The Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life
PARASHAT BEREISHIT
*********************************************************
This shiur is dedicated by Akiva Karalitzky in honor of
Rabbi and Mrs Aaron Borow
*********************************************************
The Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Lifee
By Rav Zeev Weitman
One of the most puzzling stories in all of the
Torah is the account concerning the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life. God
places Adam in the Garden of Eden and causes every tree that is "pleasant to
look at and good for food" to grow there for him. In the garden, there are also
the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil. God prohibits man
from eating from the Tree of Knowledge,[1] warning that on
the day he eats from this tree he will die.
As we know, Adam and Chava eat of the Tree of
Knowledge, but they do not die on that same day; the Torah records that Adam
actually goes on to live to an extraordinarily old age nearly 1,000 years. It
seems, then, that the serpent is correct in responding to the woman with the
words:
"You shall not
surely die. For God knows that on the day you eat of it, your eyes will be
opened and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." (2:4-5)
This leads to another difficulty: as we
understand it, the ability to distinguish between good and evil represents an
advantage rather than a deficiency. It is therefore not clear why Adam was not
created with this ability from the outset. Why did the acquisition of this
knowledge need to involve sin and punishment?
A third question is the seeming contradiction
between the first and third chapters of Bereishit concerning man's essence and
the way in which he resembles God. In chapter 1, we are told that man is
created, expressly and deliberately, in God's image:
And God said,
Let us make man in Our image, as Our likeness, that they may have dominion over
the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over the animals, and
over all of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the
earth. So God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him;
male and female He created them.
However, in chapter 3, we find that the similarity
between man and God has its source in the sin of eating from the Tree of
Knowledge, as the serpent tells the woman, and as God Himself affirms at the end
of the chapter:
And the Lord God said, Behold, man has become like
one of Us, knowing good and evil
" (3:22)[2]
Furthermore, we must ask, if God did not want
man to be able to distinguish between good and evil, for what reason did He
plant the Tree of Knowledge in the garden? What was the purpose of this tree in
the general scheme of Creation? The same question arises with regard to the Tree
of Life: for what reason was it planted, if there was no intention of offering
man eternal life?
And a fifth question: If God indeed did not
want man to know the difference between good and evil, what prevented Him from
simply denying him this ability? God's punishment of the earth, after the sin,
was that the earth which was originally supposed to give forth every type of
goodness without the need for any effort would now produce only thorns and
thistles. The punishment for the woman was that her experience of childbirth,
which was originally meant to be painless, would now entail sorrow. The snake
was punished by henceforth having to go upon its belly. In the same way, surely
God could have punished the man with the withdrawal of the ability to
distinguish between good and evil, which had been acquired through transgression
of God's command.
These questions and others led the Ran
(Rabbeinu Nissim) to skip over this chapter, offering no commentary on it.
Abravanel explains:
This
parasha is explained by some of the commentators in accordance with the
plain meaning of the text. This is the path adopted by Rashi and Ramban, and Ibn
Ezra also follows this approach in his assertion that the events happened as
they are described. The other approach maintains that this story is not to be
understood literally, and that none of it actually took place, but that it is
altogether allusion and allegory. This is the way that Rambam explains it, and
it is also in truth the way of Ibn Ezra, and that is its secret; Ralbag
[explains it in this way] too, in his Commentary on the Torah, along with all
those who follow their approach and imbibe their teachings
And I think that the
questions that arose for Ha-Rav Ha-Chassid, Rabbeinu Nissim [the Ran], led him
to avoid explaining this parasha, for he did not have the strength to
contend with his colleagues in explaining this parasha in an allegorical
manner, and he was unable to explain it in accordance with its literal meaning.
So he decided to remain silent on the matter. Therefore, in the commentary which
he began on the Torah, he skipped over the parasha, These are the
generations of the heavens and the earth
up until And the man knew Chava, his
wife, for he feared that the snake would bite him without warning (pen
yishkhenu nachash beli lachash). He therefore offered no interpretation of
any matter, whether great or small, in the verses of this parasha.[3] And his teacher,
Ramban, took a similar course, for although he did not refrain altogether from
explaining the parasha, he held himself back in most of the verses,
explaining nothing in them.
Indeed, Ramban one of the greatest
commentators on the plain level of the text deals with only some of the
difficult questions posed by our parasha, and even there his explanations
fail to provide complete solutions to the difficulties.
On the question of the essence of the Tree of
Knowledge of good and evil, Ramban rejects the approach of those commentators
who argue that "knowledge of good and evil" refers to the sexual drive, and that
it was the eating from the Tree of Knowledge that introduced this desire into
man. He points out that the serpent's words indicate that knowledge of good and
evil in itself represents some sort of resemblance to God "and you shall be
like the gods, knowing good and evil." We cannot simply interpret the serpent's
statement as deception, since God Himself testifies, following the sin, "Behold,
man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil."
