
¹⁷ The angel had told her: For the child shall be a Nazirite unto God from the womb


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:5:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:5:1)

**והייתם כאלהים.** כמלאכים:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND YE SHALL BE AS GOD. As angels.¹⁸

footnotes:
¹⁸ See I.E.’s comment on Gen. 1:1.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:6:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:6:1)

**ותרא האשה.** בלבה:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND WHEN THE WOMAN SAW. In her heart.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:6:2
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:6:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:6:2)

**ונחמד העץ,** בעבור שתשכיל ותפקחנה עיניה,

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND THAT THE TREE WAS TO BE DESIRED. Because it had the power to make one wise, and her eyes would “open.”¹⁹ of *le-haskil* has the meaning of because. Therefore *le-haskil* (to make one wise) is to be interpreted “because it made one wise” (Krinsky). Her eyes would open is to be interpreted metaphorically. See verses 5 and 7.

footnotes:
¹⁹ The lamed


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:6:3
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:6:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:6:3)

וטעם עמה שיחד אכלוהו וגלתה לו סוד הנחש, והנה לא היה אדם שוגג על כן נענש, ורבים אמרו כי עץ הדעת עץ תאנה בעבור שמצאו "ויתפרו עלה תאנה" (בראשית ג ז), ואלו היה כן היה הכתוב אומר ויתפרו עלה עץ הדעת, גם רבים אמרו שחטה היה, והנכון בעיני ששני עצים הם בתוך גן עדן ואינם במקום אחר על כל פני האדמה, והאחד עץ הדעת והוא יוליד תאות המשגל, וע"כ כסו האדם ואשתו ערותם, ופי' ויתפרו ידוע וכן שק תפרתי עלי גלדי (איוב טז טו), והמבקשים מחט מהבילים כי בעץ דק יעשו צרכם, וכאשר אכל אדם מעץ הדעת ידע את אשתו וזאת הידיעה כנוי למשגל ובעבור עץ הדעת נקרא כן, גם הנער כאשר ידע הטוב והרע אז יחל לתאות המשגל,:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
[UNTO HER HUSBAND WITH HER.] The meaning of *with her* is that they ate together of the fruit and that she disclosed to him the secret that the serpent had revealed to her. Adam thus did not sin unwittingly and was therefore punished for violating God’s command. Many commentators say that the tree of knowledge was a fig tree. They base their assertion on *and they sewed fig-leaves together, and made themselves girdles* (v. 7).²⁰ 70b, *By the very thing with which they sinned were they rectified*. However, if this interpretation were correct, the Bible would say, “And they sewed leaves of the tree of the knowledge.” Many others say that it was a wheat plant.²¹ 40a and *Sanhedrin* 70b. However, in my opinion the two trees in the midst of the garden were unique species not found anywhere else on the face of the earth. One of them, the tree of knowledge, possessed the power to instill sexual desire. Therefore the man and woman covered their nakedness. The meaning of *va-yitperu* (sewed) is well-known.²² *Tafarti* in *I have sewed* (tafarti) *sackcloth upon my skin* (Job 16:15) is similar. Those who ask where Adam and Eve got a needle (to sew their girdle) emit hot air. Adam and Eve could have used a sharp piece of wood. Upon eating of the tree of knowledge, Adam knew (*yada*) his wife. *Yada* (knew) is a euphemism for sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is called “knowledge” because sexual desire came from the tree of knowledge. Moreover, a young man begins to have sexual desire at the age at which he begins to “know” good and evil.²³

footnotes:
²⁰ See Sanhedrin
²¹ Berakhot
²² It means sewn.
²³ Hence the tree that implanted this new knowledge is called “the tree of knowledge of good and evil.”


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:6:4
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:6:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:6:4)

**ועץ החיים.** שיוסיף חיים ויחיה האדם שנים רבות ואין מלת לעולם עד עולם ועד, והנה כן "ועבדו לעולם" (שמות כא ו) "וישב שם עד עולם" (ש"א א כב), ורבים אחרים, ומפרשים אמרו בפ' "כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות", כי לא נברא על מתכונת שימות רק כאשר חטא נגזר עליו המות, ורבים ישאלו מה חטאו זרעו, ואלה דברי רוח, כי רוח אחד לאדם ולבהמה שבה יהיה וירגיש בעולם הזה, וכמות זה כן מות זה מלבד החלק העליון שיש לאדם מותר מן הבהמה, וכבר הביא אחד מרופאי יון ראיות גמורות שלא יתכן שלא יהיה לחיי האדם קצב:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
The *tree of life* extended life so that by partaking of it man would live for many years. *Le-olam* (v. 22) does not mean forever. We find this to be the case with the term *olam* in *and he shall serve him for ever* (le-olam) (Ex. 21:6),²⁴ 15a. and in *and there abide for ever* (I Sam. 1:22)²⁵ (and live forever, v. 22) is to be rendered, “and he will live for a very long time.” and in many other verses,Some commentators insist that the verse *for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die* (Gen. 2:17) indicates that man was created immortal and that he became mortal as a punishment for his sin. Many ask, what sin did Adam’s children commit that they were punished with death? Now this is absurd. Man and beast both share a common spirit (life force) through which they live and experience sensations in this world. As animals are destined to die, so must man die. The advantage of man over beast lies in the portion from above (the soul) which man has been granted. A Greek physician has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is impossible for man to live forever.²⁶ as quoted by Maimonides, *Guide to the Perplexed*, Part III, Chap. XII. I.E. maintains that man was not originally created immortal.

