The Tree of Knowledge/2/en

The Tree of Knowledge

Exegetical Approaches

This topic has not yet undergone editorial review

Sexual Desire

The fruit of the tree introduced sexual desire to mankind.

Sources:Ibn EzraBereshit First Commentary 2:9, 17Bereshit First Commentary 3:7Bereshit First Commentary 4:1Bereshit Second Commentary 2:9, 16-17Bereshit Second Commentary 3:7Bereshit Second Commentary 4:1About R. Avraham ibn Ezra, RadakBereshit 2:9Bereshit 2:17Bereshit 3:7Bereshit 3:20Bereshit 3:22Bereshit 4:1About R. David Kimchi, AbarbanelBereshit 2:1About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel #1,

Meaning of the root "דעת"

• These sources point to the many places in Tanakh where the root ידע connotes sexual relations¹ to suggest that here, too, the knowledge gained by the tree was sexual in nature, i.e. Adam and Chavvah gained sexual desire. 
• A variation of this approach could suggest that the tree introduced the mating instinct, and that until the sin, Adam and Chavvah were not meant to have sex at all.²

Meaning of "טוֹב וָרָע" – Abarbanel³ claims that the "good and bad" refer to the fact that a proper amount of sexual desire can be positive but when the desire becomes excessive it is harmful.⁴

Intellectual knowledge prior to sin – All these sources maintain that man had intellectual knowledge before the sin, and that he already knew how to differentiate between good or bad.  If not, they claim, what sense would it have made for Hashem to prohibit or permit him different trees?

"...וַיֵּדְעוּ כִּי עֵירֻמִּם הֵם" – Ibn Ezra and Radak points to this verse as proof of this position. After eating from the tree, the first thing that Adam and Chavvah gained awareness of was the fact of their nakedness.⁵  Only with sexual desire did nakedness take on any import and lead to a feeling of embarrassment.⁶

"וְהָאָדָם יָדַע אֶת חַוָּה אִשְׁתּוֹ" – The first deed done by Adam after our story is to have relations with his wife, a direct result of the new knowledge that he gained.

"וִהְיִיתֶם כֵּאלֹהִים יֹדְעֵי טוֹב וָרָע" – Ramban questions this approach from the fact that both the snake and Hashem⁷ declared that in eating from the tree, man became similar to God.  Since Hashem does not have sexual desire, it would seem difficult to define the knowledge gained by the fruit in such a manner. 

• Abarbanel responds that Hashem is referring to His role as Creator.  Sexual desire leads to procreation, and in this man is similar to Hashem who brings life to all.⁸
• Ibn Ezra and Radak, instead, maintain that "אלֹהִים" here refers not to Hashem but rather to angels. Though one might claim that angels, too, have no sexual desire, the story of the "בְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים" coupling with "בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם" might suggest otherwise.⁹  [See בני הא־להים and בנות האדם for various readings of the story.]

Eating from the Tree of Life – Abarbanel claims that man was originally allowed to eat from the tree, and was meant to live forever,¹⁰ while Ibn Ezra and Radak view the tree as extending life or having life-inducing properties, but not granting immortality.¹¹

"כִּי בְּיוֹם אֲכׇלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹת תָּמוּת"

• Early death – Ibn Ezra claims that the verse should be read according to its simple sense, that originally man was supposed to die the same day that he ate from the tree.  Only due to his repentance was the punishment averted.¹²  Radak similarly suggests that an early (but not an immediate) death was decreed upon him.¹³
• Mortality – According to Abarbanel, in contrast, Hashem warned Adam that upon eating from the tree mortality would be decreed upon mankind. He, however, views this not as a punishment, but rather as a direct consequence of the sin.¹⁴

"וַיִּקְרָא הָאָדָם שֵׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ חַוָּה" – These sources suggest that the naming of Chavvah, which appears to interrupt the story, is actually integrally related to the sin. 

