And the serpent was more cunning, etc.: Rashi explained in the name of Midrash Rabbah that it was jealous of them, in that it saw them copulating together and desired her. But this is a wonder! As behold, every creature only desires its species, as it is found in Tractate Bava Metzia 91b: "Its species - it is drawn after its species." And behold the serpent was not lacking its female. And if it was on account of their having intercourse before the eyes of all, the serpent also did not know shame. Rather the matter is that it sensed that the clinging of the women to her husband was not like its female to it, which only occurred at the time of arousal for copulation. And that is only by happenstance and preparation for the thing. Which was not the case with the woman, who constantly clung to him: Given that she was the bone of his bones, the clinging was even more than a brother and sister. For they too are one flesh. However they are nevertheless not truly so like the first woman to Adam, who was like a limb to the head. And it was jealous of this. And behold the matter is understood that the serpent never spoke. For if it had originally spoken but was cursed to be dumb and silent, why is this curse not mentioned? Moreover, speech depends on intelligence, and as per Rashi's explanation of, "and so man became a living soul" Genesis 2:7) - with speech and intelligence. And likewise did Onkelos translate, "With a speaking spirit." Behold man was unique in this virtue. However it was the constellation of the serpent that clothed himself with jealousy and spoke at that time from the throat of the serpent. As every species from all that was created - even the botanic - has a constellation; and that is the angel that is appointed upon that species to protect it and grow it, so that it not cease from the world. And this is like the Sages, may their memory be blessed, said, "You have no [blade of] grass below without its constellation above striking it and saying to it, 'Grow!'" And the constellation of the serpent was like [the serpent]; as it was jealous of man's clinging to his Creator, may He be blessed. And it is just as we explained in the previous section, that Adam clung so greatly to God, like a portion that always yearns for its source; which is not the case with an angel. It is just separated and it is not clinging and yearning for His light, may He be blessed, except for at the time designated for song and that which is similar. And the angel was jealous about Adam; and the physical serpent about his wife. And [about] that which all of this is not explained in Scripture, the Ramban has already written, in Parashat Bechukotai - and we brought it earlier (Haamek Davar on Bereishit 1:1) - that regarding things that are not grasped by everyone, the Torah only spoke about it by hinting.

Even though God said, "You shall surely eat from every tree of the Garden" (Genesis 2:16), nevertheless...

You will not eat from all the trees of the Garden: And the intent is that, in truth, Adam and Chavah had still not eaten anything. And that is because Adam - even though he was at that time in a place that it was necessary to use his senses for eating and for sex, according to the need of the creation which was created to be settled - nevertheless, they were like Moshe, our teacher, after he descended from the mountain. As he also had use of his senses for eating like all of Israel. And even regarding sex, had the Holy One, blessed be He, not warned him, "and you, stand with Me," he would not have separated himself from [his wife]. But he was nevertheless very close, to be clinging to the Divine Presence anytime he wanted. And at the time that he was clinging to the Divine Presence, he did not desire to eat at all. And likewise was it with Adam, so he no longer desired to eat. And so too was the woman clinging to Adam, the life of her spirit. So they were satiated from love. Hence the serpent came with a temptation: That, behold, the world and its fullness was not created for nothing; and it is not the will of God that they not need the pleasures of the world. And if so, it is not fitting that they be engrossed in the love of God and in clinging. As it reduces and disturbs all the physical pleasures and it is against God's will. As behold, He said, "You shall surely eat from every tree of the Garden." And the temptation of the evil impulse is like this in every generation, as is well known. At first, it removes the clinging to the Torah through [the fulfillment] of some commandment or something else which is truly correct for other people. And after it drags him from the study hall, it continues to proceed and tempt.