footnotes:
²⁴ According to the Talmud it means until the jubilee. Cf. Kiddushin
²⁵ It can only mean for us as long as he lives. Therefore va-chai le-olam
²⁶ Galen, Third section of the use of limbs


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:8:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:8:1)

**וישמעו מתהלך בגן.**, קול השם, וזה היה סמוך לערב בעת התנופף רוח היום, ומצאנו לקול הליכה, כמו "קולה כנחש ילך" (ירמי' מו בב) "קול השופר הולך וחזק מאוד" (שמות יט יט), ויאמר ר' יונה המדקדק הספרדי כי הטעם והאדם מתהלך בגן, גם הוא אמר שפי' ביום אכלך ממנו אלף שנים כדרך הדרש, ואחרים אמרו ביום ששי נברא וביום ששי מת, ואחרים אמרו אז תהיה חייב מיתה, ואחרים אמרו כי יש מות עונש, כמו "כי בן מות האיש העושה זאת" (ש"ב יב ה), ואחרים אמרו כי מאז תחול שתמות והביאו ראיה מהתינוק, והישר בעיני מה שאמרו הקדמונים שעשה תשובה, כטעם רגע אדבר:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND THEY HEARD THE VOICE OF THE LORD GOD WALKING. They heard the voice of God walking toward evening, at the time of the day when the breeze blows. Scripture employs the term *holekh* (walking) when referring to a voice as seen in *The sound thereof shall go* (yelekh) *like the serpent’s* (Jer. 46:22), and *And when the voice of the horn waxed* (holekh) *louder and louder* (Ex. 19:19). However, the Spanish grammarian, Rabbi Jonah ibn Janah, says that this verse is to be interpreted as follows: And they heard the voice of God as man was walking in the garden. He also interprets *the day* referred to in *for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die* (Gen. 2:17)²⁷ as meaning a thousand years, as the Midrash does.²⁸ 19:14. Others say that Adam was created on a Friday and died on a Friday.²⁹ Others say that the meaning of *for in the day…thou shalt surely die* is that on that day you will incur the death penalty. Still others say that die at times means punishment, as seen in the verse *the man that hath done this deserveth to die* (II Sam. 12:5).³⁰ Still others say the meaning of this verse is that on the day you eat of this tree you will begin to die. They bring proof from a child.³¹, Chap. 4). Thus man’s decline sets in with his sexual maturity. Since, according to I.E., man’s sexual maturity came with the eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, his decline, too, started at this time. According to my thinking the correct interpretation of this verse is to be found in the words of the Rabbinic sages who said that Adam repented.³² Their interpretation is in keeping with the words of Jeremiah who says, *At one instant I may speak concerning a nation…to destroy it, but if that nation turn from their evil.. J repent of the evil that I thought to do unto it* (Jer. 18:7, 8).

footnotes:
²⁷ The problem with this verse is that Adam did not die on the day that he ate of the tree of knowledge.
²⁸ The Midrash states that a day of God is a thousand years. Thus what God was telling Adam was, “If you eat of the tree of knowledge you will die at the end of a thousand years.” Cf. Bereshit Rabbah
²⁹ Thus he actually did die on the day that he ate of the tree of knowledge.
³⁰ The man who took his neighbor’s sheep did not commit a capital crime.
³¹ A cryptic comment. It is suggested that I.E. draws a parallel to a child who grows to sexual maturity and then begins to decline in physical strength (Krinsky). Filwarg rejects this interpretation by noting that physical decline does not set in with sexual maturity. However, it should be noted that medieval man believed that the emission of semen weakened the body and hastened its decline (see Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot De’ot
³² Had Adam not repented, he would have died on the day he ate of the tree of knowledge. But he repented and thus was spared.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:9:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:9:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:9:1)

