From: Netvort@aol.com Sent: Friday, October 28, 2005 2:06 AM To: JoshHoff@aol.com Subject: Netvort : parshas Bereishis, 5766 Dying to Know By Rabbi Joshua (inquisitively known as The Hoffer) Hoffman After God creates Adam and places him in the garden of Eden, He tells him that he may eat of all the trees in the garden but he may not eat of the 'eitz hada'as tov vara,' or the' tree of the knowledge of good and evil.' He also tells Adam that if he does eat from that tree, then on the day that he eats from it he will surely die. Rabbi Abraham Ibn Ezra and others explain that Adam and his wife Chava did not actually die on the day that they ate from the fruit of the tree. Rather, the meaning of God's warning to Adam is that on the day he would eat from the tree, he would become subject to death, whereas he was originally meant to live forever. Many commentators also point out that Adam had free choice before he ate from the tree, because otherwise there would have been no point in telling him not to eat from the tree of knowledge, and no grounds to punish him when he did eat from it. Thus, the tree of knowledge did not provide Adam with knowledge of the difference between right and wrong, since he already knew that before he ate from it. The Rambam, in his Guide for the Perplexed (1:2), explains that at the time Adam was warned by God, he knew the difference between truth and falsehood, but did not know the difference between good and evil. By eating from the tree, he introduced the knowledge of good and evil into his psyche. This approach is elaborated upon by Rabbi Chaim of Volozhin in his Nefesh HaChaim, and expanded upon by Rabbi Eliyahu E. Dessler in his Michtav MeEliyahu, which is available in translation under the title Strive for Truth! The interested reader can consult those works for a fuller explanation. There is a basic difficulty with the approach of the Rambam and those who explain him. According to this understanding, by eating from the 'eitz hada'as,' something in man's fundamental nature changed, reflecting the sin he committed in eating from the tree. The question is, how was man able to make that step before this new element entered into him as a result of his sin? Moreover, according to this approach, what is the relationship between man's sin and his punishment of become mortal? The rabbis teach us that there is a principle in divine punishment known as 'midah keneged midah,' or measure for measure. The function of this principle is for the punishment to serve an educative role, helping to correct the wrong that was done through the sin. Following the approach of the Rambam, it is difficult to find such a relationship. Although these questions can undoubtedly be answered, I would like to mention another approach to the sin of Chava and Adam which precludes the first question, and then go on to explain how it answers the second one. Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, in his Torah commentary, writes that since Adam must have had free choice at the time that God commanded him not to eat from the 'eitz ha-da'as, it cannot be that eating from that tree changed his nature at all. Rather, we must explain the term 'eitz hada'as' not as the tree that introduced knowledge of good and bad into man but, rather, as the tree which would serve as the model for what is considered good and bad for man. After the serpent urged Chava to eat from the tree, the Torah relates her thinking : " And the woman saw that the tree was good for eating, and that it was a delight to the eyes and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, and she took of its fruit and ate, and she gave also to her husband with her and he ate"(Bereishis 3:6). Chava's decision was, then, based on her own personal assessment of the utility of the tree's fruit, rather than on the instructions given by God. Animals, says Rav Hirsch, follow their instincts when they act, and serve their personal needs. Man, however, has a higher calling, and his decisions on how to act must be made in accordance to God's instructions. As a punishment to Chava and Adam for following their own criteria for morality, they became liable to death. According to Rabbi Hirsch's approach, what was the educative function of this punishment? In what way did it serve to correct the basic error made in approaching morale decisions? Although Rabbi Hirsch does not say this, perhaps we can explain that man's knowledge of his own mortality makes him turn to God. This is how Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik explained the purity process used for one who has become defiled through contact with a human corpse. Although usually purity is attained through the passage of a certain amount of time and immersion in a mikvah, defilement through a corpse requires and additional process element of haza'ah, in which water mixed with ashes of a red heifer that has been burned are sprinkled on the impure person. Haza'ah, says Rav Soloveitchik, being done by an outside source, indicates that man cannot, on his own, deal with his own mortality. He needs to attach himself to an outside source, namely, God, who is described by the prophet as, in the future, sprinkling purifying waters on the Jewish people, in order to come to terms with the fact that he will inevitably die. Once man realizes that he is not in control of his own life and that he will eventually die, and thus turns to God, Whose eternal nature gives him something to hold onto, it is easier for him to make the next step and base his decisions regarding how to act on God's instructions. Understanding that God gives ultimate meaning to his life, then, moves man to turn to God for guidance in living that life each day. In this way, the punishment of being liable to death served as a corrective to man's sin. Please address all correspondence to the author (Rabbi Hoffman) with the following address - JoshHoff @ AOL.com. To subscribe to Netvort, send a message with subject line subscribe, to Netvort@aol.com. To unsubscribe, send message with subject line unsubscribe, to the same address.