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

Masculinity and Faith. Sara Denounced to Abraham for laughing in Vayera

Toxic masculinity is on our radar, manifesting in sexual harassment, rape, aggression and chauvinism. I wonder about the nature of non-toxic masculinity. What is it exactly? Is it realistic to have faith that men will express their masculinity in healthy ways? I don’t know how to answer my first question. The answer to my second question is to suggest that the question itself is flawed, because realism is not very useful in deciding whether to have faith in men. Faith in men requires a positive choice to believe we can get it right, despite some of the evidence.

The Torah’s teachings about the role of men often seem at odds with modern perspectives about gender roles. Perhaps the most controversial concept is the idea of a man as the “head of the household”. God declared to Eve representing all women, that “he will rule you” (1). Perhaps that was a prediction of how men would wrongly fully dominate women rather than a prescription of how things ought to be. Yet, there is some evidence that God seemed to think that men are rightfully in charge of women. When the barren Sarah laughed about a divine promise that she would bear a child at an advanced age, God complained to Abraham about his wife’s laughter (2). Is this not an expression of Abraham’s “headship” of his household?!

The passage in which God appears to speak to a husband about his wife’s alleged misbehaviour has been on my mind this whole week. It linked in my mind to the image, circulated on social media, of actor Adam Sandler putting his hand on the leg of Clare Foy, an actress sitting next to him during an interview. In the widely circulated image, Foy looks uncomfortable. (I must mention that I had not seen the rest of the tape until later, nor was I aware that Foy released a statement that: “We don’t believe anything was intended by Adam’s gesture and it has caused no offence to Claire.” Regardless of the facts in the Sandler-Foy case too many men behave in entitled ways toward women. Does this verse not imply that God regarded Abraham as Sara’s boss and therefore complained about his wife to him?!

Perhaps not. Both Abraham and Sarah both responded with laughter to God’s promise that Sarah, aged 90, and Abraham aged 100, would have a child together (4). Both of them were deserving of reprimand (5) because they doubted God’s promise based on the available evidence, of their advanced age and the impossibility that a birth could occur. God chose not to reprimand Abraham at that time because to do would detract from the celebration of a significant history altering act that Abraham was engaged in at that time. Circumcising himself which symbolised that men can constrain their sexual drive and commit to doing so as part of an overall covenant with God (6). There is a precedent that proves the principle that God would not distract from celebration of a great moment with punishment when a sin occurred around the time the Ten Commandments were given, but there was no punishment or reprimand (7).

Abraham had ample justification to be sceptical about a miraculous birth, and a covenant to transcend human frailties. This is expressed in him falling on his face (8). God hints at a reprimand by telling him “but indeed Sarah will give birth!” Have faith! (9)

Sara is keen on evidence based approach. According to one interpretation her laughter was not about God’s impossible promise, but in surprise to her body changing suddenly into a younger version of herself, losing her wrinkles and suddenly having her period. This is what upset God. This looking for evidence and only when it is presented belief follows (10). If we want our society to work, we need to believe despite some evidence to the contrary that we can make it work.

When God reprimanded Sarah, through Abraham, it was intended for both of them. For Abraham indirectly and for Sarah directly (11). In this interpretation the question about Sarah’s laughter is not about male position, but about a delicately delivered lesson about faith at a particularly tricky time. This removes one more Biblical excuse for male chauvinism. Based on available evidence, many men will continue to relate to women appallingly. However I choose to put aside that evidence and keep my faith that men can and will learn to relate to women as equals, with care and respect.

1. Genesis 3:16
2. Genesis 18:9-14
3. http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/10/30/claire-foy-responds-to-adam-sandler-s-constant-knee-touching_a_23260633/
4. Genesis 17:15-17
5. Midrash Hagadol, cited in Osnayim Latorah, p. 121, (thanks to Chayim Lando for drawing this to my attention) and Akedat Yitzchak 18:1
6. Akedat Yitzchak 18:1
7. Exodus 24, as explained in Vayikra Rabbah 20, cited in Akedat Yitzchak 18:1
8. Genesis 17:17 as interpreted in Akedat Yitzchak 18:1
9. Genesis 17:18-19 as interpreted in Akedat Yitzchak 18:1
10. Ohr Hachayim on Genesis 18:12-13, drawing on Midrash, Talmud, Bava Metzia, cited in Torah Shlaima p.761, 154.

Sexism: Is Religion The Cause or The Cure? Genesis 1-6

I think religious teachings impact different people in different ways; in some cases they work to  legitimise discrimination against women, while in others they restrain people from engaging in sexist behavior and attitudes. This question was sparked by a discussion I had with a Muslim teenager last week in which he asserted that faith plays a restraining role in people’s lives, by preventing them from enacting certain behaviours and that without it people would be out of control. I wondered about the apparent tolerance, on the part of many Americans, of Trump’s alleged behaviour and attitudes toward women. Can this phenomenon be attributed to a decline in religious mores or on the contrary, could it be caused to some extent by “Biblical sexism”. I explore this theme by looking at my own traditions relating to Genesis 1-6 (1).

