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’?

Equality, Desire and Being Known – Eve’s Perspective

I am Eve, known as Hawah to Muslims and Chavah in the Torah. My husband named me Chavah, because I am the Mother of all life (1). Thousands of years later, too many of my grandsons still behave chauvinistically, and many of my descendants also struggle with desire and intimacy.
 
Do not dismiss me as out of date. Yes, I was named by a man, but this does not imply ownership or superior/inferior status. On the contrary, it was an expression of respect (2). However, there was a journey that began with exploring questions of the status of the genders before Adam and I reached a level of respectful intimacy.
 
Before Adam and I met, Adam married another woman named, Lilith. Lilith was created from the earth just like Adam, so she thought she was equal to him and refused to be her husband’s “helper”. They fought, and she ran away (3).
 
In replacing Lilith, God declared that he would make Adam “a helper, opposite [or against] him” (4). This time the woman would be derived from Adam rather than the earth. This could change the power dynamic between the genders to favour men (5).  However, being a “helper-opposite” at least hints at the need to allow the spouse …”to occasionally stand opposite, to feel opposite, to think opposite… A life’s partner must be able to say no… [otherwise] the lips may be moving one way, but the heart may be saying no silently until the heart breaks from the weight of "nos" (6).  Perhaps "occasionally opposing" is not enough for equality, but it is a good start.
 
Well, the idea of me being constructed from Adam’s rib is not the only version of how I came to be. In another telling, Adam and I were both an individual and a pair at the same time. One side of the first human was male - Adam and the other female - me (7).  That explains the seemingly self-contradictory verse about us: “…in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (8). However, because we could not face each other God declared that “it was not good for the human to be alone” (9). Only once we were separated and could face each other would we [potentially] be able “to receive light in light, face in face”, and arise “satisfied as one” (10).
 
Great idea, but when Adam and I first met, he initially failed to fully appreciate me as a person despite us being ‘face to face’. Instead he thought of me as an extension of himself (11). Adam first called me woman, “Isha”, which is a variation of the Hebrew word for man, stating “this [not she, or you] will be called woman, because this was taken from man” (12). 
 
I was far from satisfied with this attitude. When I gave birth to my oldest son, I named him Cain and I declared “I have created (13) a man” (14). I rejected the argument that woman should be considered inferior on account of having come from a man, as I have demonstrated now that man has come from woman (15)! This naming speech was my rejection of male chauvinism (16).
 
My claims to equality were set back by our eating forbidden fruit, which Adam blamed on me (17). In response to that sin, God declared that women would desire their husbands, and husbands would rule their wives (18). This should not be taken as an instruction but as a prediction of an unfortunate problem, for humanity to address (19).
 
Despite the unfortunate aspect of that situation, it had a silver lining. Eating fruit from the tree of “knowledge of good and evil” introduced a new element of sexual desire between Adam and me (20). After “our eyes were opened” (21) and our innocence lost, Adam finally noticed me as a person in my own right and gave me an individual and personal name, Eve/Chavah (22).  To celebrate our arrival as a loving couple of equal and unique people who deeply respect each other, God clothed us in garments of light (23). For us, despite the difficulties, we found the possibility of true love and respect. I wish you the same.
 
 Love, Grandma Eve-Chavah-Hawah
 
Notes
1)       Genesis 3:20
2)       Sacks, J. (2009), Covenant and Conversation, Genesis, Magid Books and the Orthodox Union, Jerusalem, p. 33-37
3)       Alef Bet of Ben Sira, Zohar Bereshit, 34b and Vavyikra 19a, Torat Hachida Bereshit, 70, p. 23
4)       Genesis 2:27
5)       Torat Hachida Bereshit, 70, p. 23
6)       Rabbi Shlomo Riskin, in Lubotzky, Y. & Mark, R.  https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0272/7831/1512/files/brushes-all_03r.pdf?v=15699884950348939191,  p. 18
7)       Talmud, Brachot 61a
8)       Genesis 1:27, note the shift from singular to plural
9)       Genesis 2:27,
10)    Zohar, part 3, 44b.
11)    Sacks, J. (2009), Covenant and Conversation, Genesis, Magid Books and the Orthodox Union, Jerusalem, p. 35-36
12)    Genesis 2:23
13)    Translation follows Radak
14)    Genesis 4:1
15)    Abarbanel
16)    Casuto, in Pardes, Ilana. "Creation According to Eve: Beyond Genesis 3." Jewish Women: A Comprehensive Historical Encyclopedia. 27 February 2009. Jewish Women's Archive. (Viewed on October 5, 2020) <https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/creation-according-to-eve-beyond-genesis-3>.
17)    Genesis 3:12
18)    Genesis 3:16
19)    Bernbaum, T. https://www.chabad.org/theJewishWoman/article_cdo/aid/90765/jewish/The-Curse-of-Eve.htm
20)    Radak
21)    Genesis 3:7
22)    Sacks, J. (2009), Covenant and Conversation, Genesis, Magid Books and the Orthodox Union, Jerusalem, p. 36
23)    Bereshit Rabba 20:12 as explained in Sacks

