In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

b. Sot· ah 14a:1 “Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them” (Genesis 3:21). Rav and Samuel— One says: Something that comes from the skin. And one says: Something from which the skin derives benefit. The dispute concerns the syntactic structure of the expression “coats of skins.” Does “skin” denote the material from which the coats were made or the purpose to which they were put? The precise meaning of both positions is left unclear. It would appear that the first view is intended to be a literal one—which is to say that the garments were made from animal skin or leather.2 The second view could refer to any material at all, even though it does not necessarily rule out animal skin. But most commentators, influenced by targumic and midrashic interpretations , have understood both views as being non-literal.3 Various speculations about the material from which the coats were made are assembled in Genesis Rabbah 20:124 and Tanh· uma (Buber Tanhuma).5 Both passages are of an exegetical nature, and neither is incorporated into a proem or any other identifiable homiletical structure. In the bavli, the dispute between Rav and Samuel is situated within a diverse but unstructured series of rabbinic statements and homilies about the virtues of clothing the naked—a precept that is characterized there as a form of imitatio dei. Notes 1 Liss, 1:213. 2 This is how it was understood by Margoliot (70). In keeping with his general approach, he thereby identifies the author of the view as Rav. 3 The tone was set, predictably, by Rashi, who explained that neither view refers to actual skins but rather to either wool or flax (linen). This approach is consistent with the Onqelos, Pseudo-Jonathan, and Neofiti targumim, all of which render “skins” as Nhr#b K#ml (“for the skin of their flesh”). See Grossfeld, Onqelos, 46–47; Maher, 29; McNamara, 62, n.21. Midrash Aggadah (Buber, 10) paraphrases the biblical story in the same spirit. The widespread eschewal of a straightforward literal translation has been explained on various grounds. Thus, Joseph Bekhor Shor (Nevo, 12), the “H· izzequni” commentary on the Pentateuch for Genesis 3:21 (Chavel, H· izzequni, 23), as well as Maharsha, note 79 16 : Coats of Skin that the world had not yet existed long enough to flay an animal and prepare the skin— an assumption that sets curious limitations on the Creator’s abilities. This phenomenon might be connected with the fact that meat was permitted for consumption only after the Flood. Rashi’s associations with flax and wool are evidently based on Genesis Rabbah 20:12 (pp. 196–97): “Says Rabbi Johanan: Like these fine linen garments that come from Beth Shean…R’Samuel bar Nah· man: They were from the fleece of camels and the fleece of hares; ‘coats of skins’ is written—that they come from the skin.” Most commentators have understood Rabbi Johanan as stating that the garments were not skins at all. However, Krauss, who was uncomfortable with positing such a blatant disregard for the plain sense of the verse, has argued cogently that Rabbi Johanan was merely comparing the material with linen and might well have been referring to fine leather—as indeed is connoted by the form ylkk rather than simply ylk (Krauss, Talmudische, 1:136, 529–30, nn. 78–81; Krauss, Kadmoniyot, 1:1:33–35]. At any rate, if these rabbinic sources refer to linen garments, then they probably arrived at that interpretation by emphasizing the word tntk, which normally designates flax in rabbinic Hebrew and Aramaic (Krauss, Talmudische , 138–40, 536 n. 118; Krauss, Kadmoniyot, 56, n. 4). 4 Pp. 196–97. The opinions are discussed in detail by Theodor, in his notes, as well as by Krauss, ibid., and in the designated entries in his Lehnwörter. 5 Buber, Tanhuma, Bereshit 24, pp. 17–18. 80 16 : Coats of Skins ...

Share