There is a little known variation to the creation story. In this variation is the legend of Adam’s first wife, Lilith. Both she and Adam are created in the exact same way, from the ground. Lilith and Adam quarreled; Lilith insisted that she was equal to Adam. Eventually Lilith flew away and left Adam and was replaced by Eve (2). This shadowy woman is thought of today as a demonic threat to babies. Her name is mentioned on the prayer cards my Chabad community places on a baby’s crib, requesting God’s protection from Lilith. One implication contained in this story could be that a woman seeking equality is a problem. One commentator (3) states explicitly that the woman could not be completely equal to the man because then it would be inappropriate for her to serve him as the Torah suggests (4).

In the aftermath following Eve and Adam’s decision to eat the forbidden fruit, Eve was told by God that her punishment would be for her desire to be directed at her husband and “he will rule you!” (5). It is useful to ask if this assertion is a prediction or a prescription about how things should be.

One tradition asserts that God’s statement that men will rule women is prescriptive rather than descriptive. In a later period a drunken King demanded that his wife appear before him and his guests to show off her beauty. When she refused he had her killed (6). Afterwards he was comforted by an adviser named Memuchan, who, according to this commentary, was actually Daniel. Daniel told the king not to cry over Vashti because the King had done the right thing according to the Torah which states “he (men) should rule over you (women)” (7).    

Thankfully, there is an alternative perspective. In this interpretation, men ruling women would apply only  a consequence of an agricultural reality. One of the punishments for eating the forbidden fruit was that the production of food would require sweat of the brow and physical exertion (8). This would create an advantage for men, at the expense of women who would now be dependent on them. This “endangers the original equality (that God intended between men and women, but if the Torah is properly adhered to it would reestablish:) Man and woman again in an equal God-serving calling” (9). According to this view, with the shift to the knowledge economy, the value of brute physical strength has diminished and therefore the shift back to the ideal of equality of the sexes can and should be actively pursued.

The interpretation that supports equality would be consistent with the tradition that Eve was actually created at the same time as Adam, not from his rib, but as one part of a double human:  one side being Adam and the other side being Eve (10).

The divergent sets of guidance show the problem with jumping to conclusions about whether a religion “is sexist” or it is not. Interpretations vary both in text and practice. Outsiders to a tradition would need to be very cautious when making judgements or assertions. As an insider, I think it is useful to tease out the competing ideas,  to emphasise those teachings that support equality and to deal with the challenge of texts that might lead people to undesirable attitudes and behaviours.  

On the other hand it is useful to recognise the power that religion has in restraining people from wrongdoing, as my Muslim student suggested. In the unfolding story we are told disapprovingly of men’s treatment of women. The Torah’s standard for the male-female relationship is: “a man will leave his father and his mother and will cleave to his wife and they will become one flesh” (11) which is interpreted as finding common purpose “as if both of them are one existence” (12). This ideal was disregarded by Lemech who married two wives. One for the sole purpose of producing children, who he then left alone for the rest of her life, to live like a widow”, ignored by Lemech. The second wife was used only for sex, she was named Tzila, whose name means “shade” because she was always in Lemech’s “shadow”. She was given a contraceptive drink and was “adorned like a prostitute” (13). The objectification of women then degenerates with men taking from women “all that they chose” including rape. God was disappointed with the human project (14). The message is clear that God-fearing men would surely never consider behaving in such a manner or tolerating such behavior.

In conclusion, I passionately believe that it is generally wrong to blame specific bad behaviors or attitudes on a religion. Human beings are complex. We are driven by a variety of factors including individual characteristics, fears and experiences, psychological and cultural factors. However I think it is not truthful, nor useful to deny that religion can play a facilitating role in justifying sexist behavior or attitudes. Still, we must recognise the differences in attitude and emphasis between people who identify as adherents of the same faith and deeply explore the often complex and apparently contradictory teachings that lead to these divergences. No doubt many men’s faith prevents them from behaving badly toward women out of fear or respect of God. As for the rest, it is incumbent on all people regardless of religious affiliation, to strive for justice for all, including equality and dignity for the female half of the human family.

Notes

1. Two main reasons for why I focus on my own faith tradition. a) I have expertise in my faith and know little about the faiths of others, I don’t think a Wikipedia/google based “research” of other faiths has much validity; on the contrary I think it is usually quite idiotic. b) I don’t think it is tactful to judge other people’s sacred texts. I accept that studies of religion students will need to think critically about other’s faiths. I suggest that in those cases, students approach the task humbly, as gathering provisional knowledge. People in positions of leadership, might be advised to take a more cautious approach.   
2. Ben Sira quoted in Torah Shlaima part 2, p. 236, see note 256, the legend is mentioned in the Zohar twice,  Zohar Bereshit 34b, and Vayikra 19a, see also reference to Lillith in Talmud Shabbat 151a.
3. Seforno commentary to Genesis 2:18
4. Genesis 2:18
5. Genesis 3:16, in Hebrew the same words are used to predict the future as to give a command. He will rule over you can also mean he should rule over you.
6. The book of Esther
7. Pirkey D’Rabbi Eliezer 48, cited in Torah Shlaima part 2, p. 275,121
8. Genesis 3:19
9. Samson Raphael Hirsch on Genesis 3:16
10. Talmud Eruvin 11, cited in Rashi commentary to Genesis 2:21
11. Genesis 2:24
12. Seforno commentary to  Genesis 2:24
13. Midrash Rabba/Beresheet Rabba chapter 23
14. Genesis 6:2-3