Tweet
Chavah and the Tree - Week Six
Hello,
This week we wrapped up our look at Ibn Ezra's "Peshat" approach, and began to look at Rashi's "Derash" understanding.
Ibn Ezra
We looked at Ibn Ezra's methods of arriving at his conclusions. Ibn Ezra used three easily discerned methods:
1. Simple words: Ibn Ezra looked at the straightforward words in explaining what the serpent was, and how it could communicate with Chavah. As far as Ibn Ezra is concerned, the snake was a normal snake, and Gd simply gave it the power of communication with humans.
2. Context: Ibn Ezra looked at the verses immmediately preceding and succeeding Adam and Chavah eating from the tree, and determined that the type of knowledge given to Adam and Chavah was knowledge about male-female relationships. This then makse it clear what Chavah wanted from the Tree.
3. Logic/Science: Ibn Ezra depended on logic to conclude that Humanity must have been intelligent before the Tree, and he used the achievements of Greek science to conclude that humans were never meant to live forever.
One interesting point, though, emerges from the Rambam. The Rambam writes that if a person's interpretation of a Torah verse contradicts reality, it is obvious that the interpretation is incorrect.
Rashi
We now turned to Rashi's understanding of the event.
Overview
Rashi explained that this story is about failing at perfection, and bringing physical imperfection - Death and Decay - to the world. Chavah wanted to grow beyond what she was, and she was persuaded to violate her Mitzvah in order to achieve this end.
Rashi's Answers to our Central Questions
1. What is the nature of this tree?
Rashi believed that the tree of life gave eternal life, and the tree of knowledge gave knowledge of taste, preference and desire, where Adam and Chavah had heretofore experienced only True/False.
-snip -
Comparing Rashi and Ibn Ezra
Rashi and Ibn Ezra are very similar in their reading. The key differences are:
1. The type of knowledge which the tree provided, and
2. The central focus of the story, whether on Knowledge or on Perfection and Imperfection Along the way, though, there are a few more interesting variations between their approaches.
The Nature of the Tree of Life
Rashi understands that Adam and Chavah were originally immortal, and that HaShem's warning of "You will die" meant that they would become mortal on eating from the Tree of Knowledge. This, of course, deals with the problem of why they did not die immediately upon eating - it wasn't a death sentence, it was removal of their immortality.
The Nature of the Tree of Knowledge
Rashi gains his basic understanding of what the Tree provided by looking at Bereishis 3:22. This verse follows the punishment which HaShem meted out to the serpent, Chavah and Adam.
In this verse, Gd says (this is a paraphrasal rather than a translation), "Humanity has become like one of 'us,' knowing good and evil. Now, lest he take from the tree of life and live forever…" Gd concludes by sending Adam and Chavah out of the garden.
What was Gd's concern? Lest they eat from the tree of life, and live forever. What's wrong with that? Is it that Gd has already decreed death for them? Surely Gd can overrule a tree, even if they eat from it!
Rashi explains that there are two factors working together - having the knowledge from the tree of knowledge, and having the life from the tree of life. If Adam and Chavah have both higher knowledge and eternal life, others will think them to be gods.
Rashi believes that Adam and Chavah were supposed to be immortal until they ate from the tree of knowledge, but that was not a problem, for they didn't have this knowledge at that time. The combination is what is hazardous.
That explains why the tree of knowledge was banned, but what is this higher knowledge, that could cause others to confuse them for gods? Rashi says that it is knowledge which separates humans from animals. Others (see Sifsei Chachamim 3:22) have expanded on this, indicating that where animals know only True/False, or Beneficial/Harmful, humans know Desire for good and evil. It is a broad type of Taste or Value, which transcends the specific nature Ibn Ezra ascribed to the Tree of Knowledge's gift.
-snip -
Chavah and the Tree - Week Seven
The Tree
First, we returned to a point from last week. Where Ibn Ezra had said that the Tree provided knowledge of interaction between men and women, Rashi said that the Tree provided general knowledge.
Ibn Ezra had based his idea on the verses before, during and after they ate from the fruit:
1. The verse immediately before the serpent spoke to Chavah (Bereishis 2:25) mentioned that Adam and Chavah were not wearing clothing, and were not embarrassed.
