To Hebrew experts: did Eve sleep with the Serpent?

[Ehav4Ever]

OK. It says the serpent intended to marry eve and take her. But it doesn't say it actually happened.

Thanks, but I looked it up and didn't see anything about it saying the nachash intended to marry her.

Doesn't imply that nahash wanted to marry her, and the midrash doesn't even appear to be making a specific point about the snake but is instead a diffeent point. See below.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I went through some of these sources ... Here is what I found

Gently now, ...

• I'm pretty sure that I understood what you said and I have no problem accepting everything you say, but ...
• I am still inclined to believe that the early Christian Gentiles "got" their (admittedly vulgar, XXX-rated) version of the Eve-Serpent story in Genesis from what they believed they had been told by their earliest Jewish Christian companions.
  • Please note: I'm NOT saying that the earliest Jewish Christians explicitly and clearly told the early Christian Gentiles: "In the Garden, the serpent forced, seduced, or beguiled Eve into engaging in physical sexual activity with him/it."
    
  • What I am saying is that the earliest Jewish Christians told the story in such a way that the earliest Christian Gentiles "clarified the fuzzy parts and filled in the blanks" and came up with their XXX-rated version.

 

[Terry Sampson]

The writings and James and the content that the author put in

??? something's missing there.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Gently now, ...

• I'm pretty sure that I understood what you said and I have no problem accepting everything you say, but ...
• I am still inclined to believe that the early Christian Gentiles "got" their (admittedly vulgar, XXX-rated) version of the Eve-Serpent story in Genesis from what they believed they had been told by their earliest Jewish Christian companions.
  • Please note: I'm NOT saying that the earliest Jewish Christians explicitly and clearly told the early Christian Gentiles: "In the Garden, the serpent forced, seduced, or beguiled Eve into engaging in physical sexual activity with him/it."
    
  • What I am saying is that the earliest Jewish Christians told the story in such a way that the earliest Christian Gentiles "clarified the fuzzy parts and filled in the blanks" and came up with their XXX-rated version.

Actually, I think we are in agreement but simply saying it from two different angles.

I am also saying that the early Jewish Christians may have invented this version found in the Proto James. I.e. they were Christians (and thus are able to grouped in the title) and thus MAYBE they were the source of what is in proto James. Yet, it may have also come from the early non-Jewish Christians. In either case it came from Christians and is not found, as stated in Proto James, in any valid Torah based source.

Essentially, what I am saying is that the early Jewish Christians seperated themselves from Torath Mosheh and therefore they own their own ideas/interpretations/misunderstandings etc. and what is in proto-James is not from a valid Torah based source. (Please note in Jewish law there is a point where the early Jewish Christians were no longer being considered Jewish/i.e. not part of the Torah based Jewish community)

Essentially, we don't know which came first the early Jewish Christians or the early non-Jewish Christians because the early Jewish Chrisians dissapeared off the history map ~1,900 years ago and "so far" no writing directly attached to them has been found.

 

[rosends]

Gently now, ...

• I'm pretty sure that I understood what you said and I have no problem accepting everything you say, but ...
• I am still inclined to believe that the early Christian Gentiles "got" their (admittedly vulgar, XXX-rated) version of the Eve-Serpent story in Genesis from what they believed they had been told by their earliest Jewish Christian companions.
  • Please note: I'm NOT saying that the earliest Jewish Christians explicitly and clearly told the early Christian Gentiles: "In the Garden, the serpent forced, seduced, or beguiled Eve into engaging in physical sexual activity with him/it."
    
  • What I am saying is that the earliest Jewish Christians told the story in such a way that the earliest Christian Gentiles "clarified the fuzzy parts and filled in the blanks" and came up with their XXX-rated version.

It might even be (assuming I can track down something more) that there was one written opinion that filled in those fuzzy parts relating to the physical and not the metaphorical, and later writers adopted and adapted that one voice, or one statement to help, um, "flesh out" the story.

 

[dybmh]

Doesn't imply that nahash wanted to marry her,

In 18:6 , b'derech eretz is a euphemism. The serpent saw this, and was enticed. That's the opinion I'm reading in 18:6.

