Political Crossfire Forums

[JCool333]

Now, one quick question that I have that I'd like to discuss. What knowledge exactly does the Tree of Knowledge (Eitz HaDa'at) possess?


Now, I thought about this for a bit, and realized that it can't be general knowledge, as if it was, wouldn't it be logical that Adam and Eve could reenter the Garden of Eden (Gan Eden)?

I am yet to look at the Mepharshim (Rashi, Rambam, etc.), and wanted to see what you guys thought of it.

[Mailech]

JCool333 wrote: Now, one quick question that I have that I'd like to discuss. What knowledge exactly does the Tree of Knowledge (Eitz HaDa'at) possess?


Now, I thought about this for a bit, and realized that it can't be general knowledge, as if it was, wouldn't it be logical that Adam and Eve could reenter the Garden of Eden (Gan Eden)?

I am yet to look at the Mepharshim (Rashi, Rambam, etc.), and wanted to see what you guys thought of it.

From the way that I understand it, the tree of knowledge was a way of incorporating the evil inclination into the person. Previously it existed externally, as the snake. When Adam and Chava ate from the Tree, they incorporated the yeizter harah into themselves. So whereas they themselves where completely pure, but the evil inclination was external.

If I recall, I think I got that from the Ramchal in Derech Hashem. But I have to reread that, when I get a chance.

[JCool333]

I just asked someone else who said that the tree of knowledge is knowledge of good and evil, which wouldn't help them get back into Gan Eden, and therefore makes some sense, but unless I'm wrong, a little logic damages the opinon a bit. How? Well, if they knew right and wrong, then why did they pass the blame? However, a response to that could be that people do bad things even knowing that it is bad OR that blaming in that case is not wrong.

Anyway, as for your interpretation, Mailech, I like the concept, but I don't see how it fully explains the concept of Eitz HaDa'at, as the yetzer hara isn't knowledge. I can see it being part of the tree of knowledge, but I don't see how ti fully explains it. I'm gonna have to check out some mepharshim when i get a chance...

[Israel]

JCool333 wrote: I just asked someone else who said that the tree of knowledge is knowledge of good and evil, which wouldn't help them get back into Gan Eden, and therefore makes some sense, but unless I'm wrong, a little logic damages the opinon a bit. How? Well, if they knew right and wrong, then why did they pass the blame? However, a response to that could be that people do bad things even knowing that it is bad OR that blaming in that case is not wrong.

Anyway, as for your interpretation, Mailech, I like the concept, but I don't see how it fully explains the concept of Eitz HaDa'at, as the yetzer hara isn't knowledge. I can see it being part of the tree of knowledge, but I don't see how ti fully explains it. I'm gonna have to check out some mepharshim when i get a chance...
Well, my understanding of the entire fall is slightly different...

I was taught a different opinion which I'll share. Adam and Eve chose to eat from the tree because in his wisdom, Adam saw two possibilities for man, he could wait until the Sabbath, and then eat from the tree when it would be kosher, or he could disobey G-d so he could do teshuva and reach a higher level of existence. As Mailech said in one thread, I don't remember where, "In the place that one who returns to G-d stands, a tzadik will not be able to stand." Meaning that someone who does teshuva has come a farther way. So one interpretation (which is probably going to get destroyed by Duchifas and Mailech :wink: ) is that they chose to eat from the tree. And when G-d asked Adam why he did it, and he "blames" eve, he's really giving her the credit for convincing him to eat from it. "the woman YOU gave to me" could also be seen as giving the credit or blame depending on what your interpretation is. So the order of events as I was taught, was that eve was tricked by the serpant when she added "nor touch it" to G-d's commandment and didn't say this was a personal fence that she took upon herself and the serpant pushed her against it, and said, "Just as you didn't die from touching it nor will you die from eating it". Eve and Adam talked about it, and Adam saw in his wisdom, the future, with two possibilities, one of tzadik's or one of people doing teshuva. He chose the latter.

[Mailech]

Israel wrote: JCool333 wrote: I just asked someone else who said that the tree of knowledge is knowledge of good and evil, which wouldn't help them get back into Gan Eden, and therefore makes some sense, but unless I'm wrong, a little logic damages the opinon a bit. How? Well, if they knew right and wrong, then why did they pass the blame? However, a response to that could be that people do bad things even knowing that it is bad OR that blaming in that case is not wrong.

Anyway, as for your interpretation, Mailech, I like the concept, but I don't see how it fully explains the concept of Eitz HaDa'at, as the yetzer hara isn't knowledge. I can see it being part of the tree of knowledge, but I don't see how ti fully explains it. I'm gonna have to check out some mepharshim when i get a chance...
Well, my understanding of the entire fall is slightly different...

