When God Walks

A Syntactic and Lexical Analysis of Genesis 3:8

Eric Levy

ericlevy@ericlevy.com

וַֽיִּשְׁמְע֞וּ אֶת־ק֨וֹל יְ-ה-וָ֧-ה אֱלֹהִ֛ים מִתְהַלֵּ֥ךְ בַּגָּ֖ן לְר֣וּחַ הַיּ֑וֹם

Introduction

Genesis 3:8 contains two independent clauses; a syntactic and lexical analysis of the first of these is the focus of this paper.  The syntactic and lexical ambiguities are interdependent.  Therefore, assigning a meaning to a certain word or phrase can create a syntactic restraint or preference.  Conversely, asserting a syntactic function can affect the meaning of a word or phrase, and the greater clause.  A great deal of exegetical ink has been spilled on this clause, due, in no small part, to the theological implications.  The clause begins the description of God’s intervention after the fall.  The ability to understand the nature of God’s response, and to a certain extent, the nature of God—with the issue of anthropomorphism being at the forefront[1]—is dependant in part on this verse’s meaning. 

The paper is structured as follows.  First, the possible meanings of this clause, based on all possible syntactical and lexical permutations, will be enumerated.[2]  Second, ancient and medieval exegesis will be reviewed.[3]  Finally, based on a survey of modern grammar and scholarship, we will propose a preferred meaning of the clause, if possible.

Possible meanings

Predicate Verb

One of the few unambiguous elements in the clause is the predicate verb, וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ, and its subject.  The verb’s subjects are represented pronominally by the imperfect plural prefix and suffix יִ_ _ _וּ; the antecedents—the man and the woman—are clearly defined in v. 6 (וַתֵּרֶא הָאִשָּׁה וַתִּתֵּן גַּם לְאִישָׁהּ עִמָּהּ) and are consistently and consecutively represented in the following narrative: וַתִּפָּקַחְנָה עֵינֵי שְׁנֵיהֶם... וַיֵּדְעוּ...וַיִּתְפְּרוּ... וַיַּעֲשׂוּ... וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ.  There is little lexical ambiguity in the verb; the couple hears something.[4]  Less clear is the direct object of this verb: what did they hear? 

Accusative Object

The direct object of וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ begins with קוֹל, and is a genitive construction.  However, קוֹל is equivocal.  It can mean either 1) a sound or 2) a voice.[5]  ‘Voice’ allows only for a subjective relationship between קוֹל and the Lord God.[6]  ‘Sound’ begs for the second noun in the construct chain to be used adnominally, describing the nature of the sound.[7] 

1) The Sound of…

If the man and the woman hear a sound, and קוֹל is complemented by a definition of its nature, we can propose a number of ever-expanding sound descriptions.  The קוֹל is the sound of:

a)      the Lord God: ;

b)      the Lord God walking: ;

c)      the Lord God walking in the garden:; and,

d)      the Lord God walking in the garden לְרוּחַ הַיּוֹם: .[8]

In these last three examples, the participle  מִתְהַלֵּךְis part of a nominal clause that describes what was heard.  “The sound of the Lord God (as He was) walking…” As we contract the phrase that describes the sound, we permit the succeeding elements to modify either the predicate verb, in the wide scope, or the sound, in the narrow scope.  Thus, option (c) allows for the following translation: “they heard לְרוּחַ הַיּוֹם, the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden.[9]”  Option (b) allows for the following translations:

i.       “They heard לְרוּחַ הַיּוֹם (while they were) in the garden the sound of the Lord God walking.”  בַּגָּן modifies וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ; or,

ii.      “They heard a sound in the garden לְרוּחַ הַיּוֹם, (the sound of) God walking.”  בַּגָּן modifies קול.[10]

From a practical consideration, however, the proposal that בַּגָּן modifies anything other than מִתְהַלֵּך is artificial.[11]   Excluding option (a), we are left with the following possibilities:

Ø      “The Lord God walking in the garden לְרוּחַ הַיּוֹם” describes the sound that the man and the woman heard.

Ø      “The Lord God walking in the garden” describes the sound that the man and the woman heard.  לְרוּחַ הַיּוֹם modifies the predicate verb, describing where, when, or how the sound was heard.

It is also possible that the man and woman heard the sound of “the Lord God,” rather than the sound of Him walking.  In this case, the participle מִתְהַלֵּךְ need not necessarily have “the Lord God” as its subject, just as the following prepositional phrases need not be modifying the participle.  As the syntactic possibilities are the same as if we select the second meaning for קול, we will present that definition now, before enumerating the possibilities.

2) The Voice of…

If קוֹל means ‘voice,’ then the construct is in a possessive state, and the direct object of the verb וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ is קוֹל יְ-ה-וָ-ה אֱלהִים: they heard the voice of the Lord God.  The subject of participle מִתְהַלֵּךְ may be one of three possibilities, depending on the verb’s scope: 

·        the Lord God: וישמעו את קול ה' אלהים מתהלך, in the narrow scope;

·        the voice of the Lord God: וישמעו את קול ה' אלהים מתהלך, in the middle scope; and,

·        the man and the woman: וישמעו את קול ה' אלהים מתהלך, in the wide scope.

Narrow Scope

In the narrow scope, קול makes better sense as the sound of the Lord God(’s) walking. To understand קול as ‘voice’ we would have to assume an asyndetic relative clause. Alternatively, we can imagine a missing ‘והוּא,’ introducing a circumstantial clause. 

Middle Scope

In the middle scope, מִתְהַלֵּךְ predicates קוֹל and its possessor, which are indivisible: they heard God’s voice walking (or moving).  It is also possible to translate this as: “they heard God’s sound (the sound of God) moving;” however, it is hard to distinguish a semantic difference between this and מִתְהַלֵּךְ in the narrow scope, i.e., the sound of the Lord God’s walking. 