Doesn't imply that nahash wanted to marry her, and the midrash doesn't even appear to be making a specific point about the snake but is instead a different point. See below.

Maybe skip ahead to 20:6? I'm looking at the Artscroll Midrash Rabbah, it has commentary in English. It says:

"The serpent assumed that Eve would feed the fruit to her husband first --- as wived normally do -- And Adam would immediately die for his sin. Seeing what happened to Adam, Even would not eat, and then the serpent would be able to marry her ( Rashi ad loc. with Gur Aryeh )."

"The Midrash divined all of this from the above by extrapolating from the various punishments and curses given to the serpent: Thus, Accursed are you beyond all the animals, etc. implies that the serpent once ruled over the animal kingdom. Upon your belly you shall go implies that it once stood erect like a man. And dust you shall eat implies that it once eat human food. I will put enmity between you and the woman suggests that the serpent wanted to marry Eve. Finally he ( Adam's offspring ) will pound your head, tells us that the serpent sought to kill Adam. ( Eitz Yosef )"

 

[Terry Sampson]

Actually, I think we are in agreement but simply saying it from two different angles.

Almost, kind of, maybe ...

It might even be

By the time the Proto-Gospel was written, I suspect the story had been known among Gentile Christian hands for a good number of years. And, as is in it's XXX-rated version, I can easily imagine that it was never told by the Jewish Christian elders.

It may seem strange to say so here, but I'm inclined to imagine that what occurred was a variant of Hoyle's law. Hoyle's law says: “By the time you understand the rules of a complex game, you will no longer be able to explain those rules to anyone who does not already understand the game.”

The Jewish Christians may well have understood that the "defilement of Eve" didn't involve any sexual activity but the Gentile Christian newbies surely wouldn't have know that for certain. And here, I think, the far more important "function" of the story comes into play. Without the XXX-rated version of the story, the notion of imputed or ancestral or original sin is really pretty weak.

However, roll the XXX-rated version of the story out on the stage in a Beginner's catechism class, and then tell the students: "... and that's where Original Sin comes from. And, by the way, that's why the snake is a reptile that crawls on its belly while other reptiles travel on four feet."

 

[MNoBody]

[this hasn't been brought up in the thread yet]

There is a saying, there is a middle letter in the Torah
and that once the Torah is written the Sofer will start counting from the beginning of Genesis
and 152,403 letters later will land at the spot of Leviticus 11:42
to the third letter of the word “gahon” (belly) and the letter will be Vav –w .
Then the sofer will start at the back of the Torah and count forward 152,403 letters
and will land on the exact letter Vav – w in Leviticus 14:42.
This is called the Middle Letter of the Torah.


Leviticus 11:42 “Whatever crawls on its belly (Gachon), whatever goes on all fours, or whatever has many feet among all creeping things that creep on the earth—these you shall not eat, for they are an abomination.”

The belly VAV is right in the middle of the entire Torah
This alludes to our struggle with "the seed of the serpent" within us.
So a central message implied is to discern this subtle inward adversarial influence

 

[rosends]

Almost, kind of, maybe ...


By the time the Proto-Gospel was written, I suspect the story had been known among Gentile Christian hands for a good number of years. And, as is in it's XXX-rated version, I can easily imagine that it was never told by the Jewish Christian elders.

It may seem strange to say so here, but I'm inclined to imagine that what occurred was a variant of Hoyle's law. Hoyle's law says: “By the time you understand the rules of a complex game, you will no longer be able to explain those rules to anyone who does not already understand the game.”

The Jewish Christians may well have understood that the "defilement of Eve" didn't involve any sexual activity but the Gentile Christian newbies surely wouldn't have know that for certain. And here, I think, the far more important "function" of the story comes into play. Without the XXX-rated version of the story, the notion of imputed or ancestral or original sin is really pretty weak.