• According to Radak, it was only now, with the introduction of sexual desire, that Adam and Chavvah realized that they were to procreate and that Chavvah was to become "אֵם כׇּל חָי".‎¹⁵‎  It is possible to go further and suggest that until the sin, mankind was not meant to procreate at all, but instead to eat from the Tree of Life and live forever.¹⁶
• Abarbanel explicitly disagrees and claims that Adam and Chavvah were always meant to cohabit and bear children regardless of the sin.¹⁷  He instead suggests that the name Chavvah relates to her garrulous nature which led her to sin. "חוה" means to tell or declare as in Tehillim 19:3, "יְחַוֶּה דָּעַת".

Measure for measure punishment? Chavvah's punishment of pain in childbirth and always desiring her husband is an appropriate one if the sin related to sexual desire.¹⁸  In fact, it could even be seen as a direct consequence of her deed rather than simply a punishment (especially if the two were not meant to procreate beforehand).

Why make the tree at all? Abarbanel explains that the tree had positive properties as well as negative ones.  Seeing and touching it provided the proper amount of sexual desire, and had Adam and Chavvah not eaten from the tree, they would have enjoyed its benefits without its negatives.

The original plan for mankind

• According to the position that procreation was only introduced after the sin, it seems that the world was originally meant to have been inhabited only by Adam and Chavvah.  It is not clear, though, what would have been the purpose of such a world.
• According to those who suggest that mankind was always meant to procreate, the ideal world was one in which such procreation was more utilitarian in nature and not colored by excessive desire. 

Uniqueness of human sexual behavior – Along these lines, A. Korman¹⁹ suggests that originally man's sexual drive might have been more similar to that of animals, and the uniqueness of human sexual conduct might be an outgrowth of the sin: 

• In many animal species, it is smell (pheromones) rather than sight which stimulates the sexual drive.  Thus it was only after the sin that seeing another's nakedness was felt as shameful. 
• Most animals mate only for purposes of reproduction.²⁰  Similarly, very few species outside of humans menstruate or experience menopause, resulting in many years during which one can be sexually active and yet not procreate. Humans, thus, are somewhat unique in mating for pleasure.

Sin rewarded?

View of celibacy

Free Will and/or the Evil Inclination

Upon eating from the tree, humans attained the ability to choose between good and evil. They were given free will, and with it, the inclination to do wrong.

Sources:?Rashi, ?R"Y Bekhor Shor, RambanBereshit 2:9, 17Bereshit 3:7, 16, 22About R. Moshe b. Nachman

Meaning of the root "דעת" – Ramban claims that "דעת"  refers to will or choice, pointing to the phrases "יְדַעְתִּיךָ בְשֵׁם"  in Shemot 33:12 and "מָה אָדָם וַתֵּדָעֵהוּ" in Tehillim 144:3 as evidence.

Meaning of "טוֹב וָרָע" – Ramban understands these terms simply to refer to good and bad.  Man was given free will to choose between a thing and its opposite, for positive or negative.

"וִהְיִיתֶם כֵּאלֹהִים יֹדְעֵי טוֹב וָרָע" – Hashem's words are understood according to their simple sense: the ability to choose between good and evil is a godly trait.

Sin rewarded? If free will is godly, though, it is surprising that it should have been granted to man only in the aftermath of sin.

• Ramban responds that free choice comes with the inclination to do evil,²¹ as man is guided not only by what is right, but by passions and desire. This allows one to choose poorly.  According to Ramban, it would have been better for man to have no choices and to always do what is correct.²²  
• Rashi goes further to suggest that the knowledge granted by the tree was the evil inclination itself. R"Y Bekhor Shor does not use the language of a "יצר הרע", but seems to agree as he suggests that eating from the tree brought about deceit, arrogance, jealousy, and with such traits, the desire to steal, rob and do as one pleases.