Wide Scope

In the wide scope, the subjects of מִתְהַלֵּךְ are the same as וישמעו.  If this is the case, the two prepositional phrases must be in wide scope; thus: “and they heard while walking in the gardenלְרוּחַ הַיּוֹם  the voice (or sound) of God.”  The lack of agreement in number is a recognizable weakness of this possibility. 

Prepositional Phrases

With a middle scope reading, the prepositional phrase בַּגָּן may be modifying the participle, defining the location of the movement of the voice: “they heard God’s voice walking (or moving) in the garden.”  It could also modify the predicate verb: “they heard, while they were in the garden, God’s voice walking (or moving).[12]”  In this latter case, לְרוּחַ הַיּוֹם must also be in the same scope.  If בַּגָּן is modifying the participle, לְרוּחַ הַיּוֹם may either modifying the participle as well, or the predicate verb by describing how or when the voice was heard, or where they were when they heard it.  While the meaning ofבַּגָּן  is fairly clear, לְרוּחַ הַיּוֹם  as a happax expression.  Its meaning will depend on its syntactic function, or conversely, a proposed meaning may determine its syntactic function. 

Ancient and Medieval Exegesis

The Scope of the Participle מִתְהַלֵּךְ

The Rabbinic Perspective

The issue of middle or narrow scope reading of the participleמִתְהַלֵּךְ  is at the core of a dispute between Rabbi Halphai and Rabbi Abba bar Kahana in Genesis Rabbah.[13]

  וישמעו את קול י'י אלהים מתהלך בגן לרוח היום, אמר ר' חלפיי שמענו שיש הילוך לקול (שנאמר וישמעו את קול...) ...אמר ר' אבא בר כהנא מהלך אין כת' כאן אלא מתהלך מקפץ ועולה, עיקר שכינה בתחתונים הייתה, כיון שחטא אדם הראשון ניסתלקה שכינה לרקיע הראשון.[14]

Rabbi Halphai believes that מִתְהַלֵּךְ has קול is its subject, while Rabbi Abba bar Kahana believes God (or His emanation in the physical plane, the Shechinah) is moving.  Each side has its supporters within midrashic literature.  The Sifra on Leviticus 9:12—with its implication that the presence of God’s Tabernacle will be tantamount to God Himself walking in the midst of His people—comments:

והתהלכתי בתוככם: משלו משל למה הדבר דומה למלך שיצה לטייל עם אריסו, והיה אותו אריס מיטמר מלפניו אמר לו המלך לאותו אריס מה לך מיטמר מלפני? הריני כיוצא בך  והקב"ה אמר להם לצדיקים מה אתם  מזדעזעים מלפני כך עתיד הקב"ה מטייל בגן עדן לעתיד לבוא וצדיקים רואים אותו ומזדעזעים מלפניו הריני כיוצא בכם.

Another matter of rabbinic dispute is recorded regarding the raison d'être of the Tabernacle:

 וכיון שהוקם המשכן וירדה השכינה ושרתה בתוכם, ויהי. רב אמר דבר שלא היה משנברא העולם עד עכשיו נעשה באותו היום, שמשנברא העולם ועד אותה שעה לא שרתה שכינה בתחתונים אלא משהוקם המשכן ואילך לכך נאמר ויהי, דבר חדוש הוא, רשב"י אמר דבר שהיה ופסק וחוזר לכמות שהיה שכן אתה מוצא מתחלת ברייתו של עולם שרתה השכינה בתחתונים כמ"ש (בראשית ג) וישמעו את קול ה' אלהים מתהלך בגן וגו' וכיון שנסתלקה השכינה בעת שחטא אדם שוב לא ירדה עד שהוקם המשכן לפיכך כתיב ויהי דבר שהיה ופסק ימים הרבה וחזר לכמות שהיה.[15]

It seems quite possible that Rashbi and Rav are arguing about Genesis 3:8, rather than the word ויהי in Numbers 7.[16]  Rashbi’s view of a removed God is the theme of the analysis of Song of Songs 5:1,[17] and focuses on God’s return to Paradise.

אמר ר' מנחם חתניה דר' אלעזר בר אבונה בשם ר' שמעון בר' יוסנה, באתי לגן אין כתיב כאן, אלא לגני, לגנוני, למקום שהיה עיקרי מתחלה, ועיקר שכינה לא בתחתונים היתה, הה"ד (בראשית ג') וישמעו את קול ה' אלהים מתהלך בגן א"ר אבא מהלך אין כתיב כאן אלא מתהלך, מקפץ וסליק מקפץ וסליק, חטא אדם הראשון ונסתלקה השכינה לרקיע הראשון.[18].

The use of מטייל in the Sifra is also significant.  In addition to its function as the translation for מִתְהַלֵּךְ in some of the Aramaic renditions of our verse, it creates a bridge to the following midrash, and supports the wide scope reading: אמר ישעיהו, מטייל הייתי בבית תלמודי ושמעתי קולו של הקב"ה אומרת....[19] This is a possible reference to our verse, describing man walking before experiencing a theophany. 

Our verse is also cited by midrashic literature as one of ten times where God Himself descended to the physical world,

and supports a narrow scope reading.

 עשרה ירידות ירד הב"ה /הקב"ה/ על הארץ, ואלו הן אחת בגן עדן, ואחת בדור הפלגה, ואחת בסדום, ואחת בסנה, ואחת במצרים, ואחת בסיני, ואחת בנקרת הצור, ושנים באהל מועד, ואחת לעתיד לבא, אחת בגן עדן מניין, שנ' וישמעו את קול ה' אלהים מתהלך בגן, וכתיב דודי ירד לגנו לערוגת הבושם.[20]

Two midrashic sources are of special note.  Avot D’Rabbi Nathan has two versions of the “ten descents” homily.  The first version reads much like the above-cited midrash.[21]  The second version truncates מתהלך בגן, placing קול at the center of the proof-text:

ירידה באדם הראשון שנ' וישמעו את קול ה' אלהים ולהלן הוא אומר משה ידבר והאלהים יעננו בקול, קול לגזירה שוה מה קול אמור להלן ירידה אף קול אמור כאן ירידה.[22] 

One can surmise a middle scope reading, with קול the subject of מתהלך, while maintaining the theophany with a voice alone.  Second, the medieval midrashic anthology, Lekah Tov, states: וישמעו את קול ה' אלהים. למדנו הילוך לקול: מתהלך בגן. שהיתה שכינה מתהלכת ממנו על שחטא....[23]  Here the two opinions of Bereishit Rabbah are presented without dispute, when in fact they are mutually exclusive. 

