Was Eve Exempt?

In the Jewish tradition, there are four levels, represented by “The acronym PRDS…pronounced PaRDeS, a phrase which means ‘garden’ or ‘paradise’[1]” by which any Biblical passage can be read:

1) P’shat, the literal meaning;
2) Remmez, the symbolic meaning of a text, such as the ethical teaching, the moral or the allegorical parable that one can draw from a particular passage
3) Drash, the metaphorical meaning usually expressed through poetry and midrash;
4) Sod, the mystical or Kabbalistic understading[2].

Because of this, Jews are known for being “nit-picky” in their Biblical study. Minute details, such as why one word is used instead of another; the numerological value of a particular word; potential anagrams that can be extracted from the consonants; and various vowel combinations (since Biblical Hebrew does not use them) that are possible; are all examined to see the myriad ways in which they might relate to and expand upon our understanding of the text[3]. It is in this spirit of attention to the layered meaning of minutia that I have chosen to examine closely the second version of the creation myth, found in Genesis chapter 2.

The first thing that must be established is the chronology of Tree of Knowledge (TOK) ban. There is no mention of this prohibition at all AND Adam and Eve are created on the same day (1:26-27) in the first creation myth found in Genesis 1. In the second telling however, Deity is portrayed as speaking to Adam before the creation of Eve, or even animals. In this version, the earth cannot be created UNTIL Adam lives “These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground. (emphasis mine) (Genesis 2:4-5) In this second version Adam’s presence (and perhaps even Adam’s assistance) is a pre-requisite for the act of plant creation; a task which was God’s alone in Chapter 1[4]. After Adam’s creation in 2:7, the command “but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die” is given in 2:17. Adam is the only human being who is present to receive this prohibition. Eve is not created, in this version of the creation story, until 2:21-22; which means (to restate the obvious) that she was not present nor was she being addressed, when God speaks to Adam in 2:17.

From this point forward, and as we make our way towards the exit of humanity from Eden, we must- in true Jewish tradition- examine the minutia of the text. In this case, I’ll be paying close attention to the pronouns. In 3:1, the serpent asks Adam and Eve “Did God really say ‘you may not eat of any tree in the Garden?” And Eve’s response is an interesting one. She tells the serpent “of any tree in the Garden WE[5] may eat the fruit; but God said ‘of the fruit of the tree in the middle of it do not eat, and do not even touch it, or YOU will die.” (3:2-3) Eve does not say “we may eat…or we may die.” This may seem like splitting hairs, but in the Jewish tradition of Biblical exegesis, such differences matter. And this pattern continues.

When the serpent makes the claim that eating of the TOK is not fatal, Eve eats from the tree first. (3:4-6) This could be viewed as a form of poison control test, much like the royal food taster of medieval times. Eve (knowing that she has not been included in the TOK ban) takes the first bite and only when she does not die and thus determines that it is safe, offers it to Adam. After realizing their nakedness and forming clothing, Adam and Eve are called before God. Upon learning that they are now ashamed of their nudity, his response to each is different. Of Adam, God demands “Did you eat of the tree that I forbade you to eat?” (3:11) Only when Adam responds that he had simply eaten what Eve had given him, does God asks Eve “what is this that you have you done?” and she responds that the serpent tricked her. (3:13)

It is clear within the text that the TOK prohibition was placed upon Adam alone, however there seems to be an implication that while she was exempt from the ban itself, Eve was charged with enforcing it; much as in the husband and wife analogy I mentioned above. Because Eve utilized a common technique found within Jewish law called “putting a fence around the law[6]”, “and do not even touch it” (2:3) it seems to indicate that she was aware of Adam’s personal taboo and was attempting to enforce it in order to project him. This idea is carried out again through the consequences that God metes out to Eve. “I am doubling and redoubling your pains of pregnancy; with pain shall you bear children.” (3:16) To me, this is not so much a punishment as it is a paradigm shift. Humans tend to place a higher value on that which we had to earn.

God does not react to the fact that Eve herself ate of the fruit; only that she allowed Adam to do so. Eve’s erred not by partaking of the fruit of the TOK, but in allowing Adam to do so, when he had been warned that it might cause his death. Eve’s mistake was in failing to care properly for Adam- possibly because his creation came about with no effort or sacrifice on her part. By allowing Eve to bring forth her children in pain, God is instituting a mechanism by which Eve (and every mother after her) has a vested interest in the lives of her progeny…and is therefore likely to care for and protect them with more effort than she did for Adam. It is interesting to note that Eve was not named until AFTER the incident with the TOK and just before the couple is exiled. Names carry immense weight within the Jewish tradition and it is interesting to see what Adam chooses to name his wife. Rather than the stigma of a name that reflects her (historically interpreted) status as temptress or dupe; she is given the moniker Chava- a title that serves both to reinforce and to reaffirm her of the role she was created to fulfill and the immense responsibility she has been given: “Mother (syn: protector, caretaker) of Life.”



[1] ben Shaul, David. "Union of Torah Observant Ministries." 22 April 2008. What is Meant by Torah Observance: 4 Levels of Interpretation of the TNK #2. 5 January 2010 .
[2] ibid
[3] This is my own statement, but has been reviewed for accuracy by Rabbi Shlomo Chein of www.askmoses.com
[4] This is a direct reference to the incredibly powerful influence of agrarian culture on the development of the early Hebrew tribe; but that’s another topic for another day.
[5] Pronouns relevant to the thesis are bolded for emphasis
[6] “Many biblical precepts are expressed as broad principles without legalistic detail. For example, "work" is prohibited on the sabbath yet is never defined legally. This ambiguity, which allowed for some flexibility, was considered a liability by Pharisaic Judaism. In an attempt to make sure the command proper was never violated, the rabbis created secondary, rigid rules which, if followed, would theoretically prevent a person from ever violating the biblical command itself. This was known as "putting a fence around the law." Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary, available at http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionaries/bakers-evangelical-dictionary/law.html