"...וַיֵּדְעוּ כִּי עֵירֻמִּם הֵם"

• With the introduction of free will and the accompanying evil inclination, the sexual act took on a different aspect.  It was no longer a utilitarian deed done matter-of-factly for the purposes of procreation, but one filled with desire.  Therefore, upon eating from the tree, Adam and Chavvah were embarrassed by their nakedness.
• R"Y Bekhor Shor implies, in contrast, that the tree introduced haughtiness leading Adam and Chavvah to feel that nakedness did not become them and that they were worthy of being clothed.

Commands to someone lacking free will? Ramban's approach is difficult on several grounds: 

• Abarbanel questions, if man had no free will, what was the point of Hashem's prohibition? After all, Adam did not have the choice to either listen or disobey!  One might further ask, how could man have sinned at all?²³
• In addition, Chavvah appears to evaluate the various aspects of the tree²⁴ before deciding to eat from it, suggesting that she already had the ability to differentiate between good and bad and choose accordingly.
• Finally, if man had no choice why should he have been punished?

R. BachyaBereshit 2:9Bereshit 3:5-6About R. Bachya b. Asher suggests that even without an evil inclination, it is possible to sometimes veer off the correct path, and even angels (the state to which he compares man pre-sin) sometimes stray from what is right.²⁵

Variation of the approach – Given the above questions, a variation of this position might suggest that though man always had free will (and therefore he could be commanded regarding the tree), before the sin his evil inclination was very weak. Eating from the tree strengthened that impulse, giving him more freedom of choice but also making him more likely to sin.²⁶ [This might be closer to the interpretations of Rashi and R"Y Bekhor Shor.]

"כִּי בְּיוֹם אֲכׇלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹת תָּמוּת" – Ramban brings two explanations of how to reconcile this verse with the fact that Adam did not immediately die:

• Mortality – He points to Chazal's understanding that originally man was meant to live forever, but that eating from the tree introduced mortality. He suggests that perhaps this is the consequence of man's punishment that he work the land and eat from the grass of the field and not from the trees of the Garden.  The latter likely had life-preserving qualities lacking in the produce Adam was to grow for himself. R"Y Bekhor Shor, instead, suggests that mortality was now needed to safeguard mankind.  Fear of death would help rein in the evil impulse and control man's appetite for evil.  He reads Adam's punishment that he toil similarly; hard labor reduces the inclination to sin (יגיעה משכחת עון).
• חיוב מיתה – Ramban also suggests that Hashem is saying that on the day man eats from the tree, he will be obligated in death ("חייב מיתה"), the date of which Hashem is to determine. 

Chavvah's punishment

• Measure for measure – If humans gained free will by eating from the tree, Chavvah's punishment that her husband will rule over her (which would in effect, mitigate her free will) might be viewed as a measure for measure response.²⁷
• Consequence of sin – R"Y Bekhor Shor explains that since the sin created the need for mortality, it also introduced the need for procreation to ensure the survival of the species.  Thus Chavvah was to have pain in childbirth etc. 

The ideal – Ramban claims that a world without free will is the ideal, and even suggests that in the time of Mashiach, the world will revert back to the pre-sin conditions in the Garden of Eden.

Subjective Knowledge or Moral Conventions

Before the sin, humans had objective knowledge of truths and falsehoods, knowledge gained by pure analytical reasoning.  Afterwards their intellectual level dropped and became the subjective knowledge of moral convention, knowledge gained by custom and empirical observation.

Sources:Rambam1 22 30About Rambam Moreh Nevukhim, RalbagBereshit Beur HaMilot 2:9Bereshit Beur HaMilot 3:1-6About R. Levi b. Gershom

Meaning of the root "דעת" – Rambam understands "דעת" according to its simplest meaning, to refer to knowledge.

Meaning of "טוֹב וָרָע" – Rambam differentiates between two types of knowledge, the objective knowledge of "truth and falsehood" and the subjective knowledge of "good and bad".  The former are  facts achieved through intellectual reasoning ("מושכלות"), while the latter are individual perceptions, based on empirical observations or moral conventions ("מפורסמות") which can be mistaken.  Eating from the tree, thus, caused a regression in the knowledge of mankind, taking him from the certainty of "necessary truths" to the ambiguity of "relative truths".