In the wide scope, the subject of מִתְהַלֵּךְ is the same as וישמעו.  This reading also has support in midrashic literature.[24]

  תני ר' ישמע' עד שלא יחטא אדם נותנין לו אימה ויראה, וכיון שהוא חוטא נותנין עליו אימה ויראה...עד שלא חטא אדם הראשון היה שומע את הקול ועומד לו על רגליו, וישמעו את קול אלהים מתהלך בגן לרוח היום, וכיון שחטא היה שומע את הקול ומתחבא, ויתחבא האדם ואשתו.[25]

Having lost their pre-sin ability to hear the voice of God while standing and moving about freely in the garden, the man, along with his wife, now needed to hide. 

Translations

Greek

The LXX reads Καὶ ἤκουσαν τὴν φωνὴν κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ περιπατοῦντος ἐν τω παραδείσω τὸ δειλινόν…. The participle περιπατοῦντος is masculine, agreeing with κυρίου and θεοῦ, rather than the feminine φωνὴν, indicating a narrow scope reading.  Contrast this with Exodus 19:19, which reads Ἐγίνοντο δὲ αἱ φωναὶ τῆς σάλπιγγος προβαίνουσαι ἰσχυρότεραι σφόδρα.  The participle προβαίνουσαι[26] matches the nomen regens feminine plural voice (φωναὶ),[27] rather than the feminine singular trumpet (σάλπιγγος).[28] 

In verse 10, the man responds to God’s query: וַיּאמֶר אֶת קלְךָ שָׁמַעְתִּי בַּגָּן.[29]  The Masoretic text seems to suggest that the man heard the voice of God that was in the garden.[30]  The LXX translates: Καὶ εἰπεν αὐτω τὴν φωνήν σου ἤκουσα περιπατοῦντος ἐν τω παραδείσω.  περιπατοῦντος is still in the masculine, presumably in agreement with the pronominal σου rather than the feminine φωνήν.  Whether the man is stating that he heard God’s voice while He was walking in Paradise, or that he heard the sound of God walking, God is the subject of περιπατοῦντος.[31] 

Aramaic

Onkelos

Onkelos translates our clause ושמעו ית קל מימרא דיוי אלהים מהליך בגינתא למנח יומא.  A variant reading of [32]דמהליך eliminates the wide scope reading, introducing a relative clause.  The issue of middle or narrow scope is more difficult to determine.  One might be tempted to say that Onklelos supports the narrow scope; otherwise the de-anthropomorphizing מימרא would not be required, as a middle scope reading avoids physical manifestation.[33]  Numbers 7:89 presents a voice, clearly God’s, yet not specified as such: וַיִּשְׁמַע אֶת-הַקּוֹל מִדַּבֵּר אֵלָיו.  Onkelos does not insert מימרא; however, the absence may be mechanical, due to the lack of a genitive construct.[34]  Onkelos translates Deuteronomy 4:33 as הֲשָׁמַע עָם קוֹל אֱלהִים מְדַבֵּר מִתּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ as השמע עמא קל מימרא דיוי דממליל מגו אישתא; however, this clause contains semantic and syntactic ambiguities similar to those in Genesis 3:8, and it may be the sound of God talking from the fire.  A similar reference to the Sinaitic theophany is presented in Deuteronomy 18:16, לֹא אֹסֵף לִשְׁמֹעַ אֶת קוֹל יְ-ה-וָ-ה אֱלֹהָי.  Here the meaning is almost certainly “the voice of the Lord God,” and yet Onkelos inserts מֵימְרָא.[35] 

The following example may be more conclusive.  In Deuteronomy 5:19 the voice has no genitive construct (כְּשָׁמְעֲכֶם אֶת הַקּוֹל מִתּוֹךְ הַחֹשֶׁךְ), and Onkelos does not insert מימרא.  However, in verse 20 with its pronominal genitive (וְאֶת-קֹלוֹ שָׁמַעְנוּ), and in verse 21 (לִשְׁמֹעַ אֶת קוֹל יְ-ה-וָ-ה אֱלֹהֵינוּ) Onkelos inserts מימרא, even though the verses are referring to the same voice and event. 

Perhaps, as an argument from silence, we should shift our focus from verses about the voice of God to verses about God walking.  In these (Leviticus 26:12 and Deuteronomy 23:15) Onkelos inserts שכינתי, whereas in our verse he does not.  This is also not conclusive; Leviticus 26:11 foreshadows with וְנָתַתִּי מִשְׁכָּנִי בְּתוֹכְכֶם, and a variant on Deuteronomy 23:15 shows ארי מימרא דייי instead of ארי יוי אלהך שכינתיה מהלכה בגו משריתך, albeit without losing שכינתיה.

