Комментарий к Берешит 2:9

ויצמח AND HE CAUSED TO GROW — The verse speaks here only with reference to the garden (Genesis Rabbah 13:1)

AND THE TREE OF LIFE IN THE MIDST OF THE GARDEN AND THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL. Since Scripture says, And the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and does not say “in the garden,” and, moreover, since it says, But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, G-d hath said: ‘Ye shall not eat of it,’³²⁸Genesis 3:3. and does not mention it or refer to it by another name, we must say, according to the simple meaning of Scripture, that it was a known place in the garden which was “in the midst” thereof. This is why Onkelos translated: “in the middle of the garden.” Thus according to Onkelos the tree of life and the tree of knowledge were both in the middle of the garden. And if so, we must say that in the middle of the garden there was the likeness of an enclosed garden-bed made which contained these two trees. This “middle” means near its middle for with respect to the exact middle, they have already said³²⁹If Ramban is stating a specific mathematical principle, its source is unknown to me. His intent may, however, be general. If so, the source may be found in Berachoth 3b, where it is stated that the exact point of midnight is known only to G-d. that no one knows the true central point except G-d alone.
And the tree of life. This was a tree the fruit of which gave those who ate it long life.
And the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The commentators³³⁰Mentioned in R’dak in the name of the “commentators.” have said that the fruit thereof caused those who ate it to have a desire for sexual intercourse, and therefore Adam and Eve covered their nakedness after they ate of it [the fruit]. They quote a similar expression [where “good and evil” refers to such desire], the saying of Barzilai the Gileadite: Can I distinguish between good and bad?³³¹II Samuel 19:36. — meaning that this sexual desire was already removed from him. But in my opinion this interpretation is not correct since the serpent said, And ye shall be as ‘Elohim,’ knowing good and evil.³³²The Elohim here means angels, who have no such desire (R’dak). And if you will say that the serpent lied to her, now [Scripture itself attests to the truth of his statement in the verse], And the Eternal G-d said, ‘Behold man has become like one of us knowing good and evil.’³³³Genesis 3:22. And the Rabbis have already said:³³⁴In Pirka D’Rabbeinu Hakadosh, Section 3. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 36, Note 84, for variants. “Three stated the truth and perished from the world, and these are: the serpent, the spies,³³⁵Numbers, Chapters 13-14. Sanhedrin 108a. and Doeg the Edomite.³³⁶I Samuel 22:9-10. Sanhedrin 90a. The Hebrew text here also contains an additional word, “the Beerothite.” See II Samuel, Chapter 4. Ramban’s general thought is clear: the saying of the Rabbis proves that the serpent spoke the truth. Hence the serpent’s statement, And ye shall be as ‘Elohim,’ knowing good and evil, was true. Now since sexual desire is not spoken of in connection with the angels, the expression knowing good and evil cannot refer to such desire.
The proper interpretation appears to me to be that man’s original nature was such that he did whatever was proper for him to do naturally, just as the heavens and all their hosts do, “faithful workers³³⁷Who do not veer from their prescribed course (Rashi, Sanhedrin 42 a). See, however, Tosafoth there which mentions a variant reading, “A faithful Worker,” which refers to G-d. Our version of this benediction in the Prayer Book is based on this reading. whose work is truth, and who do not change from their prescribed course,”³³⁸The source of this expression, in connection with the blessing for the new moon, is found in Sanhedrin 42a. and in whose deeds there is no love or hatred. Now it was the fruit of this tree that gave rise to will and desire, that those who ate it should choose a thing or its opposite, for good or for evil. This is why it was called ‘etz hada’ath’ (the tree of the knowledge) of good and evil, for da’ath in our language is used to express will. Thus in the language of the Rabbis: “They have taught this only with regards to one sheda’ato (whose will) is to return;”³³⁹Pesachim 6a. If his will (or wish) is to return to his house during the days of Passover, then he must search his house for leaven before leaving his house even if he leaves more than 30 days before Passover. and “his will is to clear” [the produce in the store-room in his house before Passover].³⁴⁰Ibid., In that case too he must search for leaven which lies under the produce even more than 30 days before Passover. And in the language of Scripture, Eternal, what is man ‘vateida’ehu,’³⁴¹Psalms 144:3. meaning that “Thou shouldst desire and want him;” yedaticha beshem,³⁴²Exodus 33:12. Literally, I know thee by name. meaning “I have chosen thee of all people.” Similarly, Barzilai’s expression, Ha’eda (Can I distinguish) between good and bad,³³¹II Samuel 19:36. means that he lost the power of thought, no longer choosing a thing or loathing it, and he would eat without feeling taste and hear singing without enjoying it.
Now at that time sexual intercourse between Adam and his wife was not a matter of desire; instead, at the time of begetting offspring they came together and propagated. Therefore all the limbs were, in their eyes, as the face and hands, and they were not ashamed of them. But after he ate of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, he possessed the power of choice; he could now willingly do evil or good to himself or to others. This, on the one hand, is a godlike attribute; but as far as man is concerned, it is bad because through it, he has a will and desire. It is possible that Scripture intended to allude to this matter when it said, That G-d made man upright, but they have sought out many inventions.³⁴³Ecclesiastes 7:29. The “uprightness” is that man should keep to one right path, and the “seeking out of many inventions” is man’s search for deeds which change according to his choice. Now when the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded Adam concerning the tree, that he should not eat of its fruit, He did not inform him that it has this quality. He told him without any qualification, But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden,³²⁸Genesis 3:3. that is to say, the one that is known by its central position, thou shalt not eat thereof. And this was what the woman said to the serpent. And the verse which states, But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it,³⁴⁴Further, Verse 17. mentions it to us by its true name.