**ויקרא.** טעם אַיֶכָּה פתחון הדברים, וכן "אי הבל אחיך" (בראשית ד ט) והנה כחש קין והשיב לו השם "קול דמי אחיך צועקים":

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND THE LORD GOD CALLED. *Where art thou* was a means of starting a conversation. Similarly, *Where is Abel thy brother*? (Gen. 4:9).³³ was a means of starting a conversation. Similarly God knew where Adam was, and *Where art thou* was a means of starting a conversation. Behold, Cain denied his brother’s whereabouts, but God responded, *the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto Me from the ground* (Gen. 4:10).

footnotes:
³³ God thus knew what happened to Abel. Hence Where is Abel thy brother


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:11:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:11:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:11:1)

**לבלתי** עם למ"ד כטעם שלא, ובלא למ"ד כטעם רק,.

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
SHOULDEST NOT. *Bilti* with a *lamed* prefixed to it (*le-vilti*) means “not to.” Without this *lamed* (*bilti*) it means “only.”


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:11:2
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:11:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:11:2)

אֲכָל ממנו. שם הפועל וכן, לבלתי שמור מצותיו (דבר' ח יא):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
EAT. *Akhol* (eat) is an infinitive. It is like *shemor* (keep) in³⁴ also is an infinitive. *in not keeping* (shemor) *His commandments* (Deut. 8:11).

footnotes:
³⁴ Shemor


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:12:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:12:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:12:1)

**אשר נתת עמדי,** אתה נתת הנותנת לי, וטעם עמדי בגן, והוא כמו עמי, אכן לא מצאנוהו כי אם בלשון יחיד המדבר.

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
WHOM THOU GAVEST TO BE WITH ME. Thou gavest to me one who gave me the fruit to eat. The word *immadi* (to be with me) means the same as *immi* (with me). Its meaning is: to be with me in the garden. However, *immadi*, in contradistinction to *immi*, is found only in the first person singular.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:12:2
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:12:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:12:2)

וָאוֹכל האל"ף סימן המדבר והנח הנעלם שיש אחריו תמורת אלף השרש, ובא עם קמץ קטן בעבור שהוא סוף פסוק, ולא יתכן שיבוא וי"ו קמוץ עם הפועל כי לעולם הוא בשוא:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND I DID EAT. The *alef* of *va-okhel* (and I did eat) is a first person imperfect prefix. Its vowel (a *cholam*) takes the place of the *alef* of the root that has been dropped. The *khaf* is vocalized with a *tzere* because *and I did eat* comes at the end of a verse. A *vav* prefixed to a participle is always vocalized with a *sheva*, and never with a *kamatz*.³⁵ is a first person perfect and not a participle. I.E. makes this point because a participle is vocalized with a *cholam* over the first radical and a *tzere* beneath the second radical. Hence *va-okhel* at first glance appears to be a participle. I.E. points out that this is not so. As a participle it would not have a *vav* with a *kamatz* affixed to it since a connective *vav* is vocalized with a *sheva*. Since the *vav* of *va-okhel* has a *kamatz* beneath it, it must be a *vav* conversive, changing *okhal*, an imperfect, to *va-okhal*, a perfect. However, because *va-okhal* comes at the end of a sentence it is vocalized *va-okhel*.

footnotes:
³⁵ I.E.’s point is that va-okhel


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:13:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:13:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:13:1)

**השיאני** פתני:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
BEGUILED ME. Persuaded me.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:14:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:14:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:14:1)

**ארור**. לנחש שיהי' חייו קצרים, והנכון שיהי' חסר בהליכתו.

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
CURSED. The serpent was cursed with a short life.³⁶ refers to the serpent’s life span. However, the correct interpretation is that the serpent was cursed in manner of locomotion.³⁷ refers to the serpent’s means of locomotion.

footnotes:
³⁶ Just as blessing is an addition of the good (see I.E. on Gen. 2:3), curse is a diminution of the good. According to this interpretation cursed art thou
³⁷ He lost his legs and consequently could no longer walk erect. According to this interpretation cursed art thou


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:14:2
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:14:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:14:2)

על גחונך, החזה ולא נדע אם הנו"ן שרש כאדון או נוסף כזדון, והאומר שנקרא כן בעבור הרוח שיגיח ממנו זה דרך דרש, וכן אמרו על גיחון גם פישון מגזרת כי תפושו (ירמי' נ יא) גם פרת מגזרת פרו ורבו, והנה הנהר הגדול הוא חדקל עמד בפניהם ולא יכלו לעבור ויאמרו שתי מלות הן, שהמים חדים וקלים:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
UPON THY BELLY. *Gechonekha* (thy belly) means thy chest. We cannot determine if the *nun* of *gakhon* (thy belly) is part of the root of this word, as the *nun* of *adon* (lord) is, or if it is a paradigm *nun* like the *nun* of *zadon* (insolence).³⁸ (insolence) comes from the root *zayin, vav, dalet*; therefore the *nun* of *zadon* is not part of its root. Those who say that *gakhon* is so called because of the air that rushes forth from it³⁹, meaning to burst forth. They explained Gihon to mean the dashing river, Perat as the river whose waters are fruitful and multiply, and Pishon as the gamboling river. are indulging in homiletics. They similarly explain Gihon (Gen. 2:13). They also say that Pishon (Gen. 2:11) comes from the same root as *tafushu* (ye gambol) in *Because ye gambol* (tafushu) *as a heifer* (Jer. 50:11). Also, they say that Perat (the Euphrates, Gen. 2:14) comes from the same roots as *Be fruitful* (peru), *and multiply* (u-revu) (Gen. 1:28). But they are unable to cross the great river, the Chiddeckel (the Tigris) (Gen. 1:28), which stood before them.⁴⁰ They decided that it is made up of two words, *chad* (swift) and *kal* (light), and means the river whose waters are swift and light.