The Palestinian Targums

Neofiti has two readings, either ושמעו ית קל ממרה דייי אלהים מהלך בגו[א] גנתאה למשב יומא or (according to the M variant) ושמעו ית קל ממרה דייי אלהים מטיי[ל] בגוא גנתה לתוקפי[ה] דיומא.  The participle מטייל is found only three other times in the Neofiti, and always in an M variant.  This is the preferred term in other Palestinian translations (and Yonatan), but its infrequent use here restricts analysis.  One of the occurrences is in Genesis 3:10, where the variant follows LXX in inserting מטייל following שמעת.  Perhaps the LXX, or its vorlage, was behind this variant. The Fragmentary Targum also uses מטייל to translate מתהלך, which would normally argue against a middle scope reading, as the word is used to describe physical movement, and has an inherent iterative hitpael flavor.[36] However, the M variant of the Neofiti uses דבורך instead of ממרך on v. 10: דבורך שמעת מטייל בגו גנתה.  This break from the standard mechanical insertion to avoid anthropomorphization points to two possibilities.  It may have been borrowed from the Hebrew, or it may have been used in the sense of דִיבֵּר, meaning “divine speech.”  Either way, it implies that the voice of God was moving.

Peshitta

The Peshitta reads ושמעו קלה דמריה מהלך בפרדיסא לפניה דיומה.[37]  This is ambiguous, like the MT.  However, a variant[38] has דמהלך, asserting that the phrase is relative, and eliminating the wide scope reading. 

Medieval Exegesis

Narrow Scope

Nachmanides reads מִתְהַלֵּךְ in the narrow scope.  After citing Rav Halphai, Ibn Ezra, and Maimonides, all supporters of the middle scope reading,[39] and Ibn Janah, supporter of the wide scope reading, Nachmanides asserts a narrow scope reading, citing Rabbi Abba’s opinion in support.[40]

  ולפי דעתי כי טעם מתהלך בגן עדן כטעם והתהלכתי בתוככם (ויקרא כו יב), וילך ה' כאשר כלה לדבר אל אברהם (להלן יח לג), אלך אשובה אל מקומי (הושע ה טו), והוא ענין גלוי שכינה במקום ההוא, או הסתלקותו מן המקום שנגלה בו. 

Curiously, no argument is offered as counterproof against the other opinions.  Perhaps by proving that scripture allows God as the subject of physical movement, regardless of the theological implications, he felt that the narrow scope reading was incontrovertible, and only issues of anti-anthropomorphism motivated the other readings. 

The Bechor Shor also asserts a narrow scope reading.  He statesוישמעו את קול יי - צעדה בראש הבכאים, אמרו: הנה בעל הגן בא; והיו נפחדים ונחרדים כדרך גנב ויתחבו.  Note also his allusion to II Samuel 5:24, where צְעָדָה is descriptive: the sound of marching, not “voices marching.”[41]  Note also the prophetic assertion that follows there: כִּי אָז יָצָא ה' לְפָנֶיךָ...!

There must have been an earlier proponent of the narrow scope reading since the opinion is cited (anonymously) in Ibn Ezra’s alternate commentary.  Also, Yefet rails against the holder of just such an opinion:

 'מתהלך בגן' מוכיח שהקול הוא שירד אל הגן והתהלך בו...וממה שאמר 'קול ה' מתהלך' משמע שאין זה הכבוד (שהתהלך) ואיך אפשר לטוען לכזב ולאמר 'חרד וירד וגו'.[42]

Middle Scope

Ibn Ezra states that מִתְהַלֵּךְ modifies the voice of God.[43]  He must show that a voice can be the subject of הלך.[44]  He cites two proof-texts: Jeremiah 46:22 and Exodus 19:19.  In regard to the latter proof-text, while Onkelos translates הולך to אָזֵיל, it is probably closer to a helping verb, indicating a process of amplification; e.g II Samuel 3:1 “ודוד הולך וחזק.”[45]  The proof-text from Jeremiah seems more viable.[46]  Ibn Ezra ends with a nod to Ibn Janah and the wide scope reading.  All of this is in his standard commentary.  In his שיטה אחרת – דקדוק המילים he argues that a wide scope reading would require מתהלך to agree with וישמעו in number, which it clearly does not.[47]  Rabbi David Kimchi, who supports the middle scope reading and cites the Jeremiah proof-text, also proffers this argument against a wide scope reading.  The strength of the agreement argument is unaffected by the presence of the singular וַיִּתְחַבֵּא as a predicate for the plural man and woman, since a predicate verb with compound subjects often matches the closest subject.[48]

Ralbag supports the middle scope, using the verse in Jeremiah and Rav Halphai’s opinion in Midrash Rabbah as support.  Without indicating his preferred interpretation, Mecklenberg starts with the middle scope, citing Ibn Ezra and Maimonides, and then details the opinion of the Ramban at some length—including the theophanic trappings associated with לרוח היום, which will be discussed below.   Maimonides, who is oft-cited as a champion of the middle scope reading here, states unequivocally in his Guide of the Perplexed: על הקול נאמר שהוא מתהלך.[49] 

As noted, Yefet reads מתהלך in middle scope.  More on this in ‘Rasag ’, below .

An Ambiguous Rashi

Rashi states שמעו את קול הקב"ה שהיה מתהלך בגן.  His insertion of שהיה may be an indication that מתהלך begins an asyndetic relative clause, eliminating the wide scope reading.  Unfortunately, היה agrees with both קול and הקב"ה.  The Maharal in his Gur Aryeh supercommentary states that were it not for Rashi’s insertion, מתהלך would modify קול.  Instead, he says: ועכשיו מתהלך על הש"י שהיה מתהלך בגן.[50]  In contrast, Abarbanel understands Rashi as supporting the middle scope: שהקול האלהי היה מתהלך בגן וכמו שהביא רש"י בפירושו.[51]  Manuscript evidence is contradictory.  Vienna 24 folio 3c reads וישמעו שמעו את הקול של הקב"ה שהיה הקב"ה מתהלך בגן.  On the other hand, רש"י השלם prefers the middle scope, noting that the דפוס ראשון promotes “שהיה” before “קול” (שמעו שהיה קול הק"ב מתהלך בגן), leaving no room for ambiguity, and דפוס אלקבץ leaves out “שהיה” altogether, indicating that the commentary is merely an introduction to the exegesis of “לרוח היום.”  Rashi Hashalem also notes the דפוס רומא:שמעו הקב"ה מתהלך בגן  . 