The Tree of Life. Hashem did not command Adam to refrain from eating of this tree because it bore no seductive fruit. Rather it was the tree itself that granted immortality. By contrast the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge was extremely tempting and after they had eaten of it they understood the benefit to be had by partaking of the Tree of Life as well.

ויצמח, G‘d made the food necessary for Adam sprout forth. The verse illustrates with what ease Adam could secure his requirements in Gan Eden.

ויצמח, after having mentioned the existence of the garden in the previous verse, it is clear that the words מן האדמה at the beginning of the verse, refer to the soil of Gan Eden. Our verse informs us inter alia that G’d had not planted any non fruit-bearing trees in Gan Eden. All of them were distinguished from the trees in other parts of the earth by their excellence. This is why the Torah added the words נחמד למראה וטוב למאכל, the fruit of every tree in this garden was delicious. The word למראה, refers to the external appearance of the trees, whereas the words טוב למאכל refer to the quality of their fruit. Seeing that Adam did not have much time to enjoy any of this, unless he ate some between the time he repented and was expelled (3,24), Adam’s sons did not get to taste the fruit of the garden at all, and Gan Eden in its entirety has been stored up by G’d for use by the Jewish people in the times after the Mashiach has come. At that time, everyone will be able to experience at first hand what Adam had lost by having eaten from the tree of knowledge. At that time they will all know G’d and the reason why they have been created. This is what the sages had in mind when they spoke of the יין המשומר בענביו מששת ימי בראשית, that in those days we will taste “the wine which has been stored up within its grapes ever since the six days of creation.” This represents the most enjoyable product of Gan Eden. We must not forget that such stories as the one of Gan Eden have meaning both as literal peshat, but also have a hidden meaning which is subject to understanding by people probing the text of the Torah more deeply ועץ החיים בתוך הגן ועץ הדעת טוב ורע, the word בתוך, normally translated as “within,” or “among,” here means literally “in the middle.” (Targum Onkelos) The reason it was dead in the center is that if you want to protect something carefully you place it in the center where it is surrounded, i.e. protected, from all sides equally. Man’s heart, lung, liver, his most precious organs, are surrounded by all manner of protective bone, flesh, and other tissue. These all act like a wall protecting the interior organs from injury.
The explanation of the words “ועץ החיים,” is: “G’d had also made a tree of life grow in the center of the garden.” The normal function of this tree, i.e. its fruit, is to reinforce the vital organs and parts of the human being. Anyone eating from the fruit of this tree regularly would enjoy very long life. According to the aggadah, which deals with the hidden meaning of this text, (compare Genesis 3,22, פירוש הנסתר) anyone eating of this tree would live forever. According to Bereshit Rabbah 15,6 Rabbi Yehudah bar IIai is quoted as saying that this tree travels a distance of 500 years, and all the waters dating back to the days of creation split beneath it when it approaches. [this distance of 500 “years” is a standard expression in the Midrash for the length and breadth of the earth, i.e. this tree’s roots spanned the entire globe. It is therefore a euphemism for one’s whole lifetime, also meaning that every living creature anywhere on earth benefits from this tree. Ed.]
Rabbi Yitzchok, in the name of Rabbi Yehudah bar Ilai, adds that not only the trunk and the roots influence all creatures on earth, but also the branches and foliage of that tree. According to this Midrash, the middle of the garden, i.e. the two trees named, could effect man’s life both spiritually and physically in an extraordinary degree. It is possible to understand the verse as meaning that these two trees stood very close to one another. It is also possible to understand the word הדעת, as not being in a construct mode, [as opposed to הדעה which is definitely not in the construct mode, Ed.] so that the Torah meant that the knowledge to be gained from this tree by eating its fruit could be both beneficial and harmful.