Intellectual knowledge before the sin – Rambam points out that it is inconceivable that man would only attain intellectual knowledge, the highest of endowments, as a result of sin. Moreover, as only intellectual beings can be commanded, Adam of necessity must have had some knowledge before the sin. This leads him to suggest that man was created with a more perfect knowledge,²⁸ and eating from the tree caused a deterioration in that knowledge.

"...וַיֵּדְעוּ כִּי עֵירֻמִּם הֵם" – One of the starkest examples of "moral convention" is the concept that nakedness is shameful.  When humans knew only "truths and falsehoods," nakedness was not seen as a derogatory state.  It was only after eating of the tree that they viewed it as "bad".

"וִהְיִיתֶם כֵּאלֹהִים יֹדְעֵי טוֹב וָרָע" – Rambam understands "אלֹהִים" in the secular sense of the word to refer to political leaders.  Such leaders are  guided by moral conventions as they govern and set standards of behavior.  As this explanation does not resolve the difficulty of Hashem saying, "הֵן הָאָדָם הָיָה כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ לָדַעַת טוֹב וָרָע", he must reinterpret that verse as well. Following the TargumBereshit 3:22About Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, he suggests that the word "מִמֶּנּוּ" does not mean "from us" but "from him". This necessitates re-punctuating the verse so that it reads, "Man is one, ie. unique; from him, himself, there is knowledge of good and bad".²⁹

"...וַתֵּרֶא הָאִשָּׁה כִּי טוֹב הָעֵץ לְמַאֲכָל וְכִי תַאֲוָה הוּא לָעֵינַיִם" – These words are difficult for Rambam as they imply that even before eating from the tree, Chavvah already had subjective knowledge of "good and bad," as she was able to evaluate the tree as being pleasurable to the senses and good to eat.³⁰ 

• Rambam claims that it was this decision to veer after pleasure and desire, rather than being controlled by the intellect alone, which was actually the first stage of the sin.  This, though, still implies that subjective knowledge existed prior to the sin.
• Ralbag explains that man always had the capacity for both types of knowledge and the prohibition was a warning to focus solely on objective truths and not to veer after the sensual and the subjective truths of good and bad.  If so, though, the tree in itself did not bequeath new knowledge; eating from it simply marked man's decision to engage in subjective truths.

Story as allegory – Ralbag reads the story of the sin in the Garden of Eden as allegorical.  Rambam is elusive but appears to agree.³¹  As such, both have much more leeway in interpreting the verses than those who assumes that all should be read according to its simple sense. [Thus, for Ralbag, eating represents the attainment of something, and the Tree of Knowledge represented subjective truth but did not actually grant such knowledge etc.]

Incomplete Knowledge 

The knowledge imparted by the Tree was only partial and would have been given to man directly by God had he not disobeyed Hashem. This position subdivides regarding the nature of this partial knowledge:

Morality

Sources:R. Saadia GaonCommentary Bereshit 2:17Commentary Bereshit 3:1Commentary Bereshit 3:22About R. Saadia Gaon, R. D"Z HoffmannBereshit 2:17Bereshit 3:7Bereshit 3:22About R. David Zvi Hoffmann

Meaning of the root "דעת" – Both R. Saadia and R. D"Z Hoffmann understand the word simply to refer to knowledge, but suggest that the knowledge imparted by the tree was only partial.