2. Immediately after Chavah and Adam ate, we are told (3:7) that their eyes were opened, and they knew they were not wearing clothing, and they sewed fig leaves into belts.
3. After Gd punishes Chavah and Adam, He makes leather clothing for them (3:21).
What does Rashi do with those verses?
According to Sifsei Chachamim (3:1), citing R' Eliyahu Mizrachi, Rashi held that Adam and Chavah actually had clothing before this event occurred. When the Torah says (2:25) that they weren't wearing clothing, it is referring to an interlude when they weren't wearing clothing, but they actually had clothes.
1. Their lack of clothing is mentioned in 2:25 because that lack of clothing was what led the serpent to become interested in Chavah, as we will explain later.
2. When the Torah says (3:7) that Adam and Chavah had their eyes opened, it doesn't specify that they knew they weren't wearing clothing; it says they knew they were "bare." Rashi takes this to mean that they knew they had lost their Mitzvah.
3. The verse about Gd making leather clothing for Adam and Chavah (3:21) actually describes an event which occurred before this whole story. This story was injected here, before the clothing was mentioned, because it was a continuation of the story of the splitting of Adam and Chavah into two beings. As we have discussed in other contexts, Rashi's Midrashic view of the Torah accepts the idea that a story may be moved out of chronological order, in order to fit its topical context.
As Ben Tzion pointed out today, there is one problem here - in 3:7, when the Torah says that Adam and Chavah had their eyes opened, it also says that they made clothes from fig leaves for themselves. Why was there any need to do this, if Gd had already given them clothing? This requires examination.
-snip -
Chavah and the Tree - Week Eight
Hello,
This week we concluded our look at this event by summarizing the similarities/differences between Rashi and Ibn Ezra, and by presenting some additional notes from Ramban and Seforno.
Similarities between Rashi and Ibn Ezra
1. According to both Rashi and Ibn Ezra, the "knowledge" which the tree provided was an element of taste, or personal preference. Knowledge of moral and value shadings would lead to desire.
2. The serpent took advantage of Chavah's error (regarding touching the tree) to get her to re-think her reluctance to eat from the tree.
3. Chavah trusted the serpent's words.
Differences between Rashi and Ibn Ezra
1. The type of knowledge which the tree provided - Rashi understands it as general knowledge/desire, whereas Ibn Ezra limits it to the area of male-female interaction.
2. The reason for the serpent's involvement - Rashi says the serpent was interested in Chavah, for himself. Ibn Ezra does not address the question of why the serpent tried to persuade Chavah to take the fruit.
3. Why Chavah trusted the serpent - Rashi adds that the serpent pushed Chavah into the tree, which helps explain the role of her error regarding touching the tree, and helps explain why she believed the serpent. Ibn Ezra does not include this.
4. Why Chavah gave the fruit to Adam - According to Rashi, Chavah ate and realized she would die, and didn't want to face death alone. According to Ibn Ezra, they both ate together.
Additional Views
In terms of the tree itself, and the "knowledge" it provided, we brought two additional views:
The Tree: Ramban
Ramban (Bereishis 2:9) - The tree provided Desire. The difference between Ramban's view and that of Rashi and Ibn Ezra is that Ramban doesn't say it is knowledge which leads to desire, but rather that the tree provided that actual desire. Until that point, humanity acted on highly-developed instinct.
Ramban backs up this idea by pointing to several verses (Tehillim 144:3, Shemos 33:12) in which "Daas," as in "Daas Tov vaRa," refers to desire rather than to knowledge.
The Tree: Seforno
Seforno - The tree provided the ability to turn a blind eye to one's intellect. According to Seforno, there are two basic elements to a decision:
A. Superficial Benefit, and
B. Real Benefit.
These may, at times, conflict. The Tree allowed humanity to ignore the second part, in favor of the first. "Knowledge of Good and Evil" actually refers to "Knowledge of Superficial Good and Evil." The fruit of the tree would, in effect, enable humanity to ignore what they knew to be right.
As Phyllis pointed out, this was actually inherent in eating from the tree, itself. The fruit didn't have to be anything special; once Chavah ate, she learned this ability to blind herself to what she knew was right.