However, roll the XXX-rated version of the story out on the stage in a Beginner's catechism class, and then tell the students: "... and that's where Original Sin comes from. And, by the way, that's why the snake is a reptile that crawls on its belly while other reptiles travel on four feet."

side note -- I was shown an extended explanation of Rashi in Mas. Nazir which makes the explicit claim
Looking for a commentary, possibly in Mas. Nazir

if this is sourced to R. Yochanan then (depending on the dates that he was alive) that pushes the notion back to around the same time as the turn of the era.

 

[Terry Sampson]

I was shown an extended explanation of Rashi in Mas. Nazir which makes the explicit claim

It's moments like this that I wish I was fluent in Hebrew.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

side note -- I was shown an extended explanation of Rashi in Mas. Nazir which makes the explicit claim
Looking for a commentary, possibly in Mas. Nazir

if this is sourced to R. Yochanan then (depending on the dates that he was alive) that pushes the notion back to around the same time as the turn of the era.

That is the same statement described in Midrash Rabba. Yevomoth 103b. If you look in you find the following explaination from (חדישי אגדות).

ע"ב בשעה שבא נחש על חוה כו'. הוא מבואר כי האדם נברא בצלם אלהים נשמתו מעליונים גם גופו ממקום טהור מקום המזבח שמשם משתיתו של עולם ושהוא יחיד בתחתונים כה' בעליונים שע"כ נברא יחידי וכשבא הנחש על חוה ע"י חטא שאכלו מעץ הדעת כמ"ש הנחש אטעה את האדם שיאכל וימות ואשא את חוה ובזה הטיל בה זוהמא שיהיה גם האדם ככל שאר הנבראים להיות דבק בו צד הטומאה עד שבאו ישראל להר סיני שאז פסקה זוהמתן וחזרו להיות בצלם אלהים כמ"ש אני אמרתי אלהים אתם גו' וק"ל: ​

This also brings up what "dybmh" wrote earlier about the nachash wanting to marry Hawah. It also points to the idea that the nachash was influencing Hawah. Just as I wrote earlier that the statement (הטל בה זומהא) does not mean that the nahash had relations with her. It means that it infected her with moral impurity. Also, stated the Hawah in this place is repersentative of the human race and it is dealing Avodah Zara (idolotry). (בה זומהא - וזומהא נשארה בבני אדם, ומזההמת את נשם) The word (זומהא) means filth, decayed matter, or moral impurity i.e. the nachash affected her behavior. The explaination go further that the reception of the Torah at Mount Sinai changed things, again referencing Avodah Zara (Idolotry). This also line what with the response you received, shown below.

 

[Terry Sampson]

if this is sourced to R. Yochanan then ... that he was alive) that pushes the notion back to around the same time as the turn of the era.

Pardon my ignorance. Roughly, when would you say/estimate "the turn of the era" was?

 

[rosends]

Pardon my ignorance. Roughly, when would you say/estimate "the turn of the era" was?

from BCE to CE (approx). Talmudic notions source from before the CE to shortly after it, so Rabbi Yochanan, born about 180CE would have been citing an idea which predates him.

 

[Terry Sampson]

from BCE to CE (approx). Talmudic notions source from before the CE to shortly after it, so Rabbi Yochanan, born about 180CE would have been citing an idea which predates him.

Thanks. My information tells me that the Proto-Gospel of James has been dated to mid-100s CE, i.e. roughly 145 CE. Good to know.

 

[rosends]

Thanks. My information tells me that the Proto-Gospel of James has been dated to mid-100s CE, i.e. roughly 145 CE. Good to know.

Unless we see the story (with explicit relations) in a medrash or Zoharic quote that can be sourced substantially earlier I feel we might be stuck in the first or second century CE. Even the explication of the word related to marriage only gets us to the suggestion of the act.

 

[Terry Sampson]

Unless we see the story (with explicit relations) in a medrash or Zoharic quote that can be sourced substantially earlier I feel we might be stuck in the first or second century CE.

