In the very first confrontation with human failure, a deep-seated instinct to avoid responsibility emerges. While the man does not lie and ultimately admits to his actions, he avoids a straightforward acceptance of guilt. Instead, he casts himself as a victim of circumstance, deflecting the blame onto his wife and, by extension, his Creator. The primary approach among commentators views this response as a display of profound ingratitude toward God. By pointing out that God was the one who provided the woman, he implies that God is at fault. Rather than appreciating the divine gift of a companion intended to be his helper, he twists her existence into the very cause of his downfall.
Beyond simple deflection, commentators identify a series of complex defense mechanisms in the man's response. A central approach suggests he claimed to act in absolute good faith. Because God provided the woman to be his helper, he trusted her implicitly, assuming that whatever she offered was for his benefit, and therefore ate without questioning the fruit [רמב״ן, ספורנו, אור החיים, חזקוני]. In a similar vein, others propose that since the woman was brought to him after the initial prohibition was given, he mistakenly believed God had permitted the fruit if it came through her hands [אדרת אליהו]. Another perspective suggests a motive of deep solidarity; viewing his wife as his equal, he deliberately chose to eat in order to bind his fate inextricably to hers [רש״ר הירש, קונטרס חיבה יתירה].
A different line of thought focuses on a highly legalistic interpretation of the divine command. Some commentators explain that the man believed the prohibition only applied to personally plucking the fruit from the tree, in order to prevent its destruction. Once the fruit had already been detached and handed to him by someone else, he assumed eating it was permissible [מלבי״ם, הכתב והקבלה]. Another creative approach compares the tree to sacred Temple property. According to this legal logic, when someone takes a sacred object and gives it to another, the giver commits the violation of misappropriation, while the receiver remains innocent. Thus, he argued that she alone broke the law [חנוכת התורה, פרדס יוסף]. A starkly unique interpretation even suggests he claimed physical coercion, arguing that the woman beat him with a piece of wood until he was forced to eat [קיצור בעל הטורים].
Despite this extensive array of justifications, the man's defense inevitably ends in a confession, acknowledging that he did, in fact, commit the act [העמק דבר]. However, early sages detect a defiant undertone in his admission, interpreting his words as a declaration that he ate and would eagerly do so again. Commentators explain this apparent rebellion in several ways. He might have genuinely believed that his specific method of eating was permissible and would remain so in the future [חנוכת התורה]. Alternatively, he may have harbored profound, hidden motives. Some suggest he intentionally sought to bring death into the world so that future generations would not mistakenly worship themselves as immortal gods [שפתי כהן], while others propose he ate to awaken the physical desire necessary to fulfill the commandment of procreation [אדרת אליהו].
Ultimately, while the man attempted to shed his guilt and blame his surroundings, God's silence in response to these elaborate defenses proves they were entirely rejected [קאסוטו]. Nevertheless, the sheer act of offering a partial confession and expressing a degree of remorse, even when heavily laced with blame, was sufficient to mitigate the original severity of his punishment. Rather than dying on that very day, his flawed but genuine repentance took effect, granting him a life that spanned nearly a millennium [חומש קה״ת].