Rasag

Commentators place Rasag as an early champion of the middle scope reading.  He translates our clause: פסמעא צות אללה מארא פי אלגנאן ברפק כחרכה אלנהאר.[52]  Note his addition of ברפק, meaning “with softness” or “gently,” and his use of חרכה אלנהאר, meaning תנועת היום, as in כִּי רוּחַ הַחַיָּה בָּאוֹפַנִּים.[53]  Zucker cites an addendum to Rasag’s translation of Exodus, in which he comments that the revelation to Moses at the burning bush was gentle, like the revelation in our verse.[54]  Rasag also comments in ספר יצירה that when God wanted to cause His voice to be heard by Moses, he preceded the full revelation of the “אור הנקרא שכינה” with an “אש ארצית” of the burning bush.[55]  Zucker is convinced that מתהלך modifies קול, citing our aforementioned middle scope readers, as well as Yefet, in support.[56]  The excerpt from ספר יצירה, however, seems to imply that the voice of theophany is accompanied by a physical manifestation, slowly building up to a full revelation.  The voice is merely the message; the manifestation is the delivery vehicle.  This is also implied by Rasag’s citation of Ezekiel.  While it may be overly aggressive to derive from this the assertion that Rasag read the participle in the narrow scope, Yefet’s polemic against this approach would allow it to identify an adversary: 'מתהלך בגן' מוכיח שהקול הוא שירד אל הגן והתהלך בו...וממה שאמר 'קול ה' מתהלך' משמע שאין זה הכבוד (שהתהלך) ואיך אפשר לטוען לכזב ולאמר 'חרד וירד וגו' .[57]

Rashbam

Rashbam’s commentary is not extant on Genesis 2:17; however, regarding Exodus 14:30, in support of a wide scope reading of the locative prepositional phrase “על שפת הים” as modifying “(ישראל) וירא,” he remarks, ובעניין זה פרשתי בבראשית וישמע את קול י"י אלהים מתהלך בגן לרוח היום.  Based on this, Rosin posits:

מתוך פירושו לשמות י"ד ל' נראה שהוא מפרש מתהלך כרב חלפאי בב"ר פ' י"ט שמוסב על קול.[58]

This may be overly speculative.  The two clauses are similar in syntactic and lexical design, and can be diagrammed as follows:

Note that Rashbam does not quote our verse only through מתהלך, but continues on to לרוח היום.  In Exodus, it is the scope of the prepositional phrase על שפת הים that is being analyzed, not the participle following the object of perception.  While the subject of מתהלך is ambiguous, the subject of מת most certainly is not.  It seems likely that Rashbam’s missing comment deals with whetherלרוח היום  modifies the verb of perception (where, how, or when the man and woman did their perceiving) or whether it modifies the participle of the object clause (where, how, or when God or His voice was moving in the garden).  Assuming a congruent exegesis between our verse and Exodus 14:20, the missing Rashbam supports the wide scope for לרוח היום.  This will be a factor in our analysis of the scope and meaning of לרוח היום; however, the verse in Exodus does not bear on the scope of מתהלך, except to rule out the wide scope reading, assuming the participles in both verses are structured identically.

Wide Scope

In its widest scope מתהלך functions as an adverbial clause modifying וישמעו, and its subject is the same: the man. (The woman is dropped, for reasons that will become clear.)  This opinion appears in Ibn Janah’s ספר הרקמה שער ו:

  וכבר אמרתי בספר ההשגה, כי ההולך הזה הוא לאדם, והשעור: וישמעו את קל יי אלהים והאדם מתהלך הגן לרוח היום, כלומר בעת רוח היום.[60] 

This creates simultaneity between the two events.  “While the man was walking through the garden at the time of the רוח היום, he heard God’s voice and they hid…”  Notice that Ibn Janah mentions only the man walking in the garden to avoid the type of criticism leveled by Ibn Ezra, the agreement in number of the verb and its subject.  Ibn Janah does not reveal why he selected this grammatically difficult option.  Perhaps he is aware that the iterative nature of מתהלך is not easily applied to an incorporeal קול, and the other choice is too anthropomorphic.  Perhaps he reads verse 10 as a literal and precise recap of the events: “I heard Your voice in the garden,” but not walking in the garden, preventing a narrow and middle scope reading.

Abarbanel also supported the wide scope.  “The man would habitually walk in the garden to cool down, and while doing so he heard the voice.”  He felt that the hitpael form is conclusive, requiring a repetitive action common to man.[61] 

The meaning of the hitpael form of this verb—usually taken as iterative (walking back and forth)[62]—will be considered below as we evaluate the possible scopes.

Masoretic Cantillations

It is difficult to make a determination of the scope based on the Masoretic cantillations.  One the one hand, a greater disjunction is placed between אֶת־ק֨וֹל יְ-ה-וָ֧-ה אֱלֹהִ֛ים and מִתְהַלֵּ֥ךְ בַּגָּ֖ן than the former phrase and וַֽיִּשְׁמְע֞וּ.  However, Num. 11:10 also seems to separate between the object that was perceived and the verbal clause that describes its state:[63] וַיִּשְׁמַ֨ע מֹשֶׁ֜ה אֶת־הָעָ֗ם בֹּכֶה֙ לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָ֔יו אִ֖ישׁ לְפֶ֣תַח אָֽהֳל֑וֹ.  Perhaps this is a nod to and assumed substructure, where a subordinate clause is used, e.g. וַיְהִי֩ כִשְׁמֹ֨עַ אֲדֹנָ֜יו אֶת־דִּבְרֵ֣י אִשְׁתּ֗וֹ אֲשֶׁ֨ר דִּבְּרָ֤ה אֵלָיו֙ לֵאמֹ֔ר.  It is also difficult to assert that the first disjunction of לְר֣וּחַ הַיּ֑וֹם  was due to a wide scope reading of the prepositional phrase.  A preposition coming so closely before the disjunction of the clause required that cantillation, e.g. ק֚וֹל דְּמֵ֣י אָחִ֔יךָ צֹֽעֲקִ֥ים אֵלַ֖י מִן־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה

Prepositional Phrases

There are two prepositional phrases whose scope is ambiguous: בַּגָּן and לְרוּחַ הַיּוֹם.  However, as mentioned above,[64] any reading but the narrowest for בַּגָּן is artificial.  Whatever moved, it did so in the garden. This leaves only לְרוּחַ הַיּוֹם.