Disgraced Cohen's Daughter's Punishment - Emor

As I am finalising my thoughts on this blog, my heart is full of inspiration from yesterday’s Inter-school Program, watching Christian, Jewish and Muslim students come together yesterday culminating in spontaneously making music together. In stark contrast to that, I consider enduring contradictions and divisions that challenge me and others. Experiences, narratives and texts can all alienate us from communities, both similar and different to ourselves.  In this post I explore one of these.

I have been thinking of one passage in the Torah that challenges me not to feel alienated from my own tradition. “The daughter of a Cohen/ priest who will profane herself through whoredom, her father she is desecrating, in fire, she should be burned” (1). After thinking about it for a week, it seemed clear to me that there was nothing I could say that would reconcile this verse with contemporary mores. Over Shabbat (Friday night and Sunday) I was delighted to find a possible, at least partial, way through.

At the start of this discussion I make the following points: A) We need to look at how a religious text is applied today in the lived experience of the adherents of that faith rather than what the words are in the text. This is as true for non-Muslims looking at verses from the Koran as it is for those trying to make sense of Judaism.  B) It is useful to consider how traditions have been interpreted over time.

A Sydney Rabbi who told me that his sermon on the passage of the Cohen’s daughter, interpreted it along mystical lines. He said that it is by God’s design that this law does not apply today (as capital cases are no longer prosecuted since the destruction of the second temple two thousand years ago). Instead, he suggested that burning in fire represents passionate devotion to God to correct the sins of passion (2). Another contemporary approach to this matter took the form of a personal reflection on the responsibility of dads in  positions of religious leadership to be attentive to their children. The writer regrets that some of his religious study years earlier was at the expense of his family. Failure to properly guide children shames the father (3).   

Earlier traditions relating to this law make clear that we are dealing with adultery and a married woman (4). Furthermore, there are very strict laws applying to all cases of capital punishment. The perpetrator must have been warned by two witnesses immediately prior to the act which is then witnessed. This is a highly unlikely scenario. Traditions vary about how rare an event any capital punishment was when it was practiced at all, with one opinion that a Court that killed once every 70 years was a “murderous court”, and another view putting it as once every 7 years (5).

Despite the restrictions on actually putting a woman to death for this crime, the phrase itself raises concern for me. There are two aspects that bother me. One is the idea that a woman’s status is considered through the perspective of its impact on the honour of her male family members. The second is on the discrepancy between a misbehaving son and daughter (6).

Early traditional commentary is in line with a simple reading of the text: “If he [her father] had been treated as holy (before), he will now be treated as mundane, (if he had been treated with) honor, now he will be treated with disgrace, as they will say cursed be the one who gave birth to this one, who raised this one” (7).

Fortunately this approach is not the only one. I take comfort from the approach of both of the early authoritative translations into Aramaic, neither of which mentions the father’s shame (8). One (9) subtly re frames it as “from the holiness of her father she becomes desecrated”. The meaning of the translation is that she is desecrating herself, and profaning “the holiness that she has as a heritage from her father”. As the daughter of a Cohen/priest she inherited social- spiritual capital that has now been lost (10). It is not about her father but about her.

The discrepancy between a daughter and a son can be considered from a historical and contextual perspective that suggests that the verse is a response to the practice of the “sacred prostitute”. It is argued that the daughters of idol worshipers’ priests would act as prostitutes at their places of worship (11). Evidence is found in a  phrase in the book of Hosea: “they sacrifice with the prostitutes” (12). If we accept this argument then it is reasonable that the warning is directed to females based on the historical-actual problem the passage is seeking to address. While this explanation is attractive to me, I have not yet found any earlier authoritative commentary linking this ancient practice and this verse.