I was taught a different opinion which I'll share. Adam and Eve chose to eat from the tree because in his wisdom, Adam saw two possibilities for man, he could wait until the Sabbath, and then eat from the tree when it would be kosher, or he could disobey G-d so he could do teshuva and reach a higher level of existence. As Mailech said in one thread, I don't remember where, "In the place that one who returns to G-d stands, a tzadik will not be able to stand." Meaning that someone who does teshuva has come a farther way. So one interpretation (which is probably going to get destroyed by Duchifas and Mailech :wink: ) is that they chose to eat from the tree. And when G-d asked Adam why he did it, and he "blames" eve, he's really giving her the credit for convincing him to eat from it. "the woman YOU gave to me" could also be seen as giving the credit or blame depending on what your interpretation is. So the order of events as I was taught, was that eve was tricked by the serpant when she added "nor touch it" to G-d's commandment and didn't say this was a personal fence that she took upon herself and the serpant pushed her against it, and said, "Just as you didn't die from touching it nor will you die from eating it". Eve and Adam talked about it, and Adam saw in his wisdom, the future, with two possibilities, one of tzadik's or one of people doing teshuva. He chose the latter.

I have heard something similiar. Adam mistakenly, thought that he should eat from the tree. He figured, that the harder he makes it, the greater the reward. This is the first place where we learn not to be more righteous than G-d. If G-d wanted it to be harder, he would have made it that way to start with. Adam clearly was wrong, or else he would not have been punished with death and cursed.
It also seems clear from Rashi that Adam calling on Chava was not giving her credit, Rashi says that he was throwing back into G-d's "face" the kindness that G-d did by giving him a wife.

[Mailech]

JCool333 wrote: I just asked someone else who said that the tree of knowledge is knowledge of good and evil, which wouldn't help them get back into Gan Eden, and therefore makes some sense, but unless I'm wrong, a little logic damages the opinon a bit. How? Well, if they knew right and wrong, then why did they pass the blame? However, a response to that could be that people do bad things even knowing that it is bad OR that blaming in that case is not wrong.

Anyway, as for your interpretation, Mailech, I like the concept, but I don't see how it fully explains the concept of Eitz HaDa'at, as the yetzer hara isn't knowledge. I can see it being part of the tree of knowledge, but I don't see how ti fully explains it. I'm gonna have to check out some mepharshim when i get a chance...

Another good question is that it is not just internalizing the Yeitzer Harah, since G-d said that man will now be like us. So if the us is inclusive of the angels, but angels don't have free will. Even if it is the royal we, G-d does not have an internalized Yeizter Harah. So I will have to look into it too. It is defiantely not a pashut sugyah, and for sure there are very deep things here. Some of them perhaps you and I are not meant to know. But doesn't mean we can't try.

[Israel]

Mailech wrote: I have heard something similiar. Adam mistakenly, thought that he should eat from the tree.
Agreed.

Mailech wrote: He figured, that the harder he makes it, the greater the reward.
That logic is correct, IMO. Even though Adam was wrong in his decision, his logic was correct here, that someone who does teshuva can and will reach a place higher then someone who was always righteous, correct?

Mailech wrote: This is the first place where we learn not to be more righteous than G-d. If G-d wanted it to be harder, he would have made it that way to start with. Adam clearly was wrong, or else he would not have been punished with death and cursed.
Agreed.

Mailech wrote: It also seems clear from Rashi that Adam calling on Chava was not giving her credit, Rashi says that he was throwing back into G-d's "face" the kindness that G-d did by giving him a wife.
Yes, so it could also be said, from my interpretation, that Adam was throwing the 'credit' in G-d's face. So he wasn't saying I took credit, or in your opinion, 'blame' for eating from the tree, I give the credit to her, the woman whom YOU gave to me to have as a wife.

I'm not saying, or wouldn't dare say your interpretation is wrong, I'm just offering another opinion...

[Israel]

Mailech wrote: Another good question is that it is not just internalizing the Yeitzer Harah, since G-d said that man will now be like us. So if the us is inclusive of the angels, but angels don't have free will. Even if it is the royal we, G-d does not have an internalized Yeizter Harah. So I will have to look into it too. It is defiantely not a pashut sugyah, and for sure there are very deep things here. Some of them perhaps you and I are not meant to know. But doesn't mean we can't try.
But we're not like G-d... since the fall... we die, does G-d die? No, so it must mean that we're only like Him in CERTAIN aspects, correct? The same is true with the Yeizter Harah, we have it, like death, but G-d doesn't. We're like Him in the sense that we now have free-will and choice and reason. Not in the sense of death or yeizter harah

[John]

Quote: Yes, so it could also be said, from my interpretation, that Adam was throwing the 'credit' in G-d's face. So he wasn't saying I took credit, or in your opinion, 'blame' for eating from the tree, I give the credit to her, the woman whom YOU gave to me to have as a wife.

Interesting.

It's an excuse we hear today. That if God knows everything then He purposed us to fall. That excuse didn't work for Adam....can't see why someone would count on it working for them.

[Israel]

John wrote: Quote: Yes, so it could also be said, from my interpretation, that Adam was throwing the 'credit' in G-d's face. So he wasn't saying I took credit, or in your opinion, 'blame' for eating from the tree, I give the credit to her, the woman whom YOU gave to me to have as a wife.

