Woman, Eve and Being Seen Genesis 2-5

Tilda Finch, a middle-aged woman, is treated as if she is invisible and this gradually manifests physically ̶ she begins to disappear. This is the provocative premise of the book Tilda is Visible[i], based on the reality that older women are often not noticed in the way that men or younger women are. Consider the statistic that only 2-4 per cent of total global venture capital funding goes towards women-led businesses[ii].  Jewish people will read Eve’s story in Genesis (2 and 3) on this coming Saturday, 26 October 2025. Here are some thoughts about Eve and Torah’s guidance about how we might represent and see or not see women.

Eve as archetype?

It has been suggested that Eve “is an archetype of women in general”[iii]. I am not convinced. However, I agree with Dr Tamar Frankiel’s idea that “as we retell the stories of the beginnings of humanity, we shape our own lives anew”[iv]. Let us consider a retelling of Eve’s story that sees her as having intrinsic value, wisdom, imagination and playing a role in moving Adam to a more relational way of being. 

A negative story

One reading of Eve’s story has three parts. 1) Helper: Eve is created to solve man’s loneliness and need for a helper[v]. 2) Temptress: The woman falls short in her role as companion[vi]. In leading Adam to eat the forbidden fruit[vii], she is cast in the role of “arch-temptress”[viii]. 3) Mother: She is named Eve because she is the mother of all life and she gives birth to sons[ix].

Intrinsic value

An alternative interpretation of Genesis begins with the creation of Eve at the same time as Adam.  “God created the person, in his image … male and female he created them”[x]. They were attached to each other, back-to-back, one side being male and the other being female[xi]. Eve was not created from Adam’s rib, but from his side[xii], as the Hebrew word “tzela” can mean either rib or side. It is this double person whom “God called their name Adam”[xiii], and it is this double person who has intrinsic value, having been created in the image of God.

 

Imagination

Eve engages her imagination to “see” how delicious the forbidden fruit would be, she notices how it was desirable for the eye and how delightful it would be for knowledge[xiv].  The imagining and the eating result in a loss of innocence, as “their eyes were opened”[xv] and they experienced sexual lust[xvi]. Eating the forbidden fruit was certainly a sin, but its consequences were mixed. Before eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve could “distinguish between true and the false” as a way of navigating right and wrong, but they lacked a sense of beautiful or repulsive, or of subjective good and bad[xvii]. 

The significance of a personal name

Rabbi Jonathan Sacks[xviii] points out the way that Adam refers to Eve before eating the fruit. He calls her either “woman”[xix] or “the woman”[xx]. It was only after the eating and its aftermath that Adam “turned to her [Eve], and for the first time saw her as a person and gave her a personal name, Eve. The significance of this moment cannot be sufficiently emphasised. With the appearance of proper names, the concept of the individual person is born. A noun such as ‘woman’ designates a group of things and does not designate a specific individual. A name is different. It refers not to a class or group but to an individual”. Furthermore, it is only at this point in the story[xxi] that Adam gets the dignity of a name himself. Prior to this point, Adam is generally referred to as “the human”[xxii] – Ha’Adam[H1] , rather than Adam[xxiii].

Eve the communicator

The common translation of Eve is that she is the one who gives life. But another meaning of Eve is the one who speaks.[xxiv] In the Psalms we read, “The heavens declare the glory of God, the sky proclaims His handiwork. …night to night it speaks knowledge.”[xxv] The word for “speaks” is Yeh-Chaveh, which is etymologically linked to Chava, the Hebrew version of Eve. Eve was such a skilled communicator that she could even understand “the language of animals.”[xxvi] When animals made noises, Adam turned to Eve to translate and teach him how to understand the animals.[xxvii] It is this quality that Adam celebrates by using the name “Eve” when he sees her as a full human being.