I am conflicted about how to approach these types of texts. I can join my colleagues who try to make it ok. As demonstrated above, there are some plausible approaches to do that, at least partially. I can also simply put them out there for further reflection and study. When my own daughter was born we  chose a biblical name, Shifra, that was not identified as being the wife, daughter or mother of any important man because we want our daughter to know she matters for who she is and who she will become, including but certainly not limited to her roles as a mother, wife or daughter. I take comfort in this view being consistent with some of my traditions about this difficult verse. The discrepancy between the treatment of males and females, however is acknowledged as a matter of concern.

Notes and Sources

1. Leviticus 21:9
2. Conversation at Lag B’Omer event at Bondi with Rabbi Y. 14.05.2017 based on Chasidic sources
3. Buchwald, Rabbi E, Lessons from a Cohen’s Wanton Daughter, https://njop.org/emor-5772-2012/. He wrote….As one who completed the study of an entire cycle of the Talmud about twenty-five years ago, I know how enriching the experience can be… but looking back, it was inevitable that devoting so much time to the study of Torah came, at least in part, at the expense of the family, especially during the children’s critical nurturing years..
4. Talmud Sanhedrin 50b
5. Mishnah, Makkot 1:10
6. Abarbanel, commentary on Emor question 5, p.225
7. Talmud Sanhedrin 52a
8. Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel, sees the reference to the father as a clarification of a matter of law, that she had gotten married through Erusin, but lived in her father’s house
9. Unkelus/Onkelus, who lived around c. 35–120 CE, although the Talmud Megillah 3a suggests that this translation is was based on the teachings of the great Tanaaim Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua, or even earlier but forgotten by the masses, and rerecorded by Unkelus,
10. Meshech Chochma, Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, 1843-1926
11. Daat Mikra on Leviticus 21:9, Mosad Harav Kook,
12. Hosea 4:14

Naming a Daughter: Aspiration, Recognition & Feminism

My wife and I were blessed with a baby daughter last Friday, after having five sons. In Jewish teachings there is a connection between the name and character[i]. In selecting a name for our daughter we wanted something distinctive but traditional that would connect her to a biblical role model. Personally, I was also concerned about the way that women are often thought of as the wife of this great person or the mother of another, rather than a person in their own right. I also don’t like the way some girls’ names reflect a view of girls being pretty little things rather than full human beings. Traditionally one consideration in selecting a name is to honour and remember family members, but with four grandmothers between the two parents, we could not honour all of them.

Shifra – Heroic Career woman or Mother?

One strong female characters in the Torah is the Egypt-wide chief midwife for Hebrews[ii] Shifra, who along with her colleague Puah defies the Pharaoh when he commands them to murder the Hebrew male babies[iii].  This courageous choice is the first and perhaps the only example of civil disobedience that resists racism in the Torah. The name is also related to the Hebrew word Shfoferet, a tube because Shifra would resuscitate babies who had stopped breathing by blowing through a tube[iv]. While many sources identify Shifra as being Jochebed, the mother of Moses[v], other texts identify her as a convert[vi], and as an Egyptian[vii], whose children or husband remains unknown and irrelevant to her identity, just as they are absent in a plain reading of the Torah text itself.  

I wonder about what message there is in the commentary that links Shifra with Jochebed. Is it about the greatness of Moses’ lineage, or reflecting a view that a great and complete woman is not just one who interacts with a monarch and defies him but also one who is a mother as well? There is a moving prophecy that reassures men who have no children “let not the eunuch say, "Behold, I am a dry tree”. For so says the Lord to the eunuchs who will keep My Sabbaths and will choose what I desire and hold fast to My covenant, "I will give them in My house and in My walls a place and a name, better than sons and daughters; an everlasting name I will give him, which will not be discontinued[viii]." Surely we can read this passage as saying there is a value to a woman beyond motherhood. Equally, I ask myself whether my own interest in the less prominent commentaries that could be interpreted as positioning Shifra as a career woman rather than a mother reflects a lack of recognition of the importance of motherhood for women and its contribution to the wellbeing of children and to society generally.

To be Named Or Not to be Named

Our daughter’s second and third names were given to her to be named after my paternal grandmother Golda Kastel A.H.[ix] and my wife’s maternal grandmother Bracha Stark A.H., both very strong women who managed to both support their husbands and shine as people in their own right.  In selecting two grandmothers, we highlighted two out of four.  