Meaning of "טוֹב וָרָע" – R. Saadia and R. D"Z Hoffmann disagree regarding the meaning of these terms, and thus with regards to what was included in the knowledge gained by the tree:

• Knowledge of specific subjects – R. Saadia points to many verses which use the phrase "good and bad" to prove that it is not a sweeping term that covers all knowledge but rather refers to the positive and negative aspects of a specific subject (such as military strategy, judicial procedure or physical pleasure, depending on the context).³²  He does not elaborate exactly which areas of information Adam and Chavvah were born with and which they gained (excepting knowledge of their nakedness which is explicit in the verses.)
• Morality – R. D"Z Hoffmann, in contrast, asserts that knowing good and bad refers to differentiating between right and wrong. The tree, though, did not grant knowledge of all morality, but only of universal morals shared by even the totally uneducated.³³

Intellectual knowledge before the sin

• Some knowledge – R. Saadia claims that man must have had some sort of knowledge prior to eating from the tree for otherwise it would have been pointless to give them commandments to act one way or another.  In addition, since wisdom is a positive thing, it cannot be that Hashem would have kept it from humankind.  Thus, it was only specific pieces of information that Hashem did not impart beforehand, information that Hashem wanted to teach by Himself.³⁴ 
• No concept of good and evil – Though R. Hoffmann agrees that man was born with an intellect, he claims that upon creation he did not yet possess even the most basic concepts of good and evil. This is not because he was not meant to have such knowledge,³⁵ but because Hashem wished that humans receive their moral training directly from Him; only via direct Divine teaching could their perfection be ensured.³⁶

Why make the tree at all?

• Reminder of Hashem – According to R. Saadia, the tree was created to provide man with a constant reminder of Hashem's authority and commands, and so that man could gain reward when he obeyed Hashem's directive.
• Test and protection in case of failure – According to R. Hoffmann, the tree served a more fundamental role. Since Hashem gave humans free will, He knew that humans would not always choose to obey Divine directives.  Man had the choice to follow Hashem or be his own guide.  As such, Hashem's first directive was a test to see which path he was to take. If he passed, he would attain the immortality granted by the Tree of Life.  If he failed, he would need the Tree of Knowledge, for without the constant guidance of Hashem's teachings man would need to be instilled with at least the fundamentals of morality.³⁷  As such, the tree served simultaneously as a test and a (partial) cure for failure.

"...וַיֵּדְעוּ כִּי עֵירֻמִּם הֵם" – The idea that nakedness is shameful is one of the universal concepts of morality, and was thus among the knowledge granted by the tree.

"וִהְיִיתֶם כֵּאלֹהִים יֹדְעֵי טוֹב וָרָע" – In gaining a modicum of morality, man did become more like God and angelic beings.  The snake did not lie, but was misleading in suggesting that man would not have achieved the same goal (and to a higher degree) had he not eaten from the tree

"כִּי בְּיוֹם אֲכׇלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹת תָּמוּת" – R. Saadia explains that the verse does not mean that man was to dies on the day of his sin, but that disobedience was a capital crime and upon transgressing he was to be חייב מיתה.  R. Hoffmann, in contrast, asserts that mortality became necessary to help man come back to His Creator.  Death redeems man from sin and allows him eternal life afterwards.

The Torah: A New Tree of Life – R. Hoffmann suggests that though Adam failed to learn directly from Hashem, later Hashem created a new nation who was once again given such an opportunity.  In giving the Torah to the Nation of Israel, Hashem provided them with a comprehensive guide to morality and full knowledge of "good and bad", thus granting them a new Tree of Life.³⁸

Morality

Sources:R. Saadia GaonCommentary Bereshit 2:17Commentary Bereshit 3:1Commentary Bereshit 3:22About R. Saadia Gaon, R. D"Z HoffmannBereshit 2:17Bereshit 3:7Bereshit 3:22About R. David Zvi Hoffmann

Meaning of the root "דעת" – Both R. Saadia and R. D"Z Hoffmann understand the word simply to refer to knowledge, but suggest that the knowledge imparted by the tree was only partial.

