Why is this incident inserted here? Re’m asks: How does Rashi know that the coats were made right at Adam and Chavah’s creation, to protect from cold and heat, giving rise to the question: “Why is this incident inserted here?” Perhaps the coats were made only after they sinned by eating from the tree, to cover their shame of being naked! This way, the verses are in proper sequence [and Rashi’s question does not arise]. It seems that Rashi knew it because it is written (v. 20), “The man called his wife’s name Chavah,” and subsequently, (v. 21) “And Hashem Elokim made for Adam and his wife leather coats.” Rashi explains that this verse “And man gave names...,” returns to the earlier narrative. As the naming of Chavah was before the sin, and is connected to “And Hashem made... leather coats,” we can conclude that right at their creation Hashem made them coats [to protect from cold and heat]. Thus, the coats were not made to cover their shame after they sinned. An alternative answer is: [Rashi knew it] because it is written, “Hashem made... leather coats and He clothed them.” Why, because they sinned, would Hashem have to clothe them Himself?! They should clothe themselves, just as they made for themselves loincloths. It should have written, “Hashem made... leather coats for clothing.” Perforce, Hashem made them coats right at their creation to protect from cold and heat. Re’m asks: [If they had coats from the beginning,] why were they “naked” (v. 25)? The answer is: According to the opinion (Bereishis Rabba 20:12) that כתנות עור means fingernail-like garments, smooth [and transparent], which cleaved to their skin, they were as naked. Although it was attached to their skin, their entire body was revealed, including the loins. And even according to the opinion (ibid) that the garments were of rabbit fur, to protect from cold and heat, still they were naked — for Adam was created in Tishrei (according to Rabbi Eliezer), or in Nisan (according to Rabbi Yehoshua), when it is neither cold nor hot; [thus they were not dressed.] They were not embarrassed to be naked since they did not yet eat from the tree. The serpent “saw them unclothed, indulging in marital relations unashamedly, and he coveted her.” We need not ask: If so, why did they take fig leaves to make loincloths? They should have worn the coats! [The answer is:] Indeed they could have. But just then the coats were not available to them and they did not want to stand naked for even a moment. In any case, this point [of when the garments were created] seems to be disputed. For it says in Pesachim 54a: “Ten things were created at twilight on Erev Shabbos... and some say: ‘Also Adam’s garments.’” The second view holds that the garments were created after they sinned, for they sinned in the tenth hour of the day, which is before twilight. But the first view could hold that the garments were created before the sin. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Indulging in marital relations. You might ask: Where does the verse allude to marital relations? The answer is: The verse could just say, “The two of them were naked.” Why does it add, “The man and his wife”? This implies that besides being naked, they acted as man and wife. (Ab’a)

More cunning... Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say, “More... than any”? Because being “More cunning than any” led to becoming “More cursed than any.”

Did He perhaps tell. [Rashi explained אף as “perhaps”] because it cannot mean “even more so,” coming as it does at the beginning of the serpent’s statement.

And, although he saw them... The Torah does not recount [that he saw them eat], but it must be so: otherwise, what did they eat? (Re’m) But this is no proof — perhaps they ate herbs and legumes! Rather, Rashi knows [that he saw them eat] because the serpent said, “You should not eat from all the trees of the Garden?” If he saw that they were eating only herbs and legumes, he should have said simply, “You should not eat from the trees of the Garden?” Since he said “all the trees,” he must have seen them eating other fruits. But he saw them eating sporadically: they would eat figs but not grapes, and then eat from another nearby tree. Since he saw them eating some fruits and leaving others, there was room for his question: Are you doing this out of choice, because the other fruits are not as good, or is it because Hashem commanded you not to eat from all the trees of the Garden — and therefore you eat only some of them?

He pushed her... If it were not so, why did she believe him when he said, “You certainly will not die,” and not contradict him?