The issue of whether names are acknowledged or not mentioned is a significant one in the Torah reading, Tetzaveh [x], which was read on the Shabbat on which our daughter was named. The special clothing worn by the high priest in the temple worship included diamonds in which the names of each of the twelve tribes of Israel were engraved “before God, on his two shoulders, as a remembrance”[xi]. The names would also be carved a second time into twelve precious stones on a breastplate worn by the high priest[xii].

The opposite side of the equation is also found in this portion. It is the only portion in the Torah that occurs during the life time of Moses[xiii], where he is not mentioned. According to commentary this reflects a selfless choice by Moses, in which he offers a desperate plea to God to forgive the Jews for the sin of the Golden Calf. Moses says to God, “And now, (God) forgive their sin, and if not, erase me please from Your book (the Torah) that You wrote[xiv].”  While God essentially forgives his people, the words of Moses about being erased from the “book” are still partially fulfilled in his absence from this portion[xv].

Not Named But Still Present

The absence of Moses’ name in the Torah portion does not mean he is not present. One way of thinking about it is that his role is more of a background role. Moses might have felt disappointed when, as the sanctuary for God begins to come together, the prominent roles are filled by others - Betzalel is the architect and chief designer while Aaron will perform the key rituals. Where is Moses in all this? To comfort him, without altering the reality of his less overtly prominent role, God tells Moses three times “and you[xvi]” will command the people relating to the olive oil, draw Aaron close and instruct the designers of the priestly clothing. The Torah has a special tune or accent in which it is traditionally read, with louder and longer pitches or intonation for emphasis, all three times the words “and you” have these strong accents[xvii].  Suggesting the importance of Moses’ role in the sanctuary, the spiritual illumination symbolized by the oil and the worship by Aaron[xviii].

Applying the same principle to our question of the names not given to our daughter, I think our daughter can draw strength and inspiration from the two grandmothers after whom she has not been named. Their lives, character, choices and guidance have indirectly helped shape the person she will become, by their parenting of Shifra’s own grandparents.

Conclusion

Names matter. Names can mean a lot of different things, depending on how they are interpreted. The name Shifra also means beautiful or to make beautiful, for example. I trust that our Shifra Golda Bracha will find her own way to construct her identity and draw some strength from great women and men who came before her. This will involve prioritising between public and private roles, at home and/or at work. It will also require recognition that recognition itself is far from the only criteria of value. As my third “honorary grandmother” Stella Cornelius used to say “you can accomplish a lot if you don’t care who gets the credit”. Welcome to our world, Shifra Golda Bracha Kastel.

---

[i] There is a story told about a student at the House of Torah study whose name was Chatfa which means to grab. After something went missing in the Yeshiva, this student wiped his wet hands on another student’s clothes, which showed a lack of respect for the property of others.  When he was confronted about this he admitted to the theft. This vindicated the view of Rabbi Meir about the link between names and character. I have been unable to find the source of this story.

[ii] Ibn Ezra

[iii] Exodus 1:15-21

[iv] Torah Shlaima p38, note 165, also saw elsewhere but can’t find the source

[v] Sifre, Talmud Sotah 11b, Rashi

[vi] Yalkut Yehoshua cited in Chumash Torah Temima

[vii] Midrash Tadsheh, end Chapter 1 21, Imre Noam, Paaneach Raza, R. Y. of Vienna, the latter two suggest it is would be implausible for the Pharaoh to demand Jewish midwives murder the babies because according to Jewish law one must be prepared to sacrifice one’s life rather than take an innocent life,  all cited in Torah Shlaima, p.38

[viii] Isaaia 56:3-5

[ix] Alehah Hashalom, upon her, peace.

[x] Exodus 27:20- 30:10

[xi] Exodus 28:9-12

[xii] Exodus 28:21

[xiii] The middle three books of the Torah, the last book Deuteronomy is almost entirely the words of Moses himself. 

[xiv] Exodus 32:32

[xv] Midrash Hane’elam Zohar Chadash 6b, cited in Torah Shlaima p.139

[xvi] Exodus 27:20, 28:1 and 28:3

[xvii][xvii] The accents are called, Gershayim, Pazer and Reviee

[xviii][xviii] Alshich, cited in Leibowitz, N, New Studies in Shemot p.526