-snip-
Hello,
This week we wrapped up our look at Ibn Ezra's "Peshat" approach, and began to look at Rashi's "Derash" understanding.
Ibn Ezra
We looked at Ibn Ezra's methods of arriving at his conclusions. Ibn Ezra used three easily discerned methods:
1. Simple words: Ibn Ezra looked at the straightforward words in explaining what the serpent was, and how it could communicate with Chavah. As far as Ibn Ezra is concerned, the snake was a normal snake, and Gd simply gave it the power of communication with humans.
2. Context: Ibn Ezra looked at the verses immmediately preceding and succeeding Adam and Chavah eating from the tree, and determined that the type of knowledge given to Adam and Chavah was knowledge about male-female relationships. This then makse it clear what Chavah wanted from the Tree.
3. Logic/Science: Ibn Ezra depended on logic to conclude that Humanity must have been intelligent before the Tree, and he used the achievements of Greek science to conclude that humans were never meant to live forever.
One interesting point, though, emerges from the Rambam. The Rambam writes that if a person's interpretation of a Torah verse contradicts reality, it is obvious that the interpretation is incorrect.
Rashi
We now turned to Rashi's understanding of the event.
Overview
Rashi explained that this story is about failing at perfection, and bringing physical imperfection - Death and Decay - to the world. Chavah wanted to grow beyond what she was, and she was persuaded to violate her Mitzvah in order to achieve this end.
Rashi's Answers to our Central Questions
1. What is the nature of this tree?
Rashi believed that the tree of life gave eternal life, and the tree of knowledge gave knowledge of taste, preference and desire, where Adam and Chavah had heretofore experienced only True/False.
-snip -
Comparing Rashi and Ibn Ezra
Rashi and Ibn Ezra are very similar in their reading. The key differences are:
1. The type of knowledge which the tree provided, and
2. The central focus of the story, whether on Knowledge or on Perfection and Imperfection Along the way, though, there are a few more interesting variations between their approaches.
The Nature of the Tree of Life
Rashi understands that Adam and Chavah were originally immortal, and that HaShem's warning of "You will die" meant that they would become mortal on eating from the Tree of Knowledge. This, of course, deals with the problem of why they did not die immediately upon eating - it wasn't a death sentence, it was removal of their immortality.
The Nature of the Tree of Knowledge
Rashi gains his basic understanding of what the Tree provided by looking at Bereishis 3:22. This verse follows the punishment which HaShem meted out to the serpent, Chavah and Adam.
In this verse, Gd says (this is a paraphrasal rather than a translation), "Humanity has become like one of 'us,' knowing good and evil. Now, lest he take from the tree of life and live forever…" Gd concludes by sending Adam and Chavah out of the garden.
What was Gd's concern? Lest they eat from the tree of life, and live forever. What's wrong with that? Is it that Gd has already decreed death for them? Surely Gd can overrule a tree, even if they eat from it!
Rashi explains that there are two factors working together - having the knowledge from the tree of knowledge, and having the life from the tree of life. If Adam and Chavah have both higher knowledge and eternal life, others will think them to be gods.
Rashi believes that Adam and Chavah were supposed to be immortal until they ate from the tree of knowledge, but that was not a problem, for they didn't have this knowledge at that time. The combination is what is hazardous.
That explains why the tree of knowledge was banned, but what is this higher knowledge, that could cause others to confuse them for gods? Rashi says that it is knowledge which separates humans from animals. Others (see Sifsei Chachamim 3:22) have expanded on this, indicating that where animals know only True/False, or Beneficial/Harmful, humans know Desire for good and evil. It is a broad type of Taste or Value, which transcends the specific nature Ibn Ezra ascribed to the Tree of Knowledge's gift.
-snip -
Chavah and the Tree - Week Seven
The Tree
First, we returned to a point from last week. Where Ibn Ezra had said that the Tree provided knowledge of interaction between men and women, Rashi said that the Tree provided general knowledge.
Ibn Ezra had based his idea on the verses before, during and after they ate from the fruit:
1. The verse immediately before the serpent spoke to Chavah (Bereishis 2:25) mentioned that Adam and Chavah were not wearing clothing, and were not embarrassed.