ועץ החיים בתוך הגן. “and the tree of life in the center of the garden.” The meaning of the words: “the tree of life was in the center of the garden,” is that the location and function of this tree was known. This is why the Torah describes it as “at the center” of the garden and not simply as ”in the garden.” Onkelos also translates the word בתוך as meaning “at the center.” This is also what Chavah answered the serpent when she said: “G’d has said not to eat from the tree in the center of the garden,” without mentioning the name of that tree. Seeing that she had mentioned the location of the tree, it was as if she had identified it by name. Seeing that this was so, it is difficult to understand how both the tree of life and the tree of knowledge were in the center of the garden? Nachmanides explains that this is no problem. There was an ערוגה, “furrow,” in the center of the garden and both these trees grew out of this furrow. The entire furrow is described by the Torah as “the center, אמצע, of the garden. [although the Torah never used this word, only בתוך, which does not have to mean precisely the center. Ed.] There are still other commentators who state that the tree of life was precisely at the center of the garden, whereas the tree of knowledge surrounded it with its foliage. In this manner both trees were located in the center of the garden, the tree of life in the more narrow sense of the word. This would also explain why G’d was not concerned that man would eat from the fruit of the tree of life immediately before he would eat from the tree of knowledge having already assured himself of eternal life. Seeing that the tree of life was difficult to get at due to it being surrounded by the branches of the tree of knowledge, it did not present a challenge until man had become mortal. Rabbi Joseph Kimchi explains that the tree of knowledge and the tree of life were one and the same tree. As to the Torah once speaking of the “tree of life,” and once of the “tree of knowledge,” this is no different from our describing a certain person once as very intelligent, and once as being righteous. These two characteristics are not mutually exclusive. The tree in question also possessed several characteristics. This is also plausible when we consider the woman’s answer to the serpent when she said (in the same breath) “from the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat whereas G’d said not to eat from the tree in the centre of the garden.” According to Chavah only a single tree had been placed out of bounds to man. I cannot understand what Rabbi Joseph Kimchi does with verse 23 in chapter 3 where G’d expresses His concern about man now wanting to eat from the tree of life. According to the worthy Rabbi they had already eaten from that tree!

ויצמח ה' אלוקים מן האדמה, “The Lord G-d made grow from the earth, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text these words prove that there is such a thing as Paradise on earth and that it contains a tree of knowledge as well as a tree of life. The fruit of the tree of life causes those who eat it to enjoy long life, whereas the fruit of the tree of knowledge instills in those who consume it willpower and freedom of choice. to do either good or evil both in matters physical as well as in matters spiritual. Our sages in Pessachim 6 said concerning this “לא שנו אלא שדעתו לחזור, the ruling applies only to someone who had resolved to return to his home during the festival of Passover.” [The author uses the word דעתו in the Talmud where it refers to someone making a voluntary decision as proof that here in our verse too the term עץ הדעת, does not mean “the tree of knowledge,” but means ‘the tree permitting man a choice.” Ed.]
We find support for this meaning of the word דעת in Psalms 144,3 מה אדם ותדעהו, “what is man that You should have granted him grace?” In other words: “why have You extended Your goodwill, Your love to man?” The meaning of the term עץ הדעת then is the tree which causes G-d to relate to man with either favour or disfavour.” Originally, G-d had withheld this kind of choice from Adam as he had been ‘programmed” in his deeds prior to his sin. This does not mean that he was not free to sin but that his actions were guided exclusively by his intellect thus practically excluding sin as he had not been subject to temptation from within.
Once man had sinned, i.e. had eaten from the fruit of that tree, he became possessed of an independent will, i.e. obedience to G-d’s will was no longer automatic, dictated by his intellect. The new-found “independent will” meant that he had acquired an attribute reserved for G-d, an attribute that he could handle only at great potential cost to himself.

