Classics and Beyond Bereishis 3— The Slippery Slope of Sin

Bereishis 3— The Slippery Slope of Sin
ויאמר האדם האשה אשר נתתה עמדי הוא נתנה לי מן העץ ואכל: ויאמר ה’ אלקים לאשה מה־זאת עשית ותאמר האשה הנחש השיאני ואכל  
The man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.” And Hashem G-d said to the woman, “What is this that you have done?” The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate” (Bereishis 3:11-13).
The Midrash (Bereishis Rabbah 19:12) has a startling take on the grammar of the pasuk and the import of what Adam really said. When Hashem confronted Adam and he admitted to eating from the forbidden tree, he used the word, “Va’ocheil — And I ate.” According to the Midrash (see also Eitz Yosef on the Midrash), this word can also mean “And I will eat.” Adam was using both possible tenses: that he ate in the past, and he will eat in the future. In other words, while confessing to the fact that he had already eaten from the tree, Adam was also saying that he was not above eating from it again.
If Adam was admitting to his sin, why should we assume that he would be so audacious as to say to Hashem that he would do it again?
In his sefer Imrei Daas, Rav Aryeh Meir Siegel explains that Adam began his response by shifting the blame to his wife. Only after did he acknowledge that he ate. This was an instance of “Yes, but…” where one admits to wrongdoing, but does not take ownership of his misdeed. According to Rav Siegel, any time a person does not accept blame for an action, it is likely that the offense will be repeated. Since Adam immediately faulted Chavah for his sin, that was tantamount to him saying that, given the opportunity, he will most probably eat from the tree again.
Similarly, when Chavah was confronted by Hashem, she blamed the serpent for enticing her to eat from the tree. However, if we follow the lines of the verses, it seems that her reply does not really answer Hashem’s question. HaKadosh Baruch Hu spoke to Chavah after Adam faulted her for giving him of the fruit to eat. Accordingly, when Hashem asked her, “What is this that you have done?” He was referring to the fact that she gave her husband to eat from the forbidden tree. If so, her response should have also addressed the issue of feeding her husband, not only the fact that she herself ate.
Perhaps the theme discussed earlier is at play here, too. A person does not sin in a vacuum. Rather, the sin comes on the heels of a previous event; it is part of a downward trend. Just as after Adam admitted to eating from the tree, he blamed his wife and therefore showed no plans of changing, when Chavah ate and blamed the snake, it is obvious that her second sin (feeding her husband) was an extension of the first sin (eating from the tree). Included in eating was giving her husband to eat also.
Every cheit is indicative of a larger pattern, which will not stop on its own. In the absence of a plan to take ownership of one’s misdeeds and a resolution for change, one’s original misbehavior will fester and spin out of control. That is why the Midrash can predict that Adam will eat again. And that is how Chavah, while admitting that she ate from the tree yet blaming it on the snake, is also saying that she furthered her crime by feeding it to her husband, as well.
We can take this one step further. Later in Parashas Bereishis (4:7), when HaKadosh Baruch Hu confronted a dejected Kayin after his korban was not accepted, Hashem said: “Ha’lo im teitiv se’eis ve’im lo seitiv la’pesach chatas roveitz — Is it not true that if you do good, you will be forgiven? But if you do not do good, at the entrance sin crouches.”
Though Onkelos usually translates the pesukim literally, here he goes out of his way to tell us that in this dialogue, Hashem taught Kayin about teshuvah: “Surely, if you improve your conduct, it will be forgiven for you. But if you do not improve your conduct, then the sin shall remain intact until the day of judgment.  You will be punished if you do not repent. Yet if you repent, you will be forgiven.”  Which makes us wonder: Where does Onkelos come up with the notion of doing teshuvah within the translation of the pasuk?
Perhaps the pshat is that if a person does an aveirah and does not own up to it — which is what teshuvah is — then he is bound to repeat it. The translation of this pasuk, though it only mentions sinning or not sinning, incorporates within it the need to do teshuvah.
Stopping to sin does not only mean not doing the inappropriate action. Left alone and not countered, the sin will snowball and grow, bringing many more sins in its wake. Thus, while taking ownership of one’s deeds, one must also make a plan for the future.
Never truer were the words: Failure to plan is a plan for failure.