Why were Adam and Chavah not ashamed before they ate from the Eitz ha'Da'as?
Refer to 2:25:0.1:1 & 2:25:1:2. 1
Because until then, shame was confined to contravening Hashem's command not to eat from the Eitz ha'Da'as.
Why did Hashem call it "the tree," without specifying its name, "the Tree of Knowledge"?
Rosh: Before they ate, it was called only "Etz" (3:3). After eating, it is called Etz ha'Da'as, for man learned that all his troubles are due to his sin. (Earlier (2:17), it is called Etz ha'Da'as because it would eventually be called so.)
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "'Who told you [that you are unclothed]?' - I.e. how would you know that there is any shame in this?" Why does Rashi explain this way?
Gur Aryeh: Even one who is blind is aware of the fact if he is unclothed (Rashi to 3:7); Hashem's question was how Adam could know to feel any shame due to this.
Rashi writes: "How would you know that there is any shame in standing unclothed?" Why doesn't Rashi interpret "unclothed" metaphorically, as he did in 3:7 (i.e. bare of the Mitzvah)?
Gur Aryeh #1: The verse does not say "bare of the Mitzvah," and it is better to interpret the verse in its simple sense when we can. 1
Gur Aryeh #2: If Adam was ashamed of having transgressed the Mitzvah, then instead of hiding, he should have immediately come forward to ask forgiveness for his sin!
Rashi writes: "'Did [you eat] from the tree?!' - [Hashem exclaimed] in astonishment." Why not explain simply as a factual question?
Gur Aryeh #1: Hashem had no need to ask for the facts, for Hashem knows all.
Gur Aryeh #2: If it was a simple question, Adam should have replied with a simple answer, "Yes, I ate." Instead, he retorted with an accusation (3:12).