So. too, there is no death in eating. This [the serpent’s argument] is puzzling: she might still die, for Hashem said, “On the day you eat from it you will certainly die,” and there is plenty of time left in the day! Another question: If [she thought] they would die for touching, then it goes without saying for eating. For one cannot eat without touching. If so, why does she [mention both and] say, “You shall not eat from it, neither shall you touch it”? It seems the answer is: [She thought that] for eating from it they would die, and for touching it they would fall sick immediately, and then grow more sick until they would die on that same day. When she saw that she did not fall sick from touching it, [she thought that] she surely would not die either. Some ask: What did the serpent prove by making her touch the tree and not die? In truth she was forbidden only on eating, not on touching, and she knew this herself! Why was she not afraid for her life [to eat]? Furthermore, why did she add to Hashem’s command? The answer is: The command was made to Adam, not to Chavah. But when Adam taught it to Chavah he warned her not to touch it either, for he knew that women are light-minded. Whereas she thought that Hashem actually forbade touching. Although Rashi says that she added, and in fact she added nothing to what Adam had told her in Hashem’s Name, nonetheless she should not have replied to the serpent more than what he asked her. [And in this way, she added.] He asked only about eating, not about touching! So when she saw that she did not die from touching — which she should have, according to her understanding of her husband’s command — she took of its fruit as well and ate. And some ask further: How does touching prove that for eating [she will not die]? She was forced to touch, since he pushed her. But she will eat willingly! The answer is: She thought that the tree was like a deadly poison. Anyone who eats from it will die, similar to the Tree of Life whose very fruit bestows life. Thus she said, “Neither shall you touch it.” She considered it like a very potent poison which, as is known, can be lethal upon touch. So the serpent pushed her and told her, “Just as there is no death in touching...” (source unknown) There is a famous question: Why did Chavah fool herself? She knew that she herself added the prohibition against touching, and that is why she did not die! The answer is: Chavah understood that Hashem’s prohibition against eating also included touching. This is similar to the verse (Vayikra 12:4), “She shall not touch anything holy,” which means, “She shall not eat...” (Nachalas Yaakov)

**Every craftsman...**Rashi is answering the question: On the contrary, why did Hashem not feed them the fruit so they will become wise and know of good and evil? Rashi answers: “Every craftsman resents his fellowcraftsman.”

**She “saw”...**Rashi is answering the question: What did she see now that she did not see before, as she did not yet eat from the tree? [The answer is: Here,] “seeing” means “contemplating.”

**To be...**You might ask: Why does Rashi not interpret [the phrases of our verse] in the same order that the serpent spoke to her? First he said, “Your eyes will open,” and then, “To be like a god.” The answer is: Since in the second phrase it is clearly written: “Tempting to the eyes,” this must refer to: “Your eyes will open.” And “Appealing as a means of wisdom” clearly refers to: “Knowers of good and evil.” Perforce, “The tree was good for food” refers to, “To be like a god.”

**So that she will not die...**Rashi knows this because it is written, “with her”.

Comes to include animal and beast. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why was death imposed upon the animals? But her intention was not that they should die.

**Refers to wisdom...**I.e., the wisdom is that of knowing. Now they knew what they had lost — the mitzvah of not eating from the Tree of Knowledge. (Re’m) It seems that this is referring to the wisdom of distinguishing between good and evil, as Rashi wrote earlier (2:25) that although Adam had the wisdom to give names, he did not have an evil inclination [and could not distinguish between good and evil] until he ate from the tree. When Rashi says, “As evidenced by the end of the verse,” he means that it does not say, “And they saw they were naked,” rather, “they knew.” I.e., they acquired knowledge. (Nachalas Yaakov)

That is the tree... Rashi knows this because it is written: “Fig leaves,” when the Torah could simply have written: “They sewed together leaves...” Rashi is also answering the question: Why did Adam take leaves from the tree he sinned with? He should have taken them from a different tree, so people will not know with which tree he sinned! For it is wrong to publicize the way in which one sinned, as it says in Berachos 34b: “It is impudent to publicize one’s sin.” Rashi answers: “The other trees prevented them...”

Why is the name of the tree not... Rashi means: Since it is written, “They sewed together fig leaves,” in order to tell us with what he sinned, why does it not state expressly which tree it was? Why only allude to it?

As He was walking. [The verse says only מתהלך but] Rashi added the word היה before it, since otherwise it is present tense, [whereas past tense is called for]. And Rashi added also a ש, שהיה, since מתהלך calls for a ש. (Re’m) The reason [that Hashem was walking through the Garden] is: Hashem did not want to punish him hastily, but after deliberation, as it says in Avos 1:1, “Be slow and deliberate in judgment.” (Divrei Dovid)

He knew... that he not be bewildered. In other words, Hashem wanted him to say, “I have sinned,” and repent in his heart. For Hashem wants [the wicked] to repent, not that they die. You might ask: Here Rashi says that Hashem spoke to Bilam for a similar reason. So why does Rashi explain in Parshas Balak that Hashem’s intent was to mislead him? The answer is: There as well, Hashem wished to enter into conversation, but [with a different intent:] He increased His speech with Bilam and said, “Who are these people with you?” to mislead him. (Re’m)