footnotes:
³⁸ Zadon
³⁹ From the root gimel, vav, chet
⁴⁰ They were unable to derive it from one root.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:15:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:15:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:15:1)

**ואיבה.**: הוא ישופך ראש. זרעה יככה בראש וכן אשר בשערה ישופני (איוב ט יז), דלא תראה מהכתוב אחריו, ויחסר הבי"ת כמו בי"ת הנמצא בית ד' (מ"ב יב יז):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND I WILL PUT ENMITY…THEY SHALL BRUISE THY HEAD. Her children shall smite thee upon thy head. *Yeshufeni* (bruise) in *He that would break me* (yeshufeni) *with a tempest* (Job 9:17) is similar to *yeshufekha* (shall bruise thee). Look at what follows and you will see that it is so.⁴¹. This proves that the verb *yeshufeni* means he will bruise me, or smite me. Since *yeshufekha* and *yeshufeni* come from one root, they have one meaning. Hence *yeshufekha* means shall bruise thee. A *bet* has been omitted from the word *rosh* (head) in *they shall bruise thy head*.⁴². With a *bet* it reads, *They shall bruise thee upon the head*. The *bet* is to be supplied by the reader. We find the same in *into the house* (bet) *of the Lord*⁴³. However, it reads, *bet Adonai*. (II Kings 12:17).

footnotes:
⁴¹ The second part of the verse quoted from Job reads, And multiply my wounds without cause
⁴² The verse literally reads, They shall bruise thee head
⁴³ The verse should read, be-vet Adonai


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:15:2
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:15:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:15:2)

**עקב.** הוא הרגל ואם הראש ראשון זה אחרון, וכן "ואת עקבו מים (יהושע ה יג):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
HEEL. *Ekev* means the foot. If the head symbolizes the first, then the heel symbolizes the last. *Akevo* in *their rear* (akevo) *lying in wait on the west* (Josh. 8:13), is similar.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:16:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:16:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:16:1)

**הַרְבֶּה אַרְבֶּה**, שם הפועל:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
I WILL GREATLY MULTIPLY. *Harbah* (multiply) is an infinitive.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:16:2
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:16:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:16:2)

**עצבונך**. בעת הענוי, בצאת דם בתולים:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
THY PAIN. The pain a woman suffers when she is deflowered.⁴⁴

footnotes:
⁴⁴ See I.E.’s comment on Gen. 34:12. The Bible speaks of pain and conception rather than conception and pain. Hence the pain spoken of by Scripture precedes the conception.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:16:3
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:16:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:16:3)

**והרונך**. הנו"ן נוסף, כי ההריון כבד על האשה וכן הלידה:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND THY TRAVAIL. The *nun* of *ve-heronekh* (and thy travail) is not a root letter.⁴⁵. *Herayon* refers to pregnancy and childbirth. Pregnancy is considered by our verse to be a punishment because it and childbirth are a burden to women.⁴⁶ (Gen. 49:25).

footnotes:
⁴⁵ The root of conceive is heh, resh, heh
⁴⁶ Elsewhere in Scripture pregnancy is considered to be a blessing, as seen in the verse Blessings…of the womb


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:16:4
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:16:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:16:4)

**תשוקתך.** משמעתך, והטעם שתשמעי כל אשר יצוה עליך כי את ברשותו לעשות חפצו:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
THY DESIRE. Thy obedience.⁴⁷ to mean your husband’s desire will be your desire. Weiser suggests that the woman’s desire for her husband will be so strong that she will listen to everything that he commands her. This means you will obey whatever your husband commands you for you are under his authority to do his will.

footnotes:
⁴⁷ Perhaps I.E. understood thy desire


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:17:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:17:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:17:1)

**ולאדם.** ארורה האדמה, שלא תוציא תבואה רבה:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND UNTO ADAM…CURSED IS THE GROUND. It will not yield much produce.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:17:2
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:17:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:17:2)

