r/Judaism • u/FranzFerdinandDriver Conservative • 2d ago
Question about Chava and the Parsha
While at shul reading the parsha I thought of something and now it won't leave my head so I need to ask others. In Bereishit 3:16 when HaShem is describing Chava's punishment, He says that He would increase the pain of her pregnancies. Does this mean she has already given birth and now they'll hurt going forward? I know Rashi in his commentary makes a similar conclusion but my thought is more than just that. If she has given birth and the only humans are not only Adam and Chava, when they were expelled from Eden, did the children stay? The children themselves did not commit the sin their parents did. And if they witness their parents make that mistake and get punished, surely they wouldn't do the same. So ultimately my question is, did Chava have kids before the exile, did they sin too or day they stay sin free, if they are sin free were they exiled, and if they weren't exiled is it possible for them to still be in Eden today?
Edits: Someone mentioned that Adam and Chava were immortal initially and had no reason to have kids. I replied with that the first mitzvah HaShem gave to humans was "Multiply and be fruitful" right in the beginning in Bereishit 1:28, 2 chapters before Chava eating the fruit. Surely they wouldn't wait and heed His command. This to me, even strengthens the claim that Chava had kids already.
3
u/NetureiKarta Rabbi - Hasidic 2d ago edited 16h ago
This happened the same day they were created. How could they have had children already?
3
u/FranzFerdinandDriver Conservative 2d ago
It was my understanding that the use of "day 1, day 2, day 3, etc...." was more poetical and not literally days.
2
u/NetureiKarta Rabbi - Hasidic 2d ago edited 16h ago
The traditional understanding is that the events which took place in Gan Eden
occurred on the Shabbos followingand the very end of the six days of creation.2
u/FranzFerdinandDriver Conservative 2d ago
Well alright, my understanding was that there weren't days as we know them in the 24 hour sense. Because honestly, I don't think anybody could name all the animals on earth in 24 hours but that's just me lol
1
u/unfortunate-moth 19h ago
if the sun and moon weren’t created until later days then “day” can’t mean the 24 hour cycle that we consider a day. in my orthodox school we were taught that for hashem even years can be like blinks of an eye. so it was more like epochs rather that literal 24 hour days. just to hashem it was like a “day”
1
u/TheGuyWithTheBall0on Yeshivishish 17h ago
Sorry, but where do you see that? My understanding has always been that Adam and Chava left Gan Eden prior to the first shabbos. See Sanhedrin 38b as an example of that.
2
u/NetureiKarta Rabbi - Hasidic 16h ago
You are right! I was wrong. If they would have waited until Shabbos, they would have been permitted to eat the fruit, and it would have been Olam Haba immediately. I have edited my comments, thank you.
1
u/TheGuyWithTheBall0on Yeshivishish 16h ago
I was going to mention the later part you said about them eating the fruit on shabbos, but it occurred to me that while I've heard it many times, I don't actually know the mekor for the idea. Do you happen to have a source?
6
u/Henderwicz Christian 2d ago
did Chava have kids before the exile
This is by no means a slam-dunk, but it's perhaps suggestive of an answer, that the woman is only named "Eve, because she was the mother of all living" in 3:20, after 3:16.
And if they witness their parents make that mistake and get punished, surely they wouldn't do the same.
Seems optimistic! Don't we see rather the opposite all through Biblical history?
4
u/kjelderg שומר מצוות 2d ago
The Rashi on 4:1 says that Adam and Chava had already known each other before the sin.
Now if they already had their seven children (Bereiehit Rabba), the challenge of the verse may be the other way. If we understand her curse is an increase in child pains, what children? Did she escape her curse by never having more?
6
1
u/FranzFerdinandDriver Conservative 2d ago
But everyone else would be "corrupted" (I don't like using that word here but it's the best I can think of). The children before the eating of the fruit would not have gained the knowledge of good and evil from the tree. The Midrash of Chava eating the fruit because Adam said you cant even touch the try and the snake pushing her etc... explains why Chava committed the sin. However, these children witnessing their parents being retold the rules and even punished for them wouldn't fall for the same mistake.
3
u/Exotic_Confidence_29 Heschel, Tamares, Einstein 2d ago
However, these children witnessing their parents being retold the rules and even punished for them wouldn't fall for the same mistake.
In the world of Biblical storytelling there are few things more constant than humans failing to retain the lessons they should have learned from watching how their peers or predecessors engaged with God. It's certainly the dominant theme in Moses' leadership throughout the desert and all the books of the Neviim.
1
u/FranzFerdinandDriver Conservative 2d ago
Yes, the original commentor said pretty much the same thing. However my point that every biblical example of humans failing to retain the lessons of their predecessor was after the exhile from Eden. These hypothetical children that Chava would've had before eating the fruit and were not exhiled don't fit in the category of every other human. Chava didn't commit the sin until the sake convinced her that HaShem didn't actually instruct them not to eat from the tree but it was actually Adam and Adam's word isn't law, she was wrong but this is what the snake convinced her of. Now from the perspective of these "uncorrupted children", they have first hand witnessed HaShem give this commandment, they witnessed the punishment for it which solidifies that HaShem is serious, and the snake that tempted Chava has been punished and dealt with. Given these circumstances, I believe that if these "uncorrupted children" existed, they wouldn't make the same mistake.
