As for Kass, I found that reference through a Google book search, so maybe there’s something more in his notes?

But the second word doesn’t reappear except in Job 5:12 and 15:5, as negatively “cunning” – and yet many other times in the Proverbs as more positively “prudent.” Not sure the “smooth” idea runs through this.

Your post did make me think of the contrast between Esau, who was cunning ( ידע/ yada`) as in Genesis 25:27 and Jacob, who was smooth ( חלק/ chalaq) as in Genesis 27:11.

Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that their smooth skin was exposed and unprotected; so they stitched fig-leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

It’s possible too that opening up the linguistic range of options in that verse could identify some other English wordplay options for v3:1. I’ll have to think about that.

My thought stems from the fact that puns usually have an underlying semantic tie. That’s the beauty of the pun in that you can say something that really isn’t in the words of the text, and yet it makes the meaning of the text more precise. With many puns it’s this non-textual tie–determined and caused by the pun–that bursts into the mind and brings about laughter.

I often wondered what the issue was with naked (not that I walk around the house nude or anything like that). However, if the core, but explicit, concept is smoothness, then that brings another thought to mind.

Let me take Gen 3:7, paraphrase it and elucidate it through expansion so as to quickly get to my point.
“Then they suddenly became aware of something they hadn’t seen before: the smoothness of their bodies showed they were exposed and unprotected.”

The point wasn’t the nakedness. The point was their exposure evidenced by the smoothness. So, to remedy the problem, they put on some kind of protection against the elements.

Now, does that help explain 3:10? Here, too, I’ve often wondered what the big deal of nakedness was. In fact, they had already covered themselves so they weren’t technically naked. I can come up with explanations; however, all of them feel like I’m reaching outside the text in order to explain the text. I’m uncomfortable with doing that. However, if I consider that Adam and Eve had now experienced sin and their whole being was changed (metaphorically and spiritually, they had died), then being exposed to a Holy God walking through the Paradise would have been a very fearful event. They would have felt totally unprotected. That’s not injecting anything into the text.

God then works to get to the bottom of this issue. That is, who on earth put my two wonderful creatures, the height of my creation, into a place where they are fearful of me and think that I would not protect them. The immediately questions from Him were, “Whose responsible?” and “Have you sinned?”

The pun between 3:1 and 3:7 sets the mind into the right frame to be able to more easily grasp this flow of thought. And, more importantly, the danger of being a sinner in the presence of God. That’s excellent and very basic theology, IMO. Ideal for this location of the development of the text.

For example in Daniel and Susanna, verses 54-55: Daniel said, “‘Now, if you really saw this woman, then tell us, under what tree did you see them together?’ He answered, ‘Under a clove tree.’ Daniel retorted, ‘Very good! This lie has cost you your life, for already God’s angel has received your sentence from God, and he will cleave you in two.’” The footnote points out this wordplay on “clove” and “cleave.”

Again, in verses 58-59: “‘Now tell me, under what tree did you surprise them together?’ ‘Under a yew tree,’ he replied. Daniel said to him, ‘Very good! This lie has cost you also your life, for the angel of God is waiting sword in hand to hew you down and destroy the pair of you.’” Again, the footnote points out the wordplay between “yew” and “hew.”

I think this is very helpful and clever on the translators’ part.