Meaning of "טוֹב וָרָע" – R. Saadia and R. D"Z Hoffmann disagree regarding the meaning of these terms, and thus with regards to what was included in the knowledge gained by the tree:

• Knowledge of specific subjects – R. Saadia points to many verses which use the phrase "good and bad" to prove that it is not a sweeping term that covers all knowledge but rather refers to the positive and negative aspects of a specific subject (such as military strategy, judicial procedure or physical pleasure, depending on the context).³⁹  He does not elaborate exactly which areas of information Adam and Chavvah were born with and which they gained (excepting knowledge of their nakedness which is explicit in the verses.)
• Morality – R. D"Z Hoffmann, in contrast, asserts that knowing good and bad refers to differentiating between right and wrong. The tree, though, did not grant knowledge of all morality, but only of universal morals shared by even the totally uneducated.⁴⁰

Intellectual knowledge before the sin

• Some knowledge – R. Saadia claims that man must have had some sort of knowledge prior to eating from the tree for otherwise it would have been pointless to give them commandments to act one way or another.  In addition, since wisdom is a positive thing, it cannot be that Hashem would have kept it from humankind.  Thus, it was only specific pieces of information that Hashem did not impart beforehand, information that Hashem wanted to teach by Himself.⁴¹ 
• No concept of good and evil – Though R. Hoffmann agrees that man was born with an intellect, he claims that upon creation he did not yet possess even the most basic concepts of good and evil. This is not because he was not meant to have such knowledge,⁴² but because Hashem wished that humans receive their moral training directly from Him; only via direct Divine teaching could their perfection be ensured.⁴³

Why make the tree at all?

• Reminder of Hashem – According to R. Saadia, the tree was created to provide man with a constant reminder of Hashem's authority and commands, and so that man could gain reward when he obeyed Hashem's directive.
• Test and protection in case of failure – According to R. Hoffmann, the tree served a more fundamental role. Since Hashem gave humans free will, He knew that humans would not always choose to obey Divine directives.  Man had the choice to follow Hashem or be his own guide.  As such, Hashem's first directive was a test to see which path he was to take. If he passed, he would attain the immortality granted by the Tree of Life.  If he failed, he would need the Tree of Knowledge, for without the constant guidance of Hashem's teachings man would need to be instilled with at least the fundamentals of morality.⁴⁴  As such, the tree served simultaneously as a test and a (partial) cure for failure.

"...וַיֵּדְעוּ כִּי עֵירֻמִּם הֵם" – The idea that nakedness is shameful is one of the universal concepts of morality, and was thus among the knowledge granted by the tree.

"וִהְיִיתֶם כֵּאלֹהִים יֹדְעֵי טוֹב וָרָע" – In gaining a modicum of morality, man did become more like God and angelic beings.  The snake did not lie, but was misleading in suggesting that man would not have achieved the same goal (and to a higher degree) had he not eaten from the tree

"כִּי בְּיוֹם אֲכׇלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹת תָּמוּת" – R. Saadia explains that the verse does not mean that man was to dies on the day of his sin, but that disobedience was a capital crime and upon transgressing he was to be חייב מיתה.  R. Hoffmann, in contrast, asserts that mortality became necessary to help man come back to His Creator.  Death redeems man from sin and allows him eternal life afterwards.

The Torah: A New Tree of Life – R. Hoffmann suggests that though Adam failed to learn directly from Hashem, later Hashem created a new nation who was once again given such an opportunity.  In giving the Torah to the Nation of Israel, Hashem provided them with a comprehensive guide to morality and full knowledge of "good and bad", thus granting them a new Tree of Life.⁴⁵

Objective Knowledge

Sources:Cassuto

Appreciation of Aesthetics

Sources:? Rashbam

No New Knowledge

The fruit of the tree did not change the intellect of man at all.

Sources:Midrash Tadshe, R. HirschBereshit 2:9About R. Samson Raphael Hirsch,

¹ For a few of many examples, see Bereshit 4:1, 4:17, 4:25, and 19:5.

² This position would have to say, as does R"Y Bekhor ShorBereshit 2:17Bereshit 2:18Bereshit 3:5-22About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, that Hashem's words to man in Bereshit 1, "פְּרוּ וּרְבוּ" were only relayed after the sin.  He proves this from the continuation of the verse, "וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ" which likewise was only relevant after the expulsion from the garden.