Eve the mother

After Adam saw and named Eve, he “knew”[xxviii] her, that is, he was intimate with her. This resulted in the birth of Cain. Eve became a mother and exuberantly exclaimed, “I have acquired or created a man with God.”[xxix]

A Brief Biography of Eve

Instead of the three-part tale above we have a more complex story, as follows: 1) Eve was created in the image of God, attached to her future husband, Adam. 2) Eve and her future husband are called, Ha’Adam, the human. 3) God acknowledges the need of humans for companionship wherein they can see each other, “to receive light in light, face to face”[xxx] and separates the two sides into two distinct people. 4) Eve’s exceptional communication skills enable her to understand the animals. She acts as translator between the animals and Adam, eventually teaching him to understand them. 5) Eve communicates with a snake, which is attracted to her, a beautiful woman.[xxxi] 6) She eats of the forbidden fruit and gives some to her husband. 7) Eve and Adam’s senses are heightened and tuned in to the pleasant and the ugly and to feel shame about their nakedness. 8) Eve gets feedback from God about the negative consequences of eating the fruit. 9) Adam sees Eve as a person and names her. 10) Adam knows Eve intimately. 11) Eve becomes a glorious mother and names her first son Cain (to acquire or create) for this astonishing feat of giving birth.  

Mother Eve ̶ Chava ̶ all of us, your descendants, regardless of gender, see you, and we all will ensure that your daughters of whatever age are seen as well, as the full beings that they are.

---

[i] Tara, J. (2024) Tilda Is Visible: A novel about women, life and being seen, Hachette

[ii] https://www.missingperspectives.com/posts/whats-the-deal-behind-these-deals-only-2-4-per-cent-of-total-venture-capital-goes-to-women-led-companies-and-we-want-to-talk-about-it/, for an Australian perspective look at https://scaleinvestors.com.au/

[iii] Steinzaltz, A. (1984), Biblical Images, Basic Books, p.3

[iv] Frankiel, T, (1990), The Voice of Sara, Feminine Spirituality & Traditional Judaism, Harper Collins, p. 128

[v] Genesis 2:18

[vi] Arama, Y, in Akedat Yitzchak, gate 9, p 95 and others

[vii] Genesis 3:1-6 and 16

[viii] Steinzaltz, A. (1984), Biblical Images, Basic Books, p.7

[ix] Genesis 3:20, 4:1

[x] Genesis 1:27

[xi] Talmud, Brachot 61a, based on Genesis 1:27 and referencing (Psalms 139:5); Bereshit Rabba 8, Midrash Aggada, cited in Rashi on Genesis 1:27

[xii] Rashi to Genesis 2:22c

[xiii] Genesis 5:2

[xiv] Genesis 3:7

[xv] Genesis 3:8

[xvi] Radak – Rabbi David Kimchi, on Genesis 3:7a

[xvii] Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, Part 1 2:5, Nachshoni, Y, Studies in the Weekly Parasha

[xviii] Sacks, J. https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/bereishit/the-garments-of-light/

[xix] Genesis 2:23 Eve, is named woman – Isha in Hebrew, reflecting her derivation from man, Ish

[xx] Genesis 3:12,

[xxi] Genesis 3:17

[xxii] See Genesis 2:15, 2:16, 2:18, 2:19, 2:20 (where he is referred to in both ways), 2:21, 2:22, 2:23, 3:8, 3:9, 3:12,

[xxiii] Sacks, J.

[xxiv] Abarbanel

[xxv] Psalms 19:2-3

[xxvi] Meam Loez, Ibn Ezra based on Genesis 3:1-5

[xxvii] Imre Noam, in Meam Loez,

[xxviii] Genesis 4:1

[xxix] Genesis 4:1

[xxx] Zohar part 3, 44b

[xxxi] Rashi on Genesis 3:1

---

 [H1]Should this not be ‘ha’adam’?

Crushing or talking with? Chukat

I retaliated. I really didn’t mean to, but X aggressively pressured me to do something and without thinking, I verbally fought back. X was a little hurt. It didn’t need to play out that way. My starting point for this reflection is concern about excessive harshness and punishment.

Author, Dr. Richard Schwartz observed that we treat others the same way that we treat those parts of ourselves that challenge us. “In our attempts to control what we consider to be disturbing thoughts and emotions, we just end up fighting, disciplining … or feeling ashamed of those impulses …[i]” Religious teachings, including some in the Torah, seem to be designed to crush parts of ourselves. I want to examine these and consider alternative ways of reading them.

