Musar para sa Genesis 3:1

Furthermore, we know and understand that the Creator did not create the world for the sake of the wicked or those who anger Him, for reason cannot lead us to such a conclusion, but He created it for the sake of the pious, who acknowledge His divinity and serve Him properly. His intent was only to create the pious, but the wicked were created by virtue of the nature of creation. Just as a piece of fruit has a peel³This metaphor seems to be Kabbalistic, especially the use of "peel" for "evil."²This is a possible allusion to a favorite theme in Jewish Mysticism. "Evil is the Kelipah, the ‘bark’ of the cosmic tree or ‘The shell of the nut’ ". Gershom G. Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (New York: Schocken, 1946), p. 239. and that which is choice is what is within the peel, so the pious are the fruit of the creation of the world and the wicked are the peel . Just as we see that the intent of the sower of the seed is to cause wheat alone to grow, but that the strength of the sprout brings forth evil weeds with the wheat⁴See Isaiah 5:2. and that with the rose come all sorts of thorns, thus it is the intent of the Creator to create the pious, but by the virtue of the nature of creation, the wicked are brought forth with the pious. There is nothing that is created that cannot be divided into three parts: the choice or the purest part, which is like the finest flour; the inferior part, which consists of offal and worthless parts, such as straw or rubbish, and there is the part in between⁵This refers to some kind of intermediary state between excellence and worthlessness.. Thus you find among human beings one part which is choice and pure, and these are the pious ones; they are like the fine flour or the choicest fruit. And then there is the less worthy and the rejected, and they are the wicked that are like the rubbish or straw. Therefore, we can say that the world was not created for the sake of the wicked, but for the sake of the pious. Just as in the case of a tree, its master did not plant it and labor for the sake of the peel, but for the sake of the choicest fruit that it will yield.⁶This paragraph sounds Kabbalistic, not only in the imagery but also in the idea that evil is a necessary part in the creation of the world. Theodore Friedman in his review of Ephraim E. Urbach’s The Sages—Their Concepts and Beliefs (Hebrew) Jerusalem, Magnes: 1969, in Judaism Vol. 21:4, p. 499 deals with the famous controversy between the Schools of Shammai and Hillel, whether or not it would have been better for man never to have been born (Eruvin 13b). Urbach said that the question that exercised the two Schools was whether or not it would have been better for [the wicked] never to have been born. Friedman feels "unconvinced" that such is the plain meaning of the text. It is interesting to observe that the text which Urbach uses (p. 226) taken from the Ethics of the Fathers VI: 11 "Whatsoever the Holy One, blessed be He, created in His world, He created it only for His glory", as it is written, Everything that is called by my name and that I have created, I have formed it, yea, I have made it (Isaiah 43:7) contains the very same verse which was cited by our author in the beginning of this chapter. See p. 10, lines 21-22.

First let me explain a few of the finer nuances in the verses which forbid man to eat from the tree of knowledge. The Torah twice says: ממנו, "from it," ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו כי ביום אכלך ממנו מות תמות "From the tree of knowledge of good and evil, do not eat from it, for on the day you eat from it you will surely become mortal" (Genesis 2,17). During the conversation between Eve and the serpent, however, the word ממנו occurs only once, i.e. ומפרי העץ אשר בתוך הגן לא תאכלו ממנו ולא תגעו בו פן תמותון, "And from the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden, the Lord has said 'do not eat from it and do not touch it lest you die'" (Genesis 3,3). Another difficulty in the text is the fact that in the original command by G–d we find the words “2,16) ”עץ…ומעץ הדעת and 2,17), and also the serpent itself refers to "the tree itself" (3,1). Eve, on the other hand, mentioned only a prohibition of the fruit of the tree (3,3). Only afterwards do we read in verse 6 of the conversation between Eve and the serpent: ותרא האשה כי טוב העץ למאכל, "the woman saw that the tree was good for eating." Another difficulty is the fact that surely Eve was an extremely intelligent woman. What could have prompted her to tell the serpent of an additional prohibition, that of touching the tree, when such a prohibition had not been issued by G–d? A further difficulty is that since Eve knew that G–d had not prohibited touching the tree, why did the fact that the serpent pushed her against the tree and she did not die influence her to the extent that she accepted the serpent's argument that just as touching the tree had not proved fatal to her, eating from it would not have fatal consequences either? (compare Bereshit Rabbah 19,3 that the serpent pushed Eve against the tree). How did Eve deduce a prohibition from something that had not been commanded? Yet another difficulty is the wording of the punishment. The Torah quotes G–d as saying to Adam: ארורה האדמה בעבורך, "The Earth will be cursed on your account" (Genesis 3,17). This means that Earth was punished at that time for a former misdemeanour. Why was Earth not punished at the time it failed to produce the kind of trees it had been commanded to produce?

It is quite clear that the tree of knowledge responded to G–d's original command to earth, that its trunk was as edible as its fruit. This was because this tree had been planted by G–d Himself, was not the product of the general instruction to Earth on the third day of creation (Genesis 2,8). The serpent alluded to this fact when it said that G–d had only forbidden eating "of the tree of the garden," and made no mention of the fruit of the trees (Genesis 3,1). According to the serpent, man was not allowed to partake of the wood of the trees that G–d had planted. The reason this was forbidden, explained the serpent, was that these trees were supernatural creations. There was no reason however, for Eve to worry that the fruit of the tree was forbidden, seeing that the fruit was something natural, part of the laws of nature. The serpent was astute enough to use the language G–d had used to convince Eve that only the wood had been forbidden.