From where... You might ask: Why did Rashi not explain as he did earlier (v. 7), that [“naked’ means that] Adam was stripped of the command? The answer is: Hashem’s question, “Who told you that you are naked?” related to Adam’s statement of, “I was afraid because I was naked.” Adam’s nakedness caused his fear. And he could not mean “stripped of the command,” [i.e., that the command was no longer relevant to him,] since a man who has no command need not fear. A man must fulfill only what he is commanded, and will not be punished for transgressing what he has not been commanded! And if Adam was afraid because he transgressed his [original] command, he should have said clearly: “I was afraid because I transgressed the command.” Thus Rashi explains it here as the shame of being unclothed. Another answer is: The verse cannot mean, “Who told you that you are stripped of the command?” since Adam obviously was aware that he had transgressed. (Re’m) I heard a different explanation. The verse should be read: “Who told you, ‘Are you naked?’” In other words, Hashem is saying: I did not ask why you are naked, so why do you answer Me about more than what I had asked? When I said, “Where are you?” I was only asking whether you sinned by eating from the tree! (Tzeidah L’Derech)

With wonder. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise Adam should have simply answered, “Yes” to Hashem’s question. But since the question expressed wonder and astonishment, Adam responded to this by saying, “The woman... gave me of the tree and I ate.”

**From here.**You might ask: Why cannot every מסית exonerate himself with this claim? The answer is: The serpent was not forbidden to entice others to sin. He was punished only because of the sin that the others committed, due to him. Thus he could answer, “The words of the master...” But a מסית who is forbidden by the Torah to entice others to sin is transgressing Hashem’s command. This helps to answer Re’m’s question. (From my father’s manuscript. And Maharshal is quoted as saying the same.) You might ask: [Why was the serpent called a מסית?] It is stated in Sanhedrin 67a that a מסית is only someone who incites to idolatry! The answer is: The serpent said to Chavah, “You will become as gods,” — this is idolatry. (Chizkuni)

If he was cursed more than the animal... [The curse refers to] the length of the serpent’s gestation period, that it be longer than the gestation period of domesticated animals. The gestation period of domesticated animals is longer than the gestation period of wild beasts.

The gestation period of a snake [lasts] seven years. The calculation is as follows: The gestation period of a [wild] cat is fifty-two days, and that of a [domesticated] donkey is one year. Thus, animals are cursed seven times more than beasts [7 x 52 days = 364 days.] Thus the snake, was cursed seven times more than animals, and has a gestation period of seven years. But “From all the beasts” cannot mean more than a lion or viper, whose gestation is three years and seventy years, for if so the Torah should have written: “From all the beasts,” and not mention, “From all the animals.” [Since it mentions both, it means as explained.] (Re’m)

He had legs... For if he never had legs, why is crawling on his belly a curse? (Re’m)

Your intention... You might ask: Why was the serpent not concerned that Chavah would eat first, as he gave to her first? The answer is: The way of women is to honor their husbands by giving to them first, so the serpent reasoned that Chavah would do so — and once she sees him die, she will not eat! Alternatively, the serpent thought he would stop her from eating. Another answer: The serpent reasoned that Adam, who was commanded not to eat from the tree, would die. But the woman was not commanded, and would not die even if she ate. For it was to Adam that Hashem said: “But from the Tree of Knowledge... you shall not eat.”

And you would marry Chavah. [Rashi knows this] because “I will put hostility” implies that Hashem was punishing the serpent for loving her.

You will be unable to... We could say that Rashi is answering the question: Hashem cursed man separately. So why is man’s curse mixed here with the serpent’s curse? Rashi answers: It is entirely the serpent’s curse and disgrace, as it conveys that the serpent will be unable to stand upright. But Re’m explains that [Rashi is answering the question:] Why is, “And you [the serpent] shall strike him...” mentioned in the serpent’s curse? It is no curse! [Rashi answers that it conveys, “You will be unable to stand upright.”] And this point cannot be learned from, “On your belly you shall crawl,” since that teaches merely that his legs were cut off — but if he wanted to stand upright, perhaps he could. Thus the Torah says: “You shall strike him on the heel,” [to convey that he cannot stand upright].

But, even from there... Rashi is answering the question: It is written, “He shall strike you on the head, and you shall strike him on the heel,” implying that the only difference between man and snake is where they strike. What about the other difference? The man kills the snake but the snake does not kill the man! Therefore Rashi explains, “Even from there you will kill him.” (Re’m) Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: It is written, “He shall strike you on the head,” i.e., a blow which surely kills. And then it is written, “You shall strike him on the heel,” using the same word. But if the snake strikes the man’s heel, he will not die. Why does the same word connote death here, but not there? Thus Rashi explains, “Even from there you will kill him.”

