6. AND THE LORD GOD COMMANDED THE MAN, SAYING: OF EVERY TREE OF THE GARDEN THOU MAYEST FREELY EAT (II, 16). R. Levi said: He gave him six precepts¹: AND HE COMMANDED (WAYYEZAW) alludes to idolatry, as you read: Because he willingly walked after zaw — i.e. idols (Hos. V, II). THE LORD alludes to blasphemy, as you read, And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord (Lev. XXIV, 16). GOD alludes to the [authority of] judges, as you read, Thou shalt not revile God — i.e. the judges (Ex. XXII, 27). THE MAN: this alludes to bloodshed, as you read, Whoso sheddeth man’s blood (Gen. IX, 6). SAYING alludes to incest,² as you read: Saying: If a man put away his wife, etc. (Jer. III, I). OF EVERY TREE OF THE GARDEN THOU SHALT FREELY EAT: here He commanded him against theft.³ The Rabbis interpreted the whole passage thus: AND THE LORD GOD COMMANDED. He said to him: ‘What am I? God, [and I command] that I be treated as a God and not cursed.’ How do we know [that Adam was forbidden] incest? [From the passage], And cleave unto his wife (Gen. II, 24), which implies, but not to his neighbour’s wife, nor to a male, nor to an animal. OF EVERY TREE OF THE GARDEN THOU MAYEST FREELY EAT. R. Jacob of Kefar Hanan said: When does [an animal] become food, and when is it fit to be eaten? When it is ritually slaughtered. Thus He intimated [the forbidden character of] a limb torn from a living animal.⁴

BUT OF THE TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL, THOU SHALT NOT EAT OF IT; FOR IN THE DAY THAT THOU EATEST THEREOF THOU SHALT SURELY DIE (MOTH TAMOTH) (II, 17): [this intimated] death for Adam, death for Eve, and death for his descendants.⁵

NOTES

1. Infra, XXIV, 5; Sanh. 56b passim. Generally seven are enumerated as being binding upon man before Revelation, the seventh being an injunction against eating flesh torn from a living animal. Since Adam, however, was not permitted animal flesh at all, this is omitted here.
2. Which in its Hebrew usage includes adultery, pederasty, and bestiality.
3. For the whole passage cf. Sanh. 56b and notes ad loc. in Sonc. ed.
4. He probably interprets the verse thus : akol tokel, when it is food (okel) thou mayest eat it; V. infra, XVIII, 5; Sanh. 58a.
5. This is deduced from the doubling of the verb, which as usual is understood as an extension.