In this week’s Torah reading we have the strange ritual of burning a dead red cow[ii] to purify anyone who has come in contact with a dead person. It is introduced as a “Chuka”, a statute that God commanded. Commentary elaborates on the idea of a Chuka, which has also been translated as decree[iii]. “It is a decree from before Me; you have no permission to ruminate about it[iv]”. We are forbidden to ever question this divine command. That is harsh! It seems like the purpose of the Chuka, with no logical explanation, is about a process designed to beat us into submission[v].

The idea that crushing that part in us that thinks for itself or lusts after permitted or forbidden pleasures also comes up in one attempt to explain the mystery of the red cow. The animal is seen as a symbol of the material aspects of life. The burning of the cow represents a person who subjugates the material elements within him or herself. This is hinted at by the fact that the ashes of the cow – now crushed and defeated – when mixed with water, causes the person sprinkled with the mixture to be regarded as spiritually pure and clean[vi].  To kill the “animal soul” is seen as a virtue[vii].

An alternative approach to the red cow is offered by Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, of blessed memory. The symbolism of mixing the ashes of a dead animal with “living water” is a reminder that although we are all individually mortal, life continues after we die[viii]. He infers this from the fact that the law of the red cow is followed in the Torah[ix] by the deaths of Moses’ siblings. Rabbi Sacks wrote: “with great subtlety the Torah mixes law and narrative together.” We all die, “... yet life goes on, and what we began, others will continue.”

Sacks insists that Judaism is not a matter of blind obedience[x]”.  Some laws are not explained because they are meant to move us at a sub-conscious level. The ritual of the red cow is directed at what Sigmund Freud called thanatos, the death instinct[xi]. According to Freud, “a portion of the [death] instinct is diverted towards the external world and comes to light as an instinct of aggressiveness.”

Sacks insists that the red cow ritual “is a powerful statement that the holy is to be found in life, not death. Anyone who had been in contact with a dead body needed purification. Judaism contains no cult of worship of dead ancestors. Death defiles”.

Countering manifestation of the death instinct, Sacks explains, “cannot be achieved by reason alone”. Instead, he argues, rituals enable the learning to reach “into our unconscious mind and alter our instinctual responses. The result is a personality trained to see death and holiness as two utterly opposed states.”

What we have is not a ritual to beat us into submission and encourage us to berate and crush ourselves but something far more dignified. It is an invitation to engage with the text as intelligent people grappling with the great challenges of life.

Sacks has a similar approach to one of the saddest stories in the Torah. Moses was deprived of his dream to lead his people in to the Promised Land. This was due to the seemingly petty offence of using a stick to hit, rather than talking to, a rock to miraculously draw water from it[xii]. This seems excessively punitive. But to Sacks[xiii], the symbolic meaning of “hitting” at a moment that required “talking” was no small matter.

At the end of his life, Moses was leading a new generation, born in freedom in the wilderness. They were different to their parents who had spent much of their lives as slaves. Slaves understand that a stick is used for striking, which is how slave-masters compel obedience. Free people, by contrast, must be educated, informed and taught.

To put it another way, public administration academic, Holli Vah Seliskar, PHD, wrote, “people benefit most when things are done with them rather than something being done to them[xiv]”. Human beings are happier, more cooperative and productive and more likely to make positive changes in their behaviour when those in positions of authority do things with them[xv]”.

Moses using a stick instead of words was symbolic of his failure to work with the people, rather than berate[xvi] or order them around. Free human beings respond not to power but persuasion. They need to be spoken to. What Moses failed to understand was that the difference between God's command to "speak to the rock" and "strike the rock" was of the essence.

Next time I am confronted with a situation like the one with X, I hope both I and the person with whom I am talking can focus on trying to find a mutually acceptable resolution to our divergent views and needs. Hopefully, this will involve a collaborative conversation rather than punishment. Failing that, I will go with a firm but fair withdrawal from a situation that is not working, but without speaking harsh words that detract from the sacred dignity of all humans.