**בעצבון תאכלנה.** תאכל תבואתה, והיא דרך קצרה, וכן והיו באוכלי שולחנך (מ"א ב ז):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
IN TOIL THOU SHALT EAT OF IT. This is short for thou shalt eat of its produce.⁴⁸. However, man does not eat the ground. Therefore I.E. says that our verse is abridged (Weiser). *And let them be of those that eat at thy table* (I Kings 2:7)⁴⁹. The words “the food of” must be supplied by the reader. is similar.

footnotes:
⁴⁸ The verse literally reads, thou shalt eat it (the ground)
⁴⁹ The verse literally reads, and let them be of those who eat thy table


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:18:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:18:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:18:1)

**וקוץ.** גדול וקטן ממנו דרדר, והוא לבדו דר כי אחיו נעדר,

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
THORNS ALSO AND THISTLES. *Kotz* refers to large thorns. *Dardar* (thistles) are smaller than thorns. Its root is *dalet, resh* (*dar*). The other two letters of the word are not root letters.⁵⁰ a thistle, *dardar* a small thistle (Filwarg). For alternate interpretations see Weiser. I.E. literally reads, *He lives* (dar) *alone, for his brother is missing* (ne’edar).

footnotes:
⁵⁰ They indicate that the word is a diminutive, i.e., dar


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:18:2
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:18:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:18:2)

וטעם בעצבון לפתח ולשדד ולזרוע, ועוד רעה הולה שיצמח קוץ בתוך התבואה

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
[IN TOIL.] Thou shalt toil in opening, harrowing and sowing.⁵¹ In addition to this, man will also suffer the sick evil of finding thorns growing amidst the produce of the field.

footnotes:
⁵¹ Cf. Is. 28:24.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:18:3
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:18:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:18:3)

וטעם את עשב השדה הוא הלחם. כי בגן חיותו מפרי העץ,

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
[THE HERB OF THE FIELD.] Bread. For prior to this, man sustained himself with the fruits of the Garden of Eden.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:19:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:19:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:19:1)

וטעם בזעת אפך שהוא צריך לטרוח לזרות ולטחון וללוש ולבשל ולא כמאכל הבהמות, ופי' בזעת ידוע מדבריהם ז"ל, והוא על משקל שינה, ושרשו "יזע" וכמוהו "לא יחגרו ביזע" (יחז' מד יח), עד שיבואו לידי זיעה, ואחר שידענו שהאדם נברא מהד' שרשים מה טעם כי ממנו לקחת, והתשובה כי העצמות תולדותם מהעפר ועל כן הם כבדות, ואין להם הרגשה והם מוסדי הגוף, הלא תראה "ותקרבו עצמות עצם אל עצמו" (יחז' לז ז) כי הם דמות בית בנוי, ואח"כ "והנה עליהם גידים ובשר עלה ויקרם עליהם עור" (שם ח) וכן והעליתם את עצמותי (בראשית נ כה):

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
[IN THE SWEAT OF THY FACE SHALT THOU EAT BREAD]. Unlike the animals, you will have to work at winnowing, grinding, kneading and cooking before you can eat. The meaning of *ze’at* (sweat of) can be ascertained from Rabbinic sources.⁵² for sweat. It follows the paradigm of *shenah* (sleep). Its root is *yod, zayin, ayin*. *Ba-yazah* in *they shall not gird themselves with anything that causeth sweat* (ba-yazah) (Ezek. 44:18) is similar. The meaning of the verse is, they shall not come to sweat. We know that man is created out of the four elements. What, then, does Scripture mean by *for out of it (dust) was thou taken*?⁵³ The answer is that man’s skeletal frame is created out of earth (dust). Hence the bones are heavy⁵⁴ and lack sensation. The skeletal frame is the foundation of the body. Look, Scripture states, *and the bones came together, bone to its bone* (Ezek. 37:7). The bones are like the frame of a house. Thus after the bones came together *and, lo, there were sinews upon them, and flesh came up, and skin covered them above* (Ezek. 37:8). Similarly Scripture states, *and ye shall carry up my bones from hence* (Gen. 50:25).

footnotes:
⁵² The rabbis often employ the term ze’ah
⁵³ The four elements are: fire, air, water and earth. Why does Scripture only mention dust (earth)? At man’s death his body decomposes into all four elements (Krinsky).
⁵⁴ Earth is the heaviest element. The Bible refers to the body as bones (Gen. 50:25) because they form man’s frame. Man is said to come from the earth because his bones are created out of dust.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:20:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:20:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:20:1)