The form נשיפה is used. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it not say expressly, “You shall bite him (תשכנו)”? (Gur Aryeh) But Re’m explains: ישופך is an expression that connotes crushing [a blow] to the [snake’s] head. However, תשופנו is an expression that connotes the hissing of a snake. Nevertheless, for the sake of eloquence, the Torah often equates words [that sound alike] even though their meanings differ.

The pain of rearing children. Why was she cursed first with the pain of rearing children and then with the pain of pregnancy, which is chronologically out of sequence? Because at that time, they [already] had children, as it says in Sanhedrin 38b: “Two people entered the bed, and four left it.” And it says (4:1), “The man knew his wife,” on which Rashi comments: “This had already occurred before the previous narrative.” (See Divrei Dovid)

You will not have the audacity... Although the Gemara calls this a praiseworthy trait for women, we could say that this means she is praiseworthy for not transgressing Hashem’s command, as she was cursed by Hashem not to demand relations. (Maharshal)

All will come from him and not from you. Why does Rashi explain at such length, when he already said, “You will not have the audacity...”? It is to say that all depends on the husband. If she does not want [relations] and he does, he can compel her. But if he does not want and she does, she cannot compel him. Thus Rashi explained: “All [the initiative] will come from him and not from you.”

Comparable to one who adopts... The text of Rashi should read: “A second explanation: This is comparable to one who adopts evil ways...” [This correction must be made] because the first view holds that the curse was on man, by means of the soil, whereas the analogy conveys that the curse was on the soil, since man was created from it. A question arises: Here Rashi says that the earth was cursed because of [man’s sin], but earlier (1:11) Rashi said that it was because the earth disobeyed Hashem’s command. The answer is: Both sins caused the earth to be cursed. (If for its own sin alone, the earth would be cursed to give one-third of its regular produce. But [the curse of] thorns and thistles were for both their sins.) (Devek Tov)

Kundes and thistles. The Aruch explains that these are bitter vegetables which are prepared [i.e., made edible] by stewing. And kundes is called kardi.

Which require special preparation to be eaten. Rashi says this because afterwards it says, “And you will eat the herbs of the field.” I.e., you will have to subsist on these, since whatever seeds you sow, only these will sprout. Thus we must say that these are edible after preparation. The verse cannot not mean thorns and thistles exclusively, for it is written afterwards, “And you will eat the herbs of the field.” [How are there herbs,] if only thorns and thistles**sprout?

Does it not state in his blessing... In the blessing it is written (1:29): “I have given you all seed-yielding herbs,” which are food for man. But here it says, “You will eat the herbsof the field.” I.e., even if you sow your garden with legumes and vegetables — food for man — it will sprout for you herbs of the field which are animal fodder. And you will be forced to eat them. (Nachalas Yaakov)

After you will toil... It does not mean that you will eat bread mixed with sweat.

**A play on the word חיה [alive].**Rashi is answering the question: Why did he not name her חיה? Thus he explained, “A play on the word...”

Smooth. חלקים is from the same root as חלוק, robe. In other words, cloaks of fingernail-like material cleaving to their skin.

**He is unique in the terrestrial as I am unique in the celestial.**Re’m raised a difficulty with this, but it seems that Rashi is saying: Hashem is unique in heaven, for His knowledge includes all: intellect, knowledge (to distinguish between true and false), and knowledge of good and evil (to distinguish between proper and improper). So too with man on earth: his intellect, coming from heaven, enables him to distinguish between true and false, and by eating from the Tree of Knowledge enables him to distinguish between proper and improper. But animals and beasts, although they ate from the Tree of Knowledge, cannot distinguish between right and wrong — only between beneficial and harmful, as they flee from harm and pursue what is beneficial. Thus, man is unique on earth as Hashem is in heaven, for the angels cannot distinguish between right and wrong, only between true and false. Therefore, Adam “must be prevented from reaching out his hand,” as he is “likely to lead people astray after him.”

If he would live forever... [You might ask:] Once Adam was given a mate why would people claim that he is a god, according to what Rashi explained on (2:18), “It is not good for the man to be alone”? The answer is: If he had no mate, people would err on their own. But with a mate, he could still mislead people, since he has the knowledge of good and evil and lives forever. (Nachalas Yaakov)

**To the east of Gan Eden.**The מ of מקדם causes it to mean “to the eastern side.” Thus it means, “To the east of Gan Eden.” And “Outside the Garden” means that the Cherubim themselves were outside the Garden. If they were inside the Garden, on its eastern side, man could enter the Garden until he came close to them. Since they were outside of the Garden, he could not enter at all.

Which had sharpness, to frighten him. להט means a shiny appearance. Since this appearance cannot exist without a sword, Rashi says, “The rotating sword” — which had להט. As if it stated, “A rotating sword which has a להט appearance when it rotates.”