After the man deflects responsibility for his actions, God turns His attention to the woman, initiating a profound moral and psychological confrontation. This dialogue is not a factual investigation, as God already knows the events that transpired. Rather, it is an exploration of accountability, remorse, and the deep consequences of human failure.
When God confronts the woman about her actions, His inquiry serves a deeper purpose than gathering information. Some view this approach as a rhetorical expression of astonishment, essentially asking how she could commit such a terrible act [קאסוטו]. However, many commentators understand this as a deliberate invitation for dialogue. By asking, God provides her with an opportunity to reflect, confess, and repent, demonstrating that He does not desire the punishment of sinners, but rather their return to the proper path [ספורנו, אור החיים, ביאור יש״ר].
The very fact that the woman is brought to judgment raises a fundamental question, as the original prohibition against eating from the tree was given to the man before she was even created. The primary approach among commentators is that the woman was included in the initial warning and its subsequent punishment because, at the time of the command, she was an inseparable part of the man's body. Therefore, the decree applied equally to her [רמב״ן, הטור הארוך, תולדות יצחק, צאינה וראינה]. Furthermore, God’s confrontation carries a double rebuke. He holds her accountable not only for eating the fruit but also for leading her husband to do the same. This teaches that the transgression of causing another person to stumble is just as severe, if not more so, than committing the sin oneself [רמב״ן, אלשיך, צאינה וראינה, ביאור שטיינזלץ].
In her response, the woman mirrors the man's behavior by attempting to justify her actions and deflect the blame. She claims the serpent deceived her, presenting herself as an unwitting victim who fell prey to a sophisticated external force [אור החיים, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. Hidden within her defense is a subtle grievance directed toward God: if she is to blame for causing the man to stumble, then the serpent is to blame for causing her to stumble, and it was God who created the tempter in the first place [רד״ק]. She also carefully frames her confession to admit only to her own eating. By doing so, she attempts to shed responsibility for feeding her husband, subtly implying that if he partook so readily, he must have harbored his own desire to eat regardless of her involvement [אלשיך]. Yet, in casting the blame onto the serpent, the woman fails to realize that surrendering to a tempter and heeding its advice is the very essence of her sin [קאסוטו].
The nature of the serpent's influence involves multiple layers of manipulation. The primary approach among commentators is that this was not a simple temptation, but a total deception of the mind and heart [רש״י, מזרחי, הכתב והקבלה, אדרת אליהו, רש״ר הירש]. The serpent utilized flattery and false promises to distort her perception of reality. While mere temptation is never an acceptable excuse for sinning, a claim of complete deception is an attempt to prove a lack of malicious intent [גור אריה]. Another aspect of this manipulation was the systematic removal of her inhibitions. The serpent successfully stripped away the natural fear that kept her from sinning, convincing her that she would not suffer the ultimate consequence and effectively neutralizing her fear of punishment [שד״ל, מלבי״ם, מחוקקי יהודה]. Finally, the deception involved an allure of physical pleasure [אבן עזרא, ביאור יש״ר] coupled with the promise of false elevation. The serpent lured her with the grand illusion that partaking of the fruit would elevate her beyond human limitations and grant her a divine status [אור החיים, מחוקקי יהודה].