The “ל” preposition lends itself to adverbial use, supplying a locative or temporal, or perhaps a dative of method or means.  In the narrow scope, בַּגָּן andלְרוּחַ הַיּוֹם  are in apposition in modifying the participle מִתְהַלֵּךְ.  In the wide scope it is modifying וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ. 

Time

If the preposition is temporal, the semantic significance of the syntactic scope ambiguity is reduced, since the walking and the hearing would have to coincide at whatever time רוּחַ הַיּוֹם indicates.  One difference is in the aspect of מִתְהַלֵּךְ.  In the wide scope, the walking may be a process that has been going on for quite some time; it is merely detected at the time of רוּחַ הַיּוֹם.  In the narrow scope, the walking is likely an event beginning at רוּחַ הַיּוֹם, i.e. “…heard Him (or His voice) walk at the time of רוּחַ הַיּוֹם”. The LXX, which is known to ensure that repetitive verses match in content, inserts only περιπατοῦντος before ἐν τω παραδείσω in verse 10, in an effort to describe exactly what was heard.  It does not append τὸ δειλινόν, which points to a wide scope reading.  The meaning is in the afternoon[65] or at evening.[66]  Ibn Janah also understands this as a temporal preposition, but as he understands the man to be the subject of מִתְהַלֵּךְ, a narrow reading for רוּחַ הַיּוֹם results in essentially the same meaning:והאדם מתהלך בגן...בעת רוח היום, meaning evening, at the time of day when the air cools down or when the wind blows.[67]  The Aramaic translations are fairly consistent in translating the phrase as “in the evening,” although scope cannot be determined.[68]  Ibn Ezra said, וזה היה סמוך לערב בעת התנופף רוח היום, at the time the wind (air?) of the day starts blowing back and forth.  His שיטה אחרת – פירוש adds a wide scope reading: ששמעו הקול לפנות ערב בהתנופף רוח היום.  The Radak agrees. 

Some prefer to translate the word as “morning.” So, the Neofiti M variant and the Fragment Targums: לתוקפיה דיומא.  The Samaritan A Targum translates לרתח יומה, in the heat of the day.  While this agrees with Neofiti M and the Fragment Targums, it seems possible that רתח might be a corruption of מנח.  Abarbanel cites חכמי האומות as translating לאמצה היום.  While Ralbag agrees with many of the exegetes that the preposition is temporal, coinciding with the blowing winds, he feels that winds blow at sunrise.[69]  If my reconstruction of the missing Rashbam[70] is correct, he reads the preposition in the wide scope, although whether the meaning is temporal, dative of means, or locative cannot be determined.[71]

Some exegetes deal with why temporal information needed to be related.  One approach is aggadic: God (or the voice) was heard as a response to, and shortly following, the sin, which was committed during the 10^th hour of the 6^th day of Creation.  Radak offers a pshat approach, explaining that the wind of the evening is how the sound managed to reach their ears, כי הרוח הוליכה אליהם הקול מרחוק, making it implicitly a dative of means.

Direction and Location

The preposition may be locative, i.e. “at” or “towards.”  The latter meaning fits with a narrow scope reading since one can walk towards something, but not hear towards it.  This was the opinion of Rashi, who stated: לאותו רוח שהשמש באה משם וזו היא מערבית, שלפנות ערב חמה במערב.[72]  Rashi does not explain why the movement was towards this direction; Chizkuni explains Rashi by stating that God’s presence is located there.

Chizkuni, in his second opinion, prefers a preposition of location, with a wide scope reading.  Man and woman were sitting in the windy area to cool themselves, and there they heard the voice.  Similar is the Bechor Shor, but he advances a reason:  after committing the sin they hid themselves in the windy, treeless place outside of the garden.  Hearing the voice from this position, they hid in the garden amongst the trees.[73]  The Abarbanel, who supports a wide scope for מִתְהַלֵּךְ (cf. Chizkuni and Bechor Shor), also places them at לרוח היום:

 כי בהיותו מתחמם מאוד כחום היום היה מתהלך בגן לרחף עליו ולקרר לרוח היום...לאותו צד שהרוח נושב משם.

Purpose and Means

The Abarbanel offers a second interpretation, while maintaining that מִתְהַלֵּךְ modifies man.  In a nod to Nachmanides, he says that two elements allowed a sinning man to continue to hear the word of God: man’s location (בגן) and the prophetic emanations of that day (לרוח היום). Nachmanides understands רוח relating to God’s movement, and sees the preposition as part of the theophany:  the walking of God is accompanied by the wind of divine revelation.[74] 

In his Guide,[75] Maimonides gives five translations for רוח: 1) air (as primal element), 2) wind, 3) life, 4) a human’s transcendental spirit, 5) God’s inspiration/prophetic transmission, and 6) God’s desire and goals.  When רוח is applied to God, one should understand it in the fifth sense.  This is similar to Nachmanides.[76]  The reading of Rasag in Oeuvres completes is ברפק כחרכה אלנהאר, making תנועת היום a dative of means describing a state of gentleness.  Zucker, however, reads ברפק בחרכה אלנהאר, putting the two prepositional phrases in apposition, probably modifying מתהלך.  Based on Rasag’s own comments and his reference to Ezekiel’s theophany, the translation might be close to that of Nachmanides and Maimonides.[77]  Maimonides also allows for the sixth interpretation, which would agree with S’forno (who reads both מִתְהַלֵּךְ and לרוח היום in the narrow scope and places them in the aspect of an ongoing process): לרצון היום, לעשות דברים הנרצים באותו היום כמו שעשה בשאר ימי בראשית וכמו שעשה באותו יום קודם חטאם. 