**ויקרא חוה.** הוי"ו והיו"ד מתחלפים, וכן הנה יד ד' הויה (שמות ט ג), ואתה הוה להם למלך (נחמי' ו, י) ולא קראה ביו"ד כי מה הפרש יש בין, שמה ובין שם החיות:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
EVE. The *yod* and *vav* are interchangeable.⁵⁵ because she was the mother of all *chai*. If this is the case then she should have been called *chayyah*. Thus I.E. points out that the *vav* and *yod* interchange and that *chayyah* and *chavvah* are one and the same. We thus find *hoyah* and *hoveh* interchanged in *behold, the hand of the Lord is upon* (hoyah) *thy cattle* (Ex. 9:3), and in *and thou wouldest be* (hoveh) *be their king* (Neh. 6:6). The reason she was called Chavvah and not Chayyah is to distinguish her name from the noun meaning animal (*chayyah*).

footnotes:
⁵⁵ The Bible says that the woman was called Chavvah


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:20:2
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:20:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:20:2)

**אם כל חי.** מבני אדם:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
THE MOTHER OF ALL LIVING. Humans.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:21:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:21:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:21:1)

**כתנור עור.** יש אומר כי בתחלה הי' עצם ובשר ועתה קרם עליהם עור, וי"א כתנות לעורם, ואחרים אומרים כי יש בהמה בדמות אדם, והשם צוה ונפשט עורה ואין לנו לבקש בזאת רק נאמין שהשם עשה לאדם גם לאשתו כתנות עור, ומי ימלל גבורותיו, ומי יספר מעשיו ונפלאותיו, ואין חקר לגדולתו:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
GARMENTS OF SKIN. Some say that Adam and Eve originally consisted of bone and flesh, and God now covered them with skin.⁵⁶ Others say *garments of skin* means garments for their skin.⁵⁷. Still others say that there exists an animal which has a form similar to that of man, and God commanded that it shed its skin.⁵⁸ However, one should in reality not bother to inquire into this matter. We ought to believe that God made garments of skin for Adam and Eve. Who can recount all of God’s mighty acts? Who can tell of all of his wonders? There is no end to God’s greatness.

footnotes:
⁵⁶ The problem which the commentaries found in this verse is, where did the skins to cover them come from? No animal was yet killed or had died so that its skin would be available for use as material for clothes (Filwarg).
⁵⁷ The garments were not made out of skin. They were garments for their skin. These commentators interpret as if written le-or
⁵⁸ Hence the skin. The skin garments thus fitted man perfectly.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:22:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:22:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:22:1)

**ויאמר.** כאשר יהיה אֶחָד בפתח קטן, יהיה בטעם, וענינו מוכרת, ואם יהיה בפתח גדול, יהיה סמוך, וכן כְּאַחַד שבטי ישראל (בראשית מט טז), על כן לא יתכן מדקדוק הלשון להיות פירושו כמו אֶחָד ומה טעם יהיה לו והיה בעל הטעמים ראוי לדבק ממנו עם לדעת,

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AND THE LORD GOD SAID…AS ONE OF US. When one (*echad*) is in the absolute, it has a cantillical note which indicates the foregoing and it is vocalized with a *segol* beneath the *alef*. However, when it is vocalized with a *pattach* beneath the *alef* (*achad*) it is in the construct. Similarly, *As one of* (ke-achad) *the tribes of Israel* (Gen. 49:16). Hence, according to the rules of grammar, the word *ke-achad* (as one of) cannot have the meaning of as one.⁵⁹ in this way: “Man has become one on earth.” Cf. Rashi. Man is one on earth as I am one in heaven. I.E. disagrees, for *ke-achad* is in the construct. Additionally, if *ke-achad* is in the absolute, then it is meaningless.⁶⁰ is in the absolute, then Scripture reads, man is like one. This is a meaningless statement. Furthermore, if *ke-achad* is in the absolute, the notes should have connected *mi-mennu* (of us) to *la-da’at* (to know).⁶¹. A word in the absolute is not connected by a cantillical note to the word that follows. Since *ke-achad* is connected to *mi-mennu* it must be in the construct. *Mi-mennu* is a plural,⁶² as a singular.

footnotes:
⁵⁹ Onkelos interpreted ke-achad
⁶⁰ If ke-achad
⁶¹ Not to ke-achad
⁶² Onkelos translates mi-mennu


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:22:2
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:22:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:22:2)

