Zone1 Was Eve expelled from Eden, or did she leave with Adam?

[hobelim]

no where in the text does it say that the snake was banished

He fell, was banished, from the highest place to the lowest place in the kingdom of God.

 

[hobelim]

What signs would that be?

You brazenly defy the first command, completely unaware that you died in the very day you first did it, decades ago, and remain oblivious to the fact that your sin and "the death", the curse you are under, is as obvious as a giant white boulder in the middle of a plowed field.

You've been cursed by God abandoned to your folly for your deliberate choice to defy him.

Now you know.

Sucker.

 

[rosends]

Why do you suppose God banished Adam and Eve from the garden so they couldn't eat from the tree of life? What do you believe God was concerned about?

that humanity (or at least Adam) would be immortal. This would invalidate the death penalty that they were subject to for having eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Therefore they had to be removed from it.

 

[ding]

this is a great question and I haven't found it addressed by the commentaries which I saw on Sefaria. I might keep digging as this is a sharp and close reading of the text.

In Jewish tradition, the omission of Eve explicitly in the physical banishment from the Garden of Eden is viewed through the lens of Hebrew grammar and theological representation. [1]

The classic Jewish explanations include:

• Grammatical Representation (Adam as Humanity): In the original Hebrew text of Genesis 3, God uses the masculine singular form when casting humanity out of the garden. In Jewish exegesis, Adam serves as the representative prototype of all humanity. Because Eve was intimately connected to Adam (the two being "one flesh"), Adam's banishment effectively applies to her as well. [1, 2]
• The Concept of Oneness: Because Eve was originally fashioned from Adam’s side (or rib), Judaism views the pair as a single unit before their transgression. When God banishes "the man" (Adam) from Eden, it is understood as a collective judgment upon all of mankind. [1, 2, 3]
• Equal Accountability in the Fall: While Eve is not explicitly named in the final act of expulsion, Jewish commentary is clear that she bears equal moral responsibility for the sin. The verses just prior to the banishment detail God expressing specific judgments to both Adam and Eve, and the Torah records that God made skin garments for both of them before they departed. [1, 2]

 

[rosends]

No expressly banishment or curse of Eve.

isn't there a curse on Eve in 3:16?

If your concern is about the specific use of the word "arur" then the serpent is cursed (3:14) and then the ground is cursed (3:17) which is strange. Neither Adam nor Eve has the word "curse" applied, but both have imprecations communicated.

 

[ding]

You brazenly defy the first command,

I don't. I believe in one God.

completely unaware that you died in the very day you first did it

But I'm not. I'm blessed by God.

, decades ago, and remain oblivious to the fact that your sin and "the death", the curse you are under,

God doesn't curse his creatures. You have a very poor opinion of God.

is as obvious as a giant white boulder in the middle of a plowed field.

It's your hate that is obvious.

You've been cursed by God abandoned to your folly for your deliberate choice to defy him.

God doesn't curse his creatures. You have a very poor opinion of God.

Now you know.

Sucker.

I'm happy you could get your hate out of your system. I have chosen the better portion and it will not be taken from me.

 

[rosends]

In Jewish tradition, the omission of Eve explicitly in the physical banishment from the Garden of Eden is viewed through the lens of Hebrew grammar and theological representation. [1]

The classic Jewish explanations include:

• Grammatical Representation (Adam as Humanity): In the original Hebrew text of Genesis 3, God uses the masculine singular form when casting humanity out of the garden. In Jewish exegesis, Adam serves as the representative prototype of all humanity. Because Eve was intimately connected to Adam (the two being "one flesh"), Adam's banishment effectively applies to her as well. [1, 2]
• The Concept of Oneness: Because Eve was originally fashioned from Adam’s side (or rib), Judaism views the pair as a single unit before their transgression. When God banishes "the man" (Adam) from Eden, it is understood as a collective judgment upon all of mankind. [1, 2, 3]
• Equal Accountability in the Fall: While Eve is not explicitly named in the final act of expulsion, Jewish commentary is clear that she bears equal moral responsibility for the sin. The verses just prior to the banishment detail God expressing specific judgments to both Adam and Eve, and the Torah records that God made skin garments for both of them before they departed. [1, 2]

this AI slop is wrong. Follow the citations and you'll see that neither of the two "sources" has any discussion of the question from the Jewish lens. AI fails again. It is sad that people generate these AI "responses" and think that they are accurate presentations of anything, but they aren't. A random facebook page and a National Geographic article are not making any statements that represent Judaism and Jewish thought. They are not "The classic Jewish explanations".