From the fruit of the trees of the Garden we may/shall eat: In truth, the clinging of the woman to Adam was only at the time that she stood with him, as is the nature of a portion that yearns for the group at the time it sees it. And at that time that the serpent spoke with her, Adam had gone away from her. So she felt a desire to eat, and said that she would eat. And regarding the clinging of Adam to his Maker, she did not feel it. Therefore she said, "'Certainly 'we shall eat.'" And she said, "From the fruit of the tree of the Garden"; and not like the language of God, "from every tree of the Garden" (Genesis 2:16) - which implies even the benefit from the wood, as I wrote above (Haamek Davar on Genesis 2:16). And that is since Adam told her that she only eat the fruit; given that she did not know to be careful with the destruction of the tree, since she did not have human knowledge.

But of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the Garden: And she did not specify it - "But from the tree of knowledge of good and evil" - since Adam had not explained to her that it was the tree of knowledge of good and evil. As he was concerned, lest she pine to eat it. For only Adam, who clung to God with love, did not desire to do good for itself, since God's will was that he not know good and evil. But Adam had to concern himself about revealing the cause and the reason to the woman, who did not know about the love of God. Hence he simply said to her, "of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the Garden." And do not ask, "If so, the tree of life is also included in this." As, in truth, with this, we can understand that which Onkelos translated above (Onkelos Genesis on Genesis 2:9), "and the tree of life was in the middle of the Garden; and the tree from which the fruit, if eaten, gives knowledge (to differentiate) between good and evil"; and he did not explain about eating the fruit of the tree of life. However it is shown from this that the tree of life does not [have] fruit at all, but rather leaves for medicine. [This is] like the way of [the true] purpose, which is not pleasurable to the palate, but is rather pleasure and enjoyment of God. That is not the case with the tree of knowledge of good and evil - the purpose brings physical enjoyment. Because of that, when Adam said, "But from the fruit of the tree," she understood through it, that she was only prohibited from the tree that had fruit in it. But it appears to me that Adam was not concerned about this - that she not also eat from the tree of life. However it was worthwhile to distance her from that place. And because of that, he also said, "and do not touch it." And we have already explained that this is hinted to in the word of God, that He forbade [the tree] also for benefit. But [Adam] explicitly warned about this, and said, "lest you die." As he could not say, "since you will die" certainly, as they would not die for the touching alone, but rather lest they would come from this to eating. And all the more so [is this the case] according to our words - that he warned her about the two trees, lest she eat from the tree of knowledge and die. But she did not know the intent, as to why he used an expression of doubt (lest). So she just said that Adam told her, "lest you die." And from this, the serpent found room to deny [it]. And note that Adam said to her, "But of the fruit," because only from them is there a concern about death .

You certainly will not die: How is it possible that there is a doubt for the Creator? Hence He is only being like someone intimidating and threatening because he does not want [it]. And such is the temptation of the evil impulse at all times - that the punishments will not be so great.

And the eyes of both of them were opened: To see what is fit to be the way of the world, and what is not fit. Since even though the love of God wizens greatly, it nevertheless diverts the eye from the way of the world. And that is as it is found in Eruvin 54b, "They said of Rabbi Elazar ben Pedat that he would sit and engage in Torah study in the lower marketplace while his cloak was lying in the upper marketplace." And because of that, the man did not understand that it was not proper to stand naked in front of God. And all the more so did the woman not have [understanding of this] at all, but rather only [acted out of] love for her husband.

And you will become as gods, knowing good and evil: Like the angels who intend [to act] in the name of God, but are separate. And their service of the Creator, may He be blessed, is because they know that their mission is [the source of] their existence in the world, but after they do their mission, they are nullified. And you shall also be knowing [what is] good for yourselves and evil (bad) for yourselves.

That the tree was good for food: Given that she was only warned by Adam about the fruit, she permitted herself to take from the tree (bark) and tasted its good taste. And from that, she understood how great was the taste of the fruit.

