On the sin of the tree of knowledge
Hello Rabbi,
I wanted to ask a few questions about the story of the Tree of Knowledge:
1. Why do we bless God, the Almighty, for granting us knowledge, if according to the story of the Garden of Eden, it was Adam who took knowledge and it came to him through prohibition. God, the Almighty, initially forbade man from eating from the tree of knowledge. Only after he ate did He take back knowledge. But it is not that He granted us knowledge from the beginning.
2. If knowledge came to us through prohibition, is it not fitting that God, the Holy One, should take it back from us?
3. What is the meaning of the sin of the tree of knowledge, if at the moment of sin man did not have the knowledge to distinguish between good and evil?
4. How can a person be commanded not to eat from the tree of knowledge, if at the moment of the command a person does not have the knowledge to distinguish between good and evil?
Best regards,
Hello Oren. The explanation of the sin of Adhar is found in the PB of the Teacher of the Perplexed and is somewhat similar in Nefesh Ha-Hayim. The common side of both of them was that even before the sin, the mind was able to distinguish between good and evil, and what entered into it after the sin is something different, lower.
According to the Rambam, this is about etiquette, that is, conventions of etiquette and decency, and not about good and evil. According to the Nefacha, the knowledge of good and evil is the instinct (as I explained in the lesson last night). These entered a person after sin. Before that, the instincts were outside of him and it was clear to him that they were external factors. After they entered him (the filth of the serpent, in the words of Chazal), the feeling is that the instincts are his own will (this is what confuses us so much). But this is not really the knowledge to distinguish between good and evil.
Rousseau and Hobbes (and Locke following him) also wrote parables about ‘primitive man’, completely opposite… the first described a paradise and peace, and the second a war of all against all… which expresses their positions on human nature: the first believed in the power of rationality to make him do the right thing, and the second was much more skeptical and conservative….
Judaism and Christianity also argued about the meaning of the first sin… the second saw it as an original sin that plunged man into sin, from which he could only be redeemed by God's grace… the second promoted the birth of Cain and Abel, so that sin is not so essential…
Is it possible to learn about the correlation Judaism-Rousseau-belief in the goodness of man, compared to Christianity-Hunce-pessimism regarding man's sinful nature?
Yitzhak Shalom.
To tell you the truth, I really don't like this type of question. What do I care what someone or someone else writes? Examine the arguments and think for yourself. If you come to the conclusion that man is inherently good, then that is your conclusion, even if ”Judaism” says otherwise. And if that is not your conclusion, then it is not even if ”Judaism” does say so. And if you don't have a conclusion, then there is none, even if the entire world has one conclusion or another. And in general, why is this question important? I'm not even sure that it is well defined (what does “evil by nature” mean: that he will necessarily sin? that there is a chance X that he will sin? what is X?) These are just empty words.
And finally, what is this ”Judaism” anyway? Every thinker writes from the musings of his heart, and there is no added value in someone, no matter how wise, writing one way or another. And especially with regard to questions of fact (ostensibly this is a question of fact, to the extent that it has any meaning at all) it has no relevance to what Judaism or Christianity or Buddhism believes. The question is what is the correct fact.
Great interesting questions,
The rabbi has already answered, but still, the whole Torah is a honey and a sight to behold:
The questioner must understand that we are essentially rational creatures, who are not supposed to be controlled by our emotions but by our intellect.
The gift of knowledge is because we are rational creatures who can investigate and understand one thing from another by our intellect. Knowledge, from the word knowledge, is something that is acquired - we do not receive it once and for all like computer memory, and that is it - knowledge is something that is accumulated in the brain. The wise man said that with much wisdom comes much anger, and with more knowledge comes pain, so that there is truly a punishment for the sin of Adam the first.
You do not need knowledge to distinguish between good and evil, you need to understand what the Creator asks of us, and understand that it is good. And not listening to his voice - that's bad.
That's it. The first man was created mature in his ability.
The moment man ate from the tree of knowledge, he actually became enslaved to his desires and actually became more materialistic, and this is what happened on the ground, eating did not make him wiser - but more materialistic. Therefore, he did not eat from the tree of life to begin with, and if he had eaten, he would have been a little more spiritual, but he chose the tree of knowledge first because he was drawn to lust. This was the test that God made for him, and he did not stand it, and therefore he did not deserve to remain in the Garden of Eden.
What is the message in this story for all humans? Do not be drawn to lust even if the person closest to your heart convinces you to do so! This is what it teaches us - and this is an important message that must be internalized.
Every person in the world has two trees in front of him - good and evil - and you chose life! The tree of life is the Torah, as it is said: The tree of life is happiness to those who hold it and support it, its ways are pleasant ways, and all its paths are peace.
He who eats from the tree of life will also be entitled to eat from the tree of knowledge even without eating from it, how? For it is written: The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul; the testimony of the Lord is trustworthy, making the simple wise. And the understanding one will understand! And he will apply his heart to this.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