Weighing the Evidence

When God Walks…

A survey of modern commentaries and translations shows a consensus for a narrow scope reading of the participle in the accusative noun clause: the Lord God walking.  קול is therefore translated as “sound.”[78]  This is also the opinion of commentators from whom one would expect a more traditional, even rabbinic, view.[79]  Of course, for modern scholarship, not only does the verse pose no theological problem, the anthropomorphism is well in line with the section’s designation as a “J” document, and in fact is one of the defining characteristics of this source.

Lending to the ambiguousness is the fact that the owner of the קול—God—can produce either a voice or a sound.[80]  I Kings 14:7—וַיְהִי כִשְׁמֹעַ אֲחִיָּהוּ אֶת קוֹל רַגְלֶיהָ בָּאָה בַפֶּתַח—provides an example where the object cannot emit a voice, and therefore קול must be translated as sound.  On the other end of the spectrum, where the participle denotes an action of speaking, there seems little difference between the sound of speaking and a voice.  In Deuteronomy 4:33 (הֲשָׁמַע עָם קוֹל אֱלֹהִים מְדַבֵּר מִתּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ) and 5:23 (כִּי מִי כָל בָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר שָׁמַע קוֹל אֱלֹהִים חַיִּים מְדַבֵּר מִתּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ כָּמֹנוּ וַיֶּחִי), [81] to hear the sound of God talking is essentially the same as hearing His voice; the only question being: was God also in the fire?[82]  Therefore, while in the recap found in verses 5:19 (כְּשָׁמְעֲכֶם אֶת הַקּוֹל מִתּוֹךְ הַחֹשֶׁךְ), 5:20 (וְאֶת קֹלוֹ שָׁמַעְנוּ מִתּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ ), and 5:21 (אִם יֹסְפִים אֲנַחְנוּ לִשְׁמֹעַ אֶת קוֹל ‘ה אֱלֹהֵינוּ עוֹד וָמָתְנוּ), קול seems to be voice (especially in the final two verses), it would not contradict a narrow scope reading of 4:33 and 5:23.[83]  In fact, the very insertion of קול seems to be redundant (cf. Genesis 27:6: הִנֵּה שָׁמַעְתִּי אֶת אָבִיךָ מְדַבֵּר אֶל עֵשָׂו אָחִיךָ לֵאמֹר), perhaps inserted because of the implication of theophany associated with קול.

In order to posit a middle scope reading, the participle would have to be either attributive or predicative.  If the former were true, מִתְהַלֵּךְ would be in apposition to the Lord God, and must be in agreement with it, including definiteness.  It is not.  If the latter was true, and as part of an accusative clause, one would expect the predicate to be subordinated with אשר: i.e. וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶת קוֹל ‘ה אֱלֹהִים אֲשֶׁר מִתְהַלֵּךְ בַּגָּן.  It is unlikely, however, that we should encounter an asyndeton in prose.  Davidson points out that the object of a verb of perception can be complemented by a participle, which is used to describe the state in which the object was perceived.[84]  Joüon cites the use of the participle in our clause as an attributive accusative of state, [85] describing the state of the object when it was heard.  He provides an example from 1 Kings 1:41: מַדּוּעַ קוֹל הַקִּרְיָה הוֹמָה.  It is the city that is in a tumult, certainly not the voice, nor even the sound. So, too, 1 Kings 14:6: כִשְׁמֹעַ אֲחִיָּהוּ אֶת קוֹל רַגְלֶיהָ בָּאָה בַפֶּתַח, in which her legs are entering, not their voice, nor even their sound.  The following cases are also instructive:

Ø      Gen.   4:10— קוֹל דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ צֹעֲקִים אֵלַי, note the agreement in number;

Ø      Lev. 26:36—וְרָדַף אֹתָם קוֹל עָלֶה נִדָּף;

Ø      Isa. 13:4—קוֹל שְׁאוֹן מַמְלְכוֹת גּוֹיִם נֶאֱסָפִים;

Ø      Isa. 66:6—קוֹל שָׁאוֹן מֵעִיר \ קוֹל מֵהֵיכָל \ קוֹל ‘ה מְשַׁלֵּם גְּמוּל לְאֹיְבָיו;

Ø      Ezek. 3:13—וְקוֹל כַּנְפֵי הַחַיּוֹת מַשִּׁיקוֹת אִשָּׁה אֶל אֲחוֹתָהּ, number and gender;

Ø      Joel 2:5—כְּקוֹל מַרְכָּבוֹת עַל רָאשֵׁי הֶהָרִים יְרַקֵּדוּן \ כְּקוֹל לַהַב אֵשׁ אֹכְלָה קָשׁ; and, finally,

Ø      Ps. 23—e.g. קוֹל ‘ה שֹׁבֵר אֲרָזִים \ וַיְשַׁבֵּר ‘ה אֶת-אַרְזֵי הַלְּבָנוֹן, and note the LXX.

