Seeing as the clothes that Hashem made for Adam and Chavah (in 3:21) were to keep them warm (See Sifsei Chachamim), why does the Torah not insert that Pasuk here?
Rashi: The Torah inserts the episode with the snake here to teach us that the snake chose to entice Chavah because seeing them openly being intimate created in him a desire for her, 1 and after the completion of the Parshah of the snake it inserts the ?missing Pasuk?. 2
Presumably, this means that he planned to have Adam killed so that he could marry Chavah. Refer also to 3:15:1:1.
By the same token, it inserts Pasuk 3:20, where Adam named his wife Chavah, and not here after Pasuk 24. The question remains however, why the Torah inserted Pasuk 20 there before Pasuk 21?
Since when do snakes talk?
Seforno and Moshav Zekenim (in 3:4) #1: It was not a snake that enticed Chavah, but the Yeitzer ha'Ra (alias the Satan and the Angel of Death). Just as we find Pesukim that refer to a king as a lion, and the enemy as venomous snakes that cannot be charmed (Yirmiyahu 4:7 & 8:17), so too here, the Torah refers to the Yeitzer ha'Ra as a snake. A snake does little good, and in spite of its small size, does much harm. 1
Moshav Zekenim (in 3:4) #2: The snake spoke its own language, and Chavah was able to understand it. 2
Moshav Zekenim (in 3:4) #3: "Va'Yehi Kol ha?Aretz Safah Achas" (Bereishis 11:1) includes the animals. All used to speak Lashon ha'Kodesh.
Citing the Midrash that Sama'el (the angel of Eisav) was riding on the snake, the Seforno explains that this signifies the combination of desire and the Yeitzer ha'Ra's use of fantasy, which fills a person with desire that leads him to sin. Refer also to 3:6:1:4. This also explains the Torah's description of the snake as the most cunning of all the creatures - with reference to its ability to make a person sin by means of the fantasies that he creates. Refer to 3:1:3:1 & 3:1:3:1 2
.
See also Oznayim la?Torah.
What are the connotations of ?veha?Nachash Hayah Arum??
Targum Onkelkos and Targum Yonasan: It means ?The snake was cunning?.
Moshav Zekenim: It means - not thst the snake was cunning, but that it was naked - hairless. Therefore it desired Chavah, whose skin is more similar to its own. In 2:25, the Torah describes Adam and Chavah too as ?Arumim?.
In what way was the snake more Arum (cunning) than all the other animals?
Seforno: By playing on Chavah's imagination (Refer to 3:2:1:1*), as the Pesukim clearly illustrate.
Yerushalmi Kidushin, 4:1: Inasmuch as it planned to cause Adam and Chavah to sin - it figured that Adam and Chavah would eat the forbidden fruit and die, and it would inherit the whole world.
In what way was the Nachash (snake) different than the other animals, and how did it differ from Adam?
Maharal (Chidushei Agados, Vol. 2. p. 37, to Sotah 9a): The original snake was also unique among the animals, and it stood erect, like Adam. Adam, however, was the loftiest creation. Additionally, Adam was wholesome (Tamim) before Hashem, whereas the Nachash was cunning (Arum). 1
Why did Hashem create such a despicable creature as the Nachash?
Maharal (Chidushei Agados, Vol. 2. p. 37, to Sotah 9a): It is impossible for a physical creation to reach complete perfection. Opposite man, who was created complete, Hashem created the Nachash - to carry Adam's deficiencies.
In the words ?Af ki Amar Elokim ? ? the word ?Af seems to have no meaning. Why did the snake insert it?
Oznayim la?Torah: Since, according to the snake?s contention, there ws no Hashem was angry with them.
Why was the Nachash the agent to test and entice man?
Maharal #1 (Chidushei Agados, Vol. 2. p. 37, to Sotah 9a): Hashem created the Nachash to carry man's deficiencies. It sought that man would succumb to desire, and become deficient himself.
Maharal #2 (Nesivos Olam, Nesiv ha'Avodah Ch. 10, p. 107): Just as Adam is king over the lower realms, the Nachash ruled over the animal kingdom, and stood erect. Because of their common attributes, it enticed man. 1
Maharal: Chazal teach regarding a person who does not bow at Modim, that after his death, his spine will turn into a snake (Bava Kama 16a). When a person dies, his majesty is removed, just as it was removed from the Nachash in our Perek. However, a person who bows and gives thanks to Hashem has already deferred his own kingship to that of Hashem.
What sort of tree was the Tree of Knowledge?
Maharal (Derech Chayim 4:21, p. 204): Refer to 2:9:2.4:1.
Why did the Nachash speak to Chavah and not to Adam?
Rashi (in Pasuk 14): Because of the principle ?Nashim Da?atan Kalos? - and they are therefore more easily talked into sinning and he knew that she would subsequently know how to talk Adam into sinning too.
Seforno: Because the resolve of a woman is weaker than that of a man - due to the fact that she has a more vivid imagination - which was what the Nachash played on. 1
Oznayim la?Torah: Because it is easier to entice a woman, whose decisions are governed by her emotions (the heart) than to entice a man, whose decisions are governed by calculation (the brain). 2
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "The Torah should have continued with, 'Hashem made garments for Adam and his wife.' (3:21)" But aren't the verses in fact in the correct order? Hashem only made clothing for them when they needed it, after they had sinned?
Gur Aryeh: Rashi is pointing out what logically should follow the preceding verse 1 - "They were both unclothed, Adam and his wife, and they were not ashamed" (2:25). Why would the verse emphasize this, 2 if not to tell us that Hashem later clothed them? Rather, Rashi answers, the Torah explains that it was this sight which led the snake to entice them.
Rashi writes: "[Because the snake was] most cunning of all; [at the end it was] most accursed of all." What leads Rashi to interpret this way?
Gur Aryeh: To explain why the snake succeeded, it would have sufficed to say that the snake was more cunning than man. Rather, the verse writes, "more cunning than all of the beasts;" this was reflected in its punishment.
Rashi writes: "The Nachash saw them, and desired [Chavah]." How can this be explained?
Maharal #1 (Chidushei Agados, Vol. 2. p. 38, to Sotah 9a): Man and the Nachash were created as opposite Tzuros, and opposition is only relevant if the opposing parties are in the same league. (Refer to 3:1:3.3:1.) Being female, Chavah was Chomer, yearning to carry a Tzurah; which Tzurah would she assume? 1
Maharal #2 (Chidushei Agados, Vol. 4. p. 53, to Avodah Zarah 22b): Mankind has wisdom, whereas the Nachash had craftiness; due to this they were capable of interaction. When the Nachash was able to entice Chavah, she herself became deficient; whereupon she was fitting for the Nachash. This is the deeper meaning of Chazal's teaching that the Nachash was intimate with Chavah, leaving behind his filth.
For explanation of these terms, refer to 2:23:1.1:1. Adam and the Nachash represented two contradictory ways to utilize the material aspect of Creation - Adam was wholesome, and the Nachash crafty. By exhibiting desire [for the Etz ha'Da'as], Chavah lowered herself to become a deficient type of Chomer (for desire shows that one feels a lack). She thus became worthy of the deficient Tzurah of the Nachash. See Answer 2.
Rashi writes: "'Af Ki Amar...' - Perhaps Hashem said to you [not to eat any of the fruits of the garden]?" Why does Rashi interpret this way?
Gur Aryeh: The verse cannot mean, 'Surely Hashem said...', for the snake was not present at the time of Hashem's command, and he could not have spoken with such surety.