 

[ding]

I don't even know what "fallen" state means.

Fallen is whenever man chooses to do wrong instead of right and chooses to not take accountability and to make amends.

Judaism doesn't believe anyone has "fallen" because of what happened in the garden.

Me neither. It was an allegorical account that explains that man knows right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept he rationalizes he didn't violate it.

The nature of man changed and now we live with the consequence of that -- we have changed.

I submit we haven't changed. I submit it is a constant battle and that our only hope lies in loving God and trusting God. If our relationship with God is right, all other relationships will be right.

 

[hobelim]

then the ground is cursed (3:17) which is strange

Not if you understand that the firmament, basis of Heaven is the Law. If the firmament, basis of the earth is lawless, then it is cursed. Hence the need for a new heaven and a new earth.

If you want to be a partner with God to make the world a better place then do on earth what God did in heaven according to Genesis 3:14. Relegate talking serpents to the lowest place.

 

[ding]

this AI slop is wrong. Follow the citations and you'll see that neither of the two "sources" has any discussion of the question from the Jewish lens. AI fails again. It is sad that people generate these AI "responses" and think that they are accurate presentations of anything, but they aren't. A random facebook page and a National Geographic article are not making any statements that represent Judaism and Jewish thought. They are not "The classic Jewish explanations".

Are you telling me that Judaism doesn't teach that Eve was banished from the garden and that Eve didn't receive judgment? Are you telling me that Judaism teaches that Eve could have remained behind and eaten from the tree of life?

AI is spot on in this case as it explains why Judaism teaches what it does.

 

[rylah]

I'm not the one arguing Genesis 1:31 was about Eve. That's you. Despite Genesis 1:31 clearly stating it was everything God created.

God created existence. All of existence is good. Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good.

Just out of curiosity, what would be your argument to excluding Eve from 1:32?

As for evil as the absence of good, is closer to a dogmatic formulation,
than a self containing definition. Relevant question for another thread.

 

[ding]

that humanity (or at least Adam) would be immortal. This would invalidate the death penalty that they were subject to for having eaten of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Therefore they had to be removed from it.

If God gave them a death penalty for eating the fruit, then why wouldn't it have applied to Eve as well. She ate the fruit too.

But putting that aside are you arguing that the only reason God was concerned that if Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life after they had eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is because it would have made God wrong?

You don't think that makes God look bad? I'm going to kick you guys out because I don't want to be proven wrong? Seems kind of selfish and petty to me. So I believe there must be another reason. One that doesn't make God look so small and petty.

 

[ding]

Not if you understand that the firmament, basis of Heaven is the Law. If the firmament, basis of the earth is lawless, then it is cursed. Hence the need for a new heaven and a new earth.

If you want to be a partner with God to make the world a better place then do on earth what God did in heaven according to Genesis 3:14. Relegate talking serpents to the lowest place.

You should be honest with everyone and admit that you don't believe in anything supernatural.

 

[rosends]

Fallen is whenever man chooses to do wrong instead of right and chooses to not take accountability and to make amends.

oh. So, yeah, not that.

Me neither. It was an allegorical account that explains that man knows right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept he rationalizes he didn't violate it.

I submit we haven't changed. I submit it is a constant battle and that our only hope lies in loving God and trusting God. If our relationship with God is right, all other relationships will be right.

ok. Judaism teaches that we definitely changed.

 

[rylah]

isn't there a curse on Eve in 3:16?

If your concern is about the specific use of the word "arur" then the serpent is cursed (3:14) and then the ground is cursed (3:17) which is strange. Neither Adam nor Eve has the word "curse" applied, but both have imprecations communicated.

