Teach Them Well

By Rabbi Joshua (instructively known as The Hoffer) Hoffman

The snake persuades Chava to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, and she, in turn, gives Adam from the fruit to eat. Why did the snake approach Chava rather than Adam? The Keli Yakar explains, based on the scenario described in the Avos deRebbi Nosson (although he does not cite the Beraisa as the source of that scenario), that Adam was commanded directly by God to refrain from eating of the tree of knowledge, while Chava only heard this from Adam. As a safeguard, Adam told her that God said not to touch it, as well as as not to eat from it. The snake, knowing this, first told Chava to touch the tree, and argued that just as no harm came to her from touching it, no harm would come through eating from it as well. We derive from here that whoever tries to add to the divine command actually diminishes it.

Rav Ya’akov Emden and others ask, what Adam did wrong? After all, he was only trying to assure that Chava couldn’t eat from the fruit. Isn’t it praiseworthy to make such safeguards? He answers that when one makes safeguards, he must clearly differentiate between what is a safeguard and what is the word of God. As Rambam says, the Rabbis avoided the prohibition of adding to the Torah by clearly differentiating what is of Torah status and what is of rabbinic status. Adam gave Chavah the impression that God Himself had forbidden both eating of the fruit of the tree and touching it, and that is how the snake enticed her.

Rabbi Yitzchok Knobel, in his Imrei Yitzchok, cites Rav Ya’akov Kaminetsky zt”l, who, in an address to educators, explained the Avos deRebbi Nosson in a way similar to Rav Ya’akov Emden. He went to lament the fact that we often find that students are not taught to make these differentiations, and they emerge thinking that all prohibitions are on the same level. The consequences of such confusion can be horrendous. I believe that these consequences go beyond the basic problem of not knowing the severity or relatively lighter nature of what one has done, but affect one’s entire perception of Torah.

The Ba’al HaTurim points out that the words “hamin ha-eitz hazeh....” – 'did you eat from this tree,' addressed by God to Adam, are similar to the words “hamin ha-sela hazeh” – “from this rock,” addressed by Moshe to the people before hitting the rock to produce water. In both cases, says the Ba’al HaTurim, death came as a consequence of what was done. What is the connection? Rambam says that Moshe’s sin was that he expressed anger with the people, thereby giving the impression that God was angry with them for asking for water, when in fact, He was not. Moshe, as their leader was thereby teaching them something that misrepresented God’s will, and that is why he was punished. Adam, too, by conflating his safeguard and God’s command, gave a false impression of the nature of the Torah he was told to observe, and was punished severely as a result.