Pemikiran Yahudi Kejadian 3:6: Akeidat Yitzchak & Guide for the Perplexed

Our sages tell us in Sotah 3, that man does not sin unless he has temporarily taken leave of his senses. They quote Numbers 12, 11, in support of this. Aaron says to Moses "because of our foolishness we have sinned." If this is indeed so, our sages seem to agree with Socrates who believed that man's intellect is apt to arrive at true, valid conclusions. We must ask that if sin is the result of a functional disability of the mind, how can a person be held responsible for such sin? The dilemma can be resolved in the following manner. We need to understand that there are three categories of people. The first category is composed of people in whom the intellect is predominant, and governs practically all their activities so that sin is almost inconceivable. The second group comprises people who are so enslaved to their physical urges, that their intellect is for all practical purposes paralysed. The third group comprises the vast majority of people, who face an ongoing confrontation between their physical urges, yetzer hara, and their intellect, i.e. yetzer tov. All the people belonging to this latter group suffer from the fact that gratification of one's urges is immediate or almost immediate. On the other hand, the price to be paid for having gratified one's urges is usually some time in the future, and therefore not of immediate concern. The reward for acting in accordance with the dictates of the yetzer tov, i.e. the dictates of one's intellect, may be quite some time away. For that reason, such an eventual reward may not play a decisive role when a decision is made between conflicting choices available. The reason that G'd has arranged matters in such a way is due to the fact that otherwise bechirah, free choice would not be a really viable option. In order to demonstrate that it does not pay to give in to physical passion when it leads to the performance of immoral acts, we have the example of sotah.

However, we suggest a different interpretation. Solomon employs the most common teaching method. One teaches the unknown by relating it to the known. The way to do this is to explain that deeds, the culpability for which is not known, are equivalent to deeds the culpability for which is well known. The process of teaching proceeds step by step. It is not generally accepted that refusing to extend help to a fellow human being is equivalent to denying that one has received an object for safekeeping. It is not generally accepted that denying receipt of an object for safekeeping is equivalent to robbery or burglary. Again, it is not generally accepted that stealing is just as serious a crime as is murder. Our sages therefore frequently illustrate such points by employing what appears to be exaggerated language. (Sotah 4) "A haughty person is equivalent to an idol worshipper"; "someone who shames his fellow man in public is like having shed the blood of his fellow man." (Baba Metzia 58) This too is the method chosen by Solomon in Proverbs chapter 1. "when sinners invite you to participate in the well known sins of murder, violence, robbery etc., remember that all who are greedy for profit are really treading the same path as these proverbial crooks whose misdeeds are condemned by everyone. Beware of the unknown evil." This means that suggestions from known evil doers, even if apparently harmless, harbour evil;- "do not be willing!" Most dangerous of all is the pursuit of transient gains like money etc., the pursuit of which "will take hold of the soul of its owner", will wind up costing the pursuer his very life. The more these phenomena are part of our daily lives, the more insiduous their lure, the harder it is to avoid being snared by them. Therefore, the antidote has to be more powerful to be able to ward off the danger inherent in the lure of the chase after betza profit. The evil urge employs three basic arguments in order to entice its victim. 1) No harm will come from accepting its advice. 2) One is merely doing what is natural. 3) Following its advice means promoting one's best interests. The book of Proverbs is devoted to warn against these temptations. An example of a victim of these temptations is Eve, the first woman. "Eve saw that the tree was good as food" i.e. it could not be poisonous (no harm will come to one who eats it); "that it was appealing to the eye", i.e. she was attracted to it naturally, and thirdly "and appeared desirable", i.e. from a functional point of view. (Genesis 3,6) The Torah mentions the temptation by the snake only as a secondary factor. The snake's argument merely set in motion the three standard ploys of the yetzer hara, the evil urge. Eve convinced herself. The Torah does not describe her as being unable to withstand the blandishments of the serpent. In chapter five of Proverbs, Solomon continues to warn against these temptations often dressed up as the lure of an attractive woman whose lips drip honey, whose mouth is smoother than oil, who in the end however, proves as sharp as a double edged sword. Also in Kohelet chapter nine, the tempter is described as saying "go eat your bread in joy, enjoy life with a woman you love." This is innocuous sounding advice which hides the danger since it is garbed in recommending only what is permitted.

Now mark our reply, which was as follows:—“You appear to have studied the matter superficially, and nevertheless you imagine that you can understand a book which has been the guide of past and present generations, when you for a moment withdraw from your lusts and appetites, and glance over its contents as if you were reading a historical work or some poetical composition. Collect your thoughts and examine the matter carefully, for it is not to be understood as you at first sight think, but as you will find after due deliberation; namely, the intellect which was granted to man as the highest endowment, was bestowed on him before his disobedience. With reference to this gift the Bible states that “man was created in the form and likeness of God.” On account of this gift of intellect man was addressed by God, and received His commandments, as it is said: “And the Lord God commanded Adam” (Gen. 2:16)—for no commandments are given to the brute creation or to those who are devoid of understanding. Through the intellect man distinguishes between the true and the false. This faculty Adam possessed perfectly and completely. The right and the wrong are terms employed in the science of apparent truths (morals), not in that of necessary truths, as, e.g., it is not correct to say, in reference to the proposition “the heavens are spherical,” it is “good” or to declare the assertion that “the earth is flat” to be “bad”: but we say of the one it is true, of the other it is false. Similarly our language expresses the idea of true and false by the terms emet and sheker, of the morally right and the morally wrong, by tob and ra’. Thus it is the function of the intellect to discriminate between the true and the false—a distinction which is applicable to all objects of intellectual perception. When Adam was yet in a state of innocence, and was guided solely by reflection and reason—on account of which it is said: “Thou hast made him (man) little lower than the angels” (Ps. 8:6)—he was not at all able to follow or to understand the principles of apparent truths; the most manifest impropriety, viz., to appear in a state of nudity, was nothing unbecoming according to his idea: he could not comprehend why it should be so. After man’s disobedience, however, when he began to give way to desires which had their source in his imagination and to the gratification of his bodily appetites, as it is said, “And the wife saw that the tree was good for food and delightful to the eyes” (Gen. 3:6), he was punished by the loss of part of that intellectual faculty which he had previously possessed. He therefore transgressed a command with which he had been charged on the score of his reason; and having obtained a knowledge of the apparent truths, he was wholly absorbed in the study of what is proper and what improper. Then he fully understood the magnitude of the loss he had sustained, what he had forfeited, and in what situation he was thereby placed. Hence we read, “And ye shall be like elohim, knowing good and evil,” and not “knowing” or “discerning the true and the false”: while in necessary truths we can only apply the words “true and false,” not “good and evil.” Further observe the passage, “And the eyes of both were opened, and they knew they were naked” (Gen. 3:7): it is not said, “And the eyes of both were opened, and they saw”; for what the man had seen previously and what he saw after this circumstance was precisely the same: there had been no blindness which was now removed, but he received a new faculty whereby he found things wrong which previously he had not regarded as wrong.