³ See Radak similarly, who speaks in terms of permitted and prohibited sexual actions.

⁴ He, in fact, claims that the tree aroused sexual desire just by looking or feeling it, actions which Hashem did not prohibit knowing that a small amount of desire would be beneficial to man and lead him to couple with his wife. 

⁵ Throughout the story the issue of nakedness is highlighted (see 2:26, 3:7, 3:10, 3:11, and 3:22), suggesting that it is intrinsic to the story.

⁶ Beforehand they were like toddlers who are not inhibited to take off their clothing in public.

⁷ He points out that had it been just the snake who made this claim, one could suggest that he was simply lying, but since Hashem Himself says, "הֵן הָאָדָם הָיָה כְּאַחַד מִמֶּנּוּ לָדַעַת טוֹב וָרָע", it must be a fact.

⁸ He also raises the possibility that Hashem's words are said ironically.  Hashem asks, "Has man become like one of us, just because he now knows good and bad?!"

⁹ Ibn Ezra and Radak themselves do not say this and it is unclear how they think that reinterpreting "אֱלֹהִים" in this manner solves the problem.  In addition, in verse 22 Hashem includes Himself with the angels, making the reading even more difficult.

¹⁰ Abarbanel points to Bavli ShabbatShabbat 55bAbout Bavli Shabbat which suggests that had Adam not sinned he would have lived forever. He suggests that the Tree of Life had rejuvenating properties, and Hashem would have guarded mankind from evil allowing him to live forever.  Thus according to him, the tree itself did not automatically grant immortality, but eating from it while meriting Hashem's providence would have allowed man to live forever. 

¹¹ Radak explains that Hashem's words, "וְלָקַח גַּם מֵעֵץ הַחַיִּים וְאָכַל וָחַי לְעֹלָם" do not imply that man would have lived forever, but only that he would be able to live a longer time than he now deserved due to the sin. ["לְעֹלָם" should not be understood as a long duration of time rather than "forever". See Shemot 21:6 and Shemuel I 1:22 where the word also appears not to mean forever.]

¹² He also raises the possibility that the verse means that from the day that man ate from the tree he began to move towards death, i.e. that day was to be the beginning of the end.  However, given that Adam lived for many centuries after the sin, it would seem to difficult to mark such an early day in his lifetime as the turning point towards death.

¹³ According to him the verse does not mean that death would come on the day that man sinned, but rather, on the day that man sinned an earlier death than originally planned was decreed.

¹⁴ Excesses disrupt the body's balance, so the increase in sexual desire would of necessity come to harm the body.

¹⁵ Cf. Ibn Ezra who explains that Adam's first act after the expulsion when he realized that he was not to live forever, was to perpetuate the species.

¹⁶ Radak himself does not say this, but this could work with the variation of this approach that suggests that the Tree of Knowledge introduced the mating instinct, which had been totally absent beforehand.  See R"Y Bekhor ShorBereshit 2:17Bereshit 2:18Bereshit 3:5-22About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor who points out that when Chavvah was initially created, Hashem refers to her only as an " עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ", someone's who role was to help, but not to mate with Adam

¹⁷ He does suggest, though, that originally they might have been meant to just bear one or two offspring, since more would not have been necessary if they were to be immortal.  When Hashem decreed upon them mortality in the aftermath of sin, there was a need to bear more children.

¹⁸ Cf. Abarbanel who agrees that Chavvah was punished measure for measure, but develops the details differently.

¹⁹ See A. Korman, הבריאה והמבול, (Tel Aviv, 1980).

²⁰ Many species have specific mating seasons which are optimal for the survival of the offspring, further suggesting that procreation is the main goal of their sexual activity.

²¹ zundefined

²² R. BachyaBereshit 2:9Bereshit 3:5-6About R. Bachya b. Asher similarly suggests that before the sin humans were like angels with no "יצר הרע"; afterwards they fell to a lower level.