---

[i] Schwartz, R. C., (2021) No Bad Parts, Sounds True publishers, Boulder Colorado, p. 8

[ii] Numbers, 19:2-12

[iii] Targum Yonasan Ben Uziel of 19:2 דָא גְזֵירַת אַחְוָיַת אוֹרַיְיתָא

[iv] Rashi to Number 19:2, based on Talmud Yoma 67b; Midrash Tanchuma, Chukat 7, I translated the word as ruminate

[v] See Kedushas Levi at the beginning of Parshas Chukas

[vi] Rabbi Chaim Yosef David Auzulai, (The Chidoh), Nachal Kedominm in Toras Chido, p. 130

[vii] Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi, Tanya chapter 1

[viii] https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/chukat/healing-trauma-loss/

[ix] The red cow is discussed in Number 19, the death of Mirram and Aaron are recorded in the following chapter in 20:1 and 20:28

[x] Sacks, J. Covenant and Conversation, Number, p. 239

[xi] https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/chukat/descartes-error/ See commentary by Rabbi Yosef Bechor Shor 

[xii] Numbers 20:7-12

[xiii] https://rabbisacks.org/covenant-conversation/chukat/why-was-moses-not-destined-to-enter-the-land/

[xiv] Seliskar, H. V. https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/doing-with-not-to-or-for/253464

[xv] Watchel, T. in Seliskar

[xvi] Numbers 20:10

Trust - a little caution and a lot of courage

Photo by Timothy Vogel, Creative Commons
License 2.0 Attribution required Non Commercial

The topic was the challenge of broken trust. It was discussed by a group of Jewish school girls, sitting in a circle, with Calisha, a Muslim woman in a hijab who was co-facilitating the session with me.

Trust is earned, they said. When I lose trust in her, it is because of what she did, they asserted. We insisted that this was not the whole story. Trust is not just the result of other people’s choices. Trust is sometimes a choice we make and a gift we give.

We asked the girls if they ever noticed teenagers yelling at their parents, “You don’t trust me!!” It is screamed accusingly, with great emotion, usually anger and indignation. It is as if the teenagers are saying, “How dare you do this terrible thing to me and withdraw your trust in me?”.

Calisha and I are both parents of teenagers. We put it to the teenage girls that the accusation seems ridiculous. Isn’t the reason the parent doesn’t trust the child because the child behaved in an untrustworthy way?! 

The girls reflected on this. One girl suggested that sometimes the child feels that they are more mature now than when they let their parents down last time. Perhaps. At its core, it is because the child wants the parent to not think about what went wrong last time, and the time before, and instead to give the gift of trust this time. It is hard to feel loved and mistrusted at the same time.

I am thinking about this. Each of us has been let down so many times. There is an almost irresistible urge to take charge, take control, and refuse to let anyone hurt us again. I trusted before. I showed goodwill. I hoped. I was disappointed. I will not be hurt again.

To be at peace and in friendship with our peers or others we might need to apply a little caution to protect ourselves, but we must also show a lot of courage.  

C.S. Lewis wrote: “To love at all is to be vulnerable. Love anything and your heart will be wrung and possibly broken. If you want to make sure of keeping it intact you must give it to no one, not even an animal. Wrap it carefully round with hobbies and little luxuries; avoid all entanglements. Lock it up safe in the casket or coffin of your selfishness. But in that casket, safe, dark, motionless, airless, it will change. It will not be broken; it will become unbreakable, impenetrable, irredeemable…”. [1]

In the spirit of this quote, told them a story about a magnificent tree in a forest.

The tree was delightful. Its leaves and flowers were the most beautiful colour, and dense. Its shade was cool. Its trunk healthy and radiant.

Mr Wombat, waddled over to the tree, and looked up with deep appreciation and joy. Wombat said to the tree, you are beautiful and I feel such joy just looking at you.

Magnificent Tree said to Mr Wombat. I feel so touched and loved. The tree opened its heart and invited the wombat inside. Wombat was amazed by the beautiful diamonds inside the tree’s heart. Magnificent Tree said to Wombat, please take one diamond home. Wombat reluctantly agreed. As soon as Wombat returned home, he gave the diamond to Mrs. Wombat.

