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 the "intimate knowing" of two people, 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.

Meaning of "טוֹב וָרָע" – Abarbanel² 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.³

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 gain awareness of was the fact of their nakedness.⁴  Only with sexual desire did nakedness take on any import and lead to a feeling of embarrassment.⁵

"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.

Human versus animal sexual drive – A. Korman⁶ 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.⁷  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.

"וִהְיִיתֶם כֵּאלֹהִים יֹדְעֵי טוֹב וָרָע" – Ramban questions this approach from the fact that both the snake and Hashem⁸ 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.⁹
• 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.¹⁰  [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,¹¹ while Ibn Ezra and Radak view the tree as extending life or having life-inducing properties, but not granting immortality.¹²

"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.¹³  Radak similarly suggests that an early (but not an immediate) death was decreed upon him.¹⁴
• 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.¹⁵

"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".‎¹⁶‎  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.¹⁷
• Abarbanel explicitly disagrees and claims that Adam and Chavvah were always meant to cohabit and bear children regardless of the sin.¹⁸  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.¹⁹  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.

Original plan for mankind – According to the position that procreation was only introduced after the sin, the world was originally meant to been inhabited only by Adam and Chavvah.  This

View of celibacy

Free Will (and the Evil Inclination)

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

Sources:?Rashi, 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.

"...וַיֵּדְעוּ כִּי עֵירֻמִּם הֵם" – With the introduction of free will, 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.

"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 wrong,²⁰ 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. R. Bachya Bereshit 2:9About R. Bachya b. Ashersimilarly suggests that before the sin humans were like angels; afterwards they fell to a lower level.

Commands to someone lacking free will? This 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?²¹
• In addition, Chavvah appears to evaluate the various aspects of the tree²² 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. Bacha 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.²³

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.²⁴  Eating from the tree strengthened that impulse, giving him more freedom of choice but also making him more likely to sin.

Measure for measure punishment? If humans gained free will  by eating form 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.²⁵

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

• 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.
• He 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. 

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 2About 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's starting point is the idea that it would be 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 is what leads him to suggest that man was created with a more perfect knowledge,²⁶ 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.

"...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 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.  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.  Though he is not explicit, he appears to agree with Ralbag that man always had capacity for both types of knowledge and the prohibition was a warning to not to veer after the sensual and care about the "good and bad" (the subjective truths)  rather than the "true and false" (the objective intellect).

Analogy – The Rambam is elusive but appears to suggest that the story of the sin in the Garden of Eden is at least somewhat allegorical.  Ralbag states this explicitly.  As such, both have much more leeway in interpreting the verses.

Partial / Moral Knowledge

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

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

³ 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. 

⁴ 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 nature of the knowledge grnated by the tree.

⁵ Beforehand they were like toddlers who are not inhibited to take off their clothing in public.

⁶ See A. Korman, הבריאה והמבול, (Tel Aviv, 1980).

⁷ 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.

⁸ 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.

⁹ 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"?!

¹⁰ 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.

¹¹ 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, too, the tree itself did not automatically grant immortality, but eating from it while meriting Hashem's providence would allow man to live forever.  This position would have to say, as does R"Y 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, "וּמִלְאוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ" which was only relevant after the expulsion from the garden.

¹² Radak explains that Hashem's words, "וְלָקַח גַּם מֵעֵץ הַחַיִּים וְאָכַל וָחַי לְעֹלָם" do not imply that man would live forever, but only that he would be able to live a longer time than he now deserved once he had sinned. ["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.]

¹³ 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.

¹⁴ According to him the verse does not meant hat death would come on the day that man sinned, but rather, on the day that he sinned an earlier death than originally planned was decreed.

¹⁵ Excesses disrupt the body's balance, so the increase in sexual desire would of necessity come to harm the body.

¹⁶ 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.

¹⁷ 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 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

¹⁸ 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.

¹⁹ Cf. Abarbanel who agrees that Chavvah was punished measure for measure, but develops the details differently.

²⁰ See RashiBereshit 2:25About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki who more explicitly suggests that the knowledge granted by the tree was the evil inclination.  R"Y Bekhor ShorBereshit 2:17Bereshit 2:18Bereshit 3:5-22About R. Yosef 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.

²¹ 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".

²² See 3:6, "וַתֵּרֶא הָאִשָּׁה כִּי טוֹב הָעֵץ לְמַאֲכָל וְכִי תַאֲוָה הוּא לָעֵינַיִם וְנֶחְמָד הָעֵץ לְהַשְׂכִּיל".

²³ 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"]

²⁴ 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").

²⁵ Ramban himself explains differently, suggesting that since Chavvah commanded her husband to eat from the tree, she will now have to listen to his commands.

²⁶ In fact, when the verse describes ma as being created in the "the image of God" it refers to his being created with such intellect.