Thanks, for addressing the distinction.

One may say the text 'implies' Eve was included in the curse, and banishment.
Or even go as far as to claim, it's a 'collective curse' and what was said,
of the serpent applies to all involved collectively.

But there's distinction.
As with all the questions
regarding the fruit and the tree.

 

[rosends]

Are you telling me that Judaism doesn't teach that Eve was banished from the garden and that Eve didn't receive judgment?

No, why? That isn't at all what I said.

Are you telling me that Judaism teaches that Eve could have remained behind and eaten from the tree of life?

Nope. Why would you assume Judaism teaches that?

AI is spot on in this case as it explains why Judaism teaches what it does.

AI is very, very wrong and the material you presented claimed to be from the perspective of Judaism and it simply isn't. The lack of actual citations to Jewish authorities should have clued you in.

 

[rosends]

If God gave them a death penalty for eating the fruit, then why wouldn't it have applied to Eve as well. She ate the fruit too.

yes, it did apply because she ate the fruit as well.

But putting that aside are you arguing that the only reason God was concerned that if Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life after they had eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil is because it would have made God wrong?

I don't recall saying that that was the only reason, but it was definitely a reason.

You don't think that makes God look bad? I'm going to kick you guys out because I don't want to be proven wrong? Seems kind of selfish and petty to me. So I believe there must be another reason. One that doesn't make God look so small and petty.

You keep thinking that. To me it seems brilliant. Because God cannot be wrong, man cannot back God into a corner by breaking a rule. God simply changes the ground.

 

[ding]

Just out of curiosity, what would be your argument to excluding Eve from 1:32?

Did you mean Genesis 1:31? There is no Genesis 1:32.

What would be your argument for not including Adam from Genesis 1:31? Because if Adam is included too and you acknowledge that Adam was punished and banished, then your argument that 1:31 means punishment and banishment can't be applied to Eve because she was very good falls apart.

Everything God creates is good and that has absolutely nothing to do with Adam and Eve being banished from the garden. The verses just prior to the banishment detail God expressing specific judgments to both Adam and Eve, and the Torah records that God made skin garments for both of them before they departed. Eve knew that eating the forbidden fruit would lead to death. She even said so. So you can't argue that she didn't know what she was doing.

And the woman said unto the serpent: 'Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said: Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.'

As for evil as the absence of good, is closer to a dogmatic formulation,
than a self containing definition. Relevant question for another thread.

It's relevant when you accuse me slandering Eve because if evil isn't extant than all things work for good even Eve's choice to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree.

 

[rosends]

Thanks, for addressing the distinction.

One may say the text 'implies' Eve was included in the curse, and banishment.
Or even go as far as to claim, it's a 'collective curse' and what was said,
of the serpent applies to all involved collectively.

But there's distinction.
As with all the questions
regarding the fruit and the tree.

but the distinction would also apply to Adam who is also not "cursed." The other question must be "why is the ground cursed." The meforshim have an answer to that IIRC. But again, Rashi on 1:11 is important in terms of understanding the tree vs. fruit issue.

 

[rylah]

Did you mean Genesis 1:31? There is no Genesis 1:32.

What would be your argument for not including Adam from Genesis 1:31? Because if Adam is included too and you acknowledge that Adam was punished and banished, then your argument that 1:31 means punishment and banishment can't be applied to Eve because she was very good falls apart.

Everything God creates is good and that has absolutely nothing to do with Adam and Eve being banished from the garden. The verses just prior to the banishment detail God expressing specific judgments to both Adam and Eve, and the Torah records that God made skin garments for both of them before they departed. Eve knew that eating the forbidden fruit would lead to death. She even said so. So you can't argue that she didn't know what she was doing.

And the woman said unto the serpent: 'Of the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; but of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said: Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.'

It's relevant when you accuse me slandering Eve because if evil isn't extant than all things work for good even Eve's choice to eat the fruit from the forbidden tree.

But that reinforces my argument.

The very contrast between banishment of Adam
and the final conclusion of the day as "very good,"
confirms that Eve choice fulfilled God's expressed will -
and only Adam had to be forced out to face his intended duty.