ופי' ממנו לשון רבים, כמו איש ממנו (בראשית כג ו), וכבר ביארתי בס' היסוד למה נדגש נו"ן הרבים, ואנשי מזרח הקוראים אותו בלא דגשות יטעו, וטעם הפסוק כמו והייתם כאלהים יודעי טוב ורע או פי' על מחשבתו, ואל תתמה על, מלת ממנו, כי כמוהו "נעשה אדם בצלמנו" (בראשית א כו), הבה נרדה (בראשית יא ז), וזה דבור השם עם המלאכים:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
The word *mi-mennu* can be rendered *of us* or *of him*. as in *ish mi-mennu* (none of us) (Gen. 23:6). I have already explained in *The Book of Foundation* why the *nun* of *mi-mennu* receives a *dagesh* when in the plural.⁶³ should have been spelled with two *nuns*. The *dagesh* makes up for the missing *nun* (Weiser). I.E. makes this point here because the word *mi-mennu* has a *dagesh*. He does not want one to think mistakenly that it is a singular because of this *dagesh*. See next note. The Babylonian grammarians who do not place a *dagesh* in it are in error.⁶⁴ in *mi-mennu* when it is singular and omit the *dagesh* when it is plural. I.E. says that the Palestinians who place a *dagesh* in both instances are correct. The meaning of the verse (v. 22) is the same as *ye shall be as God, knowing good and evil* (v. 5).⁶⁵ On the other hand, God might be saying what was in Adam’s mind.⁶⁶ The use of the term *of us* presents no problem. It is similar to *Let us make man in our image* (Gen. 1:26) and *Come, let us go down* (Gen. 11:7). God in all these cases is addressing the angels.

footnotes:
⁶³ The word mi-mennu
⁶⁴ The Babylonian grammarians, in contradistinction to the Palestinian grammarians, place a dagesh
⁶⁵ Man has become like an angel. See I.E.’s comments on verse 5.
⁶⁶ Adam now thinks that he has become as one of us.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:23:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:23:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:23:1)

**וישלחהו.** כל שלוח ואחריו מ"ם כמו גרוש והוא לגנאי כמו שלח מעל פני (ירמי' טו א), ולא כאשר אמר חכם גדול ספרדי שהוא לשון כבוד, כמו הולך. עמם לשלחם (בראשית יח טז), וכמו וישלחהו וילך בשלום (ש"ב ג כג), שאם כן יהיה כבוד האדמה גדל מכבוד גן עדן, ואם אמר למה נכתב "ויגרש את האדם" אם פירושו וישלחהו ויגרשהו, כן פירושו כאשר גרשו השכין את הכרובים

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
THEREFORE THE LORD GOD SENT HIM FORTH. When the word *shelach* (sent forth) is followed by a *mem*, it has a negative connotation and means banished, as in *cast them out* (shalach) of *My sight* (Jer. 15:1). The great Spanish scholar who interpreted *sent him forth* in our verse in a positive way, as in *and Abraham went with them to bring them* (le-shallecham) *on the way* (Gen. 18:16), and in *and he hath sent him away* (va-yeshallechehu), *and he is gone in peace* (II Sam. 3:23), erred. For if he was right then the place Adam was going to was a better place than the Garden of Eden. If this sage should ask, if the meaning of *sent him forth* is he banished him, then why does Scripture go on to say, *So He drove out the man* (v. 24)?⁶⁷ means *drove out*, then Scripture is being redundant. The answer is that when man was driven from the garden (v. 4), God placed the cherubim at the east of the Garden of Eden.⁶⁸

footnotes:
⁶⁷ If sent forth
⁶⁸ It does not relate that man was driven out, but rather tells that when man was driven out God did the following. It thus does not repeat verse 24.


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:23:2
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:23:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:23:2)

ומלת כרובים י"א כנערים, תרגום ארמית כרביא. ולפי דעתי שהיא מלת לל צורות כולם. ויחזקאל שאמר בתחלה ופני שור לא, התחלפה הצורה, שהעגל לא נעשה בימיו, ואח"כ באמרו פני הכרוב (יחז' יו"ד, יד) בה"א הידיעה הצורה צורת שור כאלו אמר הצורה שהזכרתי בתחלה על כן כל צורת שור כרוב, ואין כל כרוב צורת שור, והראייה הגמורה שאמר באחרונה "כי כרובים המה" (שם שם פסוק כ), ופה אמר הכרובים והם המלאכים הידועים, ובידם חרב יש לה להט ולה שתי פיות, וזה פי' המתהפכת, והמפרשים שאומרים כי על השמש דבר איננו אמת:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
[THE CHERUBIM.] Some say that cherubim means like images of youths,⁶⁹ 13b. The Talmud says that the Hebrew word *keruv* is like the Aramaic *ke-ravyah, ke* (like), *ravyah* (a child). which is the translation of the Aramaic *ke-ravyah*. However, I believe that the word is a general term for any image. Ezekiel, who first says that he saw the image of an ox (Ezek. 1:10) and later speaks of a cherub (Ezek. 10:14), refers to one and the same image. The image was not changed from that of an ox to that of a cherub because an ox would be a reminder of the sin of the golden calf, as this sin was not committed in Ezekiel’s day.⁷⁰ 13b states, “One verse says…*and they had the face of an ox* (Ezek. 1:10). Elsewhere it is written…*the face of a cherub* (Ezek. 10:14). Resh Lakish said: Ezekiel entreated concerning it and changed it into a cherub. He said before Him, Lord of the Universe, shall an accuser become an advocate.” I.E. notes that the Talmudic interpretation is not in keeping with the literal meaning of the Bible. When Ezekiel speaks of *the* cherub (10:14) he has in mind the image he had mentioned previously (the image of an ox in 1:10). Therefore every image of an ox is a cherub, but not every cherub is an image of an ox. Proof of this is that Ezekiel refers to all images that he had seen as cherubim (10:20).⁷¹ Our verse speaks of *the cherubim*, which implies the cherubim known to all, i.e., angels.⁷² They had a flaming two-edged sword in their hands. The meaning of *which turned every way* is that the sword had two edges. Those who say that the flaming sword refers to the sun are incorrect.⁷³