Fox saw Mrs. Wombat’s diamond and was envious. He too went up to Tree and offered gushing compliments, none of which were sincere. Magnificent Tree was naïve and invited Fox inside. Fox did not wait for an invitation to take diamonds, he grabbed diamonds right and left, tearing and breaking Magnificent Tree’s delicate heart. The tree was hurt and furious. Its heart snapped shut, trapping Fox inside.

And from that day on the tree’s leaves were mostly drained of their colours, there were fewer leaves, the trunk lost its shine and the tree smelled vaguely awful. A really skilled nose would pick up the scent of dead fox. Like CW Lewis’s heart in a coffin, refusing to trust and love hurts us badly.

As believers, we are invited to trust God. Despite natural disasters and human ones, God did not stop. We are still called to believe in his infinite kindness. This is not easy.

Trust and faith are practices, not static states. Our behaviours build our faith and trust or allow them to wither and die.

Every seventh year the Israelites would not plant or harvest [2], pausing their “hustle” to make a statement of trust in God. “You might ask what will we eat [3]?” God says trust me. Many Jews trusted God and downed tools for the Sabbatical year, some do so to this day, but some did not trust or stop farming.

The fury of God’s disappointment in the failure to observe the Sabbatical year is intense. “I will make the land desolate so that your enemies who settle in it shall be appalled by it…And you, I will scatter among the nations, and I will unsheath the sword against you…Then shall the land make up for its sabbath years throughout the time that it is desolate and you are in the land of your enemies; then shall the land …observe the rest that it did not observe in your sabbath years [4].

Failure to give God the gift of trust leads people in a hustling [5] mode, or a controlling mode of being, working the land hard, refusing to take time out for spiritual reflection [6], and being unwilling to “let go and let God”.

This is hard work and I hope we all respond with compassion to anyone struggling to trust after heartbreak. It is cruel to judge people for failing to do this hard work. On the other hand, the consequences of not letting go and trusting again are devastating.

A few minutes before the session ended with the girls, Calisha and I gave them one last gift of trust. The game, Pattern-Ball, can become rowdy and silly but we chose to trust them that they would do it sensibly, even though some of them were unsettled after over an hour of learning with us. One girl reminded us that we “do not want to smell like a dead fox”. There was no way to know if the trust in the girls would be vindicated. It was.   

 

Notes

[1] C.S. Lewis - The Four Loves https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/3058-to-love-at-all-is-to-be-vulnerable-love-anything

[2] Leviticus 25

[3] Leviticus 25:20

[4] Leviticus 26:32-35

[5] Brown, Brene, Rising strong

[6] Seforno

Women and men in Jewish marriage has anything changed

 On Wednesday, a group of Muslim students, a learned Muslim colleague and I discussed marriage. A question from one of the students was “how has Jewish marriage adapted to modern understandings of gender equality and LGBTQ+ rights while maintaining traditional marital practices? are there any contemporary interpretations or adaptations within Jewish communities?” The timing was great because I am currently reading “This Is How Your Marriage Ends” by Matthew Fray about how men fail to honour women’s perspectives and pull their weight in thinking about and doing housework.

While the positions of Orthodox and Progressive Judaism are clear regarding same sex marriage, other adaptations are more subtle.

The most interesting of these are two ways of interpreting a traditional phrase about marriage:

“Who is a Kosher woman? The one who does [whatever is] her husband’s will”. [i]

In 1962, a whole new way of reading this same verse was put forward by the Lubavitcher Rebbe. The new reading involves some word play made possible by the fact that the Hebrew word for “does” also means “makes”.  “Who is a Kosher woman? The one who makes [moulds and influences] her husband’s will” [ii].

In the Rebbe’s new interpretation, a wife is encouraged to influence her highly hassled husband who lacks the will to do what is appropriate. She is “obligated, in ways of pleasantness and peace” to “make and reveal” the husband’s will to do what God wants of him.

It can be argued that this is not a completely modern innovation. Abraham was instructed by God that everything Sara tells you, obey her voice [iii] . But there is a reasonable counter argument, in quoting God’s words to Eve. Your longing will be to your husband, and he shall rule over you [iv]. I would argue that the phrase that a man will rule over his wife is a curse and a prediction, rather than a prescription. As much as I don’t like it, it is hard to escape the sense that Judaism sees a man as having authority in the home. Consider this disturbing law written by Maimonides: “Whenever a woman refrains from performing any of the tasks that she is obligated to perform, she may be compelled to do so, even with a rod [v] ”.

