Page:A Jewish Interpretation of the Book of Genesis (Morgenstern, 1919, jewishinterpreta00morg).pdf/79

 The Garden of Bden while

in

8.

v.

what was

unnecessarily

repeats

15

V.

stated

Many

Pishon and the Gihon V. 16. According the fruit of the trees.

sufficiently

identify

to

the

rivers, but all in vain. to

man was

story

this

Only

at

to

first

eat only

as the result of the curse does he

and the produce of the

to eat bread

previously

made

been

have

attempts

61

of

come

In this respect, too, this

soil.

There the I. were from the very first given to man for food. most naively that God created the various kinds

creation-story differs essentially from that in Genesis

herbs of the

ifield

Vv. 18-20

tell

of animals one after the other, intending that each, in turn, should

But He failed in each attempt. determined at last upon a different plan. He took a part of the man's own body, and from this fashioned his helpmate this attempt succeeded. It is clear that this ancient folktale really seeks to account for the origin of animals. The naive conception that man and the animals occupy the same plane of existence, and that therefore animals might possibly be suitable mates for men, is a common motive in primitive folk-lore. Likewise the thought that be the proper helpmate for the man.

Therefore

He



God

failed repeatedly in

character of this

tale,

note to

V.

For the

20. I,

23.

attempted, evidences the primitive

when

contrasted with the impres-

transcendent omnipotence in Genesis

sive picture of God's

V.

He

what

particularly

significance

of giving

names

to

I.

the animals, cf.

5.

Another Hebrew word

for

"man"

is

ish.

The

corres-

ponding word for "woman" is ishah. The implication here is that since woman was made from a part of man, she received the name ishah, apparently, though not actually, derived from ish, "man". Chapter HI, v. 1. The story seems to imply that the serpent originally walked erect, and only through the curse came to crawl on his belly. This, too, is the explanation of the ancient rabbis.

power of evil. JudaSuch a conception of a power of evil, independent of and opposed to God, would contradict Judaism's fundamental teaching of the absolute oneness and omnipChristianity sees in the serpent the devil, the

ism, however,

knows nothing of

the devil.

otence of God.

V. 15. The basis of this folk-tale is, of course, the natural human horror of serpents. V. 16. This verse voices the common Oriental conception of

woman's V.

17.

inferiority to

Adam

is

man.

here,

used as a proper name.

as

also

in

II,

20

and

III,

21,

seemingly