And that it was desirable to the eyes: They explained in [Bereishit] Rabbah, Chapter 19:5, "From here, [we understand] that it was good for the eyes." It added to the understanding of these words - that they do not have a straightforward meaning, since desire is rooted in the heart and not in the eyes. Rather the explanation is, for the sake of the eyes. So it is desirable for the sake of the eyes, since it is good for the eyes, like its literal meaning - that the eyes would see more brightly than they did [before]. And this is also included in the statement of the serpent, "your eyes will be opened" - that the eyes would be opened to see from further.

And that the tree was enticing to contemplate: As she acquired intellect from it. And it is as it is found in [Bereishit] Rabbah (19:5), "From here, [we understand] that it added wisdom." And the matter is like its literal meaning, that human knowledge was added to her by eating from the tree. And it is as I wrote adjacently, that the amazing wisdom that Adam had until now was not natural human intellect. Rather it was because he clung to his God that he grasped everything though the holy spirit; but he did not have human wisdom. It follows that the woman - who did not at all know from clinging to, and love of, God - did not have human knowledge. Because of that, they did not know embarrassment from walking around naked. But she saw that human intellect was added to her from the tree of knowledge.

And she took of its fruit and she ate: And she could not strengthen herself over the enticement to attain these three things, and also ate from the fruit.

And she also gave it to her husband with her: Since at the time of her eating, her husband was not with her, as I wrote above. For had he been with her, he would not have allowed her to get into this at all - on account of his clinging to God. But he was not there then, and she did what she did. And with his coming, she gave it to her husband with her as well.

And the eyes of both of them were opened: He also acquired strong physical sight. Also...

And they realized that they were naked: Natural human intellect was added to them, without clinging. For, in truth, from that moment, he lost his clinging to God and become like a person [today]. However he was a great sage, according to the nature of this tree that adds human intellect. So he understood that it is not honorable to walk around naked. And they also knew how to sew fig leaves with human intellect. But it was all from human intellect and knowledge. And hence both of them were on one level: He descended from his level of wisdom of the holy spirit and [descended to the level of] natural wisdom with human knowledge; whereas she ascended to human knowledge. In fact, she became smart [before] the man. And that is like the nature of a woman throughout the generations - that she arrives at her complete intelligence more quickly than a man. Because of that, she becomes an adult at twelve, and a man at thirteen. However the man became wiser than the woman with human knowledge, since he [drank] the wine which is the essence of the fruit; whereas she ate the grapes.

And they heard the voice: The rule is that in a place where, relative to the recipient, it is not fit for there to be a revelation of the Divine Presence, but the time nevertheless necessitates a revelation of the Divine presence, there is a sounding of a [loud] voice. It is like the metaphor of the Sages, may their memory be blessed, "A coin in an [otherwise empty] barrel calls, 'Kish, kish' (makes much noise)." And for that reason, they said in Sotah 9b concerning Shimshon, that the Divine Presence was beating in front of him like a [bell] clapper. And that is because he was not properly prepared - regarding the separation from desire for a woman - for the attainment of the holy spirit; but he attained the holy spirit nevertheless. So behold, up until now, Adam was clinging to the Divine Presence; and the woman did not see or know what the revelation of the Divine Presence was at all, but was rather like a monkey. However, from the time they ate from the tree of knowledge, both of them understood the greatness of that thing.

