The first biblical account of creation presented a sea change in religious thought. The universe formed in the Bible was not created by a multitude of gods in conflict with each other but a perfect and harmonious universe created by a single God. As the Bible emphasizes at the end of the six days of creation, this was a universe that was “extremely good” (in Hebrew - tov me’od) (Genesis 1:31).  

​

But there is an obvious dissonance with respect to the world we live in and which is full of travail, pain and sorrow. How could an omnipotent God create such an imperfect world? Do not pagan ideas of a world ruled by gods in conflict with each other and indifferent to mankind and in which man is subject to their random will seem a more plausible explanation for the burdens of mankind?  

 

The Garden of Eden story will conclude that there is no dissonance. It is not God who made this an imperfect world but the nature of man.

 

Adam was given but one command:

 

And the Lord God commanded (vayetzav) the man saying: Of every tree of the garden you may eat freely, but of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad, you must not eat thereof, for on the day you eat of it you shall surely die (Genesis 2:16-17).

 

Many questions spring to the fore. What type of knowledge of good and bad did the fruit of this Tree of Knowledge endow? And what type of serpent is this that managed to successfully tempt Eve to eat of its fruit?

 

We will first cull the rich storehouse of Jewish commentaries.

 

The biblical commentator R' Samson Raphael Hirsch notes this command’s relation to food and suggests that this is a typical statute (“chok” in Hebrew), in actuality the first chok presented in the Torah.1 A chok is a God-given command that cannot be derived by logical reasoning.2 By contrast, in the Cain and Abel account soon to follow, Cain killed his brother. This was the first transgression against a law or judgment of a logical nature, which all societies can and should institute. 

 

Other commentators consider the fruit of this tree to represent no particular category of command but rather to represent the entire gamut of commands necessary for man. Adhering to this single representative command was the means by which Adam and Eve would be able to maintain their unique relationship with God within the garden.

 

Every tree in the Garden was available for their pleasure but this one. The phrase “eat you shall eat” or “you should surely eat” (in Hebrew - ochol tochal) can even be interpreted to mean that Adam and Eve had an obligation to indulge in the fruit of every tree in the garden except for this one. Of course, the very fact that it was forbidden made it all the more tempting. 

 

Another crucial question in this allegory. What is this “knowledge” that the fruit of this Tree endows? Would it lead to a change in Adam’s nature providing him with an attribute he did not previously possess or would this experiential knowledge?

 

Most medieval Jewish commentators perceived this “knowledge” as a characteristic he did not already possess. Hence, the biblical commentator and philosopher Nachmanides provides the following explanation as to the nature of man prior to and after Adam’s sin, an explanation incidentally that occasioned much criticism by later Jewish Biblical exegetes: 

 

The best interpretation in my opinion is that man would do naturally whatever was appropriate to do according to his instinct, just as do the heavens and all their hosts, being “faithful workers, whose work is faithful, and they do not deviate from their tasks,” and they have neither feelings of love nor hate in what they do [and that is how Adam acted before eating of the tree]. But the fruit of this tree would produce the factors of will and volition, so that whoever ate it would then be able to choose one thing or its opposite, either for good or for bad. This is why it is called “the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Bad.” For “knowledge” is used in Hebrew to describe will and desire. . .2

 

Prior to his sin Adam was an instinctive being. It was only after his sin that he gained free will. This explanation follows naturally from the text and is adopted by a number of modern commentators. Cassuto, for example, views the original Adam as being like an innocent child.3

 

However, there are many problems with this approach. Maimonides a generation earlier in his Guide to the Perplexed poses a penetrating question that could well have been addressed to Nachmanides:  

 

It would at first sight appear from Scripture that man was originally intended to be perfectly equal to the rest of the animal creation, which is not endowed with intellect, reason, or power of distinguishing between good and evil: but that Adam’s disobedience to the command of God procured him that great perfection which is the peculiarity of man, viz., the power of distinguishing between good and evil — the noblest of all the faculties of our nature, the essential characteristic of the human race. It thus appears strange that the punishment for rebelliousness should be the means of elevating man to a pinnacle of perfection to which he had not attained previously.4 

 

There are other problems, too, with Nachmanides’ explanation. If man and woman were unable to distinguish between right and wrong, how could they be punished for eating of the fruit? Does not punishment presume free will? Moreover, the text itself seems to highlight the fact that Eve already possessed lust and that there was a choice before her — to succumb to these lusts or ignore them. In other words, that she had free will. 