To Ramban's view, man's original nature led
him to do what he was supposed to do like the heavenly hosts, which operate in
accordance with the nature imbued in them at the time of their creation, with no
desire or feeling. As a result of eating from the Tree of Knowledge, man
acquired the quality of having his own independent will to do things that
appeared to him to be good and to avoid doing things that appeared to him to be
evil. This will, in a certain sense, is a Divine quality God acts in
accordance with His will but in another sense it is problematic for man, since
having his own inclination, desires, and will interferes with the realization of
his natural, Divinely-imbued inherent nature and purpose.
The problem with Ramban's explanation is that
it seems to entail a paradox. If, prior to eating from the Tree of Knowledge,
man had no independent will and desire and he acted in accordance with his
God-given nature, then it is impossible to understand how he could have sinned
and eaten from the Tree of Knowledge. In fact, what would be the point of
commanding him any sort of command or imposing any sort of prohibition in the
first place? Furthermore, the Torah itself testifies, "She saw that the tree was
good for food and a delight for the eyes." This seems to indicate that even
prior to eating of the fruit, the woman experienced some sort of desire, made
some sort of distinction between good and evil, and possessed the ability to act
in accordance with her will even if this entailed going against her nature and
the purpose of her creation.
Ramban also talks about the relationship
between God's warning that "On the day you eat of it, you will surely die" and
the fact that Adam and Chava did not die on the day they ate of the fruit.
Ramban cites the view of Chazal that were it not for Adam's sin, he would
have been immortal, and that it was the eating of the fruit of the Tree of
Knowledge that introduced death. This is the meaning of the punishment, "You
shall surely die" prior to the sin, man was not destined to die at all.
Another explanation that Ramban cites is that the warning, "On the day you eat
of it, you shall surely die," means "you will be deserving of death" and God
will carry out that punishment at whatever time He sees fit, sometime prior to
the originally appointed time for his death.
Both of these explanations offered by Ramban
require further explanation.
Chazal's explanation is problematic because it is the Tree of Life that causes
man to live forever. Just as prior to eating of the Tree of Knowledge man did
not possess the ability to distinguish between good and evil, prior to eating of
the Tree of Life he was not immortal. We know that mans expulsion from the
Garden of Eden and the positioning of the keruvim at the entrance to the
garden are meant to deny him any possibility of eating from the Tree of Life and
living forever.
To resolve this difficulty we must posit that
man was indeed originally meant to live forever and that it was the eating from
the Tree of Knowledge that introduced death and mortality. However, the Tree of
Life had the power to repair the damage and corruption caused by eating of the
fruit of the Tree of Knowledge, restoring man to his original state of
immortality. Since God had stipulated that "on the day you eat of it, you will
surely die" in other words, that man would no longer be immortal his
expulsion from the Garden of Eden was meant to prevent him from overturning this
Divine verdict by eating of the Tree of Life.[4]
This second explanation offered by Ramban
likewise presents difficulties, because ultimately man did not die neither
immediately nor soon after the sin. In fact, he lived to the age of 930, which
was beyond the average age of his contemporaries.[5] Where, then, is
the death sentence that was imposed on him? The text seems to indicate that his
punishment was not death, but rather hard labor:
"Cursed is the
ground because of you; in sorrow you shall eat of it all the days of your life.
And it shall produce thorns and thistles for you, and you shall eat the herbs of
the field. By the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread, until your return to
the earth, for from it you were taken, for you are dust, and to dust you shall
return."[6]
In Abravanel's view, God forbade Adam to eat
from the Tree of Knowledge, while the Tree of Life was one of the trees whose
fruit he was originally permitted to eat. The Tree of Life, according to
Abravanel, prevented aging and death, and had it not been for man's sin, he
would have lived forever, since he was surrounded by the most optimal and ideal
conditions in terms of food, air, water, Divine protection, etc., which
precluded any illness or any other cause of death. Even natural aging would be
prevented, thanks to the healing properties of the Tree of Life. It was only the
removal of man from the Garden of Eden and from the Tree of Life that brought
about a situation in which he would ultimately die, since he was now severed
from the optimal conditions that nurtured his existence. He would now have to
expend enormous amounts of energy both physical ("by the sweat of your brow")
and spiritual ("in sorrow") - in his battle with the ground that brought forth
thorns and thistles. This is what eventually resulted in his death and return to
the earth from whence he had been taken.
Abravanel's explanation appears to answer
several questions: why God planted the Tree of Life in the garden; the meaning
of the warning "on the day you eat of it you shall surely die"; how all of this
fits with the fact that Adam lived nearly 1,000 years; how the punishment that
he was actually given conforms with the punishment that had originally been
promised; why the prohibition applied only to the Tree of Knowledge; and more.
