ייִדישער מחשבֿה אויף בראשית 3:22

"NOW MAN HAS BECOME LIKE ONE OF US"

There are three levels of knowledge of good and evil. 1) Complete comprehension; 2) Completely erroneous conclusions; 3) A mixture of the previous two. Anyone who falls into category two is like a beast, not knowing left from right. Such people are pere, wild, unbridled, not Adam. Compare Deut. 1,39, "And your children who do not know this day either good or evil." Category One is he who knows correctly he is nolad betzelem, born in G-d’s image, as G-d Himself has testified, "Here man has become like one of Us" (Genesis 3,22). Category Three, i.e. those who have only partial understanding, confused knowledge, are the people who delve into the source of knowledge, making research an end in itself, as did the builders of the tower of Babel. This category comprises most of the human species. The tree of knowledge, though adjacent to the tree of life, was also close to all the other trees. The observer of the scene in the garden of Eden had three choices then. He could ignore the tree completely, and be termed sub-human. Or, he could notice it and all its attractive features, gain valuable insights through smelling it, touching it, and maybe even tasting it, though not eating its fruit. The result would be G-d like appreciation of good and evil. However, the exclusive preoccupation with it called "eating," consuming it while being consumed by its charm, was forbidden and would result in mortality, abandoning oneself to the material, physical. We find in halachah, Jewish law, that whenever "eating" is forbidden, tasting may be permissible, since the principle is that tasting is not something of substance (Berachot 14). The deep involvement in eating from that tree produces as a corollary the result that such a person is no longer receptive to the purely spiritual/ intellectual such as represented by the tree of life. Thus one loses one's anchor in the "higher" world (called by our sages chut shel chessed). What happened to Adam when he abused the tree of knowledge is similar to what happened to King Saul after his failure to kill Agag king of Amalek, when hashgachah peratit, G-d’s Personal Providence, was withdrawn, and His kingdom was no longer considered G-d’s kingdom. When Isaac had said to Esau, "Whenever he (Jacob) will reject the yoke of the Torah, you (Esau) will break the bond" (Genesis 27,40), he also referred to the fact that G-d would then withdraw His hashgachah peratit from the people of Israel. Israel's descent to Egypt, a result of what the brothers had done to Joseph, or the survivors of the generation of spies in the desert, are all examples of the results of failures similar to what had occurred in the garden of Eden. “Mot-Tamut," you will surely die. The tragedy, according to Bereshit Rabbah 16, was that the mortality incurred by Adam was automatically conferred upon his entire offspring, i.e. upon the entire human species. This is the reason the word mot tamut is repeated. All the other trees, the tree of life excepted, contained life's necessities, therefore eating from those trees was permitted.

This occasioned the sages to say that all miracles which deviate from the natural course of events, whether they have already occured, or, according to promise, are to take place in the future, were fore-ordained by the Divine Will during the six days of creation, nature being then so constituted that those miracles which were to happen really did afterwards take place. Then, when such an occurence happened at its proper time, it may have been regarded as an absolute innovation, whereas in reality it was not.²³M. reiterates this view of the miracles in his Commentary on Abot, V, 6, which enumerates ten things created on the eve of the Sabbath of the week of creation. See Lipmann Heller, in Tosefot Yom-Tob, on this passage; and Hoffman, Mischnaioth, Seder Nezikin, Berlin, 1889, p. 353. Cf. Moreh, I, 66, and Munk, Guide, I, p. 296. M. also supported this view in Moreh, II, 29 where he refers to Genesis Rabbah, V, 4, and Exodus Rabbah, XXI, 6, which read, "When God created the world He made an agreement that the sea should divide, the fire not hurt, the lions not harm, the fish not swallow persons singled out by God for certain times, and thus the whole order of things changes whenever he finds it necessary." Consult on this subject Joel, Moses Maimonides, 1876, p. 77 ; Rosin, Ethik, p. 69, n. 5; "Wolff, Acht Capitel, Excursus, IV; Lazarus, Ethics, II, p. 77, n. 1; Kohler, art. Miracles, inJ. E., vol. VIII, pp. 606-607; Geiger, Judaism and its History, p. 348. The Rabbis expatiate very much upon this subject in the Midrash Koheleth and in other writings, one of their statements in reference to this matter being, "Everything follows its natural course".²⁴`Abodah Zarah, 54b. See Lazarus, ibid., II, p. 74 ff. In everything that they said, you will always find that the Rabbis (peace be unto them!) avoided referring to the Divine Will as determining a particular event at a particular time. When, therefore, they said that man rises and sits down in accordance with the will of God, their meaning was that, when man was first created, his nature was so determined that rising up and sitting down were to be optional to him; but they as little meant that God wills at any special moment that man should or should not get up, as He determines at any given time that a certain stone should or should not fall to the ground.²⁵Cf. M.'s Commentary on Abot, IV, 23 (Rawicz, Commentar, pp. 89 90); H. Teshubah, V, 4, and Moreh, III, 17, Fifth Theory. See Rosin, Ethik, p. 69, n. 6. The sum and substance of the matter is, then, that thou shouldst believe that just as God willed that man should be upright in stature, broad-chested, and have fingers, likewise did He will that man should move or rest of his own accord, and that his actions should be such as his own free will dictates to him, without any outside influence or restraint, which fact God clearly states in the truthful Law, which elucidates this problem, when it says, "Behold, the man is become as one of us to know good and evil".²⁶Gen. III, 22. The Targum, in paraphrasing this passage, explains the meaning of the words mimmenu lada'at ṭob wara'. Man has become the only being in the world who possesses a characteristic which no other being has in common with him. What is this characteristic? It is that by and of himself man can distinguish between good and evil, and do that which he pleases, with absolutely no restraint. Since, then, this is so, it would have even been possible for him to have stretched out his hand, and, taking of the tree of life, to have eaten of its fruit, and thus live forever.²⁷Cf. H. Teshubah, V, 1. Since it is an essential characteristic of man's makeup that he should of his own free will act morally or immorally, doing just as he chooses, it becomes necessary to teach him the ways of righteousness, to command and exhort him, to punish and reward him according to his deserts. It behooves man also to accustom himself to the practice of good deeds, until he acquires the virtues corresponding to those good deeds; and, furthermore, to abstain from evil deeds so that he may eradicate the vices that may have taken root in him. Let him not suppose that his characteristics have reached such a state that they are no longer subject to change, for any one of them may be altered from the good to the bad, and vice versa; and, moreover, all in accordance with his own free will. To confirm this theory, we have mentioned all these facts concerning the observances and the transgressions of the Law.