 

Moreover, scripture informs us early in the story that “God caused to grow from the ground every tree that was pleasing to the sight and good for eating” (Genesis 2:9). When Eve is tempted by the serpent, the temptation is described in very similar language: 

 

And the woman perceived that the tree was good for eating, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was pleasing as a means to wisdom. . . (Genesis 3:6). 

 

Hence, the text is highlighting the choices before her and that she had free will to make or ignore them.  

 

A further problem with Nachmanides’ approach is that there is a presumption among the biblical commentators that the relationship between God and man in the Garden of Eden was an ideal state and that humanity should attempt to emulate this. However, if pre-sin man functioned at an instinctual level or as an innocent child, then this entire aspect of the story is lost.

 

Maimonides has a different approach:

 

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” (Psalms 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. . . . he was punished by the loss of part of that intellectual faculty which he had previously possessed.4

 

Maimonides is suggesting that prior to his sin, man was totally objective and could only distinguish between truth and falsehood. With his sin came subjectivity and awareness of goodness and evil. In other words, Nachmanides has lowered primordial man to the level of a humanoid with animal instincts, whilst Maimonides has elevated man to a level slightly below that of angels.

 

A very different explanation is that Adam and Eve experienced no change whatsoever in their nature or intellectual make-up following their sin. What they did gain was experiential knowledge. 

 

After their sin they became aware that their animal lusts had dragged them into sin, that their sexual instincts were akin to those of animals, that they had severed a unique relationship to God, and that disobeying a command of God has consequences. If they had been able to lead a life totally in accord with God’s designs, they could have stayed in the Garden of Eden forever and perhaps remained immortal, or at the very least long-living. But man has free choice, and one aspect of this free choice is the ability to rationalize God’s commands and substitute his own behavioral code for that of God’s.

Before we look at one further explanation, it is worthwhile discussing the nature of the tempting snake.

 

As mentioned, the medieval Jewish commentators were bound to a literal interpretation of the text, although most were prepared to accept that the serpent represented evil. Sforno, for example, suggests that the serpent represented Satan. He writes:  

 

And the serpent: He is Satan, he is the evil prompter. Although he is small in appearance, he does much damage. The Torah describes things figuratively by (various names) which are similar to them. . . .  In this manner the evil inclination which tempts man is called “serpent”, for he is similar to a serpent, which is an animal with limited utility but great potential to do harm, though small in appearance.5

 

Nevertheless, it is questionable whether the concept of Satan belongs in the Pentateuch. An entity called Satan is found three times in Scripture, but never in the Torah.6 In the book of Job, Satan is one of God’s counselors who provides suggestions of a malevolent nature and with God’s approval brings them to fruition. The notion that an external force called Satan has the power to influence people through their evil inclination (“yetzer hara” in Hebrew) is mentioned in the Talmud, but not in the Bible. In the Talmudic tractate Bava Basra, Satan is identified with both the evil inclination and the Angel of Death.7 

 

However, the notion that a malevolent force such as Satan tempted Eve is a difficult one, since it implies that the temptation was manufactured by God, or at the very least carried out with His approval. Moreover, it is difficult to understand why a situation that smacks of entrapment should have led to such dire consequences for mankind. 

 

Other medieval Jewish commentators suggest that the serpent represents the evil inclination or “yetzer harah” itself. This need not necessarily be external to a person but could be part of his or her internal make up. Noteworthy in this respect is that the Torah makes a connection between the words “serpent” and “nakedness.” Hence, no sooner is Eve brought to man by God (and hence before they have sinned), than the Bible tells us the following:

 

They were both naked (in Hebrew – arumim עֲרוּמִּים), the man and his wife, and they were not ashamed (Genesis 2:25).