²³ Abarbanel adds that man, by definition, is a being with free choice, so it is impossible that e would have been created without it. He writes, "כל טובו ושלמותו של אדם היה במציאות הבחירה והיכולת על הטוב על הרע כפי יצרו ואם לא היה כן לא היה אדם".

²⁴ See 3:6, "וַתֵּרֶא הָאִשָּׁה כִּי טוֹב הָעֵץ לְמַאֲכָל וְכִי תַאֲוָה הוּא לָעֵינַיִם וְנֶחְמָד הָעֵץ לְהַשְׂכִּיל".

²⁵ He points to the angels in the story of Sedom who sinned in arrogance by attributing the destruction of the city to themselves rather than Hashem. [They say, "כִּי מַשְׁחִתִים אֲנַחְנוּ אֶת הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה"]

²⁶ One might even suggest that there was nothing inherent in the tree that strengthened the inclination to do evil, but that the very act of disobedience made it easier to sin in the future ("עבירה גוררת עבירה").

²⁷ Ramban himself explains differently, suggesting that since Chavvah commanded her husband to eat from the tree, she was punished to be subject to his commands.

²⁸ In fact, when the verse describes man as being created in the "the image of God" it refers to his being created with such intellect.

²⁹ According to RambamShemonah Perakim 8About R. Moshe b. Maimon, Hashem is saying that since man is unique in that he has free will to choose between good and bad, he might choose to eat from the Tree of Life, necessitating that he be banished from the Garden. This reading is difficult not only because it is an awkward rendering of the verse, but because according to it "knowing good and bad" in this verse has a different meaning (free will) here than it did earlier in the chapter (knowledge of moral convention).

³⁰ See also R. Hirsch who questions how man could possibly have free will if he did not have concepts of "good" and "bad".

³¹ See Moreh Nevukhim 2:301 22 30About Rambam Moreh Nevukhim.  This is how Abarbanel understands Rambam's words in this passage.

³² Thus, for example, when Moshe speaks of "וּבְנֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדְעוּ הַיּוֹם טוֹב וָרָע" he is referring to youths who do not yet know the art of war, but who were competent in many other areas of learning.  When Barzilai refuses David's offer of hospitality, explaining "הַאֵדַע בֵּין טוֹב לְרָע", he, too, refers only to his inability to take pleasure in sensual acts, not to all good and bad.

³³ This includes the concepts that murder and stealing are wrong, or that expressing gratitude to parents is right.  According to him, the reason that all societies agree regarding certain basic concepts of right and wrong is because such morality was bequeathed by the tree to Adam and from him to all of mankind.

³⁴ He does not explain why these specific subjects were meant to be taught by Hashem.

³⁵ He points out that without any concepts of good and evil, there could be no possibility of free choice which is fundamental to humankind, so it is impossible that man was never meant to have such knowledge.

³⁶ It is not clear, though, why Hashem could not have ensured such perfect knowledge by intsilling it in man before he was created. See below that it seems that according to R. Hoffmann, if Hashem had done so, man would not really have had free will to choose to obey Hashem or not.

³⁷ Thus, Hashem ensure that despite man's decision to be his own guide, all humans knew the most basics of right and wrong. 

³⁸ As Mishlei says, "עֵץ חַיִּים הִיא לַמַּחֲזִיקִים בָּהּ".

³⁹ Thus, for example, when Moshe speaks of "וּבְנֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדְעוּ הַיּוֹם טוֹב וָרָע" he is referring to youths who do not yet know the art of war, but who were competent in many other areas of learning. When Barzilai refuses David's offer of hospitality, explaining "הַאֵדַע בֵּין טוֹב לְרָע", he, too, refers only to his inability to take pleasure in sensual acts, not to all good and bad.

^{40 33}

^{41 34}

^{42 35}

^{43 36}

^{44 37}

^{45 38}