Interesting.

It's an excuse we hear today. That if God knows everything then He purposed us to fall. That excuse didn't work for Adam....can't see why someone would count on it working for them.
Okay... and you're going where with this...?

[JCool333]

Israel wrote: Yes, so it could also be said, from my interpretation, that Adam was throwing the 'credit' in G-d's face. So he wasn't saying I took credit, or in your opinion, 'blame' for eating from the tree, I give the credit to her, the woman whom YOU gave to me to have as a wife.

I understand the concept, but have two problems with it:

1) It doesn't explain why it is the Eitz HaDa'at. That only explains why he passed the blame.

2) The concept of comitting a sin in order to be able to do teshuva doesn't make sense. Teshuva means return, in other words, teshuva brings you back to G-d, but not aon a stronger level. Second, teshuva has three steps (vidui-confession, regret, and vow). The first two are teh only ones of which one cannot do unless they committed a sin. And, I just don't see how doing them are mitzvot. They just bring you back to G-d.

[JCool333]

"Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

I think that shows that Shabbat has nothing to do with it. Shabbat is not mentioned. It says on the day that you eat it, not if you eat it on the day.

I just read a small article on Maharal's opinion. Maharal explains that before eating from the Etz haDaat, people’s connection to God was so strong that they were only yod`ei tov, knowers of good, not evil. Yet part of God’s purpose in creating humanity was to have them be similar to Him in that they would control themselves to some extent. While their connection to God was very strong at that point, there was still an element of personal self-control (Maharal does not stress this, but his view explains how Adam and Havah could eat the fruit of the tree even before they were yod`ei tov va-ra, knowers of good and evil—the element of self-control or self-determination was there even before there was an issue of sinful inclination over which to exert that control). Havah (and later, Adam) could therefore choose to eat the fruit of the Etz haDaat.

Essentially, if I understood it, he says that the Etz HaChaim (Tree of Life) is metaphorical for the Torah. The Torah gives life, and prevents death. However, when not in Gan Eden, one cannot fully eat from the Etz HaChaim (learn Torah), so we don't have neverending life.

That's what I understood, even though I might be a bit confused as the maharal can be very confusing at times.

[Mailech]

JCool333 wrote: 2) The concept of comitting a sin in order to be able to do teshuva doesn't make sense. Teshuva means return, in other words, teshuva brings you back to G-d, but not aon a stronger level. Second, teshuva has three steps (vidui-confession, regret, and vow). The first two are teh only ones of which one cannot do unless they committed a sin. And, I just don't see how doing them are mitzvot. They just bring you back to G-d.

The Rambam in Hilchot Teshuva says, that if you do complete and total Teshuva, which includes remorse, confession, removing yourself from the sin, and accepting in the future not to commit the sin. If this is complete and sincere, then your sins become like merits, and that quote from me from Israel is actually a quote from the Rambam, among other sources. "In the place where a Baal Teshuva stands, a complete Tzadik cannot stand"

[Mailech]

JCool333 wrote: "Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

I think that shows that Shabbat has nothing to do with it. Shabbat is not mentioned. It says on the day that you eat it, not if you eat it on the day.

I just read a small article on Maharal's opinion. Maharal explains that before eating from the Etz haDaat, people’s connection to God was so strong that they were only yod`ei tov, knowers of good, not evil. Yet part of God’s purpose in creating humanity was to have them be similar to Him in that they would control themselves to some extent. While their connection to God was very strong at that point, there was still an element of personal self-control (Maharal does not stress this, but his view explains how Adam and Havah could eat the fruit of the tree even before they were yod`ei tov va-ra, knowers of good and evil—the element of self-control or self-determination was there even before there was an issue of sinful inclination over which to exert that control). Havah (and later, Adam) could therefore choose to eat the fruit of the Etz haDaat.

Essentially, if I understood it, he says that the Etz HaChaim (Tree of Life) is metaphorical for the Torah. The Torah gives life, and prevents death. However, when not in Gan Eden, one cannot fully eat from the Etz HaChaim (learn Torah), so we don't have neverending life.

That's what I understood, even though I might be a bit confused as the maharal can be very confusing at times.

That sounds interesting, and not really that different from what I said from the Ramchal (?). That they were all good, but there where external influences to get them to sin. In which case the Tree would be Daat tov Va Rah. It joins them together in the same person.

[John]

Israel wrote: John wrote: Quote: Yes, so it could also be said, from my interpretation, that Adam was throwing the 'credit' in G-d's face. So he wasn't saying I took credit, or in your opinion, 'blame' for eating from the tree, I give the credit to her, the woman whom YOU gave to me to have as a wife.

Interesting.

It's an excuse we hear today. That if God knows everything then He purposed us to fall. That excuse didn't work for Adam....can't see why someone would count on it working for them.
Okay... and you're going where with this...?

Just agreeing with you.