Moving in the Garden at the breeze/to the direction of the day: It is like the explanation of Rashi, to the side of the sun. The explanation is that the sun is called, day - like the language of the Gemara, Pesachim 12, "the sixth hour, the day, stands at the meridian." And Rashi explained, [day, as] the sun. And that is Scripture's explantion in I Chronicles 26:17, "north of the day, four" - meaning north of the rising of the sun. And see what I wrote in the Book of Numbers 28:3, according to the Sages, may their memory blessed - that it is to the side of the sun. And the movement of the Divine Presence was exactly towards the direction of the day, to teach him knowledge. Not like the man was until then, as Adam's practices in the world were above the governance of the sun, like those of Moshe and Israel in the wilderness. But now he was under the sun, and like the language of Scripture in Ecclesiastes 1:3, "What profit has a man of all his toil wherein he toils under the sun." However the providence of the Holy One, blessed be He, is nevertheless over nature itself, that it should be according to the acts of people - as I wrote earlier concerning the making of the firmament on the second day. And that is why it is written, "moving" (mithalech), and not, "going" (holech). It is in fact because the acts of people direct the providence of God over the day, which is the governance over nature. And this is referred to with the mitpael [verb structure], as it is written in Parashat Bechukotai (Leviticus 26:12), "And I will move (hithalachti) among you" - and it is explained there. And in the Book of Samuel (I Samuel 12:2) the explanation of, "behold, the king moves (mithalech) before you," is also that the knowledge of the people is what draws the king to walk in front of them to the place that they are [moving].

And the man and his wife hid themselves (lit., himself): It should have been, "hid themselves!" Moreover, the words, "in front of the Lord, God," are superfluous. So it comes to teach us that each one hid on their own, in order to protect their nakedness with branches and leaves of the trees, so that their nakedness not be seen at the time that the Holy One, blessed be He, would stand with them. But if they would sit together, it is impossible that the leaves would cover so much that her flesh would not be seen, since it is nakedness also for Adam. Hence they distanced themselves from one another and only needed that they not be truly naked, revealing their [essential] nakedness. And that is the meaning of, "in front of the Lord, God": Since they understood that they would would meet Him. However they did not flee and run away because of fear of the punishment, but rather because of the fear of God and the awe of His glory, to stand in front of Him while revealing nakedness.

And He called: Every, "and He called," is an expression of love - as it is taught at the beginning of Torat Cohanim. (And see what I wrote on the book of Exodus 8:21.) And it is found explicitly in Vayikra Rabbah, Chapter 1:9, "'And He called to Moshe' (Leviticus 1:1) - and is it not also written about Adam, 'And the Lord God, called to Adam?'" It is clear from this that the Holy One, blessed be He, did not punish [Adam] as someone volitional and transgressing contemptuously. For behold, God knew that it was on account of the woman. So it is from this reason that He did not punish him with death on that day as He had warned him, but rather judged him as [someone] inadvertent. And that which He said to him (Genesis 3:19), "until your return to the ground" - He did not say it as a punishment. As behold, [even] without a punishment, man returns to the dirt by nature - except by way of the supernatural power of the tree of life; or [with] one who is above nature, like Chanoch or Eliyahu. But the nature of man is to return to his dirt (and as I wrote above 2:9); and the punishment was only, "on the day that you eat from it, etc." (Genesis 2:17) - which only implies if he ate [it] volitionally. This is the straightforward understanding of the matter, even though it is known that there are other opinions about this. But the opinion of our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, about the understanding of, "and He called," is as I have written.

And I was afraid because I was naked: He explained that he did not run away because of fear that he would be punished, but rather because he was naked and it is not respectful to the Divine Presence. And that is awe of the sublime.

From the tree whereof I commanded you: And He did not say, "From the tree of knowledge." As in truth there is nothing in the tree of knowledge to cause him to sin, and that it have impure properties in it, like in all the types of non-kosher food, orlah (fruit from a three less than three years old) and that which is similar. Rather it is that the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded man to be on that level of clinging to Him, which is impossible when he attains human knowledge - unless it is with great exertion, like [with] the few people of great stature. And, if so, the impropriety is that he transgressed a command.

And I ate: This is like a confession; as if he is saying, "I sinned, as I ate." And it is like Shaul said (I Samuel 15:24), "I have sinned, as I have transgressed, etc. for I feared the people." Behold he intermingled the apology and the confession together. So too did Adam apologize - that he did not, God forbid, eat [it] contemptuously, but nevertheless, "Behold I sinned and I ate." And likewise is the explanation about the statement of the woman, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate" (Genesis 3:13).