One may wonder, then, why the overwhelming medieval consensus against a narrow reading?  First, the Masoretic text seems to reverse itself in verse 10, where man states: “I hear your קול in the garden.”  One would be hard pressed, based on biblical parallels, to translate this as “the sound of You;”[86] and, indeed, modern commentary struggles with this very issue.[87]  While LXX and Neofiti M variant (or their vorlage) include περιπατοῦντος and מטייל, respectively, avoiding the problem, a similar transition takes place between Deuteronomy 4:33 and 5:23 and the recap in Deuteronomy 5:19-21, as noted above.  Second, while anthropomorphic terminology is indeed used in this narrative, as well as in others, nowhere is God presented so casually, strolling about seemingly incidentally, like a man of leisure on an afternoon walk.[88]  Perhaps this is what compels Nachmanides to emphasize the permeation of theophanic motifs, employing the preposition לרוח היום for this purpose, and differing with the general (but not exclusive) rabbinic view that God was coming and not going.  As cited above, many of the commentators, while eschewing the anthropomorphism of the narrow scope reading, hint at the same time at some kind of divine manifestation.

As the Sifre on Leviticus 26:12 demonstrates, using the hitpael form of הלך is not only a well attested verb for God (whereas nowhere else does the hitpa’el form modify קול), it is a preferred word when describing a continuous theophany.  Note also Deuteronomy 23:15 (כִּי ‘ה אֱלֹהֶיךָ מִתְהַלֵּךְ בְּקֶרֶב מַחֲנֶךָ), II Samuel 7:7-8 (...וָאֶהְיֶה מִתְהַלֵּךְ בְּאֹהֶל וּבְמִשְׁכָּן.  בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר הִתְהַלַּכְתִּי בְּכָל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל...),[89] and, of course, Ezekiel 1:13.[90]  The idea of a theophany, featuring God walking (or moving) continuously or repetitively, seems to be a biblical motif.  In fact, our clause may have served as a template for all the others.  As such, Rashbi, Nachmanides, and the modern translators seem to have the right of it.

The Wind of the Day

In a search for occurrences of שׁמע with a locative preposition, results such as II Kings 19:25 (הֲלא שָׁמַעְתָּ לְמֵרָחוֹק אתָהּ עָשִׂיתִי) and Deuteronomy 5:20 (וְאֶת קלוֹ שָׁמַעְנוּ מִתּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ) are adnominal, referring to the object, even if the object is not stated, as in the former case.  Also, Numbers 11:10 (וַיִּשְׁמַע משֶׁה אֶת הָעָם בּכֶה לְמִשְׁפְּחתָיו) cautions against a wide scope reading that crosses direct object clauses.  In fact, the preposition "ל" is often used to indicate שמע in the second sense, that of obeying.[91]  Even the Rashbam’s Exodus 14:30 is hardly unambiguous.[92]  Given that we have decided in favor of a narrow scope reading of מִתְהַלֵּךְ, a narrow scope reading of לְרוּחַ הַיּוֹם seems the most likely, regardless of the semantics of this unusual phrase.

Bibliography

Abarbanel, I., Peirush al ha-Torah: Bereishit (Hapo’el Hamizrahi, 1984).

Brown, Driver, Briggs, A Hebrew Lexicon of the Old Testament (Clarendon Press, 1978).

Cassuto, U., A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, translated from the Hebrew by Israel Abrahams (Magnes Press, 1961-64).

Gesenius, W., Gesenius' Hebrew Grammar as edited and enlarged by E. Kautzsch (Clarendon Press, 1946).

Gibson, J. C. L., Davidson’s Introductory Hebrew Grammar ~ Syntax, 4^th ed. (T&T Clarke, 1994).

Hoffman, D., Sefer Bereshit (Netsaḥ, c1969-1971).

Ibn Janah, J., Sefer ha-Rikmah, translated into Hebrew by R. J. Ibn Tibon, Ed. Michael Wilensky,Vol. 1 (Hoza’at ha-Akademia l’Lshon ha-Ivrit, 1964).

_________, Sefer ha-Shorashim, translated into Hebrew by R. J. Ibn Tibon (Bi-defus T.H. Ittskovski, 1896).

Joüon, P., A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, translated and revised by T. Muraoka (Editrice Pontificio Instituto Biblio, 1991).

Kaufman, S.A., Sokoloff, M., A Key-Word-In-Context Concordance to Targum Neofiti (John Hopkins University Press, 1993).

Klein, M. The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch: according to their extant sources, vol. 2 (Biblical Institute press, 1980).

Loew, Y., Sefer Gur Aryeh, Vol. 1, Hebrew, (Yahadut, 1973).

Maimonides, M., Moreh Nevukhim le-Rabenu Mosheh ben Maimon; translated from Arabic by Michael Schwartz, Vol. 1, Hebrew (Universitat Tel-Aviv, 2002).

Midrash Rabbah: im kol ha-Meforshim, Hebrew (H Wegshal, 2000).

Razhabi, Y., Perushe Rav Sa’adyah Ga’on le-Sefer Shemot, translation to Hebrew and comments by Yehuda Razhabi (Mosad ha-Rav Kuk, 1998).

Rosin, D., Perush ha-Torah  asher Katav Rashbam, Hebrew (Om, 1949).

_______, R. Samuel b. Mëir [RaSHBaM] als Schrifterklärer (F. W. Jungfer, 1880)

Speiser, E. A., Anchor Bible: Genesis, (Doubleday, 1964)

__________, “The Durative Hitpa`el: A tan Form,” JAOS 75 (1955), pp. 118-21

Sperber, A., The Bible in Aramaic: The Pentateuch According to Targum Onkelos, Vol. 1 (E. J. Brill, 1959).

Steiner, R., “Ancient Hebrew”, The Semitic Languages, edited by Robert Hetzron, pp. 145-173 (Routledge, 1997).

Theodor, J., Albeck CH., Medrash Bereshit Rabba: Critical Edition with Notes and Commentary (Shalem Books, 1996).

Wenham, G. J., Word Biblical Commentary: Genesis 1-15, (Word Books, 1987).

Zucker, M., Perushe Rav Se’adyah Ga’on li-Ve-reshit, Hebrew (Bet ha-Midrash le-Rabanim ba-Amerikah, 1984).