[1] Verses 18 – 24 recount the sequence of events leading to G*d’s formation of Eve from Adam’s body. The verses can be divided into four sections:

1.        G*d reveals his plan to fashion a separate female helper for man (verse 18).

2.        G*d arouses man to crave a suitable female helper by having him name animals – and discover their unsuitability to become his female helpmate (verses 19-20).

3.        G*d fashions woman from man’s own body (verses 21-22).

4.        Adam expresses his profound feeling of attachment to Eve; this intense feeling becomes part of the male psyche forever (verses 23-24).

[2] As explained in Lecture Two (footnote 14), in the context of Creation, the Hebrew word “tov” means G*d’s ongoing support for the existence of objects or creatures in its completed form. Here, the Torah states G*d’s view of man’s present makeup: it is not “tov.” G*d will not support man’s continued existence in his present form. G*d will alter man’s original makeup. In the next footnote, Ramban describes man’s original makeup that G*d planned to change.

[3] Question: Earlier (Genesis 1:27), the Torah described G*d’s formation of “man” as male and female human beings; yet here, the Torah recounts woman’s formation as occurring only after man’s futile search for a female partner among animal life. It is unlikely that G*d originally fashioned man as a lone male that was incapable of procreation. All other animal life was fashioned originally in male and female genders for the purpose of procreation, and even plant life was fashioned with the ability to reproduce. What, then, was man’s original constitution?

Answer: The Oral Tradition (Talmud, Berachot 61a) relates that G*d originally fashioned man as a single-body hermaphrodite possessing male and female facial features that faced opposite directions. Genesis 1:27 records this original human makeup. Here, the Torah describes events that led to G*d’s division of man into separate male and female bodies.

[4] Ramban explained in the previous footnote that the female helper had existed previously as part of a hermaphroditic body. The Torah uses accusative case since the female already existed as part of man.

[5] In man’s original male-female composition, the female part of man existed in what the Torah calls an ezer (helper) to the male part. Therefore, this verse does not mention G*d’s intent to fashion a female ezer, since it already existed as part of man; rather G*d planned to detach the female ezer from the male portion, so that the male could see her, and bond to and separate from her at will.

[6] Earlier (Genesis 1:20-25), the Torah narrated the formation of all animal life. As an introduction to Adam’s search for a female helper, the Torah here briefly recounts the formation of animal and bird life only. Ramban will explain that man could have chosen from among them a suitable female helper that G*d would have refashioned into a human female.

The Torah omits mention of fish, rodents, insects and other small crawling animals, since they are not sufficiently developed forms of life to have been considered for refashioning into a female human being.

[7] In its description of creation, the Torah records that birds were fashioned from water (see Lecture Two, Genesis 1:20).

[8] G*d had a two-fold purpose in bringing the animals and birds before man:

·         to arouse Adam of his need for a separate female partner – rather than exist as a hermaphrodite,

·         for Adam to recognize fully that his female partner could not be found from among any animal.

From the outset, G*d knew that man could bond only to a female fashioned from his own body. However, G*d wanted Adam to realize this truth, and consequently crave a suitable female helper - as G*d had provided for all other animals. G*d would then intervene to fashion a separate female from Adam’s body.

[9] The Hebrew word Adam defines both as the entire race of mankind, and the first man, Adam. Here, the Torah refers to Adam the man.

[10] Naming animals and birds: G*d designated man to name the animals, and endowed him with profound insight to perform this task. The names that Adam gave to the animals identified the true nature of each animal and bird species, including its proper mate for procreation. In naming the animals, Adam ascertained that no female animal was suited to be his female helper.

[11] The Biblical Hebrew names for animal species – and other living beings – define their essential nature (e.g., par/parah – ox/female cow, kelev/kalbe – male/female dog). Rabbi Bachyai (Torah commentary of Rabbi Bachyai, d. 1340, Spain) explains the deeper allusions of the Hebrew names of several animals.

[12] G*d had fashioned man as a unique living creature, possessing a Divine soul. Clearly, Adam could not be expected to find a suitable female counterpart from among the animals, all of which were formed completely from earthly components (see Lecture Two, footnotes 5 and 43). Indeed, G*d had not intended for Adam to mate with a female animal or bird in its existing animal composition. Rather, Adam could have chosen from among the animal and bird species the one that most suited his own human nature. G*d would have then refashioned the existing female animal or bird into a human female, both physiologically, spiritually and intellectually, by imparting into its body a Divine soul, as G*d had previously done in fashioning Adam from the earth. This would have obviated the need to fashion an entirely new female body from Adam’s body.

[13] See Lecture Two, footnote 8

[14] see Lecture Two, footnote 10

[15] In the course of naming the animals and birds (i.e., identifying each species’ essential nature and proper mate), Adam became acutely aware of his inability to identify a female animal or bird that was suitable to his unique human personality.

Adam’s rejection of an animal mate was not a subjective decision; rather, as explained above (footnote 33), Adam ascertained that man possesses a unique nature that cannot mate with other living creatures, even in a refashioned human state.

[16] G*d responded to Adam’s incipient craving for his own separate female helper by fashioning Eve from his own body.

[17] This verse describes Adam’s intense feeling of attachment to Eve that stemmed from her having been fashioned directly from his own body. The next verse describes the intense feeling of attachment that Adam’s male descendents feel toward their wives – albeit of a lesser intensity than that of Adam.

[18] Adam expresses his intense appreciation at having found a suitable female helper.

[19] The Torah digresses to record the far-reaching effect of Adam’s intense feeling of attachment to Eve. Adam’s experience of reuniting with a portion of his body that had been fashioned into a female has been transmitted to all his male descendents, albeit in diminished intensity.

[20] The verse ends by describing the intensity of the husband-wife relationship by comparing it to another intense human relationships.

[21] Scripture occasionally uses the Hebrew word bassar (literarily “flesh”) to refer to blood relations – as opposed to relations by marriage or friendship (e.g., “No person shall approach a close bassar (blood relative) to commit a sexual offense.” [Leviticus 18:6]). Here, the Torah underscores the intensity of the marriage relationship by comparing it to naturally intense bassar relationships. Although husband and wife are not blood relatives, the intensity of their close relationship surpasses that of blood relatives, including their relationship to their own parents, who raised them from birth.