2
u/Exotic_Confidence_29 Heschel, Tamares, Einstein 2d ago edited 2d ago
Chava didn't commit the sin until the sake convinced her
She wouldn't be the last to be led to sin by too much sake.
Jokes aside the midrash you cite is one exegetical explanation for why Eve trespasses the one rule she was given, but there are others which have Eve not acting only out of good-faith confusion but out of actual ambition/envy/distrust toward God, as if eating the forbidden fruit was more an expression of desire for control and independence from the divine than the genesis of these traits (no pun intended).
Yet another midrashic tradition has the serpent telling Eve: “Know that this is only jealousy. Just as God can create a world, so you, too, can create a world. Just as He can kill and keep alive, so you, too, can kill and keep alive” (Avot de-Rabbi Nathan, version B, chap. 1). These traditions ignore the temptation posed by the fruit, instead focusing on a fundamental issue: man’s desire to control his fate and the world. Man wishes to sense mastery over his life and do whatever he pleases, without limits, and thereby resemble God, or even to be God himself. https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/eve-midrash-and-aggadah
It seems like you want to make midrash about how Eve had other kids and those kids would never make the mistakes that characterize the human relationship with God - okay, go ahead. But don't get over your skis acting like it's the logical implication of the text. It's a potentially cool story that can be projected onto the text with sufficient motivation - now justify the motivation by telling a good story with it
1
u/FranzFerdinandDriver Conservative 2d ago
I'm was drawing things to as far of a conclusion as I could to see the arguments against it. Although this idea would be/is interesting, the greater implications of it do not sit well with me. If these "uncorrupted children" did stay in Eden, did they continue to be fruitful and multiply? Is there thousands, hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of humans in Eden? If humans remained in Eden, what was the need for Noach? And the ultimate thing that doesn't sit well and why I wouldn't accept this as a midrash, if HaShem had humans still in eden, why would he need the children of Israel and what was the purpose of Mitzvot (not that there needs to be a reason for mitzvot)?
Edit: This is also why I didnt bring these questions to my teacher, it was more of a fun thought experiment than seriously trying to flesh out midrash
2
u/Exotic_Confidence_29 Heschel, Tamares, Einstein 2d ago
Although this idea would be/is interesting, the greater implications of it do not sit well with me.
Then don't worry about it. There really isn't reason to think Adam and Eve had kids they left behind in Eden, so if you don't like the implications thereof, there's no need to resolve it. You can just roll with the pshat that Eve gave birth for the first time, to Cain, after being exiled. Chapter 3 ends with the exile, chapter 4 starts with the conception and childbirth of Cain
1
u/FranzFerdinandDriver Conservative 2d ago
Not too worried, it's the 1am boredom knowing I should be sleeping but haven't lmao
0
u/mopooooo 2d ago
I saw that there was an opinion it's meant as menstruation since it is associated with being able to be a childbearer. I don't really see the implication of her having had kids already. There was no need for children since they would live forever
3
u/FranzFerdinandDriver Conservative 2d ago
The first mitzvah HaShem gave to humans was "Multiply and be fruitful" right in the beginning in Bereishit 1:28, 2 chapters before Chava eating the fruit. Why would HaShem tell them to be fruitful and multiply if there was no need for them to reproduce
2
u/mopooooo 2d ago
The order of events is not that clear
3
u/FranzFerdinandDriver Conservative 2d ago
6 verses earlier HaShem (Bereishit 1:22) tells all the animals to be fruitful and multiply. If the command for humans didnt happen until after the exhile from Eden, was it the same for the animals? Or were the animals multiplying while in Eden? If Adam and Chava witness animals reproducing, would they try to do it themselves too? Being fruitful and multiplying doesn't get mentioned again (talking about humans) until Noach and later Yaakov, was it not said to humans until them or was it said to Adam and Chava just never explicitly stated? I'm just trying to think of all possibilities, sorry if this seems combative, that is not my intention. I'm just trying to think all possibilities out until their possible conclusion
1
u/mopooooo 13h ago
No need to apologize even if you were being combative. I don't really have answers and I meant that the order wasn't clear to me. First God created humankind, male and female and told them to pru orvu. But then we go back to Human being created, garden created, human in garden, human gets told not to eat, then woman is made.
I prefer the reading of the rationalists that everything prior to the expulsion is not to be read literally.
10
u/Exotic_Confidence_29 Heschel, Tamares, Einstein 2d ago edited 2d ago
I think, for the reasons you lay out, the pshat is that she had not already given birth. She already had the capacity to be pregnant and give birth, but it was in some way modified to (even more?) biologically dramatic/intense/unbearable.
I would understand it as a reference to the "Obstetrical dilemma," which is basically that childbirth is much more strenuous and dangerous for human beings than other mammals because of our big heads and bipedal frames. This is why humans have to help each other give birth, and even then it's very painful, while for other animals it can seem almost trivial.
Of course Adam and Eve would also have big heads and bipedal frames, but maybe God had implemented some biological support or miraculous intervention that would make it easier on Eve somehow until it all went wrong.
As you point out, the idea that Eve already had kids in Eden raises a lot of questions that might make for interesting midrash, but the straightforward interpretation is that God is comparing Eve's future pregnancies to how pregnancy would have been otherwise, not to specific past pregnancy experiences.