However, we have yet to explain the connection between Adam's sin and his
expulsion from the Garden of Eden. According to Abravanel's explanation, it
would have been appropriate for the Torah to state that Adam's punishment, in
the wake of his sin and the eating of the Tree of Knowledge, was expulsion from
the Garden of Eden, which distanced him from the Tree of Life and the optimal
conditions for his existence. In fact, what the text tells us is that his
punishment was that "by the sweat of your brow shall you eat bread," while the
expulsion from the Garden is intended only to prevent him from making himself
even more similar to God by eating from the Tree of Life and living forever. As
the text testifies:
The Lord God
said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; now,
let him not stretch forth his hand and take also from the Tree of Life, and eat
from it, and live forever. So the Lord God sent him away from the Garden of
Eden, to till the ground from whence he had been taken. And He drove out the
man, and to the east of the Garden of Eden He placed the keruvim, with
the bright blade of the revolving sword, to guard the way to the Tree of Life.
However, Abravanel explains that the expulsion
from the Garden of Eden is itself the punishment for eating from the Tree of
Knowledge, since the attendant conditions "by the sweat of your brow shall you
eat bread", "in sorrow shall you shall eat of it", and "it shall produce thorns
and thistles for you" all come about only if man is not in the Garden of Eden,
where his nourishment awaits him without the need for any effort, since the
entire garden is full of trees that produce good fruit that suffice for his
food. This is the meaning of the verse, "And the Lord God sent him out of the
Garden of Eden to till the ground from whence he was taken." The expulsion from
the garden comes to fulfill the punishment, "By the sweat of your brow shall you
eat bread, until your return to the land, for from it you were taken," and
ultimately to have man return to dust i.e., death, as God had promised: "For
on the day you eat of it you shall surely die."
But with regard to the Tree of Knowledge,
Abravanel's explanation, too, leaves us with some difficulty. He rejects
Ramban's view that prior to the sin Adam had no will and free choice, since this
is of man's very essence, and if he had no will and free choice then it would
have been meaningless to command him anything, as discussed above. Instead,
Abravanel concurs with the view that is rejected by Ramban that the fruit has
the effect of intensifying the sexual appetite. To his view, God planted this
tree in the garden because it had a positive effect if looked at or touched
this sufficed to arouse man to have sexual relations with his wife in order to
reproduce. Thus, the fruit was meant to be looked at and touched, but eating of
it brought about an intense desire that led to sin and caused man to deviate
from his Divinely-given purpose, and for this reason it was prohibited.
Abravanel explains that it was for this reason that it was called the "Tree of
Knowledge [of] good and evil" since a small measure of its effect was
beneficial for man, but eating from it such that its effect was too strong was
evil. This also explains God's warning, "For on the day that you eat of it you
shall surely die" because eating of the fruit of the tree harms the balance
that is necessary for man's wellbeing and will inevitably strike at his
immortality, causing him to die.
Thus far it seems that Abravanel has given
thorough treatment to the question of why God planted the Tree of Knowledge in
the garden at all, if eating of it was forbidden. However, in addressing
Ramban's question i.e., attempting to explain how the description "you shall
become like God" can be referring to the intensification of the sexual drive
Abravanel runs into difficulty and proposes various explanations, which all
prove unsatisfactory. He first proposes that eating the fruit of the Tree of
Knowledge will cause an increase of sexual desire, which will lead to the
bearing of sons and daughters, and this will cause man to resemble God, in that
it creates new beings and increases the amount of life in the world. The problem
with this is that according to Abravanel's own view, Adam and Chava were able to
bear children even before they ate from the tree; in fact, the mere sight of the
tree, or touching it, sufficed for this purpose. It is therefore not clear how
the increase of sexual desire following the sin makes them resemble God more
closely.
The expression "their eyes were opened" is
also explained by Abravanel in a forced manner that is far removed from the
plain meaning of the text. He suggests that now man's eyes were opened to the
beauty of his wife, such that he would feel desire for her.
Another interpretation proposed by Abravanel
is that the verse, "Behold, man has become like one of Us, knowing good and
evil" is actually meant as a question: "Was man created in God's image ("like
one of Us") in order to know good and evil which is an inclination after
materialism and physical desire?!" According to this view, the knowledge of good
and evil is not a quality by virtue of which man resembles God. However, this
idea can be applied only in this verse, but not in the serpent's words to the
woman "For God knows that on the day that you eat of it, your eyes will be
opened and you will become like God, knowing good and evil."
