More insight into Genesis 3:6:
“…and she also gave some to her husband who was with her and he ate.” ESV
I was reading this text in the New Israel Bible – a brand new Hebrew translation from some of the best Hebrew scholars in Israel:
“She also gave some to her husband, and he ate.”
Notice that the phrase “who was with her” is missing from this Hebrew translation.
This omission prompted me to look up the definition of the Hebrew word עמה (ayin, mem, hey) translated as “with her” by the ESV and several other translations. According to Brown, Driver and Briggs, it means “united, associated, family, family connection.”
It does not restrict the meaning to “being at one’s side.” This broader definition makes much more sense.
Genesis 3:3 indicates that Adam’s wife thought they were not only to refrain from eating the fruit, they were also forbidden from touching it. It seems hard to believe that the Lord would tell Adam one command in scripture but later give his wife a more restrictive, undocumented warning after He created her.
It seems more plausible that Adam, in an attempt to keep his wife from inadvertently picking the fruit by accident, may well have added this codicil to the original command. In any event, while he was supposedly standing right beside her, why would he let her not only touch the fruit but eat it as well? And how could he accuse her of being his undoing (3:12) when he had supposedly been standing right there while she took, ate and gave it to him — all without any adverse reaction from him.
And why didn’t she reply to his accusation by reminding him that he was right there too. Moreover, why didn’t the Lord point out when Adam implicated Him as well (3.12) that he had been right next to his wife when she ate the fruit and was therefore equally responsible?
The new Hebrew translation makes much more sense to leave this phrase out since it could have simply meant that there was a family connection between Adam and his wife and did not imply that he was standing right next to her.