 

A few verses later, commenting on the nature of the serpent, the Bible writes:

 

Now the serpent was cunning (in Hebrew - ebrew Henarum עָרוּם) beyond any beast of the field that YKVK Elokim had made (Genesis 3:1).

 

There is a word play here. The words for “nakedness’ (arum) and the serpent’s “cunning” (arum) are the same (although from different root letters). This leads to the interpretation that the serpent represents the animal, sensual, or ‘earthly’ part of a person’s being. The temptation represented by the serpent is not external to Adam and Eve but part of their very make-up.  

 

Of the classic Jewish Biblical commentators, it is R’ Samson Raphael Hirsch who writes most expansively about the animal sensuality of humanity:

 

It was animal wisdom which lured the human beings from their duty, today it is the same animal wisdom which serves as the midwife to every sin. . . . But as soon as Man hands over reigns to his sensuousness, does not exercise moral energy to raise his sensual life up into the realm of godliness, but on the contrary, by his sensuality his godliness itself gets dragged down into the unfree state of the senses, then at once he has to be ashamed of his nakedness. . . . At every demand of God’s laws of morality, still today, every one of us stands, like the first human pair, before the tree of this knowledge, and has to decide whether he will follow the voice of his bodily sensuality, his own judgment and sense, and the wisdom of instinctive animal life, or conscious of his higher calling, the voice of his God.  And still today this choice of God is not revealed directly to us, but only through tradition . . . .1 

 

The nude state forces on us the awareness that at a fundamental level we are no more than animals that eat, defecate, urinate, are sexually aroused, and copulate. Only clothing, which may be no more than a fig leaf, stands between man’s higher calling and his animal nature. Only with clothes are we able to sublimate our animal nature and seek meaning and immortality in our religious, intellectual and material endeavors. 

 

Consider the speech of the serpent as he attempts to tempt the woman:

 

The serpent said to the women: “You will not surely die; for God knows that on the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened (venifkuchu eyneichem) and you will become like Elokim [i.e., you will become godlike], knowing (yodei) good and bad” (Genesis 3:4). 

 

No sooner did the couple sin than the inevitable ensues:

 

Then the eyes of both of them were opened (vetifkuchu eynei sheneihem) and they knew (vayeidu) that they were naked (arumim); and they sewed together a fig leaf and made themselves aprons (Genesis 3:7). 

 

This sentence if full of irony. The serpent persuades the woman that eating of the fruit will endow the couple with God-like attributes, their eyes will be opened, and they will possess knowledge about good and bad. Adam and Eve succumb to the temptation and their eyes are indeed opened. However, the only knowledge they achieve is knowledge of their nakedness. The Bible in this way equates knowledge of good and evil and becoming God-like with knowledge of one’s individual nakedness.

 

This permits the following explanation of this story. A human being is composed of animal and spiritual elements. In the Garden of Eden all of man’s physical needs were taken care of.  He existed on such a high spiritual plane that his animal nature was inconsequential to him. However, following his sin, knowledge of his animal nature would come to the fore and the challenges this presents.  

 

Nevertheless, to my mind, there is something incomplete in this explanation. The forceful and clear polemic of chapter 1 is followed by difficult concepts that require several pages of explanation to summarize. Moreover, Adam and Eve’s crime and punishment seem not to correspond measure for measure. Could it be that there is more to this story about the Tree of Good and Bad than we have so far discussed? 

 

I suggest there is.

 

References:

 

1. The Pentateuch, Translation and Commentary by Samson Raphael Hirsch on Genesis 2:16 and 17.

 

2. Nachmanides Commentary to the Torah on Genesis 2:9.

 

3. A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part One, From Adam to Noah by Umberto Cassuto, Second paragraph, The planting of the Garden of Eden, p113, The Magnes Press, Jerusalem, reprinted 1998.

 

4. Moses Maimonides, the Guide for the Perplexed, translated by M. Friedlander, Part I chapter II, Dover Publications Inc, New York, 2nd edition. 

 

5. Sforno, Commentary to the Torah on Genesis 3:1.

 

6. Job chapters 1-2, I Chronicles 21:1 and Zechariah 3:1.

 

TB. Bava Basra 16a.