2. Immediately after Chavah and Adam ate, we are told (3:7) that their eyes were opened, and they knew they were not wearing clothing, and they sewed fig leaves into belts.
3. After Gd punishes Chavah and Adam, He makes leather clothing for them (3:21).
What does Rashi do with those verses?
According to Sifsei Chachamim (3:1), citing R' Eliyahu Mizrachi, Rashi held that Adam and Chavah actually had clothing before this event occurred. When the Torah says (2:25) that they weren't wearing clothing, it is referring to an interlude when they weren't wearing clothing, but they actually had clothes.
1. Their lack of clothing is mentioned in 2:25 because that lack of clothing was what led the serpent to become interested in Chavah, as we will explain later.
2. When the Torah says (3:7) that Adam and Chavah had their eyes opened, it doesn't specify that they knew they weren't wearing clothing; it says they knew they were "bare." Rashi takes this to mean that they knew they had lost their Mitzvah.
3. The verse about Gd making leather clothing for Adam and Chavah (3:21) actually describes an event which occurred before this whole story. This story was injected here, before the clothing was mentioned, because it was a continuation of the story of the splitting of Adam and Chavah into two beings. As we have discussed in other contexts, Rashi's Midrashic view of the Torah accepts the idea that a story may be moved out of chronological order, in order to fit its topical context.
As Ben Tzion pointed out today, there is one problem here - in 3:7, when the Torah says that Adam and Chavah had their eyes opened, it also says that they made clothes from fig leaves for themselves. Why was there any need to do this, if Gd had already given them clothing? This requires examination.
-snip -
Chavah and the Tree - Week Eight
Hello,
This week we concluded our look at this event by summarizing the similarities/differences between Rashi and Ibn Ezra, and by presenting some additional notes from Ramban and Seforno.
Similarities between Rashi and Ibn Ezra
1. According to both Rashi and Ibn Ezra, the "knowledge" which the tree provided was an element of taste, or personal preference. Knowledge of moral and value shadings would lead to desire.
2. The serpent took advantage of Chavah's error (regarding touching the tree) to get her to re-think her reluctance to eat from the tree.
3. Chavah trusted the serpent's words.
Differences between Rashi and Ibn Ezra
1. The type of knowledge which the tree provided - Rashi understands it as general knowledge/desire, whereas Ibn Ezra limits it to the area of male-female interaction.
2. The reason for the serpent's involvement - Rashi says the serpent was interested in Chavah, for himself. Ibn Ezra does not address the question of why the serpent tried to persuade Chavah to take the fruit.
3. Why Chavah trusted the serpent - Rashi adds that the serpent pushed Chavah into the tree, which helps explain the role of her error regarding touching the tree, and helps explain why she believed the serpent. Ibn Ezra does not include this.
4. Why Chavah gave the fruit to Adam - According to Rashi, Chavah ate and realized she would die, and didn't want to face death alone. According to Ibn Ezra, they both ate together.
Additional Views
In terms of the tree itself, and the "knowledge" it provided, we brought two additional views:
The Tree: Ramban
Ramban (Bereishis 2:9) - The tree provided Desire. The difference between Ramban's view and that of Rashi and Ibn Ezra is that Ramban doesn't say it is knowledge which leads to desire, but rather that the tree provided that actual desire. Until that point, humanity acted on highly-developed instinct.
Ramban backs up this idea by pointing to several verses (Tehillim 144:3, Shemos 33:12) in which "Daas," as in "Daas Tov vaRa," refers to desire rather than to knowledge.
The Tree: Seforno
Seforno - The tree provided the ability to turn a blind eye to one's intellect. According to Seforno, there are two basic elements to a decision:
A. Superficial Benefit, and
B. Real Benefit.
These may, at times, conflict. The Tree allowed humanity to ignore the second part, in favor of the first. "Knowledge of Good and Evil" actually refers to "Knowledge of Superficial Good and Evil." The fruit of the tree would, in effect, enable humanity to ignore what they knew to be right.
As Phyllis pointed out, this was actually inherent in eating from the tree, itself. The fruit didn't have to be anything special; once Chavah ate, she learned this ability to blind herself to what she knew was right.
-snip-
Comment