This verse relates to the Garden. [Rashi knows this] because if it relates to the entire earth, why did Hashem not initially command the earth to bring forth “every tree that is pleasant... and good”?

Nicht unbemerkt dürfte bleiben, wie hier in der Ausstattung des Gartens für die sinnlichen Bedürfnisse des Menschen, das נחמד למראה, die Befriedigung des Schönheitsinnes, dem טוב למאכל, demjenigen des Geschmacksinnes und des Nahrungsbedürfnisses vorangeht. Es erhält hier das Ästhetische, der Schönheitssinn, seine Berechtigung und Weihe, und dürfte auch hier sich die höhere Stufe des Menschen bekunden. Die Fülle der Schönheitsformen, die wir an den Geschöpfen unserer Erde gewahren, und die Tatsache, dass — so weit unser Bewusstsein reicht — der Mensch das einzige mit der Fähigkeit für den Schönheitsgenuss ausgestattete Geschöpf ist, bewahrheitet, welchen Wert der Schöpfer auf diesen Sinn für die geistig-sittliche Bestimmung des Menschen gelegt hat. In der Tat sind diese über die Schöpfung ausgestreuten Schönheitsformen und der Sinn des Menschen, sich ihrer zu freuen, das erste Mittel, den Menschen vor gänzlicher Vertiefung zu schützen. Die Freude an der schönen Natur und den Schönheitsformen, die Gott namentlich der Pflanzenwelt aufgeprägt, ist eine Brücke zu der Freude an dem sittlich Schönen. In einer Umgebung, wo auf das Harmonische, auf das Schöne keine Rücksicht genommen, wächst auch der Mensch leicht verwildert heran. Das Gefühl, das dem Menschen Freude an Harmonie und Ordnung gewährt, ist verwandt mit dem Gefühle für die Ordnung und Harmonie im Gebiete des Sittlichen, so verwandt, dass uns das Schlechte als רע, als das Gebrochene, als die gestörte Harmonie erscheint, wo nicht mehr ein einheitlicher Gedanke das Ganze beherrscht. עץ החיים. Wenn wir am Schlusse der Katastrophe lesen, dass der Mensch in seiner Entartung nicht durch den Genuß der Früchte dieses Baumes ewiges Leben erlangen sollte, so erkennen wir daraus, dass diese Früchte die Fähigkeit besessen haben müssen, die Kräfte des Menschen stets neu zu regenerieren. ועץ, und noch ein Baum stand in der Mitte, von dessen Früchten uns aber nichts Näheres gesagt wird, der aber die nähere Bezeichnung erhält: הדעת טוב ורע. Die Annahme, dass der Genuss seiner Früchte erst dem Menschen die Erkenntnis des Guten und Bösen gewährt habe, dass er vorher gar nicht die Fähigkeit gehabt habe, Gutes und Böses zu unterscheiden, dass er, wie manche unserer philosophischen Schriften lehren, bis dahin nur auf der Stufe theoretischer Unterscheidung des Wahren und Falschen gestanden, ihm aber die Begriffe "gut und bös", die der praktischen Vernunft angehören, völlig gefehlt, dürfte schwerlich die richtige sein. So gewiss die Willensfreiheit den spezifischen Grundcharakter des Menschlichen im Menschen bildet, so gewiss konnte er nicht Mensch sein, ohne Begriff des Guten und dessen Gegenteils. Hätte dem Menschen der ganze Begriff des sittlich Guten und Bösen gefehlt, es hätte Gott ihm gar kein Verbot erteilen und wegen Übertretung desselben ihn nicht zur Rechenschaft und Strafe ziehen können. Beides setzt bei dem, welchem das Verbot erteilt wird, das Bewusstsein der Pflicht, des Pflichtgemäßen und Pflichtwidrigen voraus; das ist ja aber eben nichts anderes als die Erkenntnis von Gut und Bös, eine Erkenntnis, die ja der praktischen und nicht der theoretischen Vernunft angehört. Vielmehr dürfte der Baum, der Baum הדעת טוב ורע, wie so oft על שם סופו, von vornherein nach dem Endergebnis, als der Baum bezeichnet sein, an welchem sich die Erkenntnis des Guten und Bösen entschied, an welchem es sich entschied, was der Mensch für sich als gut oder bös erkennen wollte. Es gibt nur eine Bedingung, die die Erde uns zum Paradiese gestalten kann, und das ist die, dass wir nur das gut nennen, was Gott, und das nur böse, was Er als solches stempelt; nicht aber, dass wir die Entscheidung von gut und bös unserer Sinnlichkeit überlassen. Stellen wir uns unter das Diktat unserer Sinnlichkeit, so fallen uns die Pforten des Paradieses zu, und erst auf weiten Umwegen gelangt die Menschheit wieder dahin. Ja es dürfte der Baum von vornherein der Baum der Erkenntnis des Guten und Bösen genannt sein, indem er dem Menschen vergegenwärtigen sollte, was für ihn gut oder bös sei, was er für gut oder bös erkennen soll. Es war, wie wir später erfahren, der Baum mit allen Reizen für den Geschmack, für die Phantasie und den betrachtenden Verstand ausgestattet; Geschmack, Phantasie und Verstand zogen zu ihm hin, sprachen seinem Genuß das Wort, und doch war der Genuss von Gott verboten, war somit für den Menschen als bös bezeichnet. Der Baum vergegenwärtigte somit dem Menschen stets die Lehre, von deren Beachtung die ganze Reinheit und Hoheit seiner sittlichen Bestimmung bedingt ist: es kann etwas nach dem Urteil der leiblichen Sinne, der Phantasie und des Verstandes durchaus gut, ja als ein höchstes Gut erscheinen und doch dem höheren Berufe des Menschen zuwider, doch von Gott als ein todeswürdiges Verbrechen verurteilt sein; somit die Lehre: dass der Mensch in Beurteilung des Guten und Bösen nicht seine Sinne, nicht seine Phantasie, nicht seinen sinnlichen Verstand, sondern den ihm offenbar gewordenen Gotteswillen vernehmen und dieser Vernunft als seinem einzigen Leitstern folgen müsse, wenn er auf Erden seine Bestimmung erfüllen und würdig bleiben wolle, dass sich ihm die Erde zum Paradiese gestalte.

