Parashas Berashis 5772

“And [the snake] said to the woman, ‘did G-d really say that you can’t eat from any of the fruits of the garden?” This verse (B’raishis 3:1) is the beginning of the conversation between the snake and Chava (Eve) that led to the sin of eating the fruit of the “Tree of Knowledge.” The notion of talking animals as part of a Biblical narrative is not unique to this story (see Bamidbar 22:28); the context of the narrative, however, does raise several issues.

First and foremost is the question raised by numerous commentators–if the snake had the power of speech and lost it, why isn’t it mentioned as part of the curse G-d placed on the snake? The text (3:14-15) mentions the snake having to crawl on its belly (implying it originally had legs), eating dust (i.e. everything it eats will taste like dust, see Yuma 75a), and the animosity that will exist between snakes and people, but says nothing about losing its ability to communicate via the spoken word. With speech being such a defining human characteristic, shouldn’t the text mention that it was taken away as part of the snake’s punishment?

Oznayim L’Torah (see also the alternate version of Ibn Ezra; Ibn Ezra is one of the commentators who says the snake literally spoke) suggests, based on other Biblical verses, that the expression “eating dust” is a euphemism for not being able to speak. After all, one cannot speak with a mouth full of dust, which is why telling someone to “put dust in your mouth” is the equivalent of saying “keep quiet.” It still seems a bit strange that the snake’s loss of speech is only hinted to, which may be why most commentators don’t understand the text to mean that it literally spoke. Torah Sh’laimah (1:9) quotes Sefer Hayovelim’s suggestion that until Adam was evicted from the Garden of Eden every animal had the ability to speak; if this ability was taken away from every animal (the snake was cursed more than the other animals, see 3:14, implying that the other animals were cursed too), we can understand why it could not be included in the curse that was limited to the snake.

Or Hachayim is among the commentators who suggest that Adam and Chava were able to understand the “language” that animals “spoke.” A similar explanation (see Abarbanel) has the actions of the snake indicating that the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was especially tasty. Either way, the back-and-forth of the “conversation” between the woman and the snake are complex and detailed enough to make it more difficult to accept that there was such a high level of communication between the two. Are there “animal words” for “becoming like G-d” or “knowing good and evil?” Was the snake so good at “charades” that it could act these concepts out? Chazal (Sanhedrin 59b and B’raishis Rabbah 19a) do say that mankind suffered a great loss when the snake was cursed, as snakes had made for great personal assistants. (They were intelligent enough to go places and strong enough to carry heavy loads, so could deliver packages without any human being accompanying it.) Were they so much more advanced than carrier pigeons that they could have theological discussions? Without any indication from the text that part of the curse was losing much of their intellectual capacity, it doesn’t seem very likely.

The most widely given explanation for there being no mention of the snake losing its capacity to talk is that it wasn’t the snake that did the talking. Rather, it was Satan, who was “riding” on the snake, who spoke with Chava (see Pirkay D‘Rebbe Eliezer 13). She must not have known that snakes are not supposed to talk, or the “speaking while riding” orchestrated by Satan might have been movements, motions or animal-speak that translated to a high-enough level of communication for the advanced “conversation” to occur. If it wasn’t really the snake doing the talking, there’s no need to include losing the ability to speak in its curse. However, many commentators dismiss this approach for a different reason–if it really was Satan that convinced Chava to eat from the Tree of Knowledge–and not the snake–why was the snake punished? This question really applies to all the approaches, even those that say it was the snake that convinced Chava to sin. After all, animals do not have free will; only man was made “in G-d’s likeness” (see Sefornu on 1:26). Since the snake did not choose to sin, how could G-d have punished it at all?

Although animals do not have free will, pet owners will confirm that they do have distinct personalities. Even within the same species (and breed), each individual animal has its own personality. They make decisions, based on their personality, but those decisions do not qualify as “exercising free will,” as, from a theological standpoint, “free will” refers to having the ability to choose between right and wrong (or, as Rav Dessler, z”l, put it, between truth/reality and falsehood/fantasy, see https://rabbidmk.wordpress.com/2011/04/18/pesach-5771/), not the freedom to choose what you prefer. Most decisions people make are about preference, not right vs. wrong, although the consequences of choosing wrong usually makes people prefer what’s right. Reward and punishment have value besides the inherent value of choosing what’s right and the inherent consequences of choosing what’s wrong. Reward and punishment are powerful motivators that shape preferences, and are therefore used when teaching and training those who do not have (or do not yet have) free will. Some forms of punishment (such as prison) can act as a deterrent in two ways–providing a strong reason not to do what’s wrong, and physically preventing those who did wrong from doing it again.

Malbim (3:1) points out that the specific curses/punishments given to the snake should correspond to aspects that led to the sin of eating from the forbidden fruit. Just as the curse of having to crawl on its belly indicates that it used to have legs, the curse that it always eat dust indicates that until now it enjoyed more tasteful food, and the curse that there would be animosity between it and mankind indicates that before this they got along well, or at least worked very well together. Rabbeinu Bachye (3:14 and 15) says that the snake’s characteristics were such that it was very easy for it to have a primary role in man’s downfall. I would suggest that the snake wasn’t punished for choosing bad over good (as animals, even the most cunning, do not have free will). Rather, G-d cursed the snake so that it could no longer cause man to sin.

The snake had a relationship with man, in the sense that it would do things for him (and her), and, in turn, they would “reward” his loyalty by giving him “treats.” Whereas other animals only ate vegetation (1:30), man could eat both vegetation and fruit (1:29). If the treats the snake was given were the fruits that other animals couldn’t eat, the snake might have started indicating which fruit it wanted, which led to its asking for some of the forbidden fruit. Alternatively, the snake’s “cunningness” might have included the ability to seek out which foods were most tasty, a talent Chava appreciated and took advantage of when figuring out what she (and her husband) would eat. Chava taking notice that the snake often went to the Tree of Knowledge (or had indicated that it wanted its fruit) was enough of an opening for Satan to start “riding” the snake, communicating with Chava (through real speech, snake language–which Chava understood, or movements that conveyed the ideas well enough for Chava to have the conversation in her mind, see Abarbanel) in a way that led her to try the fruit herself.

After such disastrous results, G-d had to end the arrangement between snake and man, so that it would no longer be able to (or have a need to) seek out life’s delicacies, and no longer be able to assist man as it once did. This was accomplished by making everything the snake ate taste like dust–thus removing any incentive to seek out anything tasty, by further limiting its utility to man by removing its legs, and by placing animosity between the snake and mankind. The divide created between them may have included removing the ability they previously had to communicate with each other, but the point was separating them, not taking “speech” away from the snake.

Why isn’t the snake’s inability to speak mentioned among its curses? Either it never had such an ability, it’s ability to communicate with man wasn’t unique, or the reason it lost its ability was a subset of ending its utility to mankind. Why was the snake punished if it can’t be held responsible for Adam’s sin? It wasn’t being punished per se, but being prevented from having the ability to become a repeat offender.