Bereishis 3:1 - 3:4 are particularly fascinating.

It seems that ending phrases of 3:3, attributed to Chava, may be unique in all of Chumash as an inaccurate statement.

Are there any other statements in Chumash which even if misleading, are not for the purpose of sparing a life, or sparing embarassment, and which are in conflict with another statement in Chumash?

Bereishis 2:17 seems to be the original statement, by Hashem, to Adam (including Chava?), translated as: "...but of the Tree ofKnowledge of Good and Bad, you must not eat thereof; for on the day you eat of it, you shall surely die."

Bereishis 3:3: "... Of the tree which is in the center of the garden G-d has said: 'You shall not eat of it and you shall not touch it, lest you die.'"

The extra phase *and you shall not touch it* has no source.

Some say that this was Adam's addition when explaining the first command to Chava. Some say that it was confusion between the way the two trees took effect.

The approach I'd like to take is to confirm that this is the only inaccurate quote, and see if it could be attributed to the unique circumstances of the Nachash as described in 3:1 prior to his punishment at 3:14-15.

Furthermore the uniqueness in all of Chumash of the rare word at 3:13 - hishiyani - for which Rashi needs a source in II Chronicles 32:15 to explain the word as deceiving.

Please reply with any other passukim that are potentially a false quote.

The following short list are discounted with cause:

1) Kayin to Hashem at Bereishis 4:9 denying knowing where is Hevel arguably is defensively avoiding embarassment of responsibility.

2) Avraham to Avimelech at 20:2 "She is my sister" is arguably true as he explains at 20:11-13 in a fashion which Avimelech accepts, and of course it was to save his own life. I am not sure that we have a specific statement with Pharoah, or by Yitzchak to Avimelech in his time.

3) Sarah denying laughing at 18:15 is in conflct with 18:12, but its for her own defense, and 18:15 explains her having been frightened. Similarly Hashem leaving off the detail that Sarah also had thought about Avraham being old can be attributed to sparing Avraham embarassment.

4) By Eliezer to Besuel at 24:47 changes the order of things relative to 24:23, but perhaps it would have gotten Rivka in trouble if she had invited someone to Besuel's house who was not rich enough to be worth robbing...

5) Yaakov to Yitzchak at 27:19 "It is I, Eisav, your first born" -- can arguably be the true statement that Eisav was his firstborn, per Rashi on that verse.

6) Lavan seems to get away with his deceiving Yaakov about marrying Rachel after 7 years at 29:18-27, arguing that his words were true. And similarly we have a description of several counts of changing Yaakov's wages.

7) Bilaam seems to insinuate to Balak's emissaries at Bamidbar 22:13-14 that they were insufficient, and this is arguably to spare himself embarassment that he did not have permission to go.

Again, these are the only cases that seem to come close, and I'd like to hear of any others that I missed.

***

The point however is to find an explanation for what was so unique to have the only case of an inaccurate quote within a document where a Principle of Faith is that ever sentence is true, and a rare word's only instance.

Is there perhaps a way of attributing the source of this inaccurate quote within 3:3 to the Nachash, who among other things, lost his ability to speak following?

Perhaps being more cunning, the Nachash tricked day-old Chava into thinking this was what she had wanted to say, setting her up with a straw-man argument?

The Passuk attributes this quote to Chava because he succeeded, perhaps at an intuitive level, into thinking that this wa what she had intended to say, but really it was the Nachash putting words into her mouth, finishing her sentence for her?

I understand that forward-backwards learning is a type of darshening that is not in Rabbi Yishmael's list of 13, but perhaps the "vayomer" of 3:4 could be a hint of this? But there doesn't seem to be any commentary saying this.

Whatever happened, the result is that the Nachash got to knock down the straw man argument of dieing as a result of touching the tree, thus diminishing Chava's faith that she was willing to eat of the fruit.

Perhaps the Nachash would not have been successful in convincing Adam to violate the first prohibition since he would have recognized the inaccurate quote and not fallen for it directly?

By using Chaya to get to Adam in this way, and perhaps by showing his willingness to use such a uniquely deceptive practice, we have greater insight into how far more cunning was the Nachash than any other Chumash personality.

Regarding this question of the Nachash perhaps having been the actual originator of false quote, misrepresenting the first mitzvah to not eat of the tree...

My rabbi instructed me some years ago to look for any other place in Chumash where we find the gramatical form similar to ' "stop", said the policeman, "or I will shoot" ' in which the speaker is attributed within the middle of a quote.

This is because I would like to read the final phrase of Chava's quote as if the 2 passukim read: ' "do not touch it, lest you die" said the Nachash "you will not die" '.

Right in our current weekly parsha, in Bamidbar 14:28 we have ' "As I live" the word of Hashem "if I shall not do to you as you have spoken in My ears." '

And in the Akeida we have ' "By Myself I swear" declared Hashem "that since you have done this thing..." '.

In both of these cases we have the form "n'um Hashem" for that central attribution. But in Bereishis 3:4 we have "vayomer hanachash".

Can anyone help me with this further?

Any other examples of this gramatical form, maybe even using the word "vayomer"?

or any reason why n'um would not have fit here by the nachash?