Trivia:

• The first century would intrigue me, but the second century is early enough for my satisfaction.
• Tosafot on Ketubot 3b:5. Date unknown to me, but probably later/much later.
  • 5 The Gemara there says that when the snake cohabited with Chava he cast an impurity into her. Yisroel who stood at Mt. Sinai were purified. Idolaters who did not stand at Sinai were not purified. When Sisera – an idolater – cohabited with Yael, he re-introduced impurity into her body. Thus Yael did not derive pleasure from cohabiting with Sisera. And [the Gemara] does not answer that [Yael] was passive and comparable to the soil of the earth.
• My curiosity about what the Jewish sources say about the method of Chavah's defilement might seem unusual, but the novelty of the defilement story in the Infancy Gospel of James and the Jewish versions intrigued me because:
  • I was unfamiliar with the Christian "Serpent's seed" doctrine until I heard of it in this thread, and
  • the emphasis on Eve's "reception" of moral impurity is certainly different than the emphasis that I find in Paul's letter, where he says:
    • 12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
      13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
• One important consequence of my encounter with the "Eve's defilement" is my recent and new interest in "impurity", the distinction between ritual and moral impurity, it's sources or causes, its transmission, and its removal or cleansing.
  • I just got a copy of Jonathan Klawans "Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism" and see how far I can wade through that.
• Another minor item came to my attention as a consequence of my request to a Jewish friend asking for help in identifying what portion of Sefaria's English translation of Yevamot 103b corresponded to Ehav4Ever's Hebrew portion in his last post. My friend confirmed that I was focusing on the correct portion and gave me an opinion regarding the English translation, affirming the translation's adequacy with one exception.
  • Where Sefaria's English Yevamot says:
    • "When the Jewish people stood at Mount Sinai their contamination ceased, whereas with regard to gentiles, who did not stand at Mount Sinai, their contamination never ceased."
  • My friend said:
    • "The Sefaria translation seems mostly okay, except that the original Hebrew doesn't read "non-Jews" (i.e. gentiles) but rather "idol-worshipers)."
  • That took me aback, because I had difficulty trying to imagine any non-Jews who were not idolaters.
    • I now know that Jethro, Job, and Balaam are deemed non-Jews who were not idolaters. News to me.

 

[rosends]

• Tosafot on Ketubot 3b:5. Date unknown to me, but probably later/much later

Tosafot date to much later. The sefaria commentary on Tosafot points to how Tos quotes the Yevamot which uses that phrase of "casting impurity" which in the case of Yael is understood to refer to actual sex. One would then have to work backwards and assume the use of the same phrase elsewhere imports the same meaning

• One important consequence of my encounter with the "Eve's defilement" is my recent and new interest in "impurity", the distinction between ritual and moral impurity, it's sources or causes, its transmission, and its removal or cleansing.

• The idea of ritual impurity seems to be distinct (at least linguistically) from what the talmud is discussing. The "Zohama" here is not a matter of tum'ah but a moral decay.
  

  [*]

  • • "The Sefaria translation seems mostly okay, except that the original Hebrew doesn't read "non-Jews" (i.e. gentiles) but rather "idol-worshipers)."
  • That took me aback, because I had difficulty trying to imagine any non-Jews who were not idolaters.
    • I now know that Jethro, Job, and Balaam are deemed non-Jews who were not idolaters. News to me.

There is some discussion to the effect that the technical category of idol-worshiper is distinct from the more general category of non-Jew. Some opinions say that we no longer have that category of "idol worshiper" any more, a position whcih leads to a variety of subtle and technical changes in the implementation of law.

 

[Ehav4Ever]

Trivia:

• The first century would intrigue me, but the second century is early enough for my satisfaction.
• Tosafot on Ketubot 3b:5. Date unknown to me, but probably later/much later.
  • 5 The Gemara there says that when the snake cohabited with Chava he cast an impurity into her. Yisroel who stood at Mt. Sinai were purified. Idolaters who did not stand at Sinai were not purified. When Sisera – an idolater – cohabited with Yael, he re-introduced impurity into her body. Thus Yael did not derive pleasure from cohabiting with Sisera. And [the Gemara] does not answer that [Yael] was passive and comparable to the soil of the earth.
• My curiosity about what the Jewish sources say about the method of Chavah's defilement might seem unusual, but the novelty of the defilement story in the Infancy Gospel of James and the Jewish versions intrigued me because:
  • I was unfamiliar with the Christian "Serpent's seed" doctrine until I heard of it in this thread, and
  • the emphasis on Eve's "reception" of moral impurity is certainly different than the emphasis that I find in Paul's letter, where he says:
    • 12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
      13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
• One important consequence of my encounter with the "Eve's defilement" is my recent and new interest in "impurity", the distinction between ritual and moral impurity, it's sources or causes, its transmission, and its removal or cleansing.
  • I just got a copy of Jonathan Klawans "Impurity and Sin in Ancient Judaism" and see how far I can wade through that.
• Another minor item came to my attention as a consequence of my request to a Jewish friend asking for help in identifying what portion of Sefaria's English translation of Yevamot 103b corresponded to Ehav4Ever's Hebrew portion in his last post. My friend confirmed that I was focusing on the correct portion and gave me an opinion regarding the English translation, affirming the translation's adequacy with one exception.
  • Where Sefaria's English Yevamot says:
    • "When the Jewish people stood at Mount Sinai their contamination ceased, whereas with regard to gentiles, who did not stand at Mount Sinai, their contamination never ceased."
  • My friend said:
    • "The Sefaria translation seems mostly okay, except that the original Hebrew doesn't read "non-Jews" (i.e. gentiles) but rather "idol-worshipers)."
  • That took me aback, because I had difficulty trying to imagine any non-Jews who were not idolaters.
    • I now know that Jethro, Job, and Balaam are deemed non-Jews who were not idolaters. News to me.

The following may help you.

Mishnah Torah by Rabbi Mosheh ben-Maimon
Hilchoth Avodah Zara chapter 1

Here is another that may help.

The Garden of Eden and the Origins of the West: Reading Maimonides’ Guide to the Perplexed

 

[Ehav4Ever]

One important consequence of my encounter with the "Eve's defilement" is my recent and new interest in "impurity", the distinction between ritual and moral impurity, it's sources or causes, its transmission, and its removal or cleansing.

Greetings.

Please be aware that in Hebrew there is no connection between ritual purity/impurity and morality. Being ritually impure, is more akin to being ritually unfit to do something at a particular time. It is not a "bad" situation or a "bad" state. It is just a state where some things are not done until the proper time and in the right state. This is one of the classic examples of the challenge of translation since there are times we use words, in translation, that don't express the Hebrew properly but are forced to use said words since the reader is more familiar with the word.

For example, I can be completely morally correct and at the same time not be ritually fit/pure to where I can't enter into the Temple area. By like token, I can be ritually fit/pure to enter the Temple area and at the same time I can be a completely morally corrupt person. Also, there are animals that are unfit/impure for a Jew to eat but there is no problem for non-Jews to eat them. It is not matter of the animals Jews don't eat being bad or being unhealthy. At the most base the eating habits and the reason for eating is different between Jews and non-Jews only because Jews received the Torah at Mount Sinai. Yet, it is not bad if a non-Jew eats foods forbidden to Jews.

In the Guide to the Perplexed as with other Jewish legal works it is made clear that a large majority of the commandments given to the Jewish people at Mount Sinai were to seperate people from Avodah Zara/foreign work/idolotry created by previoius generations and created when humans decide to divide themselves from Hashem, who created everything in reality.

In Hebrew and Jewish texts morality is more of a situation of having the right information, concepts, and frame of mind that leads a person to correctly do the will of Hashem. For Jews this means the commands given at Mount Sinai and for non-Jews this means the 7 Noachide laws, 6 of which were from commands given to Adam from Hashem.

I hope that helps.

 

[Estro Felino]

Thanks, but I looked it up and didn't see anything about it saying the nachash intended to marry her.

View attachment 39205

Doesn't imply that nahash wanted to marry her, and the midrash doesn't even appear to be making a specific point about the snake but is instead a diffeent point. See below.

View attachment 39206

Thank you, thank you so much for the thorough explanation