The Tree of Knowledge/2/he
עץ הדעת
גישות פרשניות
Overview
In trying to understand the nature of the knowledge bestowed by "עֵץ הַדַּעַת טוֹב וָרָע", commentators are motivated by both their understanding of the text and their vision of mankind and what constitutes Paradise. Ibn Ezra puts textual consideration at the forefront, concluding from context and other usages of the root "ידע", that here it refers not to knowledge but to sexual desire. His approach makes one question whether procreation had been part of the original plan for mankind, and what life would be like if it were not colored by sensual desire.
For others, the philosophical question of what constitutes the ideal human might have been equally influential. Thus, rationalists such as Rambam and Ralbag, who view the intellect as the crowning glory of man, deem it impossible for man to have been created without wisdom. As such, they assert that eating from the Tree diminished, rather than boosted, the intellectual capacity of man. Cassuto, in contrast, suggests that childlike ignorance can be blissful, and that eating from the Tree bestowed knowledge, and with it, worry, pain, and fear. Ramban presents a third portrait of the ideal human: an angel-like being who has no free will and no evil impulse to sway him. The Tree introduced choice, and with it, the evil inclination.
A final approach suggests that the fruit of the Tree did not impact on man's nature at all. It was placed in the Garden to test man's obedience. Would he listen to the dictates of his senses in order to determine what was "good and bad", or would he recognize that such terms are defined by Hashem's command alone?
Sexual Desire
The fruit of the Tree introduced sexual desire to mankind.
- Abarbanel responds that these verses refer to Hashem's role as Creator. Sexual desire leads to procreation, and in this regard, man is similar to Hashem who brings life to all.8
- Ibn Ezra and Radak maintain that in these verses the word "אלֹהִים" does not refer to Hashem, but 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.]
- 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 his eating from the Tree, mortality would be decreed upon mankind. He, however, views this as a direct consequence of the sin rather than a punishment.14
- 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 was 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 suggests, instead, 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".
- According to the position that procreation was first 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.
- 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. Thus, humans are somewhat unique in having many years during which they can be sexually active, yet not be able to procreate, introducing the concept of mating for pleasure.
Free Will and/or the Evil Inclination
Upon eating from the Tree, humans acquired an inclination to do evil (יצר הרע), thereby giving them the free will to choose between good and bad.
- Ramban responds that free choice comes with the inclination to do evil, 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.24
- Rashi and R. Y"S Reggio go further to suggest that the knowledge granted by the Tree was the evil inclination itself.25
- 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! Moreover, without any inclination to do wrong, how could he have sinned at all?27
- In addition, Chavvah appears to evaluate the various aspects of the Tree28 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?
- Consequence of banishment – Ramban suggests that perhaps this is the consequence of Hashem's curse which forced man to 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.
- Safeguard from sin – 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).
- Accountable for crimes – A Northern French commentary suggests that if man had not sinned, he would have been immortal since a person who can not distinguish between good and bad cannot be held accountable for his crimes. Once he gained such knowledge, though, capital punishment became possible.
- 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.32
- 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 told that she was to have pain in childbirth and given the task of being "אֵם כׇּל חָי".
Intellectual Knowledge
Partaking from the Tree affected the intellect of man. This approach subdivides regarding the specifics of what the Tree imparted and whether it increased or decreased man's intellectual capabilities:
Intelligence
Prior to the sin, humans were similar to small children who are unaware of their surroundings. The Tree granted them intellect.
Subjective Knowledge
Before the sin, humans had innate, 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.
- Reinterpret the word "מִמֶּנּוּ" – In his Commentary to the Mishnah, Rambam follows the Targum and suggests that the word "מִמֶּנּוּ" does not mean "from us" but "from him" (and, as such, there is no comparison to God). This necessitates re-punctuating the verse so that it reads, "Man is one, i.e. unique; from him there is knowledge of good and bad". Hashem is, thus, pointing out that man now has subjective knowledge that emanates from him (and not from Hashem).43
- Reread the verse as a question – Ralbag, instead, suggests that the verse should be read as a question. Fed up with Adam, Hashem rhetorically asks, "Have I made man like one of us, the higher beings, just so that he could attain knowledge of the "good and bad"?! If he focuses on such knowledge, is there any hope that he will ever achieve eternal life?"44
- 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.46
Morality
After eating from the Tree, universal concepts of right and wrong were instilled in mankind.
No New Knowledge
Eating from the fruit of the Tree did not change man's nature, but rather manifested man's failure to recognize that it is God who determines what is "good" and "bad".
- According to R. Hirsch, through the Tree, man was to demonstrate how he planned to determine what was good and what was bad: whether he would decide this on his own, or allow God to determine it.
- B. Jacob, instead, looks to Devarim 30:15-16 to suggest that "good" refers to obedience to God, which is accompanied by life and blessing, and "bad" to disobedience which brings with it death and curses. The Tree was so called because it was the touchstone which was to demonstrate whether man chose obedience or not.55
- R. Hirsch suggests that the prohibition was a test in self-control; could man control his desires and subordinate the dictates of his senses to Hashem's will? Hashem presented him with a tree which was pleasing to the eyes, palate, and intellect, and thus appeared to be "good". Yet, the fact that Hashem prohibited it, defined the fruit as "bad". Would man recognize that morality is determined by Hashem's will alone, or would he decide for himself what was good and what was bad?
- Benno Jacob similarly suggests that the prohibition was meant simply to remind man that he is not God and that he has a Master whom he is to obey.56 Would man recognize that he need obey his Maker?
- The punishment of enmity between snake and man was to serve as a reminder to man that he is above the sensuality of beasts. Unlike animals he is not meant to act on instinct and desire alone, but to abide by Hashem's dictates.
- The punishments of Adam and Chavvah were meant to teach them the importance of renunciation. Woman's whole life was to become a sacrifice for the other. Man was to toil in order to bring forth food from the earth; he, too, was forced to sacrifice in order to produce. Mankind was, thus, to learn self-control and not to be swayed by desires. Ultimately such renunciation would bring him closer to Hashem and the recognition that only He determines what is truly good or bad.