I explained to the students that Jewish law responds to the context of when it is applied. I can’t imagine any Rabbi today would be ok with a man hitting his wife with a rod for failure to do the dishes.

Mathew Fray has much to say about dishes. Before his transformation into a reflective remorseful ex-husband, he was a bitter man who blamed his ex-wife for his problems in a blog post entitled, “my wife divorced me because l left dishes by the sink [vi] ”. He now realises that the dishes by the sink represented something more - a lack of consideration of her needs and perspective. He wrote, “I remember my wife saying how exhausting it was for her to have to tell me what to do all the time… She wanted me to figure out what needed to be done… without making her responsible for orchestrating everything”.

In 2024, for many women to feel respected and loved, a man needs to do more housework and more of the thinking and orchestrating than their parents or grandparents did. This is not a reform of Judaism, but the application of timeless principles to our time. The commandment to love others like ourselves [vii]  requires all of us taking other peoples’ wants, needs and points of view into account as much as we want ours taken into account. This applies to spouses as well.

Similarly, when couples disapprove of each other’s behaviour, rather than find a rod, it is appropriate to draw the spouse’s attention to whatever we are concerned about [viii] , but in a way that does not humiliate them [ix].  

Also on Wednesday, it was Rosh Chodesh, the beginning of a new month when Jewish custom dictates that women not do house work if possible. I won’t disclose too much personal, but I did pay extra attention to this custom this time. Hopefully, I will make a habit of it.

Another modern Rabbi pointed out that when the Torah described the role of women as helping men, it states that she would be “opposite him”. A marriage partner is not a geisha girl or guy who serves drinks and sets the table.  A life partner must be able to say no if necessary—the ‘kenegdo- opposite’ part—because if you marry a yes-sayer, you aren’t really being challenged by another. Moreover, the lips may be moving one way, but the heart may be saying ‘no’ silently until the heart breaks from the weight of ’nos.’ In the end, a "help-opposite" creates its own synthesis, and a new oneness is born. The couple must drink together but not always from the same cup, so that one can correct the other, complement the other, cheer and comfort the other, help and be helped by the other. Only then is the one not alone [x].

My scholarly Muslim colleague shared her perspective on all these matters as it relates to nuances and misunderstandings of Islamic traditions, but that is her story to tell.

The students were delightful.

 

---

[i] Tana Dbei Eliyahu Rabba 9

[ii] The Lubavitcher Rebbe, (1962), a talk on parshat Balak and Likutei Sichos vol 4. איזוהי אשה כשרה? כל שעושה רצון בעלה" (תדא"ר פ"ט). שני פירושים למאמר זה. א.   הבעל ברובו של היום אינו בבית, צריכה איפוא האשה "לעשות" את רצון בעלה - להוריד את הרצון לידי עשיה בפועל. לבעל יש רצונות טובים בעניני חינוך הילדים, הכנסת אורחים, נתינת צדקה וכדומה; אך ההוצאה לפועל של רצונות אלו תלויה באשה. ב.   לפעמים, צריכה האשה "לעשות" - ליצור - את רצון בעלה. כשהבעל טרוד מאד וחסר לו הרצון לעשות את הראוי, חייבת האשה, בדרכי נועם ובדרכי שלום, לעשות ולגלות את רצונו הפנימי של הבעל, שהרי כל יהודי רוצה לעשות רצון קונו...(משיחת ש"פ בלק תשכ"ב - לקו"ש ד עמ' 1069

[iii] Genesis 21:12

[iv] Gensis 3:16

[v] Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, laws of Marriage 21:10

[vi] Fray, M. (2022), This Is How Your Marriage Ends, Souvenir press, p. 50

[vii] Leviticus 19:18

[viii] Leviticus 19:17 see

[ix] Arakhin 16b

[x] Rabbi Shlomo Riskin – I believe. I have been unable to find the source.