בתוך הגן IN THE MIDST OF THE GARDEN — means in the very centre of the garden.

נחמד למראה, looking at these trees resulted In the viewer experiencing intellectual stimulation both of his heart and his brain. He would thus be capable of “digesting” the additional intellectual insights granted him by G’d. Compare Kings II 3,15 ותהי עליו יד ה', “Elisha had now been endowed by G’d’s generosity.” [a reference to the additional spiritual insights he had asked from his mentor Elijah prior to the latter ascending to heaven. Ed.]

In the center of the Garden. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why is it written “בתוך הגן”? It is already written: “Hashem made grow out of the soil every tree,” which refers to the Garden.

ועץ הדעת, a tree whose fruit results in those who eat from it gaining greater understanding of the relationship of good and evil. The word דעת, which appears here for the first time, helps us understand Genesis 4,1 והאדם ידע את חוה אשתו. Without this verse we would have been puzzled by the Torah telling us something that was so obvious. Who does not “know” his wife, especially when he had described her as “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh!” (2,23) In our verse we are told that the words ידע, דעת do not primarily refer to factual knowledge but to conceptual knowledge. This also helps us to understand why relatives, as in Ruth 2,1 are referred to as מודע לאישה, “someone whom her late husband had been intimate with, had been related to by blood.” It is normal for blood relations to be concerned with the physical and emotional needs of their kin. (compare Proverbs 17,17.)

"and the tree of knowledge of good and bad:" as its (Onkelos) translation (explains) - the tree which the one who eats it(s fruit) knows good and bad.

טוב ורע, to choose that which appeared as appealing to the senses even though it would prove harmful, and to despise anything which did not appeal to his senses although he knew it to be useful to him.