To the serpent: God did not speak to the serpent but rather to his constellation; and that is like [talking to] the serpent itself.

From all the beasts and from all the animals of the field: As a beast, which is domesticated; and an animal, which is wild - are different in their sustenance: What is good for this type is lacking for that type, and what is good for that type is lacking for this type. The food of domesticated beasts is the responsibility of its owners, so the owners prepare everything that is tasty and useful for it. Whereas the main pleasures of the animals are prey and meat, which it only scarcely and occasionally attains And when it does not have [such food], it perforce nourishes itself with that which is disagreeable to it. In exchange for this, the animal moves with its head raised, according to its worth. For it does not have a yoke upon it, which is not the case with a beast - its head is bent and subservient to man. So the Holy One, blessed be He, cursed the serpent - that it should have both of the disadvantages together; and even the disadvantage itself be worse than with the two of them. So the explanation of, on your belly you shall crawl, is that it is the disadvantage in the beast, but much worse than with the beast. And dust you shall eat all the days of your life. The serpent also has a food it desires. As it is found in Avodah Zarah 29a - that it is prepared to give its life for wine, water and milk. But it does not attain this pleasure, so its food is perforce only dirt. So it is worse than the animal, because when [an animal] does not attain prey, it eats grasses and leaves - as I wrote above 1:30 - whereas the serpent's default food is dirt. This is the straightforward meaning of the thing. But in the Gemara, Yoma 75a, the Sages, may their memory be blessed, additionally explained what is included from, all the days of your life - since it is superfluous. So they explained that even when it does attain its delicacies, it tastes the taste of dirt, which spoils the taste of the food that is most tasty to it. And another [opinion there is] that it is not satisfied until it eats dirt. And with this, it is worse than an animal - for if it has prey, it is not forced to eat something that is not tasty to it.

And I will put enmity between you and the woman: It should be, "There shall be!" But it is since the serpent is actually found among women, as it is found in Bereishit Rabbah, Chapter 98:14 - and also in her sleep, it loves to suckle her milk and does not hurt her - however when she awakens, she runs away from it; and it also runs away, as if he became her enemy. And this is the metaphor, "I will put": After it loved her and was used to being with her, it became her enemy.

He shall strike you on the head: First he will try to strike you.

And you shall strike him on the heel: In the end, you will also attempt to strike him. But without that, a serpent does not hurt without a "charm" from above.

Your itzabon: Its explanation is not that it is an expression of pain, but rather an expression of toil - as in, "From all toil (etzev) there is some gain" (Proverbs 14:23). As even though they explained it in the Gemara, Berakhot (30b), Chapter 4, as an expression of lowly spirit - nevertheless the Sages, may their memory be blessed, explained in Bereishit Rabbah, Chapter 89:2, that it is an expression of toil. So the explanation of, your itzabon, is your toil - that you should toil and labor. This is as it is written with Adam (Genesis 3:17), "with itzabon shall you eat of it." However with the woman, the labor is not for sustenance, since it is surely the husband that sustains her. Rather it is in her nature to serve her husband, or to labor in order to attain jewelry and that which is similar.

You will give birth to children with etzev: Both birth and the toil of raising [children] most of the time are included in this. And so did the Sforno explain.

Your longing will be for your husband: According to the straightforward understanding, the woman always yearns to find favor in the eyes of her husband. And this is the exact explanation of the term, "to your husband." And so did the Sages, may their memory be blessed, explain in Bereishit Rabbah 20:7: "There are four longings. The longing of a woman is only for her husband. The longing of the evil impulse is only for Kayin and his friends." And the explanation about this is that it yearns that they follow it. "The longing of rain is only for the land." The explanation is that the land benefit and be saturated from the rain. "And the longing of the Holy One, blessed be He, is only for Israel" - that they should follow Him. In this way, man is distinct from woman: The man does not concern himself that he should find favor in the eyes of his wife, but all of the woman's [energy] is that the man should be pleased with her. And if so, she is auxiliary to him.