Abravanel proposes a third interpretation:
that the verse is formulated in abbreviated form, and what God is saying is that
originally man was created "as one of Us, knowing good and evil" in the
positive intellectual and spiritual sense, but now he is inclined to a
materialistic knowledge of good and evil, in accordance with Abravanel's
explanation of the meaning of eating from the Tree of Knowledge, and there is
therefore no possibility now of leaving him in the Garden of Eden, where there
is eternal life. He must be sent away, to till the ground from whence he was
taken. Here again, it is difficult to understand the connection between this
interpretation and the words of the serpent.
Therefore it would seem more reasonable to
posit that knowledge of good and evil is indeed a positive characteristic, and
it is indeed a trait by virtue of which man does resemble God but in this
parasha and in this first commandment given to man, the Torah is teaching a
fundamental lesson concerning all the mitzvot of the Torah. We learn that
we must obey God's command even if it appears to us that it will cause us harm,
while transgressing it would seem to bring great benefit and advantage. We are
committed to God's command even if we believe that setting it aside will advance
us and develop our potential in positive directions. Perhaps we may even take a
step further and say that the prohibition of eating from the Tree of Knowledge
was a temporary prohibition, meant as a test for Adam, rather than an indication
that God meant for man to remain forever a being unable to distinguish between
good and evil.[7] Perhaps we
continue to this day to pay the price of having acquired the ability to
distinguish between good and evil through sin and contrary to God's command,
rather than at God's own initiative, at His chosen time.
Despite all of the explanations offered above,
many of us are left with the feeling that the questions arising from this
parasha are better than the answers. My son Elad showed me that R. Yehuda
Leon Ashkenazi, who elaborated at great length in his explanation of the
chapters on Creation in his work Sod Ha-Ivri, provides no explanation for
this parasha. In chapter 6, note 189, the editor notes:
Over the many
cycles of study of the Creation, Rabbi Ashkenazi repeatedly said that he would
come back to the story of the Garden of Eden at the end of the year but we
never merited this.
Translated by Kaeren Fish
[1]
Attention should be paid to the fact that it is only the Tree of Knowledge that
is forbidden, and not the Tree of Life although the woman tells the serpent
that God has forbidden them to eat from the tree which is "in the midst of the
garden," which is where the Tree of Life also grew (see 2:9).
[2]
It should be noted
that, in a similar way, chapter 1 depicts "man" as having been created from the
outset as male and female, whereas in chapter 2, the creation of woman is
presented as a response and solution to an original deficiency in Creation:
And the Lord God said, It is not good for man to be
alone; I will make him a help to match him. And from the ground the Lord God
formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and He brought each
to the man to see what he would call it. And whatever the man called every
living creature, that was its name
but for the man there was found no help to
match him. So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he
slept; and He took one of his sides, and closed up the flesh in its place. And
the Lord God made the side, which He had taken from the man, into a woman, and
He brought her to the man. And the man said, This now is bone of my bones, and
flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, for she was taken from man.
Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and
they become one flesh.
[3]
Concerning this
assertion, it should be noted that in the first lesson of Derashot Ha-Ran,
the Ran does in fact explain the story of the Garden of Eden, and in a manner
that is quite similar to the explanation that Abravanel himself offers.
[4]
This interpretation seems to be suggested by Ramban, who writes at the end of
chapter 3:
The Holy One, blessed be He, wanted His decree to be
fulfilled in the death of man, whereas if he were to eat from the Tree of Life,
which was created in order to grant those who ate from it with eternal life,
then the decree would be cancelled: either he would not die at all, or he would
not die at the age that had been determined for him and for his descendants. Now
that he had free choice, the Tree [of Life] was withheld from him, for in the
beginning he would do only that which he had been commanded to, and he did not
eat from it because he had no need to.
(The phrase "in the beginning he would do only that which he
had been commanded to" is not clear; there appears to be a contradiction between
the beginning of the sentence and the end. Does the need to prevent him from
eating of the Tree of Life arise from the fact that prior to eating of the Tree
of Knowledge, man did only what he was commanded to do an idea that is
problematic, in light of his eating from the forbidden Tree of Knowledge? Or
does it arise from the situation described by Ramban at the end, that "he did
not eat from it because he had no need to" which is easily understood in light
of Chazal's explanation that prior to eating of the Tree of Knowledge,
man was supposed to live forever, even without eating from the Tree of Life?)
[5]
Only two individuals
in all of human history are recorded as having lived longer than Adam: Yered and
Metushelach.
[6]
The words "until your return to the earth, for from it you were taken, for you
are dust, and to dust shall you return," seem to support Chazal's view
that the decree of death was imposed upon man only in the wake of his eating
from the Tree of Knowledge. See below.
[7]
In this respect, as
in many others (see, for example, note 2 above), the description in chapters 2-3
is different from the description in chapter 1, where man's resemblance to God
does not arise from sin and is not acquired in an improper way, but rather is
part of God's original intention in creating man "in His image" and "as His
likeness."