footnotes:
⁶⁹ See Hagigah
⁷⁰ Hagigah
⁷¹ The image of a man, lion, ox and eagle
⁷² The form of the cherubim was known to Biblical man (Krinsky).
⁷³ Those who put forward this interpretation hold that the phrase refers to the great heat of the sun which guarded the garden (Weiser).


###### Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:24:1
[Ibn Ezra on Genesis 3:24:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Ibn%20Ezra%20on%20Genesis/r/3:24:1)

**מקדם.** פי' ממזרח, ודע כי כל מה שמצאנו כתוב הוא אמת וכן היה ואין בו ספק, ויש לו סוד, כי מאור השכל, יצא החפץ ומהשני העולה למעלה, כי תנועת החפץ לפנים הוא גם עלה תאנה לאות ונקרא השלישי בשם הבחינה, כי בתחלה יש כח בלי מפעל, והמבין זה הסוד יבין איך יפרד הנהר, וזה סוד גן עדן, וכתנות העור גם יורה זה הסוד שיש יכולת באדם שיהיה לעולם, והמשכיל יבין כי זה כל האדם:

**Ibn Ezra's commentary on the Pentateuch, tran. and annot. by H. Norman Strickman and Arthur M. Silver. Menorah Pub., 1988-2004:**
AT THE EAST. *Mi-kedem* means at the east.⁷⁴ Note, the story of the garden of Eden is to be interpreted literally. There is no doubt that it happened exactly as described in Scripture. Nevertheless, it also has a secret meaning.⁷⁵, desire) frequently acts contrary to the intellect, due to the paradox of various faculties within man struggling for control. Volition (desire) is animated by the intellectual faculty but it is opposed by lust which originates from the appetitive and sensitive dimensions (Gen. 3:24).” Man’s goal in life is thus to seek “knowledge of God” and to subdue “all interfering passions” (p. 14). It alludes to the following: Intellect (the Garden of Eden)⁷⁶ gave birth to desire (the tree of knowledge). Desire gave birth to man’s actions. It is via his actions that man can elevate himself, for the force that propels his desire is in front of him.⁷⁷ The fig leaves prove this.⁷⁸ Man’s actions are also called the testing ground, for by them man is tried. Intellect and desire are only potential.⁷⁹ The one who understands the secrets of the tree of knowledge will understand the secret of the four rivers that divided into four parts (Gen. 2:10).⁸⁰ This is the secret of the Garden of Eden and the garments of skin.⁸¹ There is also an allusion in all of this to man’s potential immortality (the tree of life). The intelligent will understand that this is the ultimate purpose of man’s life on earth.⁸²

footnotes:
⁷⁴ The entrance to the garden was at the east (Weiser).
⁷⁵ This comment of I.E. is cryptic in the extreme. Our translation follows Weiser’s interpretation. Levine puts this comment of I.E. in the context of the latter’s philosophy. He writes that according to I.E., “wise persons recognize that their mission is to fulfill their soul’s will to return to the heavenly realm. Thus the will of a man controls the future of his soul. The will is not perfectly pure. Although man’s well being is contingent upon his making the correct choices, volition (chefetz
⁷⁶ Man’s intellect is his Garden of Eden (Kaputa).
⁷⁷ The sexual organs, the source of man’s desire, is in front of man (Weiser). Perhaps what I.E. means by “his desire is in front of him” is that man can control himself.
⁷⁸ They cover man’s sexual organs.
⁷⁹ Man’s actions are actual. They show whether man is guided by his desires or by his intellect.
⁸⁰ According to some medieval philosophers, man’s brain is divided into four parts, each governing a different aspect of man’s mental life, i.e., sensation, imagination, judgment and memory. According to Kaputa, I.E. held similar ideas. What he is saying is that all these functions have one source, man’s intellect, his Garden of Eden.
⁸¹ Man must control his desires.
⁸² Man is to live a life guided by his intellect so that he will attain immortality.