And he will rule over you: Even though she subjugates herself for free, he nevertheless rules.

Because you listened to your wife, etc.: He did not begin [by] saying, "Because you ate from the tree, etc." Rather, because He did not punish him like He said - "for on the day you eat from it, you will surely die" (Genesis 2:17) - hence God explained to him that if he had eaten contemptuously, it certainly would have been fit to punish him immediately. And this is like the way of Scripture with Nadav and Avihu, "when they came close before the Lord and died" (Leviticus 16:1). Such that it was their coming close before the Lord that caused them to die immediately for their sin, since they brought a strange fire; and it is explained there. If so, also with Adam who was then standing there close in front of the Lord - if he had sinned volitionally, it would have been fit that he would die immediately. Hence God said to him, "Because you listened to your wife, etc." - and that is only inadvertent - your punishment is only that which is required according to your status now.

The ground will be cursed for your sake (beavurkha): The literal meaning of every, "for the sake of (beavur)," is for his good, so that it be like this. And it is like in, "for the sake of your blessing me" (Genesis 27:19). And here too, its literal meaning is, for your good. For after the love of God left you, the best thing before you is that the ground be cursed, and you come to, "with toil you shall eat from it" - with labor and with much work.

All the days of your life: That you should not think that there only be a need for the working of the land the first time. About this, He said, "all the days of your life." And all of this is for man's good, that he should not go away from the paths of God. And it is like they said (Avot 2:2), "Toil in both of them causes iniquity to be forgotten." And it is like I wrote in Parashat Shelach on the verse, "the Land is very very good" (Numbers 14:7), see there.

And thorns: There will be times when the toil will not benefit you. However you will not die of hunger, but rather, "you will eat, etc."

By the sweat of your face, etc.: Until here, He was speaking about the labor until the wheat berries form. But now, He is adding that also from the time of harvesting until [it becomes] bread, it comes with sweat. For baking is included as a type of work, and it causes much sweat.

For you are dust: We have already explained that this is not a punishment. And, just the opposite, God is explaining to him that He is not punishing him with death, since he did not eat volitionally. Rather, death is natural, since you are surely dust, etc.

And the man, etc.: Now, after he had sensed about her that her nature had changed. As she had [previously] been clinging only to him, but now she had her own sense of good and evil. Hence, he called her Chavah.

Because she was the mother of all the living (chai): If we will explain [it as], "the mother of all people, the expression, "living," is not exact; and is only man called living? Moreover, why did he call her this name after she ate from the tree of knowledge. Rather the explanation of, "all the living," is like that which the Rosh wrote (on Berakhot, Chapter 6, Paragraph 8) in explanation of the blessing, "Who blessed souls, etc. to give life with them to the soul of all the living" - that its meaning is that it is not the essence and necessity of man's life, but rather that which comes as a delight. And similar to this did we explain the meaning of, living, a few times earlier (on Genesis 2:10) - that its meaning is joy and the fulfillment of desire. And behold until the woman had human knowledge, she only wanted what was necessary to live, like a beast. Now that she attained human intellect, "she was" - the explanation of which is, she became - "the mother of all the living," [meaning] she brought forth all the delights of people. And because of that, she is called, "Chavah," and not, Chayah - since it is closer to the words of the reason: That is because most of the time, that delight changes into an obstacle and something that causes damage to people. And they said similarly to this in Bereshit Rabbah (20:11) - that it is [related] to the expression chiviya, meaning a snake that bites the heel.

Garments of skins and clothed them: The explanation of the verse is that the garments were not made in such a way that they would dress themselves. Rather the Holy One, blessed be He, dressed them. Meaning, they were made on their flesh, so that they would not come to revealing nakedness at the time that they were dressing themselves and would not be able to cover themselves among the leaves of the trees, as was the case at that time - as I wrote above (Haamek Davar on Genesis 3:8).